Why Gilchrist ahead of Sangakarra?

[rza]

Thing is you pace your innings differently batting at different positions. There's also the factor of the second new ball.

I don't discriminate against no 7s, but it's scientifically proven that number 7s have more 'not outs' than number 3s, and we know scientifically that number 3s are ussually better batsmen than number 7s. So how could you compare a number 3 with a number 7 when 'not outs' are one-sided?

 

[rza]

Yeah exactly.

rza, I think the key to judging cricket is by watching them.

Lets wait for Kumar to finish his career first as Gilly had an extraordinary first 70 odd Tests and since you want to be all scientific remember what goes up must come down.

BTW, Sangakarra is a brilliant Test batsman and one of my favourite Cricketers.

That's the thing. I watch India and I say Laxman is the greatest batsman ever from India, and another watches India and he says Tendulkar is the greatest. So what do we use to take away bias? There need to be a scientific balancer, which won't be biased. That's where stats come into the picture, but not just averages or strike rates, but all kinds of stats.

 

[The Sean]

Stop saying scientific. Please.

 

[rza]

So, considering 'not outs' as 'outs' is the most scientific of approaches; is it?

Why not consider 'caught behind' and 'boundaries' the same also, then?

The fact is it's scientifically proven that lower order batsmen have more 'not outs', so does it mean they are better than top-oder batsmen since they can't be dismissed?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I've never understood the argument about not outs. If you'd watched half a dozen of Gilly's 90 odd tests, you'd know he never looked like he was playing for red ink. In fact, i'd be inclined to take out the innings where he was pinch hitter in the second dig.

Prior is the same, the amount of times they get/got out looking for quick runs in the teams cause meant they average less than their ability. Puts guys like kallis who bat for themselves to shame.

 

[rza]

Here is the definition of batting average for n-th time in CricketWeb:

Batting Average = No. of runs scored / No. of dismissals

It has nothing to do with runs scored per innings, no. of innings or no. of not outs. It requires 2 inputs - total runs scored and total no. of dismissals.

It is not a measure of how many runs a batsman scores per innings, but it's a measure of how many runs a batsman scores on average before getting dismissed.

Very unscientific, is it?

Batting average is affected by 'not outs', because it means your No. of dismissals are less, which inflates your average. So a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 2 dismissals will have a bigger average than a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 3 dismissals.

 

[Dan]

What exactly are you arguing?

As a top order specialist batsman, Sangakkara is outperformed (either by stats or when placed into correct context and whatnot) by names such as Bradman, Headley, Hammond, Tendulkar, Richards, Lara and countless others. He wouldn't make the side as a specialist bat, given the strength of the competition.

Lets assume we're looking at Sangakkara the wicketkeeper-batsman. He isn't familiar with the number 7 position, where he would be batting in an ATG XI, and he averages less while keeping that Gilchrist does. Adding in my personal opinion that Gilchrist was also a superior gloveman, Sangakkara loses out again.

He's a brilliant player, no doubt about it, but a keeper batting at 3 doesn't work for an ATG side's balance. Plus Gilchrist would do more damage coming in at 5/400 than Sanga TBH (and with an ATG top order, 5/400 is a conservative estimate).

On the Flower argument, what was his keeping like? I haven't heard anything that suggests it was up with Gilchrist, conversely I've been given the impression that it was weaker in comparison - nothing concrete at all, just various opinions picked up over long periods of time. And his lack of experience at #7 might count against him as well.

Hopefully this makes sense, I really need some sleep soon..

 

[weldone]

The fact is it's scientifically proven that lower order batsmen have more 'not outs', so does it mean they are better than top-oder batsmen since they can't be dismissed?

No, because most lower-order batsmen have less average than top order batsmen in spite of the not outs. If Bradman or Tendulkar (or Sangakkara) batted lower down the order then it's hard to assume they would not have more not outs; simply because bowlers won't get many overs to dismiss them. But would that push their averages higher? Keeping all other factors constant, no. Because batting average is nothing but average number of runs before getting dismissed. It has nothing to do with remaining not outs.

Batting average is a measure of how many donuts you can eat before your mom can catch you, it's not a measure of how many shops you have to visit how many times in order to eat the said number of donuts before your mom catches you.

It'll help if you start thinking scientifically before posting the word 'scientifically' 11399 times in the same thread.

 

[rza]

Prior is the same, the amount of times they get/got out looking for quick runs in the teams cause meant they average less than their ability. Puts guys like kallis who bat for themselves to shame.

Stats tells us that Kallis has won more matches with his runs than probably anybody in the history of the game. So how is it that we continue to say he bats for himself? In ODIs yes, but the guy has won more tests for his team than anybody else not called Bradman. Why does it look like we ignore stats for our opinions?

 

[NUFAN]

Here's the argument. Can a number 3 batsman play an innings that Gilchrist played when he blasted the fastest century back then? No, not even Sehwag. So there are things a number 7 can do that a number 3 can't. A number 7, as we see with Prior, can walk into crease with 400 on the board, and his job would be give strike to the settled batsman just before declaration, or to blast his way into a quick 50. So we can't compare an innings at number 7 to an innings at number 3. It's not like Gilchrist had to rescue the team now and then, all he did was to play freely. The Prior we see today is exactly how Gilchrist's conditions were when he came into the crease. But then that's not a number 7's fault.

Stats wise, a number 7 has more 'not outs', and it's not because he's difficult to dismiss, it has to do with the fact that he's batting at the end of the innings, especially when Gilchrist had Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Waughs, etc. So those 'not outs' need to be balanced somehow to give stats context. Gilchrist's average of 47 gives an impression that he scored 47 runs every innings, but that's not true. So you want to compare runs vs runs, not runs vs 'not outs' and runs.

So why are you?

It doesn't sit well with me that you consider Gilchrist not so high due to his 47 average. For large portions of his career his average was over 55 and he was completely unselfish and played a huge part in one of the most successful sides in Test Cricket history.

I look at innings like these:22 from 21, 20 from 16 and 24 from 9 and think it's absolutely foolish to just look at his final average.

 

[weldone]

So a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 2 dismissals will have a bigger average than a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 3 dismissals.

Because he deserves to.

Who is a better batsman - the one who gets out for 10 each time he comes to bat, or the one who doesn't get out for 10 each time he comes to bat?

According to your theory, they are of same calibre. If you stick with that, I am going to have my share of donut now. Seeya..

 

[Neil Pickup]

So a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 2 dismissals will have a bigger average than a person with 300 runs in 3 innings but 3 dismissals.

Well I for one have learned something new today.

 

[rza]

What exactly are you arguing?

As a top order specialist batsman, Sangakkara is outperformed (either by stats or when placed into correct context and whatnot) by names such as Bradman, Headley, Hammond, Tendulkar, Richards, Lara and countless others. He wouldn't make the side as a specialist bat, given the strength of the competition.

Lets assume we're looking at Sangakkara the wicketkeeper-batsman. He isn't familiar with the number 7 position, where he would be batting in an ATG XI, and he averages less while keeping that Gilchrist does. Adding in my personal opinion that Gilchrist was also a superior gloveman, Sangakkara loses out again.

He's a brilliant player, no doubt about it, but a keeper batting at 3 doesn't work for an ATG side's balance. Plus Gilchrist would do more damage coming in at 5/400 than Sanga TBH (and with an ATG top order, 5/400 is a conservative estimate).

On the Flower argument, what was his keeping like? I haven't heard anything that suggests it was up with Gilchrist, conversely I've been given the impression that it was weaker in comparison - nothing concrete at all, just various opinions picked up over long periods of time. And his lack of experience at #7 might count against him as well.

Hopefully this makes sense, I really need some sleep soon..

We are happy to put Sangakkara into context/perspective by saying he batted in Sri Lanka, and played in an era of weak bowlers, but we are unwilling to take Gilchrist's average into account by taking out 'not outs' which inflate his average. That's hypocrisy. I have no problem with looking at pure stats without any adjustments, which will mean that Gilchrist was better than Kumar in both wicketkeeping and batting. But if we look at pure stats, then Kumar is no inferior to any of the batsmen who are in the ATG XI. Infact we can make a case for Kallis ahead of any of those gentlemen, except Bradman. But we are unwilling to look at pure stats when they disprove us.

In wicketkeeping alone, then why are we ignoring Mark Boucher. Is he inferior as a wicketkeeper to Gilchrist? And of course Flower's stats are way much better than Gilchrist, so why aren't we having Flower ahead of Gilchrist?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Stats tells us that Kallis has won more matches with his runs than probably anybody in the history of the game. So how is it that we continue to say he bats for himself? In ODIs yes, but the guy has won more tests for his team than anybody else not called Bradman. Why does it look like we ignore stats for our opinions?

Think you will find it is bowlers who win matches mate by taking 20 wickets pal.

You are on a wind up as you are arguing against everyone. I won't be feeding the troll again after this post.

 

[Uppercut]

It just boils down to the fact that runs scored/dismissals is a better indicator of a batsman's ability than runs scored/(dismissals+occasions declared on+ occasions stranded+ occasions of the match being won). That's self-evident and there's not much more to be said on the matter.

 

[Ruckus]

Stop saying scientific. Please.

haha yeah...this is a cricket forum right?

 

[Spark]

Think you will find it is bowlers who win matches mate by taking 20 wickets pal.

You are on a wind up as you are arguing against everyone. I won't be feeding the troll again after this post.

...
...
...

Seriously?

 

[rza]

So why are you?

It doesn't sit well with me that you consider Gilchrist not so high due to his 47 average. For large portions of his career his average was over 55 and he was completely unselfish and played a huge part in one of the most successful sides in Test Cricket history.

I look at innings like these:22 from 21, 20 from 16 and 24 from 9 and think it's absolutely foolish to just look at his final average.

I have no problem with taking Gilchrist's average at face value, but you can't have it both ways, which means that we have to take Kumar's average at face value as well, which place him right in the ATG XI as a batsman. We could even argue that his average would have been higher had he not kept wickets, which makes him even more deserving of a spot as a batsman. If we take Kallis' average at face value, then we have no business not declaring him the best behind Bradman and maybe Sobers as the greatest cricketer of all times.

So it's either you put an average into context or take it at face value. But you can't do both.

 

[Spark]

Then take his average at face value when he kept.

 

[rza]

Think you will find it is bowlers who win matches mate by taking 20 wickets pal.

You are on a wind up as you are arguing against everyone. I won't be feeding the troll again after this post.

It's statistically proven that kallis has won more Test matches' man of the match awards for his innings, and maybe his bowling as well, more than everybody has, so there's no reason to criticise his batting.