Cricinfo Best Test 11 from last 25 years

[trundler]

Turns out the effect of not-outs varies from batsman to batsman. In the complex statistical analysis (which was asked for and I provided) above, it can be seen that top-order batsmen's averages climb up (Hammond, Hutton, Sangakarra) whereas lower-order batters like Sobers and Barrington drop down. Really depends on what score you're not-out on and how much you've scored. Wish the author had linked all the data.

 

[trundler]

Javagal Srinath would be one

Srinath and Streak fill out the other 2 spots.

 

[Migara]

It hold true whether you are on 104 or 4.

HowSTAT! Test Cricket - Century Averages

The chances of a dismissal is higher when you are 4* than 104*. The stat you have provided, I cannot see the relevance.

 

[Bolo]

The chances of a dismissal is higher when you are 4* than 104*. The stat you have provided, I cannot see the relevance.

Im not commenting on the relative impact of the two not outs. I'm saying that jbs statement holds true regardless of the number of runs scored in a general sense. If you are not out on 4 you can expect to average higher than your career average in that innings. Likewise if you are not out on 104 you can expect to average above your career average

 

[trundler]

Actually, batsmen are very likely to get out right after a 100. more so than in the 90s and about as much as in the early stages of their innings.

It depends on the batsman though. Bradman was as likely to get out on 20 as other great batsmen like Hobbs and Tendulkar but once he got post that, it's most likely going to be a daddy hundred.

 

[Bolo]

Turns out the effect of not-outs varies from batsman to batsman. In the complex statistical analysis (which was asked for and I provided) above, it can be seen that top-order batsmen's averages climb up (Hammond, Hutton, Sangakarra) whereas lower-order batters like Sobers and Barrington drop down. Really depends on what score you're not-out on and how much you've scored. Wish the author had linked all the data.

The study is flawed in that it measures rpi after the not out, rather than average. The higher the score a batman is on, the greater the chance he will remain not out which is not adequately accounted for.

Actually, batsmen are very likely to get out right after a 100. more so than in the 90s and about as much as in the early stages of their innings.

It depends on the batsman though. Bradman was as likely to get out on 20 as other great batsmen like Hobbs and Tendulkar but once he got post that, it's most likely going to be a daddy hundred.

Possibly, but see that howstat link. The expected average past 100 is far higher than at 0. Bear in mind that that list is a very limited selection of players- if you dropped the number of qualifying hundreds you would see some very big averages there

 

[trundler]

The study is flawed in that it measures rpi after the not out, rather than average. The higher the score a batman is on, the greater the chance he will remain not out which is not adequately accounted for.

Why the **** is cricket so ****ing complicated?! Some bloke spent hours applying sophisticated medical statistics to a godddamn sport and turns out he made a critical error. Perhaps to remedy this, we can take the number of not-outs a batsman has on average and then calculate the average from there? Anyway, here's another relevant article on not-outs and batting position since this originated from Flower vs Gilly:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket...etween-batsmens-averages-and-batting-position

 

[Bolo]

Why the **** is cricket so ****ing complicated?! Some bloke spent hours applying sophisticated medical statistics to a godddamn sport and turns out he made a critical error. Perhaps to remedy this, we can take the number of not-outs a batsman has on average and then calculate the average from there? Anyway, here's another relevant article on not-outs and batting position since this originated from Flower vs Gilly:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket...etween-batsmens-averages-and-batting-position

That's statistics for you. There is always a problem. If he had tried to introduce average rather than RPI he would have just created a different (admittedly less serious) problem.

 

[Engle]

Not Out's do tend to boost the batting average. A batsmen who scores 75, 25*, 65, 35*, 55*, 45 will have an average of 100

That's the reason why many statistically-minded batsmen try to remain Not Out. ( I've seen many of this at club level cricket )

There are some exceptions, whereby responsible batting is being encouraged or the tail is being trained to wag.
But by an large, it's the batsmen's intent to remain Not Out for no other purpose than being made to look good on the Statistical Charts.

 

[Red]

For the most part of his captaincy, Border had Rod Marsh, Kim Hughes who was okay, and everyone else was completely useless. He had to take an 11-for to seal a win once, dammit. And all those countless draws where he single-handedly weathered the storm. Border and Headley are the first 2 blokes I'd put in that XI and then Hadlee and Tayfield. A sub-40 average for a specialist bat isn't very good unless we're talking pre-WWI. So, the 2 fast bowlers.. who would they be?

Rod Marsh never played a test under AB's captaincy. Border became captain later in the same year that Lillee, GChappell and RMarsh retired.

 

[srbhkshk]

Not Out's do tend to boost the batting average. A batsmen who scores 75, 25*, 65, 35*, 55*, 45 will have an average of 100

And he will have earned it, it's not his fault the bowlers aren't good enough to get him out even though he has to start a new innings every time he's just got his eye in.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah the idea that a given average is somehow worth less if a player has a lot of not outs is nonsensical.

50, 50*, 50, 50* has played just as well as someone who makes 100 + 100

 

[Mr Miyagi]

Yeah the idea that a given average is somehow worth less if a player has a lot of not outs is nonsensical.

50, 50*, 50, 50* has played just as well as someone who makes 100 + 100

What about;

50, 50*, 50*, 50*: ave 200

or 100, 100, 100, 100 ave : 100?

 

[TheJediBrah]

What about;

50, 50*, 50*, 50*: ave 200

or 100, 100, 100, 100 ave : 100?

First guy's done better

Whether or not it's more valuable to the team though is another question entirely

 

[Bolo]

I don't think the first guy has done better. He's failed less, which the average reflects, but he's also succeeded less (RPI and total number of runs). 100 RPI is a greater (and more valuable) accomplishment than a 200 run average skewed by not outs.

Switch the 50/100 to 25/50 with the same not outs and the scenario changes. Switch it to 1/10 and the first guy will have done better even though his average is far lower than the second guy.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

What about;

50, 50*, 50*, 50*: ave 200

or 100, 100, 100, 100 ave : 100?

I'll take the Bradman please, with extra vodka

 

[ankitj]

To ignore not outs and calculate runs per innings is to assume that the batsmen would get out on the very next ball if the game was to continue. That doesn't make sense.

 

[ankitj]

First guy's done better

Whether or not it's more valuable to the team though is another question entirely

I don't think the first guy has done better. He's failed less, which the average reflects, but he's also succeeded less (RPI and total number of runs). 100 RPI is a greater (and more valuable) accomplishment than a 200 run average skewed by not outs.

Switch the 50/100 to 25/50 with the same not outs and the scenario changes. Switch it to 1/10 and the first guy will have done better even though his average is far lower than the second guy.

This simply means that if all the above games continued, first batter would have got more runs for the team than second one. Therefore the first one is better. That's what the averages show.

To quote what uppercut said once: Scoring runs increases average, getting out reduces average. Staying not out does nothing

 

[TheJediBrah]

To ignore not outs and calculate runs per innings is to assume that the batsmen would get out on the very next ball if the game was to continue. That doesn't make sense.

Exactly. I dont see why people don't get this. Runs per innings has no bearing when determining a player's batting performance when you already have average.

If they're not out it's because they didn't get out and their innings wasn't ended. As i said earlier it would make more sense to argue the opposite, that not outs hurted the average because you had an innings cut off when you're played in and have to start from scratch next time

 

[cnerd123]

Batting Average and RPI are two different measures that have different meanings and that can both be used to evaluate a batsman's performances. I don't think you can say which is the superior one. They're just different. Use them both if that makes you feel better. In some cases both will be relevant and in some cases it won't.

I like the batting average because I feel it is fairer on batsmen than RPI - a batsman with a sequence of low not out scores will see his RPI drop significantly for no fault of his own - he can't control when he bats, and if he didn't get out and scored some runs he arguably did his job. Conversely, if his average goes up he can atleast take some credit for that, in that he did score those runs that are now added to it.

But yea, to be precise use both, and use things like Strike Rate and Relative Strike Rate and % of Teams's Score and anything else really. More stats the better.