***Official*** West Indies in England

[Manee]

It's highly dependent on strike rates. Adam Gilchrist averages only 35, but his strike rate of 96 means his stats are still rather good indeed. Rahul Dravid averages 39, but with a strike rate of 71 I wouldn't have him anywhere near the team if we were going on stats alone.

Shah's is 81.88 over the period, btw. Tbf, that isn't too shabby.

 

[superkingdave]

The same can be said about pretty much half the side. Unless players like Strauss, Anderson, Collingwood, Bresnan, Mascarenhas have become world class ODI players overnight. All of the above mentioned players are average players.

Well Strauss is only in the side because he is captain. Anderson i've said above i'm not sold on him in the ODI side. Collingwood, well he's at least as good a batsmen as Shah but he's a much better fielder and a handy bowler. Bresnan wouldn't be in the side if others were fit. Mascarenhas is also a candidate for dopping out of a full strength side, but i feel he adds more to the side that Shah, he's a hitter down the order and is a different option to the main seamers, I think he can be picked/not picked depending on the nature of the pitch.

 

[Goughy]

Go with runs per innings- can't hold it against a player batting 6 when his team chases down a total without needing his help. It's quite a notable difference sometimes. Michael Hussey's runs per match would be calculated as 28, while his runs per innings is 35. You'd be significantly penalising him just for being in the side on a day when the bowlers did the job for him.

Of course you can. It shows how the team prioritises the runs. If you are not needed or kept in reserve then you are not making an impact every game.

If you are only batting once every two games then it doesnt exactly make you indispensable does it? The core players that the side is built on are those that bat every game.

Runs per game are key in measuring impact and value. If you bat once every two games then you are not carrying the same worth and value as someone who bats every game.

 

[Scaly piscine]

The main use of runs per game is telling you how much more important that the guy involved can contribute in the field.

Shah's overall contribution is pitiful. What has killed England's ODI side over the last few years is they carry too many passengers.

 

[zaremba]

Of course you can. It shows how the team prioritises the runs.

hmmm Langer batted at 8 for Somerset the other day, behind a series of pinch-hitters of various descriptions.

I don't like runs per innings as a measure of a batsman's performance (what's wrong with batting average?), but I like runs per game even less.

 

[Goughy]

I don't like runs per innings as a measure of a batsman's performance (what's wrong with batting average?), but I like runs per game even less.

Batting average (like SR) is part of it but leaves an important part of the story untold. If I score 40 runs a game and you score 20 then Im making a greater contribution regardless of average. Simple as that.

 

[Uppercut]

Of course you can. It shows how the team prioritises the runs. If you are not needed or kept in reserve then you are not making an impact every game.

If you are only batting once every two games then it doesnt exactly make you indispensable does it? The core players that the side is built on are those that bat every game.

One of your more bizarre theories, this. Where our sides choose to bat us says absolutely nothing of our respective qualities as players. West Indies batted Lendl Simmons ahead of Shiv Chanderpaul yesterday, is Shiv more dispensable? What about Matt Prior batting above Paul Collingwood?

 

[Goughy]

One of your more bizarre theories, this. Where our sides choose to bat us says absolutely nothing of our respective qualities as players. West Indies batted Lendl Simmons ahead of Shiv Chanderpaul yesterday, is Shiv more dispensable? What about Matt Prior batting above Paul Collingwood?

Nothing bizarre about it. It is simple cricketing fundamentals. Most people will look at volume in conjunction with average. You want your best players to contribute as much as possible and have the greatest opportunity to score the most runs.

Sometimes that means batting at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc depending on the player and the team.

Their bating positions have not hurt their relative figures compared to each other.

Simmons = 17.71
Chanderpaul = 32.74
Collingwood = 24.57
Prior = 18.51

Chanderpaul and Collingwood bat in positions that allow them to contribute more than the others you mention.

Chanderpaul batting at 4 isnt going to miss innings for this WI team and it may maximize his run scoring opportunities.

As for Prior bating high, noone said it was a great idea did they? We could certainly argue that Collingwood has ben underutilized.

A player that scored 35 runs a game, at an average of 40, at a strike rate of 90 has done far more. has a better statistical record and made a greater contribution to his team than a player that scored 25 runs a game at an average of 40 at a strike rate of 90.

 

[Uppercut]

Nothing bizarre about it. It is simple cricketing fundamentals. You want your best players to contribute as much as possible and have the greatest opportunity to score the most runs.

Sometimes that means batting at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc depending on the player and the team.

Their positions have not hurt their relative figures compared to each other.

Simmons = 17.71
Chanderpaul = 32.74
Collingwood = 24.57
Prior = 18.51

Chanderpaul and Collingwood bat in positions that allow them to contribute more than the others you mention.

Chanderpaul batting at 4 isnt going to miss innings for this WI team and it may maximize his run scoring opportunities.

As for Prior bating high, noone said it was a great idea did they? We could certainly argue that Collingwood has ben underutilized.

That's another point. You're holding the failings of the selectors against him. As well as holding it against players with a strong bowling attack, resulting in them often not being needed when chasing small totals.

I really don't see what your analysis shows- it's certainly not a player's value to their team. Albie Morkel's averages 12 runs per match (having played 40 and batted in 27) to Prior's 18 but the former is infinitely more important to his team than Prior. Had Albie been dropped for a few games against Bangladesh or Kenya- which would imply that he's not a key player for South Africa- his runs per match would be quite a lot higher.

 

[Goughy]

That's another point. You're holding the failings of the selectors against him. As well as holding it against players with a strong bowling attack, resulting in them often not being needed when chasing small totals.

I really don't see what your analysis shows- it's certainly not a player's value to their team. Albie Morkel's averages 12 runs per match (having played 40 and batted in 27) to Prior's 18 but the former is infinitely more important to his team than Prior. Had Albie been dropped for a few games against Bangladesh or Kenya- which would imply that he's not a key player for South Africa- his runs per match would be quite a lot higher.

What? He plays a support role rather than a core role with the bat. If a team is looking for 250+ each game and a player contributes 12 (on average) then he is not a key part of the run scoring machine.

Adds great depth and striking ability but him scoring big runs are not part of Plan A. His value is in his high strike rate. His batting average is below Prior as well (if you want to take the typical view).

Runs scored is based on actual contributions a game and, as Ive said, is one part of the equation, along with Av and SR. You may think Morkel offers more with the bat than Prior but that is a difference in SR rather than any actual volume. You cant take it in isolation but as part of the whole package.

As for Collingwood and holding the choices of the selectors against him. He can only be judged on what he has done rather than what might have been. It is an unfortunare consequence of reality.

If you dont agree then thats fine, I'll live. It is a simple and used measure of contributions and value. Players that score more runs than others have made a greater contribution in that area. Players that score their runs faster have made a greater contribution and average indicates the value of their wicket (though not contribution).

 

[zaremba]

Batting average (like SR) is part of it but leaves an important part of the story untold. If I score 40 runs a game and you score 20 then Im making a greater contribution regardless of average. Simple as that.

There are various reasons why I take a different view but I won't bore you with more than a quick thought.

I think there's a danger here of confusing 2 different things: ability and contribution.

If a team wins by 10 wickets and therefore the number 3 batsman does not get to bat, does that reflect negatively on the ability of the number 3? In your runs-per-game calculation it does. True, he's contributed nothing with the bat, but the fact that he's scored no runs is just a function of his batting position and it simply doesn't reflect his ability in the slightest.

 

[aussie]

Well Strauss is only in the side because he is captain.

Before the WI tour yea. But not now totally, he sort of has earth a chance to gain an extended run in the ODI side i'd say.

Anderson i've said above i'm not sold on him in the ODI side.

Not the greatest, but he is still the best behind Freddie. No issue with him, plus with his test form getting better by the match - his ODI performances could improve over time.

 

[GIMH]

In ODIs, Broad>>Anderson and I'm a huge Jimmeh fan

 

[Prince EWS]

In ODIs, Broad>>Anderson and I'm a huge Jimmeh fan

Yeah AWTA. I'd also like to add that I'm the opposite of a huge Broad fan, and I still think it's true.

 

[oitoitoi]

In ODIs, Broad>>Anderson and I'm a huge Jimmeh fan

I dunno, against the top sides I'd rather have anderson with the new ball, especially on a flatter deck where Broad can look like cannon fodder. Both are massive liabilities at the death though.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, it's at the death where we really really really need Flintoff. Arguably the best in the world at that stage of the game.

 

[FBU]

In ODIs, Broad>>Anderson and I'm a huge Jimmeh fan

Their figures are similar at the 48 ODIs stage

Broad 390.2 overs 74 wickets at 26.62 econ 5.04 s/r 31.6
Anderson 391.3 overs 72 wickets at 26.06 econ 4.79 s/r 32.6

 

[superkingdave]

Their figures are similar at the 48 ODIs stage

Broad 390.2 overs 74 wickets at 26.62 econ 5.04 s/r 31.6
Anderson 391.3 overs 72 wickets at 26.06 econ 4.79 s/r 32.6

Yeah but since Broad's debut Anderson's figures are 61 wickets @ 36.95, ER 5.00

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah but since Broad's debut Anderson's figures are 61 wickets @ 36.95, ER 5.00

Looks like Jimmy's improvement as a test bowler has come at the expense of his limited overs form.

Fair exchange IMHO.

 

[zaremba]

Looks like Jimmy's improvement as a test bowler has come at the expense of his limited overs form.

Fair exchange IMHO.

Yep I'd take that every time