On Mike Hussey...

[Athlai]

For sure they would (I'm sure both parties, Hussey and whoever was dismissed with 10 needed for victory, would've been far happier with such a situation) but I don't see that it's fair to essentially penalise a batsman for coming in when there's absolutely nothing to gain.

As I say, if you want to get the best possible picture of Hussey's (or indeed anyone's) career, you'd do best to ignore single-figure not-out scores. As I say, they really don't matter in the slightest. They obviously do the batsman no good at all, but equally it's highly unfair to hold anything, however small, against the batsman because of them.

Well it always ticks me a bit when people rate him so highly cos of his average. I tend to think of him in terms of his stroke play, ability to find gaps and how he can cultivate partnerships regardless of the partners ability at the other end. As opposed to you know, a misleading number.

 

[Uppercut]

Don't see how excluding four single-figure not-out scores would change his average at all tbh. Maybe down half a point.

Also, "runs scored" isn't a statistic, it's the number that matters more than anything else in cricket. Whoever gets the higher number wins the match.

 

[Athlai]

Don't see how excluding four single-figure not-out scores would change his average at all tbh. Maybe down half a point.

Also, "runs scored" isn't a statistic, it's the number that matters more than anything else in cricket. Whoever gets the higher number wins the match.

Weren't single figure TBH, game was just already blatantly won. Scores of 20-30 abundant.

 

[Uppercut]

Weren't single figure TBH, game was just already blatantly won. Scores of 20-30 abundant.

Ah okay, was just responding to Richard's suggestion. Still don't think there's a great deal of point in excluding them, though, just on the grounds that the opposition bowlers maybe weren't trying that hard. I'm sure he's scored easier runs than some of those finishing-off ones.

 

[Athlai]

Ah okay, was just responding to Richard's suggestion. Still don't think there's a great deal of point in excluding them, though, just on the grounds that the opposition bowlers maybe weren't trying that hard. I'm sure he's scored easier runs than some of those finishing-off ones.

Probably has, man knows how to score thats for sure.

 

[Richard]

Well it always ticks me a bit when people rate him so highly cos of his average. I tend to think of him in terms of his stroke play, ability to find gaps and how he can cultivate partnerships regardless of the partners ability at the other end. As opposed to you know, a misleading number.

I don't really think it is misleading TBH. I reckon even if you completely remove every part of those 20\30-odd* knocks (not simply treat them as outs), it'll barely make a difference. Not that there's any particularly good reason to do so - even though 20 or 30-odd n\o isn't much, it's far from something of complete insignificance. Sometimes it can be crucial to a result.

 

[Manee]

Probably off the current frame of discussion, but I'd love to see Hussey have a good battle with a top bowler over a series. Hussey just chimes in, scores his fifties and hundreds and leaves, its almost impersonal.

 

[tooextracool]

Consider the following example. Batsman A scores 40 and 40 not out. Batsman B makes one score of 80. Both have managed to score the same number of runs, both have been dismissed the same number of times, and both therefore have the same average. But A's average hasn't been inflated. On the contrary, his achievement is greater than B's. A has, in scoring the same number of runs, had to play himself in twice whereas B has only had to do so once. And as anyone who's ever batted knows, the hardest bit about batting is playing yourself in. Once you're in, the runs come much more easily.

Dont think I will ever agree with that. Playing yourself in is truly the hardest part in cricket, however there is no point in doing so if you throw it away on 40. In your example, a lot depends on the conditions and the match situation in which player A and player B scored their runs, and player B could also be accused of throwing his wicket away on 80 if the wicket is a belter, but I do not see how 2 40s are better than 1 80. For all we know, using conditional probability, Player A has a higher chance of getting out on 40 something in his 2nd run having already done so in the past.

 

[Goughy]

Consider the following example. Batsman A scores 40 and 40 not out. Batsman B makes one score of 80. Both have managed to score the same number of runs, both have been dismissed the same number of times, and both therefore have the same average. But A's average hasn't been inflated. On the contrary, his achievement is greater than B's. A has, in scoring the same number of runs, had to play himself in twice whereas B has only had to do so once. And as anyone who's ever batted knows, the hardest bit about batting is playing yourself in. Once you're in, the runs come much more easily.

Dont think I can agree with that.

40s count for very little in the context of the game. They are helpful, but to win you generally need bigger scores than that.

80s can be matchwining innings or part of a big partnership.

An 80 is far more valuable than two 40 in terms of winning games and that is the obvious purpose of playing the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thanks for this excellent bit of research. A very interesting list and it puts Hussey's achievements in their (very impressive) context. The top 4 have indeed been the best players in the world in the last 3 or 4 years.

(I'm a little surprised to see some of the others (viz Clarke and McKenzie) in that list, but these stats don't lie.)

McKenzie hasn't played a lot of cricket since his comeback yet and it includes a double hundred against Bangladesh so his stats might be a tad misleading.

 

[Top_Cat]

TEC and Goughy - duplicate account?

 

[Malleeboy]

I disagree with those who are for discounting runs scored when not out chasing down small totals.

Chasing runs in a fourth innings is never easy, how many teams collapse well short of even modest targets. You are also generally batting with the worst pitch conditions.

I however have no problem removing sub-standard teams that the ICC have allowed to dminish Test cricket standards with their continued weakness from averages.

 

[Uppercut]

Dont think I will ever agree with that. Playing yourself in is truly the hardest part in cricket, however there is no point in doing so if you throw it away on 40. In your example, a lot depends on the conditions and the match situation in which player A and player B scored their runs, and player B could also be accused of throwing his wicket away on 80 if the wicket is a belter, but I do not see how 2 40s are better than 1 80. For all we know, using conditional probability, Player A has a higher chance of getting out on 40 something in his 2nd run having already done so in the past.

Dont think I can agree with that.

40s count for very little in the context of the game. They are helpful, but to win you generally need bigger scores than that.

80s can be matchwining innings or part of a big partnership.

An 80 is far more valuable than two 40 in terms of winning games and that is the obvious purpose of playing the game.

Missing the point really. The argument isn't that two 40s>= one 80, it's that not-outs don't inflate a batsman's average because they were never dismissed. What if the argument was one batsman scoring 80*,0, 0 and the other scoring 40, 40, 40?

 

[Richard]

TEC and Goughy - duplicate account?

Accusations to attempt to hide one's own guilt IMO.

 

[Richard]

Dont think I can agree with that.

40s count for very little in the context of the game. They are helpful, but to win you generally need bigger scores than that.

80s can be matchwining innings or part of a big partnership.

An 80 is far more valuable than two 40 in terms of winning games and that is the obvious purpose of playing the game.

While that's pretty well always true, there are times when a 40 can be a really seriously match-influencing score, and likewise there can be times when 80 is nowhere near enough. There are times when 130 isn't enough.

Everything depends on the pitch for the match in question and while pitches which make 40 a serious score of note are pretty rare currently, they did happen a bit more until recently.

 

[zaremba]

Missing the point really. The argument isn't that two 40s>= one 80, it's that not-outs don't inflate a batsman's average because they were never dismissed.

TEC and Goughy, my response to you both is that you're missing the point really. The argument isn't that two 40s>= one 80, it's that not-outs don't inflate a batsman's average because they were never dismissed.

 

[Goughy]

TEC and Goughy, my response to you both is that you're missing the point really. The argument isn't that two 40s>= one 80, it's that not-outs don't inflate a batsman's average because they were never dismissed.

I wouldnt say I missed the point. Just that I think it is sensitive.

Many low notouts can inflate the average. Lots of 20s and 30s count for little in the context of the game but can be part of a high average.

It distorts their impact on the game.

Weight of runs are equally important. A guy who averages 40 and 80 runs a game is far more valuable than a guy the averages 50 and 40 runs a game.

These low notouts also allow players to have averages over their highest score, which frankly is a bit silly.

With Hussey it was 34 ODIs before his average dipped below his highest score. (89.09 average with a highest score of 88 not out)

Averaging 90 sounds amazing, but must be in the context he only contributed 28 runs per game on average. Statistically he was amazing but overall his contribution was far less or needed than other players with less gaudy averages but greater production.

 

[Richard]

Average is an arithmatic mean - it's not supposed to be the actual mean score per innings.

It's merely a way of giving credit where it's due, for a batsman doing what a batsman's supposed to do, score runs and not get out (given that you can't do the former without doing the latter). Not give an indication of what he scored per innings, because hardly anyone's average stays the same for more than an innings or two at a time.

 

[Top_Cat]

Frankly, I don't care what Mike Hussey's stats are saying, high average or not. He's been right up there with Ponting just for making runs and I suspect he has a few more 'tough' runs than even Ponting in his time as a Test cricketer. For a guy who's only been playing Test cricket a couple of years, he's doing pretty well and sustaining it.

Forget he stats. Just watch him bat and you see what a total pro he is. I never rated him before he was picked and I maintain it was the right decision not to pick him before 2004 but have been forced to drastically review my opinion of him.

 

[Uppercut]

TEC and Goughy, my response to you both is that you're missing the point really. The argument isn't that two 40s>= one 80, it's that not-outs don't inflate a batsman's average because they were never dismissed.

So you hijack my discussion...