Most Undeserved Averages/Statistics

[C_C]

Kallis averages in 30s against Pakistan when PAK had Wasim/Waqar, 30s against WI when they had Ambrose and Walsh, 30s against OZ and not too hot in the subcontinent.He is cashing in massively in the post Donald-Waqar-Wasim-Ambrose-Walsh bowling slump.[/QUOTE]

Man, do you just make this stuff up, or what?

I think you'll find, when he came up against a West Indies attack which consisted of Ambrose and Walsh, he averaged 70

Furthermore, when he came up against Pakistan attacks with either Waqar or Wasim, he averaged 45.

Finally, his record on the subcontinent is anything but 'not too hot'. He averages 45.

You just try to bamboozle people with stats, which are far from accurate.

Why don't you check his record and then talk ?
It is irrelevant if he mauls WI for an over 70 ave in one series. The fact that he utterly bombed out the very next makes his overall performance against Ambrose/Walsh an average one, not a good one. Same with Pakistan.

 

[luckyeddie]

what do you mean by Harmisons statistics?

He's averaging 28.5 with the ball isn't he? I would say that's aboutr right for Harmison.

There were many who waited a year or more to yell "I told you so" following his destruction of the West Indies. It's exactly the same argument as C_C has attempted to lever against Kallis.

If Harmison is so rubbish, why wasn't McGrath taking 8-12 against the same opponents?

You end up with the average you deserve - everything else is just wishful thinking.

 

[C_C]

Sorry it just doesn't wash.

If it were so easy for a batsman as obviously limited as you appear to maintain that Kallis is to cash in against limited attacks, then it must be so easy too for all the other batsmen you name - and of course for all the others you don't.

Why don't they? Why is it always the worst players who seem to have the ability to flay limited attacks, yet those who are so much more gifted seem unable to do so?

I don't think Kallis is utterly worthless- i think he is a good batsman. But not a great one. Its no coincidence that his average is boosted by mediocre bowling attacks and cashing in against a nation when their bowling has undergone a massive drop in quality.

 

[C_C]

You end up with the average you deserve - everything else is just wishful thinking.

Very rarely, simply because the playing field and conditions are almost never equal.
If one averages 90 against BD/ZIM and plays 50 tests against them, while averaging 20 against OZ ( playing 5 tests against them), they would average significantly more than Tendulkar/Lara while not being anywhere close in worthiness.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Bradman never faced any bowlers of any quaility bar Bedser and Larwood.

Rubbish.

 

[Burpey]

Stuart McGill. Generally only gets picked when conditions are thought to be spin-friendly which obviously boosts his average. He is a good bowler but not as as good as his figures suggest. Though if he continues his present form his career figures will soon reflect his abilities.

A whole bunch of openers including Sehwag,Hayden and Smith . All fine players but their averages suggest that they rank among the all-time great openers which they don't.

That's a bit harsh on MacGill. He has played quite a few Tests in conditions that are not necessarily spin friendly. Also, I imagine it would be quite hard being in and out of the Test team rather than being guaranteed a spot every Test.

 

[C_C]

Rubbish.

Dunno about you but i would rather take Warney/Murali/Chandra/Bedi/Gibbs/Saqlain/etc. over Verity. Amatuer era simply doesnt compare to professional era in terms of quality- not in any sports.

 

[luckyeddie]

I don't think Kallis is utterly worthless- i think he is a good batsman. But not a great one. Its no coincidence that his average is boosted by mediocre bowling attacks and cashing in against a nation when their bowling has undergone a massive drop in quality.

I said 'limited' - not 'worthless'.

Given that, why don't the better ones cash in more against the lesser quality attacks, thus boosting their own stats disproportionately? It's only ever the FTB's.

Until you can answer that satisfactorily, your argument is lacking in substance.

 

[C_C]

Given that, why don't the better ones cash in more against the lesser quality attacks, thus boosting their own stats disproportionately? It's only ever the FTB's.

Because some players are mode adept at bashing mediocre opposition than top quality opposition ?
Michael Chang in tennis was a perfect example- he routinely thumped mediocre players, much more consistently than Agassi or Becker but was no match for the 6-7 topnotch players.
It is a very common thing in sports actually.

 

[luckyeddie]

Very rarely, simply because the playing field and conditions are almost never equal.
If one averages 90 against BD/ZIM and plays 50 tests against them, while averaging 20 against OZ ( playing 5 tests against them), they would average significantly more than Tendulkar/Lara while not being anywhere close in worthiness.

Oh come off it - you're making up ridiculously extreme scenarios that frankly make you look more and more desperate to 'win' at any costs.

Just re-read the scenario you have painted, then come back with one that has some meaning in the 'real' world.

 

[Deja moo]

As mentioned, MacGill and Pathan come to mind .

 

[C_C]

Oh come off it - you're making up ridiculously extreme scenarios that frankly make you look more and more desperate to 'win' at any costs.

Just re-read the scenario you have painted, then come back with one that has some meaning in the 'real' world.

No, i am merely illustrating my point. Someone like Kallis, who averages 44 against quality opposition while really cashing it in against mediocre ones doesnt deserve the same average as Tendulkar IMO, when Tendulkar cashes in far less against the mediocre ones and far more against quality opposition. A player's greatest test is doing well against the best opposition. Not doing excellently against minor opposition.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Oh come off it - you're making up ridiculously extreme scenarios that frankly make you look more and more desperate to 'win' at any costs.

Since when is this new?

 

[luckyeddie]

Because some players are mode adept at bashing mediocre opposition than top quality opposition ?
Michael Chang in tennis was a perfect example- he routinely thumped mediocre players, much more consistently than Agassi or Becker but was no match for the 6-7 topnotch players.
It is a very common thing in sports actually.

So what you are saying is "I just don't know" - because those players who were better (ranked higher) than Michael Chang also used to thump those same mediocre players, because that's how tennis rankings work - your points reflect your tournament success.

If you can find some stats that prove that Michael Chang enjoyed greater success against (say) tennis players ranked outside the top 50 than (say) Andre Agassi or Boris Becker did, eliminating such variables as preferred surface (Chang was a hard court specialist base-liner who 'learned' how to play on clay, and the others are two of the three greatest serve-volleyers the world has ever seen - although I appreciate that Agassi could baseline it out with the best of them) you might have a point.

 

[luckyeddie]

No, i am merely illustrating my point. Someone like Kallis, who averages 44 against quality opposition while really cashing it in against mediocre ones doesnt deserve the same average as Tendulkar IMO, when Tendulkar cashes in far less against the mediocre ones and far more against quality opposition. A player's greatest test is doing well against the best opposition. Not doing excellently against minor opposition.

Simple question - why don't the best batsmen (some will say that Tendulkar isn't a good example because he's a choker) do better against poorer sides?

Is it that they don't have the same mental strength?

 

[C_C]

Simple question - why don't the best batsmen (some will say that Tendulkar isn't a good example because he's a choker) do better against poorer sides?

Is it that they don't have the same mental strength?

Perhaps because they arnt as eager to makeup their averages against worthless sides ?
A test of a man's ability is performance against the best of the best. Not against worst of the worst.
How you do against the best is a benchmark for how good you are. Not how well you do against the worst. If that were true, then there would be no distinction between FC and Test cricket and performance against OZ in the last 10 years ( or WI in the 15 preceeding that) would be just as valuable as performance against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, etc.
Which clearly isnt.

PS: If Tendulkar is a choker, then i am afraid 99.99% batsmen are chokers

 

[Dissector]

"That's a bit harsh on MacGill. He has played quite a few Tests in conditions that are not necessarily spin friendly."
Well I did say "generally". Clearly if he was a permanently player he would have played more tests on non-spinning tracks particularly in Australia. Also he has toured relatively little which also boosts his average since he does better in Australia.

As for Kallis I think he is definitely one of the best batsmen in the world today. Even according to CC's figures he averages 45 against top attacks which is pretty good. Now if you add the hundred he made today and his excellent series against England (which definitely has had a quality attack in the last couple of years) he would average something close to 50. When you consider that he had a horrendous debut series against Australia that adds up to a superb record against quality sides since then.

 

[C_C]

and his excellent series against England (which definitely has had a quality attack in the last couple of years) he would average something close to 50. When you consider that he had a horrendous debut series against Australia that adds up to a superb record against quality sides sinc

I actually did add his series vs ENG into the fray

 

[Barney Rubble]

There's no way Andrew Flintoff deserves a bowling average of over 30, that's for sure. And without wishing to restart the debate all over again, I personally think Giles is better than his average of 39ish would suggest.

And Mike Hussey is not one of the greatest batsmen of all time, so his average should eventually decrease from this incredible level.

 

[open365]

^Well over the last 2-3 years when Flintoff has developed into a proper bowler,i suspect he's averaging around 28.

On current form he looks like a bowler capable of about 25 but his average is distorted by his earlier days unfortunately.