Players with misleading averages....

[zaremba]

Martin Crowe: Test batting average of 45.36

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The 277 and 375 were to my mind undoubtedly better; apart from them, I don't see anything to top it.

The 400* is outside his top couple, top triple at best.

Can't remember at this hour of morning/night, but a couple of the innings he played against South Africa in the Caribbean, last time he played them, were astounding. Just beautiful knocks. And of course his double hundred against Australia in 1999 was a monumental achievement, given the pressure he was under. It was literally his last chance. The 153 not out is one of the finest knocks I've ever seen. I know you'll bring up the fact that it wasn't chanceless, but it was still a magnificent show of matchwinning stature. One man determined to take his team home, while it crumbled around him.

And then I didn't any of his legendary tour of Sri Lanka in 2001, because there was a TV blackout, but I've heard brilliant things.

 

[Migara]

And then I didn't any of his legendary tour of Sri Lanka in 2001, because there was a TV blackout, but I've heard brilliant things.

The matches were played on good batting surfaces. Only thing that handed WI 3-0 defeat was brilliance of Vaas and Murali, who took 26 and 24 wickets respectively. But Lara played beautifully, and he did it when every one around was falling apart. Even Murali did not trouble him much. Only one who was going circles round him was Vaas. Gayle was the bitch of Vaas through out the tour, and Sarwan found it tough against Murali. The rest were sitting ducks. But Lara stood up to all of it and hit 650+ runs in six innings.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The matches were played on good batting surfaces. Only thing that handed WI 3-0 defeat was brilliance of Vaas and Murali, who took 26 and 24 wickets respectively. But Lara played beautifully, and he did it when every one around was falling apart. Even Murali did not trouble him much. Only one who was going circles round him was Vaas. Gayle was the bitch of Vaas through out the tour, and Sarwan found it tough against Murali. The rest were sitting ducks. But Lara stood up to all of it and hit 650+ runs in six innings.

Which is why it was so impressive. No matter how flat the pitches were, the bowling was still very good and the pressure was immense. I always consider West Indies in that series to have a 1.5-man batting lineup. Lara, a little bit of Sarwan, then all out.

 

[thierry henry]

Rather, it's a case that people recognise that stats aren't the be-all, end-all.

meh

imo it's a case of some people failing to understand the significance of looking at actual runs scored and actual bowling figures, and some others simply being too lazy to do so and too scared to challenge their own ideas about a player by actually analyzing how effective he was.

Stats can be broken down a lot further than simply career numbers and, if you really analyze them closely, I certainly trust them a hell of a lot more than an opinion someone picked up just from watching a player sometimes and picking up a general vibe from them.

I suppose it's a point there will never be consensus on, but imo human instinct/perception is next to useless in analysing effectiveness in sport.

 

[Zinzan]

meh

imo it's a case of some people failing to understand the significance of looking at actual runs scored and actual bowling figures, and some others simply being too lazy to do so and too scared to challenge their own ideas about a player by actually analyzing how effective he was.

Stats can be broken down a lot further than simply career numbers and, if you really analyze them closely, I certainly trust them a hell of a lot more than an opinion someone picked up just from watching a player sometimes and picking up a general vibe from them.

I suppose it's a point there will never be consensus on, but imo human instinct/perception is next to useless in analysing effectiveness in sport.

Agree with most of the post except the statement in bold. Over time & generally speaking, most fans tend to have a good instinct for recognising the top sports-people over the rest without the aid of stats (in most sport), & I don't think cricket's an exception overall apart from perhaps a few minor examples

 

[thierry henry]

Agree with most of the post except the statement in bold. Over time & generally speaking, most fans tend to have a good instinct for recognising the top sports-people over the rest without the aid of stats (in most sport), & I don't think cricket's an exception overall apart from perhaps a few minor examples

Well, I guess we'll never know. By definition it's an unanswerable question- when it comes to judging something where there is no objective right or wrong answer, are humans generally right, or generally wrong?

imo the reason there is so often a popular consensus that diverges from the stats is not because of the limitations of the stats, but because certain biases are inherent to human nature.

 

[Streetwise]

Agree with most of the post except the statement in bold. Over time & generally speaking, most fans tend to have a good instinct for recognising the top sports-people over the rest without the aid of stats (in most sport), & I don't think cricket's an exception overall apart from perhaps a few minor examples

Agree with most of the post except the statement in bold. Over time & generally speaking, most fans tend to THINK THEY have a good instinct for recognising the top sports-people over the rest without the aid of stats (in most sport), & I don't think cricket's an exception overall apart from perhaps a few minor examples

Fixed.

 

[Richard]

Can't remember at this hour of morning/night, but a couple of the innings he played against South Africa in the Caribbean, last time he played them, were astounding. Just beautiful knocks. And of course his double hundred against Australia in 1999 was a monumental achievement, given the pressure he was under. It was literally his last chance. The 153 not out is one of the finest knocks I've ever seen. I know you'll bring up the fact that it wasn't chanceless, but it was still a magnificent show of matchwinning stature. One man determined to take his team home, while it crumbled around him.

And then I didn't any of his legendary tour of Sri Lanka in 2001, because there was a TV blackout, but I've heard brilliant things.

The 153* would still have been a brilliant knock, one of the finest ever seen, even if it had been a 146 with his side falling 7 runs short. The 213 of course was also for the most part brilliant but if Mark Waugh had been able to catch it'd have been a mere 44, so I can't rate it quite so highly in terms of its cataclysmic quality as some do.

I often wished I'd seen more of that mostly-forgettable series against South Africa in 2005, purely because people have talked of Lara being in such rare form.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can I thorw in Zaheer Khan? Always looks a heck of a lot better than his bowling average would suggest.

 

[irfan]

Dissapointed Samaraweera is not a poll option. What his breakdown in terms of home centuries vs. away centuries?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Matthew Hayden was always allot better then his average. Easily the most underrated batsman of the past decade.

 

[Shri]

Hayden was more than just stats. Would have still been a big fan of his if he had a 40ish average. He repeatedly smashed bowlers into submission. Perfect opener if we take the time he played in into context.

 

[pskov]

Matthew Hayden was always allot better then his average. Easily the most underrated batsman of the past decade.

Considering his average is 50.73 which puts him 13th all-time for scoring runs as an opener (minimum 1000 runs), just how good an average do you think he should have had?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Considering his average is 50.73 which puts him 13th all-time for scoring runs as an opener (minimum 1000 runs), just how good an average do you think he should have had?

Sehwag averages 52, Smith averages 50 and Gambhir averages 56. Hayden is much better then all 3 of them by a fair margin, but the fact that he averages less then them and played in the same era doesn't do him any justice.

Hayden was almost as good as Ponting and is in the bracket of batsman from the modern era that is just slightly below the Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting class. The only other batsman in Hayden's bracket would be Dravid, Kallis and currently Pietersen.

Sehwag's average was dropping below 50 whilst he played outside the subcontient, but I predicted that once he went back into the subcontient that he would make acouple of big scores that would buff up his average big time and look watch happened. 293 and his suddendly got cricinfo journalists calling him an alltime great. Chris Gayle is just as good as Sehwag, but has suffered due to playing in a lesser team.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Dissapointed Samaraweera is not a poll option. What his breakdown in terms of home centuries vs. away centuries?

2212 runs @ 58.39, with 7 hundreds and 11 fifties in 46 innings
1719 runs @ 44.07 with 4 hundreds and 10 fifties in 40 innings

A pretty good split, for mine.

 

[Shri]

Sehwag averages 52, Smith averages 50 and Gambhir averages 56. Hayden is much better then all 3 of them by a fair margin, but the fact that he averages less then them and played in the same era doesn't do him any justice.

Hayden was almost as good as Ponting and is in the bracket of batsman from the modern era that is just slightly below the Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting class. The only other batsman in Hayden's bracket would be Dravid, Kallis and currently Pietersen.

Sehwag's average was dropping below 50 whilst he played outside the subcontient, but I predicted that once he went back into the subcontient that he would make acouple of big scores that would buff up his average big time and look watch happened. 293 and his suddendly got cricinfo journalists calling him an alltime great. Chris Gayle is just as good as Sehwag, but has suffered due to playing in a lesser team.

His career is over. The other guys you mentioned will surely come down to their own levels by the time they finish their careers.

 

[Migara]

Sehwag averages 52, Smith averages 50 and Gambhir averages 56. Hayden is much better then all 3 of them by a fair margin, but the fact that he averages less then them and played in the same era doesn't do him any justice.

Nah, he's better for sure, but not by much compared to others.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Sehwag averages 52, Smith averages 50 and Gambhir averages 56. Hayden is much better then all 3 of them by a fair margin, but the fact that he averages less then them and played in the same era doesn't do him any justice.

Hayden was almost as good as Ponting and is in the bracket of batsman from the modern era that is just slightly below the Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting class. The only other batsman in Hayden's bracket would be Dravid, Kallis and currently Pietersen.

Sehwag's average was dropping below 50 whilst he played outside the subcontient, but I predicted that once he went back into the subcontient that he would make acouple of big scores that would buff up his average big time and look watch happened. 293 and his suddendly got cricinfo journalists calling him an alltime great. Chris Gayle is just as good as Sehwag, but has suffered due to playing in a lesser team.

Hayden had great physical power in no doubt, but could be a joke batsman when facing the ball moving in towards his pads. I lost a lot of respect for him as a player after the 05 ashes. He obviously couldn't cope with a 4 man attack in top form, and he was nowhere near the class of Tendulkar, Lara etc, not in a million years.

 

[Xuhaib]

2212 runs @ 58.39, with 7 hundreds and 11 fifties in 46 innings
1719 runs @ 44.07 with 4 hundreds and 10 fifties in 40 innings

A pretty good split, for mine.

2 double hundreds were in Pakistan and I believe even Chris Martin woud have scored a 50 on those pitches would be interesting to see stats without those 2 knocks.