Stats: Not so lonely at the top

[Sudeep]

http://www.cricketweb.net/articles/EplllFEZkVqFrqeVwe.shtml

Interesting feature by Adam.

One of the striking points was that despite this being called the age of batsmen, the top five current batsman are in the top thirty-five overall. Whereas, the top five current bowlers in in the top fifteen overall.

And please, no Warne vs. Murali here!

 

[PY]

Ah but the key thing to take into account is averages, they are just runs scoring in total. If someone looked at top averages then the stats would tell a very different story I feel.

 

[Revelation]

actually PY, that's not the case....i will post soon extensively on that.

 

[PY]

I await with baited breath to be proved wrong .

 

[PY]

Well, I'll read what you have to say of course but I look at the top averages for batting in the Test arena. Five of the top thirty-five in the runs list.

Averages
Samaraweera (though hasn't scored 1000 Test runs yet)
Smith
Dravid
Hayden
Tendulkar
Ponting
Gilchrist
Kambli (a dodgy one)
Kallis
Lara
Sehwag
Lehmann
Waugh
Flower

These all feature in the top 35 averages for Test cricket. And I'm certain if it was entended even further then it would get more pronounced.

 

[Adamc]

Ah but the key thing to take into account is averages, they are just runs scoring in total. If someone looked at top averages then the stats would tell a very different story I feel.

True, but if you look at the post-war era up to the late 60's, you will find plenty of batsmen averaging well over 50. Walcott, Weekes, Sobers, Graeme Pollock, Barry Richards all averaged over 55. And there was some guy called Bradman. Might look into this a bit more later.

 

[Revelation]

ok....so let's take a look at the bowlers first. Unlike batting, where it is generally assumed that DG Bradman is the best to have struck the ball, there is no clear cut winner in the stump striking department.

Most Wickets(x indicates current bowlers):

x-1.Muralitharan-527
x-2.Warne-520
3.Walsh-517
x-4.Mc Grath-435
5.Kapil Dev-434
6.Hadlee-431
7.Akram-414
8.Ambrose-405
x-9.Kumble-397
x-15.Pollock-339

So that's 5 current players in the top 15 aggregate wickets of all time

Averages (x Indicates current players;Qualification:50 wickets):

1. Lohmann-10.76
2. Barnes W-15.55
3. Bates-16.42
4. Barnes S-16.43
5.Turner-16.53
x-22.Pollock-21.46
x-24.Mc Grath-21.55
x-31.Muralitharan-22.68
x-41.Harmison-23.78

So three of the top 15 aggregate wicket takers feature in the top 50 in terms of averages. It should be noted that the differences between averages are extremely small,as can be evidenced by a 20 place differential between Polllock and Harmison and an increase of only 2.32 per wicket (23 runs per innings) in terms of average.

Strike Rate:

1.Lohmann-34.12
2.Barnes S-41.66
3.Vogler-43.19
4.Waqar-43.50
5.Blythe-44.38
x-10. Akhtar-45.26
x-24. Harmison-51.22
x-25. Hayward-51.30
x-29. Martin-51.65
x-30. Mc Grath-51.65

Mc. Grath is the only bowler to feature in all three criteria among current bowlers. So yes, it can be safely said that while current bowlers may lead in the aggregate department, they do not rank among the all time greats, except for the one or two in between.
Muralitharan and Pollock are the only 2 (apart from McGrath) to feature in two lists. Warne appears only on the aggregate list, a testament to the number of deliveries that he has required to take his wickets (almost 2000 more deliveries for 7 fewer wickets than Murali).

Current Players who would rank in the Greatest of all bowlers:

1. Mc.Grath
2. Pollock
3.Muralitharan, In that order.

 

[Revelation]

Now, onto the batsman. Post 1990 has been descibed as the golden age of batting, and for good reason. Apart from high team scores, individuals have played brilliantly, with the Individual record being broken 3 times since 1994 and with 8 of the 19 triple centuries to have ever been scored coming since 1990. This came after a 16 year wait between Rowe's 302 in 1974 and Gooch's 333 in 1990.

Most Runs: (x indicates current players)

1. Border-11174
2. Waugh-10927
3. Gavaskar-10122
x-4. Lara-9830
x-5. Tendulkar-9470
24. Bradman-6996
x-26.ul Haq-6899
x-28. Dravid-6855
x-35. Thorpe-3063
x-36. Ponting-6019
x-38. Kallis-5840

That's 7 current players in the top 40 aggregate getters of all time.

Now let's look at averages:

1. Bradman-99.94
2. Pollock-60.97
3. Headley-60.83
4. Sutcliffe-60.73
5. Paynter-59.23
x-6.Smith-58.68
x-10. Dravid-58.09
x-12. Tendulkar-57.39
x-16. Hayden-56.59
x-17. Ponting-54.72
x-18. Kallis-54.07
x-19. Gilchrist-53.91
x-22. Lara-53.72
x-23. Lehmann-52.79
x-24. Sehwag-52.73
x-33. Youhana-49.84
x-34. ul Haq-49.63
x-36. Gibbs-49.40
x-40. Jayawardene-48.43

Ah, but look now, in the top 40 averages of all time (qualification:30 innings), 14 current batsmen feature. in other words, in 127 years of Test cricket, 35% of the highest averages are owned by current players. So if we are to be guided by these 2 criteria, we see that 6 players fit the criteria. in addition, Hayden and Smith are both considered to be world class batsmen but due to their, so far, short careers, they have not yet managed to score as many runs.

Current Players who would feature on the list of all time greats:

1. Lara
1. Tendulkar
3. Dravid
4. Ponting
5. Kallis
6. Ul Haq., in that order.

 

[Adamc]

Yes, so you are agreeing with PY... right?

 

[Revelation]

on the bowling side,yes.....not for batting....but it is interesting though....waht makes our current batsmen great (or at least look that way) Is it maybe that we don't have enough bowlers to go around? Just a thought.

 

[PY]

From what I can gather, you do agree with me. Might need an accompanying post with it which states your opinion?

For the record (generally), IMO batsmen get an easier ride in this era. I'm not going to go into reasons because they've been done before.

 

[Revelation]

ok well yeah, it seems as if our opinions coalesce. My opinion is that our era is one full of great batsman, some of whom have had an easy ride due to the lack of good bowling/bowlers. The bowlers who do perform well should be given much credit.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Maybe the PwC ratings wizard could come in useful on this topic?

Will investigate sometime soon.

 

[Revelation]

I did this analysis before Lara's 400* and 120 and before Tendulkar's 241* and 194*. That, said, their ratings did not change very significantly thus. This was an argument that i got into who was better between Sachin and Lara. I am sure that many Indian/Sachin fans will have much to say but i will take the criticisms nonetheless


I will maintain that teams like Australia and India are batting teams. They have a loaded batting lineup with experienced players who average in the 40s and 50s. The only players like that for WI are Lara and Chanderpaul (44.3). In addition, WI does not have the kind of bowling that India has. India has a world class strike bowler in Kumble, who is well backed up by the likes of Nehra, Srinath etc. WI has no bowler like this. Our most successful Test Bowler, Dillon, has 120 wickets at 32.00 in 40 matches. Hence, the PRESSURE is always on Lara to score runs. ALWAYS. There are occasions when the WI pull through without fhim, but it is sporadic with never regularity.

One has to look deeper than statistics for the answers. This is why Lara has so many top rated innings. This is why PWC has him ranked so many times above 900 points, a virtual impossibility for others. Only Hayden and Ponting, two very good players, but two players who play on the #1 side and claim what is known as a win bonus, have managed to brach 900 points. Tendulkar has come tantalisingly close at 899, but he hasn't yet.

I am under no illusions. Lara has found a rich vein of form stretching back about a year. He will not find run making always as easy (as Tendulkar would not always find it easy to make runs), but what he has shown is that when he is at his best, he is better than Tendulkar (or anyone else for that matter) at his best. There are no comparisons. HENCE, he is the better player. IT has been shown so many times.

Lara's top PWC ratings are

1.912 v SA in 2004 AWAY
2.908 v Australia in 1999 HOME
3.906 v SL in 2001 AWAY
4.904 v Australia in 1999 HOME
5.903 v SA in 2004 AWAY
6.902 v England in 1995 AWAY

SIX times above 900. Lets se what Tendulkar has done:

1.899 v ZIMBABWE in 2002 HOME
2.897 v ZIMBABWE in 2001 AWAY
3.894 v Australia in 2001 HOME
4.892 v ZIMBABWE in 2001 AWAY
5.891 v ZIMBABWE in 2002 HOME
=.891 v WI in 2002 AWAY

So, Lara scores his highest rating AWAY from home against the 2nd ranked side in the WORLD. His exploits include 4 of his top 6 rated innings coming in against the TOP 2 sides in world cricket and 4 of his top 6 AWAY from home.

Tendulkar scores 4 of his top 6 against the MIGHT of ZIMBABWE and he had to do it at HOME!!!! (3 times of his 6).

You see, these ratings take more into account than his demi-god value in the subcontinent. They take more than player popularity into account. They actually rate a batsman on how they play CRICKET. NOTHING ELSE!

 

[marc71178]

Mc. Grath is the only bowler to feature in all three criteria among current bowlers. So yes, it can be safely said that while current bowlers may lead in the aggregate department, they do not rank among the all time greats, except for the one or two in between.

That is a flawed argument I believe as it doesn't reflect the change in conditions over the years.

 

[marc71178]

Maybe the PwC ratings wizard could come in useful on this topic?

Will investigate sometime soon.

I think it gives a listing of the highest ratings acheived by any player?

 

[Craig]

who is well backed up by the likes of Nehra, Srinath etc. WI has no bowler like this. Our most successful Test Bowler, Dillon, has 120 wickets at 32.00 in 40 matches. Hence, the PRESSURE is always on Lara to score runs. ALWAYS. There are occasions when the WI pull through without fhim, but it is sporadic with never regularity.

Well Srinath has retired.

Having Ashish Nehra as back up does not inspire the greatest confidence in me.

 

[Revelation]

CRAIG, the bowlers were one point, but you failed to look at the other point about not having any batting support.

 

[Deja moo]

CRAIG, the bowlers were one point, but you failed to look at the other point about not having any batting support.

You should do a piece on the runs scored by Lara and sachin as a percentage of the runs scored by their teams...I dont think they will be very dissimilar.

 

[Revelation]

Perhaps someone can provide Sachin's stats but here is a piece thta cricinfo did not too long ago:

The lone crusaders


Through all of Bangladesh's travails in Test cricket, one player has consistently shored up their batting: Habibul Bashar's 113 in the first Test against West Indies in St Lucia was his third in Tests, and only the sixth for Bangladesh. (Since then, Mohammad Rafique and Khaled Mashud have helped swell the tally to eight.)

Bashar's aggregate of 1983 Test runs forms nearly 18% of all the runs scored by Bangladesh in matches in which he has played (that's excluding any extras). Among batsmen who have scored at least 1000 Test runs, Bashar's percentage puts him in seventh place in the alltime list. The Don and the Black Bradman (George Headley) are on top of the charts – no surprises there – and in third place is another batsman who has waged many a lone battle for his side: Brian Lara has scored nearly a fifth of the West Indian runs. There's a Zimbabwean in the top five as well, but it isn't Andy Flower; Murray Goodwin, who played with much distinction in a brief 19-Test career, scored more than 18% of the team runs. Flower's 16.78% only puts him in 15th place.

Runs % of team runs
Bradman 6996 24.28
Headley 2190 21.39
Lara 9710 19.16
Hutton 6971 18.13
Goodwin 1414 18.08
Hobbs 5410 17.91
Bashar 1983 17.80