How much a batsman should average . . .

[Migara]

How much a batsman should average to be regarded better than Tendulkar or Lara?

Imagine that the batsman has 12000 runs, with average over 35 against every opposition in every condition.

SRT Averages close to 57. Lara close to 53.

 

[kingpin]

shud average 99.94 tbh

 

[smash84]

How much a batsman should average to be regarded better than Tendulkar or Lara?

Imagine that the batsman has 12000 runs, with average over 35 against every opposition in every condition.

SRT Averages close to 57. Lara close to 53.

It should depend on the pitches and quality of opposition in the era as well should it not??? A lot of factors would go into it IMO. Not a specific cut off point I suppose.

 

[Migara]

It should depend on the pitches and quality of opposition in the era as well should it not??? A lot of factors would go into it IMO. Not a specific cut off point I suppose.

That means you cannot compare an average of 40 in 1970 to that of 60 in 2010?

 

[vcs]

Lara's average taken on its own, sells him short as a batsman, because he scores more runs per innings than Tendulkar, and comfortably more than Kallis and Ponting. So just looking at an average will never tell the whole story.

That said, if you look at the number of runs Sangakkara has scored in his 156 innings so far, he has made more runs at the same stage of his career than any of the aforementioned batsmen. He just has to keep it going and produce more hundreds away from home, IMO.

 

[smash84]

That means you cannot compare an average of 40 in 1970 to that of 60 in 2010?

I guess maybe with a lot of qualifiers like average scores in that era, the pitches, the bowling, etc. Context should have some part to play in the decision I believe otherwise MoYo has a better batting average than Inzy and Miandad. However most people in Pakistan, including myself, will rank Miandad and Inzy much above MoYo

 

[vcs]

FTR, Sehwag is also on the cusp of greatness, in that he averages 50+ runs per innings in his 150 innings so far (at an insane SR as well). It annoys me so much that he pissed away an opportunity to play some important knocks in the recent tour to SA (there was a 100 for the taking in the 2nd innings at Centurion), and add to the completeness of his resume.

 

[Migara]

I guess maybe with a lot of qualifiers like average scores in that era, the pitches, the bowling, etc. Context should have some part to play in the decision I believe otherwise MoYo has a better batting average than Inzy and Miandad. However most people in Pakistan, including myself, will rank Miandad and Inzy much above MoYo

I stated there should be qualifiers, like 12,000 runs adn 35+ average in every condition. That will even out lot of differences.

 

[weldone]

Good question. If Sachin retires today, and one of tommorrow's great batsmen score over 12000 runs with successes all over the world, and if he averages more than Tendulkar comfortably (say by 5 runs), then I see no point in rating him lower than Tendulkar regardless of the quality of tommorrow's bowlers. However, that '12000 runs' and 'successes all over the world' is important.

 

[Teja.]

While this question's answer depends on the era, performance against stronger opposition et al., One thing that irks me is that people have this rigid mental block regarding the number 50. It's as if it's a qualifier beyond which averages should not be looked at at all. The difference between a bat who averages 57 and a bat who averages 50 is as much as the gap between the latter and a bloke who averages 43 in value terms even if this concept doesn't fit people's snobbish 'class' definitions. I'm not saying the person who averages 7 should directly be considered the better batsman, but the difference between him and the guy who averages 50 is only as explainable as the difference between him and the 43 dude.*

*-This explanation is based on all three hypothetical batsman averaging those amounts in the same time period.

To extend this to series' performances, People usually have no problem judging batsman who average between 20 and 60 in a series, Poor to average to above average to very good to exceptional. However, It is in separating the freakin' awesome performances from the merely exceptional ones and the disastrous ones from the poor ones do people make judgement errors. Blokes who average 26 in a series and who average 11 are usually treated the same way as having had a 'poor' series, in one generalizing swipe even though in value terms, It is as big a difference as between 29 and 44. Again repeat the same thing to the difference between 10 and 70 and 70 and 130. Both the dude who averages 70-80 and the dude who averages 90-100 are treated as having ATG series' and not separated even though the difference when put on a smaller level of 30 and 50 is exactly the same and the run difference makes the exact impact of runs added to the board regardless of both scenarios.

 

[vcs]

While this question's answer depends on the era, performance against stronger opposition et al., One thing that irks me is that people have this rigid mental block regarding the number 50. It's as if it's a qualifier beyond which averages should not be looked at at all. The difference between a bat who averages 57 and a bat who averages 50 is as much as the gap between the latter and a bloke who averages 43 in value terms even if this concept doesn't fit people's snobbish 'class' definitions. I'm not saying the person who averages 7 should directly be considered the better batsman, but the difference between him and the guy who averages 50 is only as explainable as the difference between him and the 43 dude.*

*-This explanation is based on all three hypothetical batsman averaging those amounts in the same time period.

To extend this to series' performances, People usually have no problem judging batsman who average between 20 and 60 in a series, Poor to average to above average to very good to exceptional. However, It is in separating the freakin' awesome performances from the merely exceptional ones and the disastrous ones from the poor ones do people make judgement errors. Blokes who average 26 in a series and who average 11 are usually treated the same way as having had a 'poor' series, in one generalizing swipe even though in value terms, It is as big a difference as between 29 and 44. Again repeat the same thing to the difference between 10 and 70 and 70 and 130. Both the dude who averages 70-80 and the dude who averages 90-100 are treated as having ATG series' and not separated even though the difference when put on a smaller level of 30 and 50 is exactly the same and the run difference makes the exact impact of runs added to the board regardless of both scenarios.

Often, the line between winning and losing a series for your team lies near the 45-50 mark. That's why it's a meh whether you average 11 or 26, in either case you are likely to end up on the losing side. Also the difference between averaging 70 or 100 in a winning team can be a matter of remaining not out in one innings, which doesn't really matter in the larger picture. And then there's the question of which batsman scored the more important runs that swung the pendulum. Examples that come to mind are Sehwag's 86 in Chennai and Dravid's 140 in Headingley 2002. Sachin scored more runs in both matches, but Sehwag and Dravid played the pivotal knocks. Laxman's 96 in Durban was priceless, more so than many hundreds. You cannot reduce everything to plain numbers.

Another example of this is when you compare Ponting and Gilchrist's averages in India. Both are < 30, i.e. poor on paper. When you delve into it, you find that Gilchrist has scored two hundreds and swung both matches decisively in Australia's favour. That's why it shouldn't be held as a big negative for him, whereas Ponting certainly has unfinished business in India.

 

[tooextracool]

This is such a flawed thread on so many fronts that I'm going to stay away from it. Not worth loosing the cool over.

 

[smash84]

While this question's answer depends on the era, performance against stronger opposition et al., One thing that irks me is that people have this rigid mental block regarding the number 50. It's as if it's a qualifier beyond which averages should not be looked at at all. The difference between a bat who averages 57 and a bat who averages 50 is as much as the gap between the latter and a bloke who averages 43 in value terms even if this concept doesn't fit people's snobbish 'class' definitions. I'm not saying the person who averages 7 should directly be considered the better batsman, but the difference between him and the guy who averages 50 is only as explainable as the difference between him and the 43 dude.*

*-This explanation is based on all three hypothetical batsman averaging those amounts in the same time period.

To extend this to series' performances, People usually have no problem judging batsman who average between 20 and 60 in a series, Poor to average to above average to very good to exceptional. However, It is in separating the freakin' awesome performances from the merely exceptional ones and the disastrous ones from the poor ones do people make judgement errors. Blokes who average 26 in a series and who average 11 are usually treated the same way as having had a 'poor' series, in one generalizing swipe even though in value terms, It is as big a difference as between 29 and 44. Again repeat the same thing to the difference between 10 and 70 and 70 and 130. Both the dude who averages 70-80 and the dude who averages 90-100 are treated as having ATG series' and not separated even though the difference when put on a smaller level of 30 and 50 is exactly the same and the run difference makes the exact impact of runs added to the board regardless of both scenarios.

The difference between 36 and 43 and 50 and 57 should not be viewed as same. Why? Because incremental changes in averages get more and more difficult the higher the values of averages that you compare

Often, the line between winning and losing a series for your team lies near the 45-50 mark. That's why it's a meh whether you average 11 or 26, in either case you are likely to end up on the losing side. Also the difference between averaging 70 or 100 in a winning team can be a matter of remaining not out in one innings, which doesn't really matter in the larger picture. And then there's the question of which batsman scored the more important runs that swung the pendulum. Examples that come to mind are Sehwag's 86 in Chennai and Dravid's 140 in Headingley 2002. Sachin scored more runs in both matches, but Sehwag and Dravid played the pivotal knocks. Laxman's 96 in Durban was priceless, more so than many hundreds. You cannot reduce everything to plain numbers.

Another example of this is when you compare Ponting and Gilchrist's averages in India. Both are < 30, i.e. poor on paper. When you delve into it, you find that Gilchrist has scored two hundreds and swung both matches decisively in Australia's favour. That's why it shouldn't be held as a big negative for him, whereas Ponting certainly has unfinished business in India.

A point well made.

 

[Himannv]

shud average 99.94 tbh

Even if someone did that today, they would be called a minnow basher.

 

[Zinzan]

This is such a flawed thread on so many fronts that I'm going to stay away from it. Not worth loosing the cool over.

^ Agree 100%

 

[Prince EWS]

Can't really answer this, as it's not really about average. I don't mean 'dominance' or 'skill' or 'style' or anything like that; I mean all the other little variables that make an overall average a pretty poor measure.

Assuming all other things equal, the batsman who averages 55 over 12 years and then 40 over 2 for a career average of 53 is better than than the batsman who just averages 54 over 12 and then retires

Assuming all other things equal, the batsman who averages 40 in an era where the global average is 20 is better than the batsman who averages 45 in an era where the global average is 30.

Assuming all other things equal, the batsman who averages 40 against genuine opposition and doesn't play minnows very often at all (career average of say 41) is better than the batsman who averages 35 against genuine opposition and plays the minnows regularly for average of 130 (career average 44).

There are countless other examples. I'm definitely not one for ignoring a player's record in favour of stylistic of anecdotal evidence, but a player's record is not merely a player's career average.

 

[Maximus0723]

How does one calculate "global average" during an era?

 

[Prince EWS]

How does one calculate "global average" during an era?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...=start;size=200;template=results;type=batting

 

[Teja.]

The difference between 36 and 43 and 50 and 57 should not be viewed as same. Why? Because incremental changes in averages get more and more difficult the higher the values of averages that you compare

Yes, but that further strengthens my point though, If it is even harder to average 57 relative to 50 than 43 relative to 37 why is it that people act like there is no difference between 57 and 50 at all and yet have an entire 'class' difference between 50 and 43.

This is a completely nerdy perfect world argument btw. I don't think having a higher average makes you a better player. The other circumstances are very important.

 

[Teja.]

Often, the line between winning and losing a series for your team lies near the 45-50 mark. That's why it's a meh whether you average 11 or 26, in either case you are likely to end up on the losing side. Also the difference between averaging 70 or 100 in a winning team can be a matter of remaining not out in one innings, which doesn't really matter in the larger picture. And then there's the question of which batsman scored the more important runs that swung the pendulum. Examples that come to mind are Sehwag's 86 in Chennai and Dravid's 140 in Headingley 2002. Sachin scored more runs in both matches, but Sehwag and Dravid played the pivotal knocks. Laxman's 96 in Durban was priceless, more so than many hundreds. You cannot reduce everything to plain numbers.

Another example of this is when you compare Ponting and Gilchrist's averages in India. Both are < 30, i.e. poor on paper. When you delve into it, you find that Gilchrist has scored two hundreds and swung both matches decisively in Australia's favour. That's why it shouldn't be held as a big negative for him, whereas Ponting certainly has unfinished business in India.

Nah, I'm not saying the averages are the be-all and end-all. Circumstances matter a lot. I should have made it clear that my argument was a hypothetical perfect world one where all runs are the same worth and all the players played against the same opposition the same number of times from the same position on similar pitches.