Removing statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbawe

[NZ Guy]

Think this thread needs to be made as I would like to debate with those people who think that it is perfectly reasonable completely discount a players achievements simply because it was against a lesser team. Seriously dont understand it, it really is just a way of manipulating stats to help your argument isn't it? Because people use this argument the other way around and put down a player who does not score well against BD/Zim. Doesn't seem quite fair to me :/

 

[Himannv]

just a way of manipulating stats to help your argument

Thats exactly what it is.

 

[Hurricane]

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/44976-leaving-out-minnows.html

see this thread

 

[morgieb]

Well yeah people do use it to suit their argument, but the fact is, Zimbabwe haven't beaten a test-standard side since like 2001, and Bangladesh ever.

 

[Prince EWS]

While there are exceptions, I generally do think a player's record excluding Bangladesh/Zimbabwe is a better indicator of how they've performed and how they're likely to perform in the future than their record including them. That's all it is. I'm consistent with it, so it's not misleading.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think both arguments have merit, in all honesty. The fact is that Bangladesh in particular have never had a test-worthy bowling attack and their batting is only just getting there, so if a player's figures against them are massively above their overall record I'm inclined to treat them with a pinch of salt.

He's a vastly improved player, finally doing something like justice to his ability, but Bell must average over 100 versus the Banglas. I'g guess his average drops 2-3 runs if his performances versus then are expunged.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This is a good topic.

Over the last one year or so, I find myself moving more towards the view that removing statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, especially Bangladesh is silly.

The reason for that is, cricket is not a black and white sport. There are lot of things which do not follow strict logic and rules. Take Virender Sehwag's record against Bangladesh. Here is a batsman who is considered a butcher, one of the best opening batsmen, has scored runs against everyone..his only weakness seem to be the bouncy wickets or the ball moving around. Neither does Bangladesh have a Dale Steyn nor do they have a Jame Anderson.
Yet Sehwag averages 35 against Bangladesh for whatever reason. If you're going to take out his stats against them, you are clearly manipulating them. If he does poorly against them because he does not take them seriously, then that should go against him as a cricketer. If he does poorly against them because Bangladesh bowl well to him, then credit should be given where its due. I have seen Masrafe get Sehwag out a couple of times with the moving ball. Yet you will never hear anyone mentioning that Sehwag could actually be outfoxed by a Bangladeshi bowler. Its blasphemy.

Now that Bangladesh is improving, this is getting even more ridiculous. Swann is considered the best spinner in the world. Over the last 2 years or so he has taken wickets consistently against all oppositions and outfoxed some of the best batsmen including Ponting, Kallis, Yousuf.
Yet you look at how well Tamim Iqbal played Swann in Bangladesh when England toured there..If people are going to ignore that just because "oh its Bangladesh" then they are just being stupid.

As I said before, things are not black and white in cricket and those who propose a blanket rule on taking out Bangladesh when observing stats do not realize that.

Pakistani batting sides over the last two years have at times been absolutely pathetic. I can argue that the wickets Anderson and Broad took against them last summer should be ignored because that batting order would not even make it to the Bangladesh test side..but then you wont find many supporters.

It is actually quite hypocritical. People will take take out stats when it suits them.. and include stats when it suits them.

 

[andyc]

It depends for mine. If you take it out of the equation every single time like PEWS mentioned, then fair enough. But if you point out that one player's record (eg. Bell, Murali) is boosted unfairly by Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, then surely it should also count against a player when they don't have those sort of dominating figures? That is, if you're discounting a few players' records against them because 'it's Bangladesh' and players are expected to perform against them, it has to work the other way.

 

[Black_Warrior]

It depends for mine. If you take it out of the equation every single time like PEWS mentioned, then fair enough. But if you point out that one player's record (eg. Bell, Murali) is boosted unfairly by Bangladesh/Zimbabwe, then surely it should also count against a player when they don't have those sort of dominating figures? That is, if you're discounting a few players' records against them because 'it's Bangladesh' and players are expected to perform against them, it has to work the other way.

EXACTLY my point.

If Bell and Murali have such awesome records against Bangaldesh, who has prevented the other players to do the same? If it is so easy to score centuries or take wickets against a particular team, then how come not everyone has the same record against them? Why does Sehwag average 35 against them? Why are Swann's figures not as great against them as Murali's?


Some players tend to perform brilliantly against particular teams..there is no particular reason for that..its just one of those things the makes cricket such a charming sport..Not everything is mechanical and not everything can be explained by numbers.
Ijaz Ahmed of Pakistan..a mediocre batsman who averaged in the 30s..yet take a look at his record against Australia (that had McGrath and Warne)
Saleem Mallik, another mediocre batsman, called a flat track bully by Imran Khan yet he was perhaps the best Pakistani player against Shane Warne, far ahead of Inzamam, Yousuf and others.

Alastair Cook, I havent seen him perform the way he did in this Ashes against anyone else..yet no one seems to consider that a statistical anomaly.

VVS Laxman - averages 55 against Australia and 39 against Bangladesh.

 

[NZ Guy]

This is a good topic.

Over the last one year or so, I find myself moving more towards the view that removing statistics against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, especially Bangladesh is silly.

The reason for that is, cricket is not a black and white sport. There are lot of things which do not follow strict logic and rules. Take Virender Sehwag's record against Bangladesh. Here is a batsman who is considered a butcher, one of the best opening batsmen, has scored runs against everyone..his only weakness seem to be the bouncy wickets or the ball moving around. Neither does Bangladesh have a Dale Steyn nor do they have a Jame Anderson.
Yet Sehwag averages 35 against Bangladesh for whatever reason. If you're going to take out his stats against them, you are clearly manipulating them. If he does poorly against them because he does not take them seriously, then that should go against him as a cricketer. If he does poorly against them because Bangladesh bowl well to him, then credit should be given where its due. I have seen Masrafe get Sehwag out a couple of times with the moving ball. Yet you will never hear anyone mentioning that Sehwag could actually be outfoxed by a Bangladeshi bowler. Its blasphemy.

Now that Bangladesh is improving, this is getting even more ridiculous. Swann is considered the best spinner in the world. Over the last 2 years or so he has taken wickets consistently against all oppositions and outfoxed some of the best batsmen including Ponting, Kallis, Yousuf.
Yet you look at how well Tamim Iqbal played Swann in Bangladesh when England toured there..If people are going to ignore that just because "oh its Bangladesh" then they are just being stupid.

As I said before, things are not black and white in cricket and those who propose a blanket rule on taking out Bangladesh when observing stats do not realize that.

Pakistani batting sides over the last two years have at times been absolutely pathetic. I can argue that the wickets Anderson and Broad took against them last summer should be ignored because that batting order would not even make it to the Bangladesh test side..but then you wont find many supporters.

It is actually quite hypocritical. People will take take out stats when it suits them.. and include stats when it suits them.

Agree with everything bolded

 

[NZ Guy]

Also, correct me if Im wrong but do we ever hear past players records against NZ, Pak, SL and India when they were introduced to tests being taken away? Or does that scratch the rose tinted glasses?

 

[bagapath]

i am for removing stats against minnows while comparing players from within this era. why not? it is probably more sensible to rate a player higher if he performs better against tougher opponents, right?

also, some players get to play the minnows more. for example, the sri lankans play the zims and bangs more often than others. even indians play bangs more than, for example, the aussies. if those easier runs and wickets are tilting an argument in an indian cricketer's favor, or in murali's favor against warne, then it doesnt sound like a fair stat to me. i would also remove the stats against minnows while comparing a sachin with a viv because viv richards didnt play minnows in his career and as a consequence his average against top teams will be less than sachin's overall average including minnows, and that is unfair too.

but if you are comparing players from different eras, a hammond with tendulkar, for example, then it is better to leave the minnows in because it is very complicated to compare minnows of different eras and decide how much to value one's performances against them in respective decades.

 

[kingkallis]

So will we remove India, Pakistan from Sobers era as well?

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I've posted my view on this before. Runs are only worth anything if they might help change the result of a cricket match in your favour, and since Bangladesh have so far lost every game they've played against a test-standard opposition, it's fair to say that the chance of a batsman's runs changing the result is small enough that it's better to discount it.

 

[centurymaker]

i am for removing stats against minnows while comparing players from within this era. why not? it is probably more sensible to rate a player higher if he performs better against tougher opponents, right?

also, some players get to play the minnows more. for example, the sri lankans play the zims and bangs more often than others. even indians play bangs more than, for example, the aussies. if those easier runs and wickets are tilting an argument in an indian cricketer's favor, or in murali's favor against warne, then it doesnt sound like a fair stat to me. i would also remove the stats against minnows while comparing a sachin with a viv because viv richards didnt play minnows in his career and as a consequence his average against top teams will be less than sachin's overall average including minnows, and that is unfair too.

but if you are comparing players from different eras, a hammond with tendulkar, for example, then it is better to leave the minnows in because it is very complicated to compare minnows of different eras and decide how much to value one's performances against them in respective decades.

But don't aus play west indies alot more than india? So that evens it out imo.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, I've posted my view on this before. Runs are only worth anything if they might help change the result of a cricket match in your favour, and since Bangladesh have so far lost every game they've played against a test-standard opposition, it's fair to say that the chance of a batsman's runs changing the result is small enough that it's better to discount it.

Would you say that about this match? I think context is important.

 

[bagapath]

So will we remove India, Pakistan from Sobers era as well?

they were not as miserable as present day bangers. also, i dont know if i made myself clear earlier. i say, you can remove sobers' stats against minnows (if they are minnows at all) only when you are comparing him with another contemporary of his who is disadvantaged by not playing enough against the same minnows or who played much much more against weak teams than sobers and as a resulted has boosted stats. otherwise what are you going to achieve by removing them from his stats? as it is, it is silly to compare players across eras. but we like to do it because it is fun. you cant over complicate such a pointless exercise by comparing minnows from different eras as well and then choosing whom to keep in the equation. who is better, india of the 50s or present day bangladeshis? dont know. and dont care.

 

[Uppercut]

Would you say that about this match? I think context is important.

Of course not. There are notable exceptions. I don't have to postulate that all runs scored against Bangladesh are inconsequential to the result, just that a large enough number of them are to make averages excluding Bangladesh a better figure than averages including Bangladesh. Neither figure is perfect.

Consider that not even once in 50-odd games has a batsman's failure to score runs in a test match against Bangladesh cost their side the game. Surely that's pretty unanswerable- that is, if you accept my base assumption that the value of runs derives solely from their ability to win or save your side a match.

 

[bagapath]

Would you say that about this match? I think context is important.

that was an aberration, like gillespie scoring a double in the next game. doesnt mean much.

 

[vcs]

The thing is, they will start winning games at one point, just like they beat Australia in an ODI in 2005 and India in the bloody WC. At that point, you can't suddenly flip a switch and start counting performances against them.