Most Undeserved Averages/Statistics

[open365]

That wasn't my criterion, was it? And stumpings in nets don't count, they never have done.

I've allways found that rule quite perplexing

 

[C_C]

Because 45.22 is far far more than 44 isn't it?

And funny how now it suits you SL are a quality attack...

Tendulkar averages 50 in the same criterias Kallis averages 44. Since Both Tendulkar and Kallis average overall around 56-57, it is elementary to conclude that Kallis cashes in far more against minnows and second class bowling than Tendulkar does.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

People may have an impression of Kallis not being good from the 90s - a possible reason maybe because of his failures vs Australia.

Just look at him batting right now in the series vs Australia for his ability against quality spin (Warne has been bowling superbly in the current period). Also for test against pace if people have doubts regarding that too - McGrath isnt that bad a bowler and neither is Lee bowling crap in this series.

Agreed.

It's very possible - and apparently very true - that Kallis is simply a better player now than he was earlier in his career. As shocking as it may sound - *coughHayden, Vaughan, Trescothick, Chanderpaulcough* - it's quite possible that a player improves over time.

 

[Anil]

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.

totally agree with the content of your post except the highlighted bit....off topic i know but when was agassi a serve-volleyer? he was arguably the best returner in the game, one of the best athletes, but serve-volley was just not his cup of tea...at least he never did it with any consistent success even at wimbledon...

 

[marc71178]

I agree. 200, 300 or 400 would be far more accurate.

Come on be fair to him, he's only conceded 200 runs and it's an insult to the first chance average to even count them as being worth 1 each!

 

[marc71178]

Tendulkar averages 50 in the same criterias Kallis averages 44.

Not when I looked at the series he didn't.

And I notice no comment on the SL attack suddenly becoming "quality" because it suits you.

 

[garage flower]

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.

I know this is completely irrelevant to the point, but do you really suggest in the above post that Andre Agassi is one of the 3 best serve-volleyers of all time? It's late and I'm tired so I guess I must have misunderstood.

EDIT: sorry, hadn't spotted Anil's post above. It wasn't a sudden bout of dyslexia on my part then.

 

[howardj]

Whats so hard to understand. I defined what an excellent attack is - Wasim + Waqar, not just either one of them on their own.
And yes, Post Waqar-Wasim-Ambrose-Walsh is what has allowed Kallis to dominate - check his record post 2000/2001, when those bowlers either retired or were in decline.

Record vs OZ + Pak with Wasim + Waqar + record vs Murali in SL + record vs IND in IND + record vs Ambrose and Walsh = below par for someone who is vying for an alltime great title. Definately below par compared to Dravid, Tendulkar, Tugga and Lara.

You're trying to reach back to 1997/98 (a year after he started his career) to make a judgement about how good a player Kallis is. I think most fair minded people would acknowledge that players like Kallis and Ponting have improved as players since then. Once again, an average of 50 when either Walsh and Ambrose have been playing, and an average of 45 when either Wasim or Waqar have been playing, amply demonstrates that these bowlers did not have the wood on him. He was not out-classed by them - you said he was. As evidence of his improvement, have a look at the way he has handled McGrath and Warne this summer (averaging 56), and the last time he visited these shores (averaged 50). After all, you are the one who places such great stock in a player's overseas record.

 

[displaced]

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.

Mike Atherton. If anyone deserves a better average, its him.

 

[howardj]

Whats so hard to understand. I defined what an excellent attack is - Wasim + Waqar, not just either one of them on their own.
And yes, Post Waqar-Wasim-Ambrose-Walsh is what has allowed Kallis to dominate - check his record post 2000/2001, when those bowlers either retired or were in decline.

Record vs OZ + Pak with Wasim + Waqar + record vs Murali in SL + record vs IND in IND + record vs Ambrose and Walsh = below par for someone who is vying for an alltime great title. Definately below par compared to Dravid, Tendulkar, Tugga and Lara.

Furthermore, have a look at how Dravid and Ponting (the other two pre-eminent batsmen of the current period) have "cashed in" since the retirement of Walsh/Ambrose/Waqar/Wasim. Firstly, with both Wasim and Waqar in the team, Dravid averages a paltry 27 against Pakistan. By contrast, with neither of them in the team he averages 71. Tell me who is 'cashing in'. Secondly, Ponting averages 40 in an attack featuring either Walsh or Ambrose. Since those guys have exited the scene, he averages a prolific 106 against the West Indies. Ponting seems to be 'cashing in' here.

 

[BlackCap_Fan]

Mccullums batting average is 23.3 - doesn't show his ability for me.

 

[Dissector]

BTW Kallis had an excellent series the only time he faced Ambrose and Walsh averaging almost 70. It was the next series when Ambrose was gone that he did relatively poorly. That would seem to be the opposite of "cashing in". Overall he has many excellent performances against the top bowling sides including an excellent record in against India in India, an excellent series against England recently and a good summer against Australia this year.

In fact comparing his record against Dravid and Ponting against the best sides I would rate him higher. For instance Dravid has never hit a century against Warne/Mcgrath in Australia and now Kallis just has. The comparison points with Ponting : both had series against West Indies early in their career in the late 90's and Kallis did better. Both had a series against a resurgent England recently and Kallis did better. And of course India in India.

 

[howardj]

BTW Kallis had an excellent series the only time he faced Ambrose and Walsh averaging almost 70. It was the next series when Ambrose was gone that he did relatively poorly. That would seem to be the opposite of "cashing in". Overall he has many excellent performances against the top bowling sides including an excellent record in against India in India, an excellent series against England recently and a good summer against Australia this year.

In fact comparing his record against Dravid and Ponting against the best sides I would rate him higher. For instance Dravid has never hit a century against Warne/Mcgrath in Australia and now Kallis just has. The comparison points with Ponting : both had series against West Indies early in their career in the late 90's and Kallis did better. Both had a series against a resurgent England recently and Kallis did better. And of course India in India.

Hear hear!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

In fact comparing his record against Dravid and Ponting against the best sides I would rate him higher. For instance Dravid has never hit a century against Warne/Mcgrath in Australia and now Kallis just has. The comparison points with Ponting : both had series against West Indies early in their career in the late 90's and Kallis did better. Both had a series against a resurgent England recently and Kallis did better. And of course India in India.

In fairness to Dravid though, he's not had much chance to face them in his prime.

 

[howardj]

Definately below par compared to Dravid.

It's funny you should mention Dravid, he's pretty much the King of the "Cash in" - according to your criteria anyway. As well as averaging 27 while playing against Pakistan teams that contained both Wasim and Waqar (and Wasim or Waqar) while averaging 71 when those two guys were not in the Pakistan team, the same sort of pattern emerges against Australia. In Tests involving Warne and McGrath he averages 33, while in Tests when those guys were both absent, he averages 123.

 

[Dissector]

"In fairness to Dravid though, he's not had much chance to face them in his prime."
Fair enough though I believe he had one test against them in the last tour as well as the one super test. And of course he didn't do well against them in the latest home series either. Incidentally I would definitely rate the current Pakistani outfit as a top bowling side in home conditions so this series is going to be a good test for Dravid. As of course the Ashes will be for Ponting.

 

[tooextracool]

Kallis vs WI when Walsh /Ambrose were playing = 47.00 ( i was in error in this part).
Kallis vs AUS = 30-something average
Kallis vs PAK when Wasim and Waqar were around = 36+change.
Simply not in the same echelon as Tendulkar/Lara/Steve Waugh.

actually kallis had a weakness against spin, not against pace. simply quoting wasim, waqar and ambrose when the 3 combines dismissed him a sum total of 2 times isnt going to get you anywhere. his tormentors have by and large been warne and murali and to an extent mcgrath, but all 3 of whom are currently playing and hes rectified his record against them in the recent past. i dont doubt that kallis isnt in the same echelon as lara and steve waugh, but i think your reasoning behind it is quite faulty.

 

[thierry henry]

Mccullums batting average is 23.3 - doesn't show his ability for me.

You fail to mention that this is his ODI average. Most reasonably good players batting around 8 in the order in ODIs average around mid-low 20s, with a few exceptions who have a large number of not-outs (imo this proves what excellent batsmen they are, in other opinions it proves their averages are distorted.)

I wouldn't expect significant change to that average, and I think as long as McCullum pushes his strike rate up into the high 70s (it is already moving up quickly) his record will show his worth as a good middle-lower order ODI bat. If he moves up the order and is a success he might get his career average up to high 20s which would be an excellent effort.

 

[Jason_M]

There's too many batsmen averaging over 50 and that must mean the bowling around the world is weak and there are batsmen cashing in on the minnows like Zim and Bangladesh.

Australia's bowling is still world class.
WI were devasting in the early 90's with Ambrose at his peak but the Windies fell away post 95 and were embarrassing late 90's onward.
England, have been the team of the last 12 months or so with a string of victories leading into the Ashes and then overcoming Australia to take the Ashes. Before the resurgence the Poms were ordinary to say the least and there are already some worrying signs post Ashes with a comprehensive series loss in Pakistan.
Pakistan like the Windies were brilliant in the early 90's with Waqar and Wasim at their very best, started falling away mid-late 90's with match fixing scandals and Waqar getting injuries and losing pace. Have found a good leg spinner but the unpredictable Aktar is their only other gun bowler.
South Africa also were strong in the early 90's with Donald leading the charge and bowling very quickly but injuries took their toll on his body and once he retired South Africa lost that zip. Pollock, Ntini and Nel are honest without being threatening.
India at home in favourable conditions are a handful but they really get shown up outside their country. Their bowling just lacks menace and at the moment they're not much better than the Windies or Zimbabwe for that matter.
Sri Lanka are another side that plays well at home but like India their bowling gets shown up outside of their own country, a one man band without substance.
New Zealand, not much above club standard, they would struggle to beat Australian interstate teams.
Zimbabwe, would struggle to beat a club side.

Australia has been by FAR and away the best team over the last 10 years and even at the present they are still some way in front of England and South Africa. There are some real worrying signs in world cricket especially with the dominance of Anglo teams like Australia and England who have introduced a new era of ruthless professionalism that the likes of the West Indies cannot come to grips.

 

[luckyeddie]

There's too many batsmen averaging over 50 and that must mean the bowling around the world is weak and there are batsmen cashing in on the minnows like Zim and Bangladesh.

That doesn't necessarily follow - it could be that groundsmen are getting too good at their jobs.