Adam Voges average watch

[Howe_zat]

I didn't bother when I shoud have obviously. But most of Australia's runs in India in 2013 came from Starc and Siddle iirc

 

[Victor Ian]

Top 7 positions in India and Sri Lanka average 34.61 for Australia since 01 Jan 2010.
Against SA at home the top 7 average 43.15

Yeah but what about top 7 excluding Watto ?

 

[marc71178]

If he played another 19 innings he'd have to average around 33 to get it there which would be kind of a poo run

So another couple of series in England then?

 

[Daemon]

thread title is right, this is a very average watch

 

[Dan]

thread title is right, this is a very average watch

 

[aussie tragic]

didn't someone say he could get like 8 ducks in a row and still average 50? That seems ridiculous

If he has 8 ducks in a row, he'd average 60.33.

 

[Adders]

Dozens of people. There are even entire threads about it. The Aus/NZ tour thread is full of people saying it. Don't post about something you have no idea about, which seems to be pretty much everything I've ever seen you post about.

Literally never seen you make a decent post that was constructive to anything. You're a disgrace.

Yeah OK, and that's why I keep getting binned isn't, oh wait........

You're so quick to wave your ****ing Aussie flag and defend anything Australian (when there is no defense required on this topic) that you are completely missing the point in all of these discussions, as was very evident in that ridiculous comment you made to Howe.

So Vogues is averaging close to 100 after 19 innings, something not seen since Bradman...........that's quite friggin remarkable and certainly worthy of discussion. Does anyone think he is the new Bradman and his current average a true reflection of how good he is.........no, I don't think anyone thinks that. Does that mean he is a hack that that has fluked some big not outs to get that average.........no it ****ing doesn't (last innings excepted where I guess the Kiwis do have a justifiable point to claim there was some degree of luck in the score given he should have been out on 7)

Vogues falls somewhere between those two extremes and since he has achieved something that no one apart from the Don has achieved he clearly is "quite good" as you keep repeatedly pointing out to us.

As is CW's want, all of these discussions are just nutting out where he sits between the level of Don MK2 and some middle of the road test batsmen. Everyone has their own opinion on what his career will look like at the end and it is all speculation.......but I haven't seen anyone dispute the fact that he is a good batsmen which is the drum you insist on banging.

Edit:

Look at the very first page on this thread.

Not one single post before you was dissing Vogues in any way at all and yet your first contribution to the thread was telling us how underrated he is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah OK, and that's why I keep getting binned isn't, oh wait........

You're so quick to wave your ****ing Aussie flag and defend anything Australian (when there is no defense required on this topic) that you are completely missing the point in all of these discussions, as was very evident in that ridiculous comment you made to Howe.

So Vogues is averaging close to 100 after 19 innings, something not seen since Bradman...........that's quite friggin remarkable and certainly worthy of discussion. Does anyone think he is the new Bradman and his current average a true reflection of how good he is.........no, I don't think anyone thinks that. Does that mean he is a hack that that has fluked some big not outs to get that average.........no it ****ing doesn't (last innings excepted where I guess the Kiwis do have a justifiable point to claim there was some degree of luck in the score given he should have been out on 7)

Vogues falls somewhere between those two extremes and since he has achieved something that no one apart from the Don has achieved he clearly is "quite good" as you keep repeatedly pointing out to us.

As is CW's want, all of these discussions are just nutting out where he sits between the level of Don MK2 and some middle of the road test batsmen. Everyone has their own opinion on what his career will look like at the end and it is all speculation.......but I haven't seen anyone dispute the fact that he is a good batsmen which is the drum you insist on banging.

Edit:

Look at the very first page on this thread.

Not one single post before you was dissing Vogues in any way at all and yet your first contribution to the thread was telling us how underrated he is.

Repeating myself again, but there have been many, many dozens of posts, over the last several months, pretty much word for word calling Voges a hack lmao. Why would I make that up?

mind blowing

 

[Jord]

I look at the amount of runs per test as a good gauge in judging a player in their early career due to the massive impact not outs can have. Voges despite that average of 97 actually isn't backed by his runs per test average. Put in perspective, Sangakkara averaged 92 runs per test across his entire career. Voges is averaging 90.5 in his first 14 tests which shows how dramatically important those not outs have been to his average.

 

[Adders]

Repeating myself again, but there have been many, many dozens of posts, over the last several months, pretty much word for word calling Voges a hack lmao. Why would I make that up?

mind blowing

Are there actually, or are they just posts that you perceive as such.......just like you jumped all over Howe yesterday because you thought he was dismissing him when he was doing nothing of the sort.

If we are going back "months" then I guess you could dig up posts from the Ashes where people were calling him ****e.........but he did have an ordinary series and that is to be expected I guess. Not everyone would have followed his last couple of Shield seasons.

Look, I just went back through the 10 pages of this thread and there is one solitary post dismissing him.........

Is Voges the worst batsman to average over 50 in 19 innings? I can't think of many who have played as many matches against a joke of a bowling attack. The best bowlers he's faced in his career are Anderson, Broad, Southee and Boult.

You called this a dire post and I actually agree with you on that. But even Cook here is not saying he is **** or a hack.

Since this thread is dedicated to discussing Don Vogues remarkable average then wouldn't it be fair to say at least some of these "many many dozens of posts" calling him a hack would be found here no?? And yet there are none.

 

[Adders]

I look at the amount of runs per test as a good gauge in judging a player in their early career due to the massive impact not outs can have. Voges despite that average of 97 actually isn't backed by his runs per test average. Put in perspective, Sangakkara averaged 92 runs per test across his entire career. Voges is averaging 90.5 in his first 14 tests which shows how dramatically important those not outs have been to his average.

Nah..........plenty of DNB's in those 14 tests as well mate..

 

[Jord]

Nah..........plenty of DNB's in those 14 tests as well mate..

19 innings in 14 tests. If you said a guy was averaging 97 after 19 innings you'd imagine he'd have at least 1500-1600 runs.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are there actually, or are they just posts that you perceive as such.......just like you jumped all over Howe yesterday because you thought he was dismissing him when he was doing nothing of the sort.

If we are going back "months" then I guess you could dig up posts from the Ashes where people were calling him ****e.........but he did have an ordinary series and that is to be expected I guess. Not everyone would have followed his last couple of Shield seasons.

Look, I just went back through the 10 pages of this thread and there is one solitary post dismissing him.........

Nah there are. "jumped all over Howe" lol, that post was 90% jest which I thought was pretty obvious. Nothing Howe said really explicitly indicated that he thought Voges was a hack.

You honestly might was well save yourself some time because you keep making huge posts with nothing relevant in them except where you reiterate points that I've already explained are wrong

You called this a dire post and I actually agree with you on that. But even Cook here is not saying he is **** or a hack.

Since this thread is dedicated to discussing Don Vogues remarkable average then wouldn't it be fair to say at least some of these "many many dozens of posts" calling him a hack would be found here no?? And yet there are none.

No. It's mostly been in NZ threads, which I wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't seen much of.

What you should take away from this personally: Try to think about what you're posting before you do. Or just avoid posting about things you don't know about, regardless of how desperately you want to get in a fight with me.

Edit: And I a disagree with that Cook post not calling him ****, it's pretty heavily implied.

 

[Adders]

19 innings in 14 tests. If you said a guy was averaging 97 after 19 innings you'd imagine he'd have at least 1500-1600 runs.

I see your point and for Vogues, yeah his 6 no's in 14 tests are certainly inflating the average remarkably, but that is how averages are calculated and to question how they are done is a whole other discussion. He's certainly not the first player, especially a middle order bat and over a relatively small sample size to benefit in this way.

 

[Adders]

Ok, I'm done here with you TJB. I tried to be as reasonable as I could with you during this discussion and believe me I filtered my posts a lot compared to what I would have liked to have said. Posters like you don't last long here and it will only be a matter of time before your one of your bans becomes a year or a perma. Until then you'll be proud to know you're going to be the first poster I've ever stuck on ignore since I've been here.

There are so many good posters on this site, there really is no reason at all to interact with the idiots so adios.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I see your point and for Vogues, yeah his 6 no's in 14 tests are certainly inflating the average remarkably, but that is how averages are calculated and to question how they are done is a whole other discussion. He's certainly not the first player, especially a middle order bat and over a relatively small sample size to benefit in this way.

It's even questionable to call it a benefit. While it looks like it is on paper, one could argue that if a player remains not out, he is being robbed of a further chance to inflate his average. Because you'd think he's more likely to make more runs when he's already played himself in then having to start on 0 again in different conditions (which he will have to in his next innings).

An argument could be made that it's actually the opposite effect.

Ok, I'm done here with you TJB. I tried to be as reasonable as I could with you during this discussion and believe me I filtered my posts a lot compared to what I would have liked to have said. Posters like you don't last long here and it will only be a matter of time before your one of your bans becomes a year or a perma. Until then you'll be proud to know you're going to be the first poster I've ever stuck on ignore since I've been here.

There are so many good posters on this site, there really is no reason at all to interact with the idiots so adios.

You literally just came in to start a fight that no one other than you was interested in having. Please don't come back.

 

[the big bambino]

I first saw Voges playing for WA when he was mid 20s (I think) against NSW and was subsequently surprised he didn't kick on and play for Aus soon after. Now I'm surprised he's done this well. Just a couple of words about the bowlers he's faced. He hasn't played that many tests so the list of opponents wont be overly extensive. Even so facing Broad, Anderson, Finn, Boult and Southee is impressive enough.

 

[Jord]

I first saw Voges playing for WA when he was mid 20s (I think) against NSW and was subsequently surprised he didn't kick on and play for Aus soon after. Now I'm surprised he's done this well. Just a couple of words about the bowlers he's faced. He hasn't played that many tests so the list of opponents wont be overly extensive. Even so facing Broad, Anderson, Finn, Boult and Southee is impressive enough.

AWTA: He's faced most of the guys that are perceived as the best around at the moment from a seam/pace bowling perspective.

 

[Nate]

Adders y u bother

 

[mr_mister]

I first saw Voges playing for WA when he was mid 20s (I think) against NSW and was subsequently surprised he didn't kick on and play for Aus soon after. Now I'm surprised he's done this well. Just a couple of words about the bowlers he's faced. He hasn't played that many tests so the list of opponents wont be overly extensive. Even so facing Broad, Anderson, Finn, Boult and Southee is impressive enough.

he struggled against 3 of those 5 bowlers you named though?