Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[Furball]

It depends what you want from a lower order batsman really. By the sounds of it, Kapil and Imran would have made an excellent lower order partnership, but I think I'd go with Bagapath and give Kapil the edge. That's purely based on my preference for a number 7 batsman to be aggresive and be a player capable of counter-attacking or hammering home an advantage - a sort of poor man's Gilchrist. For me, Imran makes a better number 8 - a stodgy, reliable batsman who can hold up an end for the last recognised batsman to add runs. I want my number 7 to be able to explode into life and shift the momentum of an innings.

 

[bagapath]

I am not reducing your argument to stats. The only thing that you answered from my last post was the first line. And nothing else.

Can you please tell me if you think that match saving knocks even feature in your criteria of judging somebody's batting. And can you also please answer as to what you think a dependable batsman really is????

i was hoping you would describe imran's top knocks in detail and make me relive them before i answered you. and your entire argument was centered around your perception of my take on SR. so i was forced to explain that first... and, mate, only for your sake i went to statsguru and pulled out that list. hope you liked it.

as for your other questions....

i would be interested in a player's contribution in wins and draws, yes. but i would be able to see those contributions only by studying individual games if i hadnt seen them.

from my earlier example, a stats minded fan from the future might assume that sachin was the architect indian wins against england in chennai '08 and leeds '02 because he top scored in the innings india won the match. but sehwag and dravid were the real contributors. similarly it is possible for someone to look at a player's average and assume something contrary to the facts. that is why i am insisting on someone listing and analyzing imran's top knocks.

the truth is he never played as many seminal knocks as kapil in test cricket. that is why i am confident that kapil had a better test career as a batsman. imran was no slouch with the bat; but he was no champion either. like ikki did, someone might look at his hundred made in chennai in 1987 and asssume it was a good knock. the truth is, it was a pointless knock against a toothless attack on a lifeless wicket. am sure it is possible to dig out some good knocks of his. but kapil's good knocks will always outnumber imran's. hence i rate kapil > imran in batting.

as for a batsman being dependable.... that is a different argument... boycott was more dependable than greenidge.... but greenidge was the better opener.... still.... i never said imran was less dependable than kapil. i said he was a lesser batsman overall. thats all.

 

[bagapath]

What is so telling about that??? And since when did Strike Rates become the most important criteria of judging the worth of a batsman and that too in a test match????

i am repeating myself here... dont reduce my argument to stats... am talking about what kapil's better SR did for his team in those sessions he was batting... not the numbers alone....

 

[bagapath]

Having said that, this is possibly a "fairer" way of comparing players than using raw statistics. Still, I reckon watching a player play and making a judgement based on that is any day preferable to comparisons using numbers.

correct... raw stats are useless.... as you can see from the argument we are having here, one could be fooled into believing imran's 37 average made him a better bat than kapil because he only averaged 31. and when a counter argument is put across, my take is reduced to kapil's better SR alone.

i am not clinging on to some mere decimals here. i am talking about the number of high quality knocks kapil played. i can list close to 8-10 of kapil's blistering knocks but no one has been able to come up with more than a mere one or two such top class knocks by imran because he didnt play many such knocks.

 

[ankitj]

I'd call Sehwag a slogger too. It's not a derogatory comment for me. And I didn't compare him with Wasim; IIRC someone else brought Wasim up when comparing to Miller.

And Gilchrist too?

 

[smash84]

i was hoping you would describe imran's top knocks in detail and make me relive them before i answered you. and your entire argument was centered around your perception of my take on SR. so i was forced to explain that first... and, mate, only for your sake i went to statsguru and pulled out that list. hope you liked it.

as for your other questions....

i would be interested in a player's contribution in wins and draws, yes. but i would be able to see those contributions only by studying individual games if i hadnt seen them.

from my earlier example, a stats minded fan from the future might assume that sachin was the architect indian wins against england in chennai '08 and leeds '02 because he top scored in the innings india won the match. but sehwag and dravid were the real contributors. similarly it is possible for someone to look at a player's average and assume something contrary to the facts. that is why i am insisting on someone listing and analyzing imran's top knocks.

the truth is he never played as many seminal knocks as kapil in test cricket. that is why i am confident that kapil had a better test career as a batsman. imran was no slouch with the bat; but he was no champion either. like ikki did, someone might look at his hundred made in chennai in 1987 and asssume it was a good knock. the truth is, it was a pointless knock against a toothless attack on a lifeless wicket. am sure it is possible to dig out some good knocks of his. but kapil's good knocks will always outnumber imran's. hence i rate kapil > imran in batting.

as for a batsman being dependable.... that is a different argument... boycott was more dependable than greenidge.... but greenidge was the better opener.... still.... i never said imran was less dependable than kapil. i said he was a lesser batsman overall. thats all.

But now I see that you rate Kapil a better batsman than Imran because he played more seminal knocks than Imran. And that Kapil was not as dependable as Imran isn't part of your equation or at least doesn't hold as much weight??? Is that a correct assessment.

And I also believe that stats do tell a story if not all. For every match winning knock that Kapil played he played 10 innings where he was quite ordinary and did nothing to help the team with the bat. While Imran did a little bit for his team consistently and played a small part in many victories. I would choose a consistent batsman over one who played a one good innings in 10 and failed the rest of the time. That is my criterion. A more consistent batsman over time. Hence I would choose Gary Kirsten over Herschelle Gibbs because Gary was more consistent while Gibbs could play a Sehwagish innings.

 

[smash84]

correct... raw stats are useless.... as you can see from the argument we are having here, one could be fooled into believing imran's 37 average made him a better bat than kapil because he only averaged 31. and when a counter argument is put across, my take is reduced to kapil's better SR alone.

i am not clinging on to some mere decimals here. i am talking about the number of high quality knocks kapil played. i can list close to 8-10 of kapil's blistering knocks but no one has been able to come up with more than a mere one or two such top class knocks by imran because he didnt play many such knocks.

And are you saying that batting ability is not reflected at all in stats??????? I believe that stats paint a reasonably accurate picture though not a complete one.

 

[bagapath]

please dont go by stats alone. chanderpal averages 17 runs more than steve waugh in wins and draws against major test teams. that doesnt make him a better batsman than steve waugh.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Furball]

And are you saying that batting ability is not reflected at all in stats??????? I believe that stats paint a reasonably accurate picture though not a complete one.

Runs per innings: Kapil 28.52, Imran 30.21. That's not a massive difference, especially when you take the disparity in strike rates into account.

 

[Blaze 18]

I believe that stats paint a reasonably accurate picture though not a complete one.

I am not too sure I agree with that. Using averages Thilan Samaraweera is better, or at least as good as, Sir Viv Richards. Like Navjot Singh Sidhu says, statistics are like bikinis : what they show is suggestive, what they hide is essential.

 

[smash84]

please dont go by stats alone. chanderpal averages 17 runs more than steve waugh in wins and draws against major test teams. that doesnt make him a better batsman than steve waugh.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Who is going by stats alone???? But your criteria of having more seminal knocks than another player as the sole criteria for judging a batsman doesn't fit in as well for me. I would probably want a more consistent batsman which Imran was.

For every match winning innings that Kapil played in how many others was he a dismal failure. That is also a relevant question to ask.

 

[smash84]

Runs per innings: Kapil 28.52, Imran 30.21. That's not a massive difference, especially when you take the disparity in strike rates into account.

Obviously this assumes that Imran was out in every one of his innings. Which he clearly wasn't. I would call that making the bowlers toil hard for your wicket.

 

[bagapath]

But now I see that you rate Kapil a better batsman than Imran because he played more seminal knocks than Imran. And that Kapil was not as dependable as Imran isn't part of your equation or at least doesn't hold as much weight??? Is that a correct assessment.

somewhat, yes. had kapil played, say 15 seminal knocks and imran had played only 12 such knocks but still averaged 6 points more than dev, then i would probably peg them as equals. but in reality kapil played about 10 such knocks and imran, just one or two (hence the "close to zero" dig that irritated you ).

i say "somewhat" because I rate dependability. you cant throw that out of the window completely. but to rate someone's dependability one will have to quote the instances where the dependability helped. not just assume from the overall stats.

I have seen them both and I remember kapil's knocks so well; but none from imran (the terrific onslaught off ambrose, and three consecutive sixers off kapil, the match turning stand in australia with javed in 92, the almost match turning stand in australia with javed in 85 - all happened in limited overs cricket and not in tests) has stayed with me. i am not going to imagine some great knocks by him when he didnt play any.

 

[smash84]

I am not too sure I agree with that. Using averages Thilan Samaraweera is better, or at least as good as, Sir Viv Richards. Like Navjot Singh Sidhu says, statistics are like bikinis : what they show is suggestive, what they hide is essential.

It would be more appropriate to look deeper into the stats. A stats analysis just doesn't mean taking one look at it and coming up with the conclusion. What about Samaraweera's peers??? And the number of matches that he hasplayed??? And his batting away from home?? These things are also looked at in a stats analysis.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, but should a few innings outweigh a career's worth of runs on Imran's part? Not so IMO. Simply put, I'd rather Kapil had fewer memorable knocks if his away record was much better. It's really not even comparable to Imran's. People keep pointing to a few knocks as if that makes up the difference; it doesn't IMO.

You'd also rather have Gilchrist player fewer attacking knocks and get a better average in Asia?

 

[bagapath]

Who is going by stats alone???? But your criteria of having more seminal knocks than another player as the sole criteria for judging a batsman doesn't fit in as well for me. I would probably want a more consistent batsman which Imran was.

For every match winning innings that Kapil played in how many others was he a dismal failure. That is also a relevant question to ask.

please go back to my earlier posts and point out where I have called kapil a match winning batsman. he played for a **** team that could not win anything anywhere. many of those knocks i have quoted resulted in draws or even defeats.

i am judging his batsmanship by whether he turned the matches in his team's favor when he batted. he did that more often than imran. ultimately what happened afterwards depended on other 10 players as well. that cant sully his earlier efforts. because when he batted he made his team stronger.

again, dont go by these kind of stats. you will end up calling lara a loser because he scored only six centuries in victories. and have you heard of allan border the **** batsman? he scored only five centuries in wins.

 

[smash84]

i say "somewhat" because I rate dependability. you cant throw that out of the window completely. but to rate someone's dependability one will have to quote the instances where the dependability helped. not just assume from the overall stats.
.

Yes and dependability for me also means consistently scoring runs and not just a few match turning knocks in 180 odd innings. Hell, even the most top class batsmen (Sachin, Lara, Sobers etc) will not have match turning innings by the 100s. They will only be a handful but you will find them more consistent than others. That is what gives them their greatness. To be able to perform consistently better than the others.

 

[smash84]

i am judging his batsmanship by whether he turned the matches in his team's favor when he batted. he did that more often than imran. ultimately what happened afterwards depended on other 10 players as well. that cant sully his earlier efforts. because when he batted he made his team stronger.

Playing for a **** team didn't mean that he had to be **** too. Tendulkar also played for a pretty **** team too in the 90s and his record stands out. A lame team is not an excuse for personal bad performances. How does being in a **** team come into the way of personal performances. Even when he batted in a few innings where he turned the tide, while he was at the crease for his team, how many other innings did he fail in????

While Imran may not have turned the tide for his team when he was batting, he was consistent enough to chip in with some kind of decent score in every 3rd or 4th match.

 

[Blaze 18]

It would be more appropriate to look deeper into the stats. A stats analysis just doesn't mean taking one look at it and coming up with the conclusion. What about Samaraweera's peers??? And the number of matches that he hasplayed??? And his batting away from home?? These things are also looked at in a stats analysis.

The main issue I have is with statistical "analyses" is that they are extremely arbitrary. It has a lot to do with what parameters you choose, how much weightage to decide to allot to each of them, and indeed, who you want to see come out on top

Let me give you an example : If I am not mistaken, Rahul Dravid averages about five points more than Brian Lara away from home. Does that mean he is a better batsman ? In my opinion, it is not even very close. The former is a very good player, the latter is an all-time great.

Another example : Inzamam-ul-Haq scored seventeen out of his twenty five centuries in matches won, Brian Lara could manage only eight centuries in wins out of the thirty four he scored. Would you take that to mean Inzamam-ul-Haq was a bigger "match-winner" than Brian Lara ?

With all due respect to Inzamam-ul-Haq and Rahul Dravid, they do not hold a candle to Brian Lara, no matter what the statistics might say. There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.

 

[smash84]

With all due respect to Inzamam-ul-Haq and Rahul Dravid, they do not hold a candle to Brian Lara, .

Please. Brian Lara > Dravid and Inzi surely but your statement might be stretching it.