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

[Blaze 18]

Well, that is just my opinion. In my mind there is no doubt that Brian Lara was comfortably superior to both Rahul Dravid and Inzamam-ul-Haq.

 

[smash84]

Well, that is just my opinion.[/B] In my mind there is no doubt that Brian Lara was comfortably superior to both Rahul Dravid and Inzamam-ul-Haq.

Thanks for adding that ..........

 

[Furball]

Inzi does have a pretty epic record when Pakistan win, to be fair. Averaged 80 in wins did he not?

 

[ankitj]

Inzi does have a pretty epic record when Pakistan win, to be fair. Averaged 80 in wins did he not?

If you ask me, average in wins means jack! For three reasons mainly. First, result of the match, unlike quality of opposition or nature of wicket, is not a condition which applies when cricket is being played. Win is an affect and not a cause of performance. Second, filter by victories biases the sample the wrong way. Any team wins more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. Third, if you are the only star player in your team, your team will not win anything without your contribution and you will therefore have a good average in wins.

No wonder then, Andy Flower has a better average in wins than Viv Richards, and Kumble better than Warne!

 

[bagapath]

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.

you have completely missed the ball! no one is looking for excuses here. i am saying there is no point in looking for runs scored in victories because kapil played in a team that did not win much. so did lara. now if kapil's stats being not so spectacular in wins is going to be held against him, would you hold it against lara as well? you should not, because it is a jackass stat overall. look at specific instances and pick out the match turning innings and then we will all see that kapil was a better batsman than imran.

 

[Ikki]

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

Er what? What does one have to do with the other? And Gilchrist did fine in Asia; just not well in India.

 

[smash84]

you have completely missed the ball! no one is looking for excuses here. i am saying there is no point in looking for runs scored in victories because kapil played in a team that did not win much. so did lara. now if kapil's stats being not so spectacular in wins is going to be held against him, would you hold it against lara as well? you should not, because it is a jackass stat overall. look at specific instances and pick out the match turning innings and then we will all see that kapil was a better batsman than imran.

You seem to give an inordinate amount of weight to match turning/ session turning innings. I give more weight to consistency. If Kapil would have been a more consistent batsman than Imran I would have rated him higher but he was not. Hence in my book Imran is a better batsman.

 

[Sanz]

If you ask me, average in wins means jack! For three reasons mainly. First, result of the match, unlike quality of opposition or nature of wicket, is not a condition which applies when cricket is being played. Win is an affect and not a cause of performance. Second, filter by victories biases the sample the wrong way. Any team wins more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. Third, if you are the only star player in your team, your team will not win anything without your contribution and you will therefore have a good average in wins.

No wonder then, Andy Flower has a better average in wins than Viv Richards, and Kumble better than Warne!

As a match winner Inzi was second to none. It was obvious from the day he played his first international game. I am not saying he is better than Lara, Tendy, Punter etc, but he was as much a match winner as them if not more.

 

[Sanz]

You seem to give an inordinate amount of weight to match turning/ session turning innings. I give more weight to consistency. If Kapil would have been a more consistent batsman than Imran I would have rated him higher but he was not. Hence in my book Imran is a better batsman.

What makes you think that Kapil was not consistent (in comparison to Imran) ? Both have pretty much similar stats of making 50+ scores (50+ score every 5.25 innings).

 

[bagapath]

You seem to give an inordinate amount of weight to match turning/ session turning innings.

you should too. sehwag/jayasuriya/gilchrist are important cricketers for precisely the same reason. and it is not like imran was more consistent than kapil that they should be considered equals. they were equally consistent in playing 50+ innings. but kapil did it more often when it mattered and did it in more foreceful, spectacular style and turned the games around making him the better batsman overall. theirs was the 80s version of the laxman - samaraweera story.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

Bradman = slogger then..

 

[honestbharani]

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.

But see, there is a very simple reason why this is a silly argument, esp. with tailenders.. Batting in the lower half pretty much means that you often won't get a chance to complete your innings and therefore, you should do much more, MUCH MUCH more while you are out there and try and score as much as you can.. Kapil did it.. Imran decided it is easier to stay put and pick the runs when he could than to go all out for it. Completely fair, why a Kapil type batsman can be seen as a more valuable one to have in your team...

 

[honestbharani]

If you ask me, average in wins means jack! For three reasons mainly. First, result of the match, unlike quality of opposition or nature of wicket, is not a condition which applies when cricket is being played. Win is an affect and not a cause of performance. Second, filter by victories biases the sample the wrong way. Any team wins more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. Third, if you are the only star player in your team, your team will not win anything without your contribution and you will therefore have a good average in wins.

No wonder then, Andy Flower has a better average in wins than Viv Richards, and Kumble better than Warne!

loving your posts mate.. keep it up. A great addition to the forum.

 

[honestbharani]

Do the people who cling on to stats so much seriously understand that cricket is actually played by HUMAN BEINGS? I mean, FFS, we can't sim real games... Averages and stuff are just a part of the way what you have done in a game is recorded. But in cricket, (and IMO at least) more than any other sport, the HUMAN thing is accentuated. You got to understand that while Warne may average in the mid 20s, he was much more than that as a bowler. I mean, on his day (and he had PLENTY of them during his career), he basically made a mockery of the batsmen.. He could get them out by playing on their minds.. Which stat would tell you this part about Warne? Is it a real shocker that men who have watched and played cricket at the highest level all unanimously went for Warne over Murali in an all time XI? Is it really that difficult to understand that given people at the same statistical ball park, the men who had the X factor will be preferred to the more steady "workhorse" type ones?

 

[Blaze 18]

As a match winner Inzi was second to none. It was obvious from the day he played his first international game. I am not saying he is better than Lara, Tendy, Punter etc, but he was as much a match winner as them if not more.

How would you define a "match-winner" ?

 

[ankitj]

Er what? What does one have to do with the other? And Gilchrist did fine in Asia; just not well in India.

Just to check for consistency. Difference between Gilchrist and some other batsmen who average in 50's is very similar to that between Kapil and Imran (impact vs average). You call Kapil and Sehwag sloggers, just want to see if you same description for Gilchrist too!

 

[ankitj]

As a match winner Inzi was second to none. It was obvious from the day he played his first international game. I am not saying he is better than Lara, Tendy, Punter etc, but he was as much a match winner as them if not more.

Possibly. But average in wins is not a measure for that. Also, just as I said, Inzi played in a team that hardly won anything against Aus and SA. So when you apply that filter, those oppositions are left out and Inzi had a very ordinary records against them.

Average in wins will also not tell you anything about matches that could have been won if you had played a little better than you did.

 

[smash84]

you should too. sehwag/jayasuriya/gilchrist are important cricketers for precisely the same reason. and it is not like imran was more consistent than kapil that they should be considered equals. they were equally consistent in playing 50+ innings. but kapil did it more often when it mattered and did it in more foreceful, spectacular style and turned the games around making him the better batsman overall. theirs was the 80s version of the laxman - samaraweera story.

Do the people who cling on to stats so much seriously understand that cricket is actually played by HUMAN BEINGS? I mean, FFS, we can't sim real games... Averages and stuff are just a part of the way what you have done in a game is recorded. But in cricket, (and IMO at least) more than any other sport, the HUMAN thing is accentuated. You got to understand that while Warne may average in the mid 20s, he was much more than that as a bowler. I mean, on his day (and he had PLENTY of them during his career), he basically made a mockery of the batsmen.. He could get them out by playing on their minds.. Which stat would tell you this part about Warne? Is it a real shocker that men who have watched and played cricket at the highest level all unanimously went for Warne over Murali in an all time XI? Is it really that difficult to understand that given people at the same statistical ball park, the men who had the X factor will be preferred to the more steady "workhorse" type ones?

Fair points both of these.

 

[Ikki]

Just to check for consistency. Difference between Gilchrist and some other batsmen who average in 50's is very similar to that between Kapil and Imran (impact vs average). You call Kapil and Sehwag sloggers, just want to see if you same description for Gilchrist too!

There's quite a difference between them even on that level. Someone like Gilchrist makes the kind of scores that change a match regularly - that's why his SR matters. Kapil doesn't. Ironically, it would be better for his team to actually stay in and bat with the tail than to score a quick 30. 30 runs doesn't change the momentum of a game in Tests.

 

[Sanz]

How would you define a "match-winner" ?

A guy who could play many different roles as a batsman when his team needs him. So I will not totally discount his stats in matches won. And please do not give the Andy FLower example, his body of work isn't there (7 games total compared to Inzi's 50).