Dhoni Vs Gilchrist in ODIs.

[Jarquis]

Ok, once you explain to me what a batting average is, I'll consider answering.

 

[Red]

Ok, once you explain to me what a batting average is, I'll consider answering.

Ok....

A batting average is the amount of runs you've scored in your career divided by the amount of times you've been dismissed.

 

[Jarquis]

Oh, so not outs dont make a difference. Cheers.

 

[Red]

Oh, so not outs dont make a difference. Cheers.

Could you do me a favour and go back and read my posts in context and see the point I was making? So I don't have to explain what seems to be very obvious to me?

Of course not outs make a difference, they inflate the averages of those who have more of them.

Middle order players naturally have many more opportunities to make not outs than openers. Therefore, their overall average is higher than openers in general...

As I said, if you divide total runs by innings batted, rather than dismissals, you get a very different picture. Which was my original point.

I'm really unsure how you failed to see that tbh...

 

[benchmark00]

Marcuss stop being deliberately obtuse. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

[BackFootPunch]

Monk you gotta stop using that word inflate. You're making it sound like being not out makes your average increase. It doesn't.

 

[benchmark00]

Monk you gotta stop using that word inflate. You're making it sound like being not out makes your average increase. It doesn't.

Well... it does. If you average 50 and go out and make 1* the next innings your average will increase as a result of that not out.

I'm not agreeing with Monk, but it's quite obvious that's the major flaw in using average as a way of judging a player.

 

[Jarquis]

Your average will increase by way of scoring the run. Not by virtue of remaining not out.

 

[Red]

Monk you gotta stop using that word inflate. You're making it sound like being not out makes your average increase. It doesn't.

Being not out does inflate your average. As in, makes it bigger. As in, the more not outs you have in your career, the bigger your average will be. As in, it inflates it.

Averages in ODI cricket are very misleading.

Which is why I think Bevan is vastly overrated.

 

[Red]

Your average will increase by way of scoring the run. Not by virtue of remaining not out.

Seriously....are you trolling?

You're average increases MORE by the virtue of being not out. Anytime you score 1+ runs.

 

[benchmark00]

Your average will increase by way of scoring the run. Not by virtue of remaining not out.

If I score 1 run and get out, I have still scored the run, however my average will decrease. If I have scored 1 run and remained not out, my average will increase.

Now which element of the above makes your average go up? Gonna have a stab in the dark here and say it's the not out part.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Remaining Not Out absolutely increase career average; As more runs being divided by less no of dismissals

 

[Jarquis]

If I score 1 run and get out, I have still scored the run, however my average will decrease. If I have scored 1 run and remained not out, my average will increase.

Now which element of the above makes your average go up? Gonna have a stab in the dark here and say it's the not out part.

The only thing that makes your average go up or down is getting out or scoring runs.

If I have a career record of 100 runs @ 10 and I am currently 10* my average will have increased from 10 to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3 etc etc, until the 11.0 it stands at, with each run scored. If I don't get out - nothing happens - my average will still be 11.0. If I get out, then it will fall back down to 10. Actually being not out has no impact. The moment the innings closes and I'm not dismissed actually causes no change whatsoever to my average. It's the runs scored beforehand that influence.

 

[Jarquis]

Being not out does inflate your average. As in, makes it bigger. As in, the more not outs you have in your career, the bigger your average will be. As in, it inflates it.

If you actually believe the above to be true, then good luck to you.

 

[benchmark00]

Dead set I'm not even sure if you're being serious any more.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

From Wiki:

Batting averages are affected by the number of not-outs (innings in which the batsman has not been dismissed). For example Phil Tufnell, who was noted for his poor batting,[4] has an apparently respectable ODI average of 15 (from 20 games), despite a highest score of only 5 not out, and an overall run total of 15.

 

[Red]

If you actually believe the above to be true, then good luck to you.

You really don't......


Okay.....


Imaginary 4 match ODI series looking at two Australian batsmen

Adam Gilchrist

Game 1: 45 not out
Game 2: 20
Game 3: 30
Game 4: 5

Total Runs- 100
Times dismissed- 3
Not outs- 1
Average- 33.33


Michael Bevan

Game 1: 20 not out
Game 2: 50
Game 3: 15 not out
Game 4: 15

Total runs- 100
Times dismissed- 2
Not outs- 2
Average- 50

 

[Jarquis]

Once again, you state a point but offer nothing. I'd say it's easier in the middle order because
- the ball is older
- you generally don't face the best (opening) bowlers (this is not always true)
- fields tend to become more conservative, meaning run scoring is easier.

On this :
Older ball can be more difficult to score quickly against
The introductions of power of powerplays gives openers an advantage - boundary riders etc limiting scoring rate.
Openers don't have to face spinners at the beginning of their innings
Middle order batsmen have a higher % of the deliveries they face coming under "starting" - if an opening batsman gets set then conceivably he has 50 overs to bat. If a middle order batsman gets set than they don't have as much time to capitalise to build a substantial innings before they runs out of overs/partners/have to sacrifice themselves hitting out and the death.

If it's so much easier in the middle order then please explain why historically opening batsmen average more? (Since we're keen on averages).... can't blame it on NOs inflating

 

[Jarquis]

You really don't......


Okay.....


Imaginary 4 match ODI series looking at two Australian batsmen

Adam Gilchrist

Game 1: 45 not out
Game 2: 20
Game 3: 30
Game 4: 5

Total Runs- 100
Times dismissed- 3
Not outs- 1
Average- 33.33


Michael Bevan

Game 1: 20 not out
Game 2: 50
Game 3: 15 not out
Game 4: 15

Total runs- 100
Times dismissed- 2
Not outs- 2
Average- 50

So Bevan scored more runs per dismissal and his average reflected this? Colour me surprised.

 

[Red]

So Bevan scored more runs per dismissal and his average reflected this? Colour me surprised.

Well done on completely ignoring the entire thrust of the conversation, which is that averages are skewed by not outs, particularly in one day cricket, and well done on being completely unable to grasp the point being made.

Everyone knows that averages are total runs divided by number of dismissals. Colour you surprised if you want. It's cricket stats 101.

The point is that if you bat in the middle order and play a lot of innings, and a lot of them are not outs, you will have a substantially higher average than someone who opens, plays a lot of innings and doesn't have many not outs (case in point comparing Gilchrist and Dhoni).