Gilchrist v Dhoni

[thierry henry]

I'm not saying they don't count, I'm saying that generally speaking averaging 40 in the top order is vastly different to averaging 40 in the middle order.

Yes, vastly easier and vastly more common.

 

[Top_Cat]

Also, I think when you say something like that, you're basically saying that it's impossible to judge a player on "contribution" at all. Given that every single ball has its own unique "context" it would probably take a lifetime's study to compare even two players properly.

If that's true then we might as well stop talking cricket altogether.

Completely disagree. Just because you can't come to a definitive conclusion, doesn't mean something isn't worth talking/arguing about. May well stop talking physics (is light a wave or particle, dammit?!), psychology (nature vs nurture) or religion (does anyone seriously need an example?).

 

[Top_Cat]

I rarely try to make "definitive" statements anyway.

My bugbear is actually with those who make "definitive" statements based on "what they saw" when two players have decidedly similar records even when said records are subject to a high level of scrutiny and contextualisation.

Yes, vastly easier and vastly more common.

 

[thierry henry]

Exactly, that's why neither first-person account nor cricket statistics in isolation cut it. You need both. Even then, a measure of circumspection about your conclusions is necessary.

Yes, well, I sort of agree. If people could be trusted to give reliable accounts of how valuable an individual's "contribution" actually was, then those first-person accounts would be very useful indeed. However, imo very few first-person accounts even attempt to do this.

 

[thierry henry]

Perhaps restrict it to vastly more common then

We were talking about averages being over a specific number, as opposed to how "good" you have to be to average said number

 

[thierry henry]

Completely disagree. Just because you can't come to a definitive conclusion, doesn't mean something isn't worth talking/arguing about. May well stop talking physics (is light a wave or particle, dammit?!), psychology (nature vs nurture) or religion (does anyone seriously need an example?).

I just think that in a majority of cases you can say with *almost* 100% certainty that A was better than B, and you can do that simply by referring to statistics (e.g. player A with a batting average of 20 from 20 tests was almost certainly inferior to player B with batting averages of 40 from 40 tests).

I also think that in a large majority of cases where two players are statistically similar, you can say with *almost* 100% certainty that the two players are very hard to split.

 

[Sanz]

Sure it does. It's possible to go back and look individually at every score a player made, who the opposition was, what score he came in at, what bowlers he faced...the detail available for analysis is endless.

Does it take into account what Bowlers feel/felt bowling to someone like Gilchrist. Just the other day I was watching an interview of Akram and he mentioned that the only time in last few years he was felt beat scare was when he was bowling to Gilly.

To me that kind of stuff counts a lot more than what raw statistics can present.

 

[thierry henry]

To me that kind of stuff counts a lot more than what raw statistics can present.

Only if it hinders performance, and only if it hinders performance in a way that has some bearing, somewhere down the line, on runs and wickets.

 

[Riggins]

Yes, vastly easier and vastly more common.

Since you seem to be all about the stats - of the 29 people who average or averaged over 40 in one day cricket, only 10 of them openers...

 

[thierry henry]

Since you seem to be all about the stats - of the 29 people who average or averaged over 40 in one day cricket, only 10 of them openers...

How many batted mostly in the top 4?

Are you denying that Dhoni and Bevan are statistical outliers compared to those who batted in the same positions in the order?

 

[duffer]

This would best be answered at the end of their careers tbh. Since you ask now though I'll take MS. What a hero.

 

[thierry henry]

ftr I only raised the point in praise of Dhoni. I could well be wrong in assuming more top-order players averaged over 40. I know I'm not wrong in assuming that very few players have averaged over 50 for any period of time. I'm also pretty confident that on average players in the top 4 in ODI cricket average more than players who bat between 5-7.

 

[Riggins]

I think that probably results from the fact that most teams put the best players at the top of the order where they have the best opportunity to shape the game. I think you could bat Ricky Ponting at 7 and James Hopes at 3 and still back Ponting to average more.

 

[duffer]

I think that probably results from the fact that most teams put the best players at the top of the order where they have the best opportunity to shape the game. I think you could bat Ricky Ponting at 7 and James Hopes at 3 and still back Ponting to average more.

-probably

 

[Sanz]

Only if it hinders performance, and only if it hinders performance in a way that has some bearing, somewhere down the line, on runs and wickets.

How do we know it does or does not ? Just out of curiosity I went and looked at Akram's bowling performance in ODIs when Gilly is playing and to my surprise Akram does very poorly Statistically.

Akram averages 33 with a SR of 41.6 and Economy Rate of 4.74 (and much worse in Test matches in case you do not consider ODIs a legitimate format), all vastly inferior compared to his overall career average. This combined with Akram's recent statement in an interview that he was bit scared (or something like that) when bowling to Gilly, what does that suggest ?

 

[Top_Cat]

How many batted mostly in the top 4?

Are you denying that Dhoni and Bevan are statistical outliers compared to those who batted in the same positions in the order?

Bored so I grabbed the averages of all ODI batsmen batting at either 5 or 6 (Dhoni's and Bevvo's highest scoring positions) who had scored more than 100 career ODI runs. Sorry to say that both Bevvo and Dhoni's averages are within two standard deviations of the mean in both/either case. So nope, they're not outliers. Tried it with higher runs scored/matches played, similar results.

Just putting it out there.....

 

[thierry henry]

Bored so I grabbed the averages of all ODI batsmen batting at either 5 or 6 (Dhoni's and Bevvo's highest scoring positions) who had scored more than 100 career ODI runs. Sorry to say that both Bevvo and Dhoni's averages are within two standard deviations of the mean in both/either case. So nope, they're not outliers. Tried it with higher runs scored/matches played, similar results.

Just putting it out there.....

Was using "outliers" in an "I don't know what mathematical terms actually mean but I have a vague idea" kind of way tbh

Do I really have to "prove" that middle order players averaging 50 in ODI cricket is rather unusual?

 

[thierry henry]

How do we know it does or does not ? Just out of curiosity I went and looked at Akram's bowling performance in ODIs when Gilly is playing and to my surprise Akram does very poorly Statistically.

Akram averages 33 with a SR of 41.6 and Economy Rate of 4.74 (and much worse in Test matches in case you do not consider ODIs a legitimate format), all vastly inferior compared to his overall career average. This combined with Akram's recent statement in an interview that he was bit scared (or something like that) when bowling to Gilly, what does that suggest ?

Which just goes to show that you *can* endeavour to prove these vague notions with stats

 

[Athlai]

50 players have scored over 1000 runs batting 4-7 with an average of 35 and over.

3 average 50+ (Bevan, Sarwan, Hussey)
6 more average 45+ (Pietersen, Crowe, Boon, Dhoni, AB de Villiers, Kallis)

Overall in ODI's this middle order position averages 28.81 (probably dragged down by number 7 but ah well)

58 players average over 35 with at least 1000 runs in the top 3. Most interestingly Dhoni has 1019 @ 78.38

3 players average 50+ (Dhoni, Richards, Yousuf)
7 players average 45+ (Turner, Tendulkar, Lara, Abbas, Greenidge, Dippenaar, Kallis)

This position averages 32.35 overall.

Not outs are a pretty huge factor here.
1-3 overall: 1003 NO
4-7 overall: 3702 NO

 

[Top_Cat]

Do I really have to "prove" that middle order players averaging 50 in ODI cricket is rather unusual?

Athlai's post would tend to suggest otherwise, no?