All Time Statistical XI

[Mister Wright]

This is the All Time XI statistically speaking. To ensure fairness I have set the quota at 50 innings, which means a player would have to play at least 25 matches and with the bowlers the quota is 100 wickets. Note that the statistics are for the batsman in that position and not their career averages. For batsman the batsman chosen is from highest average, and bowler the lowest strike rate.

1. H. Sutcliffe (Eng) Innings: 83 Runs: 4522 Avg: 61.11
2. M. Hayden (Aus) Innings: 85 Runs: 4488 Avg: 58.29
3. D. Bradman (Aus) Innings: 56 Runs: 5078 Avg: 103.63
4. E. Weeks (WI) Innings: 57 Runs: 3373 Avg: 63.62
5. S. Waugh (Aus) Innings: 142 Runs: 6754 Avg: 56.28
6. G. Sobers (WI) Innings: 57 Runs: 2614 Avg: 53.35
7. A. Gilchrist (Aus) Innings: 57 Runs: 2468 Avg: 60.20
8. W. Younis (Pak) Wickets: 373 S/R: 43.50
9. S. Ahktar (Pak) Wickets: 118 S/R: 43.55
10. S. Barnes (Eng) Wickets: 189 S/R: 41.66
11. G. Lohmann (Eng) Wickets: 112 S/R 34.20

Source: Test Cricket Tens

 

[hourn]

I don't get how Steve Waugh has ended up with 56........

Also, whenever i see people do all time XI's that are based on statistics i always think it is somewhat best to leave our guys who played before WWI.

The batting and bowling averages are much lower than today which makes it very difficult to determine what they would be if put in today's terms......

 

[Swervy]

This is the All Time XI statistically speaking. To ensure fairness I have set the quota at 50 innings, which means a player would have to play at least 25 matches and with the bowlers the quota is 100 wickets. Note that the statistics are for the batsman in that position and not there career averages. For batsman the batsman chosen is from highest average, and bowler the lowest strike rate.

1. H. Sutcliffe (Eng) Innings: 83 Runs: 4522 Avg: 61.11
2. M. Hayden (Aus) Innings: 85 Runs: 4488 Avg: 58.29
3. D. Bradman (Aus) Innings: 56 Runs: 5078 Avg: 103.63
4. E. Weeks (WI) Innings: 57 Runs: 3373 Avg: 63.62
5. S. Waugh (Aus) Innings: 142 Runs: 6754 Avg: 56.28
6. G. Sobers (WI) Innings: 57 Runs: 2614 Avg: 53.35
7. A. Gilchrist (Aus) Innings: 57 Runs: 2468 Avg: 60.20
8. W. Younis (Pak) Wickets: 373 S/R: 43.50
9. S. Ahktar (Pak) Wickets: 118 S/R: 43.55
10. S. Barnes (Eng) Wickets: 189 S/R: 41.66
11. G. Lohmann (Eng) Wickets: 112 S/R 34.20

Source: Test Cricket Tens

yeah these figures do seem a bit wrong...Sobers on 2614 runs..Bradman ave 103.63??????

 

[marc71178]

Note that the statistics are for the batsman in that position and not there career averages.

:P

 

[Swervy]

Re: Re: All Time Statistical XI

:P

ahhhh..well spotted

 

[Richard]

I don't get how Steve Waugh has ended up with 56........

Also, whenever i see people do all time XI's that are based on statistics i always think it is somewhat best to leave our guys who played before WWI.

The batting and bowling averages are much lower than today which makes it very difficult to determine what they would be if put in today's terms......

WWI is a very poor point.
Nothing changed in terms of conditions either side. Conditions changed in 1900 or so and 1930 or so.
There are different periods and you need to be able to differentiate between all of them. But you can make rough comparisons.
One set of statistics alone are always a very poor way of judging a player's ability.

 

[Mr. P]

Wrong average for Gilchrist, too...:P

 

[Swervy]

Wrong average for Gilchrist, too...:P

its his average when he bats at number 7

 

[Neil Pickup]

Note that the statistics are for the batsman in that position and not their career averages.

 

[hourn]

WWI is a very poor point.

I think it's pretty clear that averages before WWI are much much lower than in any other period of the game.

If you compared every other era in the game, performances are generally pretty similar with some eras more favouring bowlers and some more favouring batsmen.

But the pre-WWI era performances are so much different to any other era (I think only 3 guys averages above 40, and a heap of bowlers averages under 25) it makes them somewhat statistically irrelevant.

But i do agree that using stats as a pure method of picking these sides is quite silly. They should be used more as a bit of a backup to an opinion......

 

[thierry henry]

Since when did bowler strike rate become more important than average?

 

[a massive zebra]

Since when did bowler strike rate become more important than average?

Exactly, take this example:

M Balls Runs Wkts Avge Best 5i 10m SR
H Verity 40 11173 3510 144 24.37 8-43 5 2 77.5
DE Malcolm 40 8480 4748 128 37.09 9-57 5 2 66.2

Malcolm has a considerably better strike rate but only the most ignorant person ever would rank him as a better bowler than Hedley Verity.

 

[Swervy]

Exactly, take this example:

M Balls Runs Wkts Avge Best 5i 10m SR
H Verity 40 11173 3510 144 24.37 8-43 5 2 77.5
DE Malcolm 40 8480 4748 128 37.09 9-57 5 2 66.2

Malcolm has a considerably better strike rate but only the most ignorant person ever would rank him as a better bowler than Hedley Verity.

but they are two completely different types of bowler why would you compare them anyway

 

[a massive zebra]

but they are two completely different types of bowler why would you compare them anyway

Just to prove that strike rate, while important, should not be the defining factor in selecting bowlers. If the selection is based purely on statistics, average and wickets per match should be the criteria.

 

[Swervy]

Just to prove that strike rate, while important, should not be the defining factor in selecting bowlers. If the selection is based purely on statistics, average and wickets per match should be the criteria.

oh i agree with you (mostly anyway)...but it depends on what you want a bowler for...if you give the new ball to your opening bowler, many a captain would actually want to have quick wickets (regardless of how many runs are scored) so that maybe numbers 3 4 and 5 are exposed to the new ball...if that is what you want then I would say a bowler who gets wickets quickly but maybe more expensively is your man.

If you want to be in a position where maybe your main 'wicket taking bowlers are your spinners and really all you want is the opening bowlers is get the shine off but not go for to many runs, you might want someone who is very economical

So it isnt really as black and white as saying wickets per test or average is the be all....coz it depends

 

[a massive zebra]

oh i agree with you (mostly anyway)...but it depends on what you want a bowler for...if you give the new ball to your opening bowler, many a captain would actually want to have quick wickets (regardless of how many runs are scored) so that maybe numbers 3 4 and 5 are exposed to the new ball...if that is what you want then I would say a bowler who gets wickets quickly but maybe more expensively is your man.

If you want to be in a position where maybe your main 'wicket taking bowlers are your spinners and really all you want is the opening bowlers is get the shine off but not go for to many runs, you might want someone who is very economical

So it isnt really as black and white as saying wickets per test or average is the be all....coz it depends

Yes agreed... but... I was just saying who should be selected if the selection was based purely on statistics. You are talking tactically (which is not a bad thing), while all I was doing was questioning the original post in its choice of statistic to chose.

 

[Richard]

I think it's pretty clear that averages before WWI are much much lower than in any other period of the game.

If you compared every other era in the game, performances are generally pretty similar with some eras more favouring bowlers and some more favouring batsmen.

But the pre-WWI era performances are so much different to any other era (I think only 3 guys averages above 40, and a heap of bowlers averages under 25) it makes them somewhat statistically irrelevant.

There are four different eras in World cricket, eras which are comparable because pitch conditions changed at their boundaries:
Pre-1900; 1900-1930; 1930-1970; 1970-.
As you notice, nothing changing in 1914 or 1918.
Whether there appear to be changes in averages, this is based on assumption.
However, pitch-preparation techniques definately changed around about the respective dates. Therefore it's better to do something for each era rather than simply exclude one period.

 

[Swervy]

batting conditions did take a turn for the better around the early 20's

 

[a massive zebra]

There are four different eras in World cricket, eras which are comparable because pitch conditions changed at their boundaries:
Pre-1900; 1900-1930; 1930-1970; 1970-.
As you notice, nothing changing in 1914 or 1918.
Whether there appear to be changes in averages, this is based on assumption.
However, pitch-preparation techniques definately changed around about the respective dates. Therefore it's better to do something for each era rather than simply exclude one period.

Nice idea, but if you are going to have four eras, I would say these are more appropriate:

1876-1914 low scoring
1919-1939 high scoring
1945-70 slow scoring, defensive
1971-present quicker scoring, aggressive.

 

[Swervy]

Yes agreed... but... I was just saying who should be selected if the selection was based purely on statistics. You are talking tactically (which is not a bad thing), while all I was doing was questioning the original post in its choice of statistic to chose.

yeah i agree with you....but i was trying to figure out whether strike rate could be considered as viable a stat as average...i dont think it is though