John Wright ODI record?

[NUFAN]

Yet between his recall in late 2005 and his next dropping a year later, he averaged 28.38 against ODI-standard sides (and remember, we're arguing about why I rate him as something, and this is what I base my ratings on), 22.43 as an opener and 40.80 from his 5 innings at three.

His scores conformed no pattern - he didn't start terribly well (scores as an opener of 4, 4, 71, 39, 15, 46).

For me, he's looked far better since he replaced Astle than he did in his stint between September 2005 and October 2006. His scores starting then were 66, 76, 90, 31, 76* (there may have been a let-off in there somewhere, but I don't remember one). Has he ever achieved this sort of run before in his career? I doubt it.

What are your ODI Standard Sides again? Do Zim and Bangas make the cut?

 

[NUFAN]

What irks me about this is the theoretical possibility that both batsmen and bowlers could do well at the same time. What is good for one should be bad for the other - and hence, what is good for each bowler should be bad for opposition batsman.

Theoretically, a team could finish their 50 overs on 0/100. All the bowlers would have economy rates of 2 and all the two openers would have nice big not-outs to add to their averages. Theoretically, everyone has played exceptionally here, but the target is smaller than a ant's eyeball and the team that batted first would almost certainly lose.

ODIs more than anything else are about adapting to ever-changing state of the game. If you come on to bowl second change and the opening bowlers haven't taken any wickets, bowling your spell straight through as 10-40-0 is not going to be as helpful as you'd think, as the batting side will still be no wickets down with about 15 overs remaining and will hence have a completely free licence to swing from the hip. Similarly, taking 3 tailend wickets at the death in your last two overs despite going for 30 off them is going to be pretty poor as well. It is much the same as batting: if you come in at 5/75 and score 30 (18) and then get caught at long on, you've batted ridiculously, but similarly, if you come with 10 overs to go with nine wickets in hand and score 10* (30), you've played an equally horrible innings.

For mine, there are far too many small periods in one day cricket where both teams are content. The fielding captain is thinking "I'll just slow things down, spread the field and bring on some accurate bowlers" while the batsmen are thinking "We'll just steady the innings here and pick off a few single before going for the assault later." The result - the bowlers go for about 4rpo and are happy, while the batting team consolidate their position, and are happy. Someone should be displeased by proceedings or we don't really have a contest, do we?

All these factors are why ODI stats are hard to judge. What "stat" you are trying to better changes from game to game, from spell to spell, from innings to innings and from situation to situation. 10-42-0 can be a great spell in some situations and a poor spell in others so it's wrong to just look at a bowler's economy rate to judge them. The same goes for their average, though, as wickets at (especially, but not limited to..) the death are often quite useless. Personally, I think most people put a little too much weighting on bowling averages and a little too much weighting on batting strike rates, but I also think you, Richard, go a little too far the other way. All are important within each match, and career ODI stats can actually mean very little if a player's role changes from game to game. Hypothetically, a bowler ties down some absolute carnage from all other directions to finish with 10-43-0 in three consecutive matches including some superb death bowling in each game; the opposition reach 320 and his team chases it down both times. In his third match, he is expensive early against pinch-hitting sloggers but then takes vital wickets, exposing the lower order, and then the opposition gets bundled out. He finishes with 10-64-4. He has bowled well in all matches and done the job required of his team in every game, yet his stats are going to look poor in all departments: an average of 48.25 going at 4.83rpo - absolutely shocking stats. The nature of the different things required at different times of ODIs means you can't just look at overall stats like these; you have to examine each game and the roles the bowlers play.

Gunnest post of the week.

 

[slugger]

Its a good rant. but it is possible to simplify the stat problem.. just show players avg/sr in a two inns split. there batting avg/sr in a 1st and 2nd inn split same with bowler.

ex.
s.fleming
1st inn.avg 26.5 0/100s
2nd inn avg 39.5 8/100s
that gives you quick summary of how a player performs when setting a target or chasing. in fleming case its a diffence of 14 runs.

I always thought this way of looking at the stat should be taken into the game. adjusting your batting team order based on the fact whether your setting or chasing a target.

 

[Richard]

What are your ODI Standard Sides again? Do Zim and Bangas make the cut?

Bangladesh never, Zimbabwe up to the last game in WC2003 and never again from the 1st game afterwards.

 

[The Sean]

And Jayasuriya > Gilchrist, really - he has far more of a "novelty" factor.

I may regret asking this, but...

How do you figure?

 

[Richard]

Jayasuriya is credited with changing the game by, essentially, being the first to purvey a new "type" of batting (the aggressive ODI opener) to a large audience. (He was obviously not the first to do it, but it was he who started the trend - before this it had been just isolated one-offs like Greatbatch in the 1992 WC)

Gilchrist is not.

 

[Perm]

Jayasuriya is credited with changing the game by, essentially, being the first to purvey a new "type" of batting (the aggressive ODI opener) to a large audience. (He was obviously not the first to do it, but it was he who started the trend - before this it had been just isolated one-offs like Greatbatch in the 1992 WC)

Gilchrist is not.

So are you saying that Jayasuriya is a better ODI opener than Gilchrist?

 

[shortpitched713]

So are you saying that Jayasuriya is a better ODI opener than Gilchrist?

They are very comparable. Right now I think Gilchrist is better by a shade, but there have been periods in his career that Jayasuriya has been the most destructive ODI batsman, bar none.

 

[Perm]

They are very comparable. Right now I think Gilchrist is better by a shade, but there have been periods in his career that Jayasuriya has been the most destructive ODI batsman, bar none.

Purely as opening batsmen, I think Gilchrist is better.

 

[Pratters]

Jayasuriya played as a bowler earlier in his career. Lets look at Jayasuriya from 1996:

312 308 16 10552 189 157 152 36.13 24 55 22

Gilchrist:

275 268 11 9246 172 154 149 35.97 15 52 18

 

[Fiery]

Jayasuriya played as a bowler earlier in his career. Lets look at Jayasuriya from 1996:

312 308 16 10552 189 157 152 36.13 24 55 22

Gilchrist:

275 268 11 9246 172 154 149 35.97 15 52 18

That's a very interesting stat Pratyush. I probably rate them both as highly as each other tbh. Can't separate them really. (Opinionated, I know)

 

[Perm]

Jayasuriya played as a bowler earlier in his career. Lets look at Jayasuriya from 1996:

312 308 16 10552 189 157 152 36.13 24 55 22

Gilchrist:

275 268 11 9246 172 154 149 35.97 15 52 18

I just used their averages when they opened the batting ITBT, thought it was a more accurate comparison.

 

[Pratters]

Perm, I wasn't responding to you specifically, just pointing out that it isn't Gilchrist>Jayasuriya easily necessarily. If we had a poll, I am sure a lot of people would vote for Gilchrist seeing he averages higher over all compared to Jayasuriya. It is always irritating for me how people make judgement calls just looking at over all averages. On the specific point you raise...

I just used their averages when they opened the batting ITBT, thought it was a more accurate comparison.

I do know that Gilchrist averages more than Jayasuriya as an opener over all. Jayasuriya's average opening is 35.05 while Gilchrist's average opening is 36.62. I wouldn't use a stat difference of 1.57 to say x is better than y. Jayasuriya came to open mainly as an experiment and was a bit of a slogger more than any thing for a while. Sri Lanka was experimenting. Jayasuriya in his first 6 matches for instance averages:

1993 (age: 23y 185d) 6 6 1 84 27 23 18 16.80 0 0 0

It is only from 1996 did destructive Jayasuriya really start coming to the fore as a batsman although signs were seen earlier. His average from 1996 as an opener is 36. I am just putting stats forward, not saying x is ahead of y because of this stat or that stat here.

I personally like to watch Gilchrist bat more - he is one of my favourite players and can't bear the sight of Jayasuriya batting - he has thrashed India so many times. However, I can't decide who is better right now.

 

[Perm]

Perm, I wasn't responding to you specifically, just pointing out that it isn't Gilchrist>Jayasuriya easily necessarily. If we had a poll, I am sure a lot of people would vote for Gilchrist seeing he averages higher over all compared to Jayasuriya. It is always irritating for me how people make judgement calls just looking at over all averages. On the specific point you raise...



I do know that Gilchrist averages more than Jayasuriya as an opener over all. Jayasuriya's average opening is 35.05 while Gilchrist's average opening is 36.62. I wouldn't use a stat difference of 1.57 to say x is better than y. Jayasuriya came to open mainly as an experiment and was a bit of a slogger more than any thing for a while. Sri Lanka was experimenting. Jayasuriya in his first 6 matches for instance averages:

1993 (age: 23y 185d) 6 6 1 84 27 23 18 16.80 0 0 0

It is only from 1996 did destructive Jayasuriya really start coming to the fore as a batsman although signs were seen earlier. His average from 1996 as an opener is 36. I am just putting stats forward, not saying x is ahead of y because of this stat or that stat here.

I personally like to watch Gilchrist bat more - he is one of my favourite players and can't bear the sight of Jayasuriya batting - he has thrashed India so many times. However, I can't decide who is better right now.

(Y) Cool as mate

 

[Richard]

I'm happy that the two of them are pretty well equal TBH - if I had to pick one I would indeed go for Jayasuriya, though. Nonetheless, as I said, Jayasuriya has the distinct fillip of being a revolutionary in the game, and that counts for something for mine.

 

[Poker Boy]

I'm happy that the two of them are pretty well equal TBH - if I had to pick one I would indeed go for Jayasuriya, though. Nonetheless, as I said, Jayasuriya has the distinct fillip of being a revolutionary in the game, and that counts for something for mine.

Or was he a revoultionary? Mark Greatbatch did something similar in 1992, but because most of the attention in that WC was on the games played in Australia (NZ was a comparative backwater) he went unnoticed...

 

[Richard]

Yeah, he was the revolutionary. Others had done it before Greatbatch - before limited-overs cricket, even - but Jayasuriya was the one who made everyone sit-up and take notice.

 

[Fiery]

Yeah, he was the revolutionary. Others had done it before Greatbatch - before limited-overs cricket, even - but Jayasuriya was the one who made everyone sit-up and take notice.

Little Kalu should take some credit too

 

[Richard]

Indeed, shame he never kicked-on like Jayasuriya did.

His was more simply about attitude than results.

 

[Perm]

I'm happy that the two of them are pretty well equal TBH - if I had to pick one I would indeed go for Jayasuriya, though. Nonetheless, as I said, Jayasuriya has the distinct fillip of being a revolutionary in the game, and that counts for something for mine.

Why would you go for Jayasuriya? Simply because he revolutionised the game?