The average is simply a mathematical number. It is not misleading by itself. The interpretation is what is at times misleading.
Take Mohammad Yousuf.
His average is 53.
During the recent Pak-Aus series, the Aussie commentators kept saying how he is one of the best batsmen in the world, and he is so good, and they kept mentioning that he averages 54 (he did at the start of the series). Shane Warne kept saying "anyone who averages 54 is a dam good player" On the other hand, a Chris Gayle, who does not average 54, and is not considered one of the best batsmen in the world blasted two centuries against the same attack against whom Yousuf failed so miserably.
His average was up around the 57 mark for a while. However, Chris Gayle is inconsistent, doesn't move his feet and doesn't enjoy test cricket. I don't consider him to be world class in tests. Yousef for a time was very consistent, hence the average.
Now I am not trying to say they are talking crap. What I am saying is, they are obviously being diplomatic and nice to talk up the competition and using his average of 54 to back themselves up. That is the misleading bit. It is misleading because it is incomplete.
Mohammad Yousuf started playing in 98, and I was already an avid follower of cricket by then. So I have followed his career all through. For most part, until 2006, he was never considered in the big league of the best batsmen of his time. He was seen as someone who times the ball well, is stylish, looks very good at times, will score a brisk 40-50 and get out. That was used as a criticism and a reason why he is not considered in the big league.
True, but I don't recall anyone denying this though. He average around 47 and was considered very capable as opposed to great.
Then came 2005, when Pakistan started playing a lot of cricket at home. They played England, India, West Indies. Yousuf scored heavily against these teams, and on pitches that were flat as anything. Some of the totals notched up in these matches will tell you how flat the pitches were. Needless to say, neither of these 3 teams had a great bowler at that time. Harmisson was useless on dead pitches. Flintoff was decent at best.
He was one of any number of batsman whose technique favoured the noughties.
It was during this time that he broke Vivian Richards' record in 2006, and all of a sudden people started taking notice. I think he scored 9 centuries and his heavy scored boosted his average. At the end of the year, Pakistan toured South Africa for 3 test matches, and Yousuf was in the form of his life..but considering how South Africa had a slightly better bowling attack than what he had faced all year, he was back to being the old Yousuf. He scored two 80s in the 3 match series that Pakistan lost 1-2.
He is merely past his best I think.
The point is, his average of 53 places him as an equal of Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Ponting when it is clear he is quite below them. I am sure with more test matches against quality opponents, his average will fall more and maybe at the end of his career, his average will be 49-50.
Likewise, kallis' average puts him higher than Tendla and Lara in both major forms of the game (although SRT has just overtaken him again in tests), but I have never heard anyone seriously suggest he is a better batsman than either.
Another prime example is Thilan Samaraweera. Cricinfo writer Sambit Bal had an excellent article titled "how good is Samaraweera" where he touches on these issues of "misleading statistics" and argues well to put forward his point, that Samaraweera, despite an average of 50 plus is not all that. He uses statistics to make his point too, because statistics by itself is not misleading, but incomplete statistics is.
Agreed, but in principle stats can never be complete. There will always be one more variable to throw in:
- the cloud cover changed
- the spinner had the flu
- bowling isn't what is used to be
- He was going through a divorce
- He was bored
- etc , etc etc
.......it never ends.
by not outs.
What type of average is that?
