Career Averages that dont do justice

[jeevan]

Limitations? Hayden averages higher in South Africa as an Opening Batsman then Sehwag's highest score as an opener in South Africa.

There is no way Sehwag could play in South Africa the way he does in the subcontient - that's why his record in South Africa resembles a tailender. He'd either have to completely change his game or been known as a mediocre slogging South African domestic opener.

That's precisely the point of imagining what he'd be like if he'd grown up playing cricket in South Africa. If it is possible to replicate the conditions of nature and nurture that have resulted in Sehwag, and just add a bit of "good technique" so he does better in conditions like South Africa.

 

[thierry henry]

I find it funny that folks say that such and such stat don't justice, why so ? It is a record of what they scored on the field, this is what they were capable of and that is what they deserve. Not one less not one more.

Come on now Sanz. There are a lot of valuable things stats don't measure, like the circumference of a player's aura, their thetan levels, or how many opposing bowlers they threatened to beat up. Of course we could measure these things, but teh statzgooroo doesn't and therefore it PHAILS.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Rubel Hossain. The boy's test bowling average is currently over 70, but he reverses the old ball at a fairly decent lick. 83-85mph. Nice slingy sort of action and gets late movement. On less dead tracks with less deadheaded captains he'll go ok, IMHO.

 

[The Sean]

Right, because that double century in India in the tied test was a dead rubber?

Because Dean Jones last series in Sri Lanka he (along with Greg Matthews) didnt save Australia from defeat?

That was a magnificent innings, one of the finest ever played by an Australian batsman IMO and you'd never catch me saying otherwise. Despite what you may have gleaned from my post, Deano was one of my favourite batsmen growing up and I loved watching him play.

However, it became a fairly common pattern of Jones' career that he tended to save his best for when it mattered least. There are no such thing as "easy" Test runs but Jones cashed in on dead rubber syndrome more than many.

 

[Richard]

Right, because that double century in India in the tied test was a dead rubber?

Because Dean Jones last series in Sri Lanka he (along with Greg Matthews) didnt save Australia from defeat?

Jones played the odd good innings of course, but most of his big runs outside 1989 and 1989/90 came in dead-rubbers, that's the fact of the matter. He wasn't a hopeless hack, but his overall Test average is a very misleading thing. You get a much better impression by looking at the dead-rubber\series-at-stake breakdown outside 1989-1989/90.

 

[The Sean]

Rich and I agreeing on a lot at the moment it seems. Not sure how to feel TBH.

 

[Richard]

Meh, we all need to state the obvious in big spurts sometimes.

 

[slippyslip]

That was a magnificent innings, one of the finest ever played by an Australian batsman IMO and you'd never catch me saying otherwise. Despite what you may have gleaned from my post, Deano was one of my favourite batsmen growing up and I loved watching him play.

However, it became a fairly common pattern of Jones' career that he tended to save his best for when it mattered least. There are no such thing as "easy" Test runs but Jones cashed in on dead rubber syndrome more than many.

Yeah, that century he made in the 5th test against India after having a bad series springs to mind.

The double century against West Indies in the drawn 5th test in Adelaide was a turning point for Australian batting. Yes, it was a dead rubber. But to dismiss that innings as just another big score at the end of the series is very ignorant.

For years Australian batsmen were dominated and intimidated by the West Indian bowlers. Jones stood up to them and scored a double century at a s/r of 62 which was pretty damn good for tests back then. I remember Jones and Fat Merv smacking the West Indian bowlers around like they were children. And it just wasnt the fact that Jones made a lot of runs, he had the crap pounded out of him by the West Indian bowlers. Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson and Walsh. Do you think they waltzed up and bowled lollipops and rainbows to Jones?

It was the first time I had ever seen an Australian batsman be on the offence against the West Indians. Sure, Border had had success against them and Kepler Wessels in 84/85 but they were batsmen that survived, hung on for runs. They played a battle of attrition rather then go on the attack.

After the win at the SCG in the 4th test, a place were Australia was expected to do well, then following that up with a solid drawn and scoring 500 runs in the 1st innings against the West Indies and then narrowly, and unfairly, losing the tri-angular ODI series in controversial circumstances Australian cricket started to have a better outlook. After the 3rd test against the West Indies everything looked bleak and the Trans-Tasman win and world cup wins looked like flukes. But by the end of the 1988/89 there were signs of promise.

Then the 1989 Ashes happened. Jones' double century in Adelaide contributed to that turn around - all from a dead rubbber.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, that century he made in the 5th test against India after having a bad series springs to mind.

The double century against West Indies in the drawn 5th test in Adelaide was a turning point for Australian batting. Yes, it was a dead rubber. But to dismiss that innings as just another big score at the end of the series is very ignorant.

For years Australian batsmen were dominated and intimidated by the West Indian bowlers. Jones stood up to them and scored a double century at a s/r of 62 which was pretty damn good for tests back then. I remember Jones and Fat Merv smacking the West Indian bowlers around like they were children. And it just wasnt the fact that Jones made a lot of runs, he had the crap pounded out of him by the West Indian bowlers. Ambrose, Marshall, Patterson and Walsh. Do you think they waltzed up and bowled lollipops and rainbows to Jones?

It was the first time I had ever seen an Australian batsman be on the offence against the West Indians. Sure, Border had had success against them and Kepler Wessels in 84/85 but they were batsmen that survived, hung on for runs. They played a battle of attrition rather then go on the attack.

After the win at the SCG in the 4th test, a place were Australia was expected to do well, then following that up with a solid drawn and scoring 500 runs in the 1st innings against the West Indies and then narrowly, and unfairly, losing the tri-angular ODI series in controversial circumstances Australian cricket started to have a better outlook. After the 3rd test against the West Indies everything looked bleak and the Trans-Tasman win and world cup wins looked like flukes. But by the end of the 1988/89 there were signs of promise.

Then the 1989 Ashes happened. Jones' double century in Adelaide contributed to that turn around - all from a dead rubbber.

You seem rather hostile to someone who has just said he was a massive fan of Deanos but was simply stating the fact that he scored a lot of runs in dead rubbers. At no point did I "ignorantly" write that double ton or any of his other innings' off as meaningless but what I did was say that a lot of his big scores - that 216 included - came when the series was already decided. That's not a personal attack on him or you, it's simply what happened.

For what it's worth, I watched Jones' knock live on TV and agree with you that it was an outstanding attacking innings against a superb bowling attack by a player who was reaching his peak as a Test cricketer. That it helped shape and inspire Australian batsmanship in the ensuing years is a matter of conjecture. That it came in a dead rubber is not.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Rubel Hossain. The boy's test bowling average is currently over 70, but he reverses the old ball at a fairly decent lick. 83-85mph. Nice slingy sort of action and gets late movement. On less dead tracks with less deadheaded captains he'll go ok, IMHO.

I've seen him get up to 90mph before. Massive danger of an injury with his action though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I've seen him get up to 90mph before. Massive danger of an injury with his action though.

Yup. Surprised he has ankles left, tbh. They cop fearful pounding.

 

[Top_Cat]

You seem rather hostile to someone who has just said he was a massive fan of Deanos but was simply stating the fact that he scored a lot of runs in dead rubbers. At no point did I "ignorantly" write that double ton or any of his other innings' off as meaningless but what I did was say that a lot of his big scores - that 216 included - came when the series was already decided. That's not a personal attack on him or you, it's simply what happened.

For what it's worth, I watched Jones' knock live on TV and agree with you that it was an outstanding attacking innings against a superb bowling attack by a player who was reaching his peak as a Test cricketer. That it helped shape and inspire Australian batsmanship in the ensuing years is a matter of conjecture. That it came in a dead rubber is not.

Yeah, agreed. Massive, massive Dean Jones fan here (virtually everyone my age or older were) but the dead-rubber thing was around for a while. That said, his series in SL should have guaranteed his place come Brisbane against the WI. Did well over the whole series whereas against India at home, propped up his series with that big 150 in Perth.

This was one of those instances where you wonder about the influence of Bobby Simpson. Mark Waugh was dropped with Swampy after the Adelaide Test against India after a poor series and they picked Phillips for Perth who looked out of his depth. Rather than recall Marsh for SL, they recalled Waugh and threw the in-form Moody up to open. Moody gets a series of shocking decisions against him and has a poor series, Waugh gets 4 ducks in 6 knocks, Jones averages 50+. So what happens come Brisbane next summer? Waugh keeps his spot, Moody dropped, Jones dropped, Boon shoved up the order to open, Martyn picked after thrashing QLD to all parts of the 'Gabba, Steve Waugh up to 3.

The justification was along the lines of a yoof policy but I maintain, despite Mark Waugh scoring a great ton with AB in Melbourne, that dropping Jones and retaining Waugh was a huge mistake and did the exact opposite of what was said publically at the time, to have a stable line-up for the series against the WI. Jones was showing signs of getting out of the dead-rubber syndrome, not just in SL but his 40-odd in Adelaide, etc. but never got the chance to really show it. So because they'd burnt their bridges with Jones and Marsh, when the WI started to surge, the selectors were forced to pick (albeit, in-form) young blokes and hope for the best, culminating in throwing Langer up to open for Taylor in his second Test in Perth after he'd been battered in Adelaide. This on top of getting Steve Waugh to bat at 3 when no-one else other than Boon would (he'd already been thrown up to open). Was a crazy time in some ways.

 

[Richard]

Still am baffled by the fact that Mark Waugh and Taylor were apparently dropped on one-off bases in 1991/92 and 1992/93. Simply cannot believe anyone would do that.

 

[zaremba]

I hesitate to disagree with both Richard and Sean but I don't like the way Jones is being painted as Mr Dead Rubber. He was a fine player and I think the dead rubber thing is just a statistical anomaly. It's not as though it reflects an inability to hack it under pressure or anything like that.

A bit like Ian Bell - "he's never scored a ton when someone else hasn't got one first" - well now he has, and people will (I truly hope) stop wheeling that line out. Jones only played 52 Tests and if he'd played a few more, who knows, maybe he'd have scored a hell of a lot of runs in "live" series. I don't think there's any reason to think he wouldn't have done so.

That said, I wouldn't employ him in my touring party as the anti-terrorism expert, that's for damn sure.

 

[Richard]

Neither me nor Sean P R are claiming Jones could not perform in matches where there was a series at stake, because he quite patently could, and gave enough examples of that in his career (mostly 1989/90, where he showed no bias at all between live and dead games and just scored runs after runs).

However, the reality is that for most of his career he was a dead-Test bully. For whatever reason, outside that year between June 1989 and March 1990 (and also his debut series), he rarely scored anything much in games where there was a series at stake. If someone makes a habit of doing that, then the value of their dead-rubber runs must be discredited to a fair extent, to my mind.

No-one is saying Jones could not play, merely that his Test career is not actually a particularly impressive one at all (he made a phenomenal start and had a phenomenal year midway through and did little else). The reasons for that are impossible to give conclusively - it's even possible that the main contributary factor was nothing more than coincidence - but the outcome is undeniable.

 

[zaremba]

I just think we sometimes risk slicing these things a bit too finely, and attaching these great big unstickable labels to players which unfairly stigmatise them. Which is a criticism that can be levelled at a lot of what's written on CW tbf.

Ultimately, Dean Jones averaged 46 and that was a pretty fair reflection of his high level of ability. Whether he got those in "live" series against England, or "dead" series against the West Indies (and I challenge you to say that the former is more impressive than the latter) doesn't really detract from that for me. Not least because, as I say and as I think you agree, this is likely just to be a statistical anomaly of the sort that can happen when you're dealing with a career of middling length like his.

 

[Top_Cat]

I just think we sometimes risk slicing these things a bit too finely, and attaching these great big unstickable labels to players which unfairly stigmatise them. Which is a criticism that can be levelled at a lot of what's written on CW tbf.

Ultimately, Dean Jones averaged 46 and that was a pretty fair reflection of his high level of ability. Whether he got those in "live" series against England, or "dead" series against the West Indies (and I challenge you to say that the former is more impressive than the latter) doesn't really detract from that for me. Not least because, as I say and as I think you agree, this is likely just to be a statistical anomaly of the sort that can happen when you're dealing with a career of middling length like his.

Yeah agreed, was a top-notch Test cricketer who, I think, was about to really kick-on.

 

[vic_orthdox]

You seem rather hostile to someone who has just said he was a massive fan of Deanos but was simply stating the fact that he scored a lot of runs in dead rubbers. At no point did I "ignorantly" write that double ton or any of his other innings' off as meaningless but what I did was say that a lot of his big scores - that 216 included - came when the series was already decided. That's not a personal attack on him or you, it's simply what happened.

For what it's worth, I watched Jones' knock live on TV and agree with you that it was an outstanding attacking innings against a superb bowling attack by a player who was reaching his peak as a Test cricketer. That it helped shape and inspire Australian batsmanship in the ensuing years is a matter of conjecture. That it came in a dead rubber is not.

Interestingly, I've read Steve Waugh and Allan Border talk about the end of that series being very important in terms of the Australian side believing that they could mix it with the best, even though they were dead rubbers. And that the efforts in the ODIs that summer further contributed to that mindset, in which (from memory) Waugh and Jones played a big part in.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah agreed, was a top-notch Test cricketer who, I think, was about to really kick-on.

Yeah, if it wasn't for that clown Bob Simpson. Happy birthday Dean Jones.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah agreed, was a top-notch Test cricketer who, I think, was about to really kick-on.

Would tend to agree with this - it did seem, as you said in an earlier post, that he was putting his dead rubber-ness behind him and I would have loved to have seen him really take the next step. Obviously the selectors thought he'd had enough chances by then (I think he was 31/32 at the time) but I don't think there's a cricket fan in Australia outside of Damien Martyn's own family who actually wanted to see Deano dropped.

Interestingly, I've read Steve Waugh and Allan Border talk about the end of that series being very important in terms of the Australian side believing that they could mix it with the best, even though they were dead rubbers. And that the efforts in the ODIs that summer further contributed to that mindset, in which (from memory) Waugh and Jones played a big part in.

At ODI level I have no qualifications whatsoever about Jones' greatness - he remains to this day IMO one of the very best limited overs batsman of all time.