cricket betting betway blog banner small
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By Athlai
  • 3 Post By honestbharani
  • 1 Post By Athlai

Thread: Batsmen versus Tail-enders stats

  1. #1
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    14,731

    Batsmen versus Tail-enders stats

    T20Is started on 17-Feb-2005. I was studying how batsmen (top 6) and tail-enders (8-11) perform in various formats on average since that day. I excluded number 7s from this analysis to avoid complexities.

    I wanted to see strike rates and balls per dismissal for them (they are two components of average : multiplying them and dividing by 100 gives you average). Here is how the aggregate data looks.

    Balls per dismissal Strike Rate
    Top 6 T20 19.4 119.8
    Top 6 ODI 42.2 79.5
    Top 6 Test 78.0 51.2
    Balls per dismissal Strike Rate
    8 to 11 T20 10.1 101.5
    8 to 11 ODI 18.4 75.8
    8 to 11 Test 32.1 51.0

    There are no surprises in the balls per dismissal data. Tail-enders get dismissed much more often than batsmen. Also, players get dismissed more often in shorter formats for obvious reasons. They also score faster in T0Is than in ODIs, and much faster than in Tests.

    However, if you look at how the strike rates compare between batsmen and tail-enders, it gets a little more interesting. While the difference is considerable for T20Is (120 versus 102), in ODIs the difference is not so pronounced (80 versus 76). And in test matches there is no difference. Overall, the difference in SRs (0-20%, depending on format) is nowhere comparable to the difference in balls per dismissal (90-150%, depending on format). Since there are no differences in strike rates for tests, can we attribute at least a part of the difference for limited overs cricket to the fact that tail-enders don't get to bat in power-plays? Can we say that the boundary-hitting ability is not drastically different between batsmen and tail-enders? ...and the real difference lies in how often they get dismissed?

    Also, overall what does the above data tell you? Do you have any other observations?

    Edit: In fact, if you remove 1 from balls faced per dismissal, the difference in scoring rate becomes more miniscule. For example, if we say that tail-enders get dismissed once in every 10.1 balls that means 1 of those 10.1 deliveries is being consumed for getting out. So, he basically scores all his runs in 9.1 deliveries.
    Last edited by weldone; 13-04-2016 at 09:06 AM.
    "Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
    - C.L.R. James

  2. #2
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13,110
    props for gathering the data. Tbh I can't really see anything interesting at all to be garnered from it though, all seems pretty predictable and unsurprising.

  3. #3
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.

    I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.

  4. #4
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13,110
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.

    I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.
    That's not a rule of thumb at all. It's not even a thing.


  5. #5
    Global Moderator Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    18,903
    I've always thought it interesting that a lot of decent tail-end sloggers in test matches, such as Broad and Southee, have had absolutely no success when it comes to batting at the death in ODIs. I think these stats kind of prove that that's an actual thing, but I'm not sure it really helps explain why.
    RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014

    The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales, Duckett, Hameed, Jennings | The wheel is forever

    Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.

  6. #6
    Request Your Custom Title Now!
    Suicide Bob Champion!
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not really needed on CW
    Posts
    30,044
    In ODIs their SR is probably similar only because majority of the time the tail is in, it's towards the end of the innings and when they're looking for quick runs. If you compare top 6 SRs vs bottom 4 SRs over the last 10 overs of an ODI for example, I'm thinking they'll be significantly different.

  7. #7
    Not Terrible Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #BlamePhlegm
    Posts
    42,420
    I read this as Batman vs tailenders. I am now disappointed
    Victor Ian likes this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    420 BLAZE IT
    [Zorax on Burgey]
    Quote Originally Posted by zorax View Post
    Wish I could articulate myself all over your face tbh
    And they say romance is dead.

  8. #8
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    24,003
    Yeah... but then again Batman Vs anything in the title should prep you for something disappointing...
    Daemon, Athlai and indiaholic like this.
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  9. #9
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    11,833
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    That's not a rule of thumb at all. It's not even a thing.
    Guys striking over 90 who have played a decent amount of ODIs as batsmen (Afridi, Maxwell, Buttler, Sehwag, Gilchrist, McCullum, Raina, Warner, Jayasuriya) all have averages of well under 40.

    DeVilliers, de Kock, Symonds, Watson and Viv are the only ones with averages of 40+ and a SR of 90+ to have played a decent amount of cricket (I think). Kohli close enough to count as well.
    Last edited by Red Hill; 14-04-2016 at 02:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Test_Fan_Only View Post
    Red Hill is a piece of ****

  10. #10
    International Coach weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    14,731
    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    It suggests to me that an important part of batting skill is reflected in the ability to increase the strike rate when necessary. As it is very rarely necessary in Tests there is no difference. As it is sometimes necessary in ODIs there is some difference and as it is usually necessary in T20s there is a big difference.
    Ya good point - a batsman with SR 80 in ODIs is likely to be slower in accumulation phase (<70) and faster in attack phase (>100). But a tailender wth SR 76 generally can't change his game much with match situation

    Quote Originally Posted by kiwiviktor81 View Post
    I have a suspicion that T20s break the ODI rule of thumb that higher SR = lower average and vice versa. It seems to me that the best T20 batsmen have both a higher average and a higher SR.
    I think the higher SR=lower average thumb rule is applicable only for the same batsman, e.g. if ABDev has to score faster he is likely to get out more often...You can't apply that thumb rule between 2 batsmen to say just because Sachin Tendulkar has a better SR than Dinesh Mongia, Dinesh is likely to have a better average.

  11. #11
    International Debutant kiwiviktor81's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    I think the higher SR=lower average thumb rule is applicable only for the same batsman, e.g. if ABDev has to score faster he is likely to get out more often...You can't apply that thumb rule between 2 batsmen to say just because Sachin Tendulkar has a better SR than Dinesh Mongia, Dinesh is likely to have a better average.
    Agree. I think though that it's also applicable for batsmen of roughly the same level of skill. Tendulkar and ABDV are just too good to be measured on the same scale as most other batsmen. Viv, Kohli also.

  12. #12
    Not Terrible Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    #BlamePhlegm
    Posts
    42,420
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    Yeah... but then again Batman Vs anything in the title should prep you for something disappointing...
    awesome
    honestbharani likes this.

  13. #13
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Hill View Post
    Guys striking over 90 who have played a decent amount of ODIs as batsmen (Afridi, Maxwell, Buttler, Sehwag, Gilchrist, McCullum, Raina, Warner, Jayasuriya) all have averages of well under 40.

    DeVilliers, de Kock, Symonds, Watson and Viv are the only ones with averages of 40+ and a SR of 90+ to have played a decent amount of cricket (I think). Kohli close enough to count as well.
    That's a very specific set of players you're looking at there though. I guarantee there's a plethora of batsmen with lower averages and lower strike rates who just weren't as successful players

  14. #14
    The artist formerly known as Monk Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    ...
    Posts
    11,833
    Quote Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
    That's a very specific set of players you're looking at there though. I guarantee there's a plethora of batsmen with lower averages and lower strike rates who just weren't as successful players
    Of course there are. But kiwivictor's point was that generally in ODIs, a higher SR will often mean a lower average. The fact that there are guys with lower averages AND lower SRs means nothing.

  15. #15
    International Coach TheJediBrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    13,110
    Quote Originally Posted by Red Hill View Post
    Of course there are. But kiwivictor's point was that generally in ODIs, a higher SR will often mean a lower average.
    As I said though, that's not actually a thing. You could pick a bunch of players that fit your 2 groups, one with higher averages, lower strike-rates and vice versa, but don't pretend that it actually means something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Hill View Post
    The fact that there are guys with lower averages AND lower SRs means nothing.
    Actually, it means everything. It completely disproves any thoery that "higher averages means lower strike-rates" and vice versa. Which is absurd.

    Unless you're looking at the same player in different circumtsances or players of very similar skill level, where obviously scoring at a higher strike will generally mean a lower average, then it's just not a thing.

    Edit: In fact I'd say that for similar batting positions (ie those specified in the OP) the general "rule of thumb" would be that the better players have both a higher SR & a higher Average than the worse players --> taking all players into account, not just a select few or the very best
    Last edited by TheJediBrah; 15-04-2016 at 04:01 AM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16-02-2014, 06:13 AM
  2. The season that wasnt....a tail of woe
    By robelinda in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 28-03-2011, 02:46 PM
  3. Why is Australia so weak against tail enders?
    By stephen in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 05:17 PM
  4. Why are there good tail-enders coming in now?
    By slowfinger in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 26-01-2008, 12:16 PM
  5. Openers to Tail-enders: The best Averages
    By Natman20 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-10-2006, 04:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •