30 Test hundreds

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, you have to play a big old innings to get 60 balls from one bowler in most cases. Especially a number 3 who isn't likely going to face the first few overs of Steyn. So scoring 20 against one bowler in a career you are likely going pretty well overall.

the theory being if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side you'd average 80 against the team

You are not playing only one bowler in a match though. 4 or 5 bowlers at least in which case you'll be averaging 80 or 100 per innings if you average 20 per bowler.

A batsman averaging 20 against a bowler is bloody impressive actually.

I think I'm going to have to clear this up because I don't get how so many people can have the exact same basic misunderstanding.

Where I think you're going wrong:
- You seem to think that "averaging 20 vs a bowler" means that you score 20 runs against him every innings you play him, regardless of whether he gets you out or someone else does.
- This is wrong, and not how averages work.
- If you average 20 against a bowler, it means that you score 20 runs against that bowler for every time that that bowler gets you out.
- It does not mean that you score 20 runs against that bowler, and runs against all the other bowlers, for each time that bowler gets you out.
- Averaging 20 is not good for a batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Doesn't this only count those innings where Steyn actually got Ponting out? Rather pointless.

No, it's his average in all matches he played that Steyn also played in.

which btw also includes Ponting's last series in which he was simply ****, so I wouldn't give Steyn too much credit for that

 

[J_C]

Doesn't this only count those innings where Steyn actually got Ponting out? Rather pointless.

Nah. It counts all of his innings against SA when Steyn was in the side. Doesn't matter if he dismissed Ponting or not.

 

[Spark]

FWIW Ponting's series averages against SA with Steyn in the team:

47.50
35.00
17.50
6.40

So not exactly great, though I don't remember that being due to Steyn. I think Philander was the one who really gave him problems.

 

[stephen]

He was well and truly shot by the last series and was past his best by the second last series on your list.

Is it really surprising that a 35+ year old struggles against the world's best bowlers in helpful conditions?

Border only averaged 40 against the West Indies and was considered the best batsman they faced in the 80s.

 

[Spark]

Man looking through Ponting's late series averages are depressing. They're almost all in the 10s and 20s unless he was playing against India.

 

[indiaholic]

Good argument for runs against India, outside India, don't count.

 

[Spark]

Good argument for runs against India, outside India, don't count.

Actually by "against India" I meant home and away, those are literally the only two good series he had after the 2009/10 summer. Up to that point he had a 55+ average after 140 Tests.

 

[stephen]

It's the sign of a batsman who was eye dependent batting on past their prime. Once the eye goes, fast bowling can wreck you, especially batting at 3.

It's no wonder he averaged 100 in the shield after his retirement - the bowlers weren't as sharp so he would plunder the weaker domestic attacks. India's fast bowlers are a bit better than a domestic attack but were weak enough for him to succeed against.

He really should have retired in early 2010.

 

[Zinzan]

I know I will look like a prick for this but I don't think Phil Hughes would have got near 30 tons. He was 26 and would have needed 27 more. Fine player but was dicked about by selectors, and also didn't kick on much once he got in after his first series.

I don't think you're being a prick at all in saying that. I don't think the tragedy means as cricket fans we can't honestly,(a couple of years later) speculate about his career. He did have some major technical difficulties which made him suspect to balls moving back into him.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I'm sure most would agree that Hughes scoring 30 Test tons would have been highly unlikely

 

[Zinzan]

I vaguely remember Smith dropping Ponting on nought off Steyn. Kallis dropped him off Steyn on nought too. Cant remember which test.

Why do I feel we'll be back down the track of First chance averages soon?

All players get dropped, if Steyn really had the wood on him, he'd have got him shortly afterwards.

 

[Spark]

It's the sign of a batsman who was eye dependent batting on past their prime. Once the eye goes, fast bowling can wreck you, especially batting at 3.

It's no wonder he averaged 100 in the shield after his retirement - the bowlers weren't as sharp so he would plunder the weaker domestic attacks. India's fast bowlers are a bit better than a domestic attack but were weak enough for him to succeed against.

He really should have retired in early 2010.

I mean, if we're being brutally hard he should have given up the captaincy after the 2009 Ashes (especially after Clarke did well in that series) and that would have meant that he would have gone himself when he didn't perform over the next few series. But I think it was commonly felt that Clarke wasn't ready, so he stuck around.

 

[Zinzan]

One factor that's often overlooked with both Ponting & Lara is the rate they generally scored at & how they dominated attacks. IIRC both had test SRs of close to 60, which is very impressive in the era in which they played.

 

[honestbharani]

This statement very genuinely doesn't seem to be anywhere close to what you said. It has nothing about the quality of the bowler.

I was not arguing that. I was arguing this **** that TJB has been posting...

wait what? How is that impressive at all.

20 is a **** average for a batsman

lol, not quite how averages work

if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side, you average 20 against a team



hb . . . this is a new low even for you

averaging 20 against a bowler means that for every 1 time that bowler gets you out you score 20 runs

honestly you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much on here if your attitude wasn't so juvenile and asinine

\


Given that posting false BS seems to be the oxygen to your existence in CW, I wont stand in the way. IF thinking all this helps you sleep at night, fine. Everyone knows who the troll is..

I think I'm going to have to clear this up because I don't get how so many people can have the exact same basic misunderstanding.

Where I think you're going wrong:
- You seem to think that "averaging 20 vs a bowler" means that you score 20 runs against him every innings you play him, regardless of whether he gets you out or someone else does.
- This is wrong, and not how averages work.
- If you average 20 against a bowler, it means that you score 20 runs against that bowler for every time that that bowler gets you out.
- It does not mean that you score 20 runs against that bowler, and runs against all the other bowlers, for each time that bowler gets you out.
- Averaging 20 is not good for a batsman.

Wow... TJB.. this is a new level of stupid even for you. Think you have managed to attain the rock bottom, 50 feet of crap from there levels that Rachel spoke about on Friends.. You are just assuming that a) the batsman will get out to other bowlers 4 out of the 5 innings which is beyond stupid given the bowler we are talking about is the best in the line up of that side and b) it is wrong to see off a particular bowler or spell and a batsman HAS to score equally against every bloody bowler he plays. And not to speak of the crap you were spouting comparing what one batsman scores against a bowler to the bowler's bowling average. Is it any real mystery why people get sick of stats around here?


FWIW, leaving aside the Ponting/Steyn example as it does not seem fully clear if that is Punter's average against RSA in all tests in which RSA had Steyn in the line up or his individual average runs against Steyn per dismissal. I have obviously assumed it was the latter. So lets break it down for Daemon here (TJB is incorrigible anyways.. so long mate )

If a batsman, on average, can score 20 against 1 bowler of the opposition side, it usually means he is pretty good for a score of 40+ at the very least, very exceptional cases aside. Hence, it is a good runs per dismissal against a bowler, esp. if the bowler happens to be the best of that bowling line up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ugh, please can we not?

 

[srbhkshk]

the theory being if you average 20 against 4 bowlers in a side you'd average 80 against the team

Its not theory though... Over a period of time, it will be real coz that is how cricket works.

Actually HB you are wrong about this, completely. If you average 20ish against all bowlers of a team, you average 20 overall. Not sure why some people are even arguing against that.

 

[Adders]

Ugh, please can we not?

Time for you to drop one of your extremely inappropriate, bad taste jokes OS in order to derail this impeding **** fight.......

 

[Burgey]

I think those on each side of this discussion are talking about slightly different things, but using the same term to describe both, thereby causing confusion.

I won't help sort you all out though because it's funny watching it all unfold, and also because I don't actually know what the point of it all is anyways.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Time for you to drop one of your extremely inappropriate, bad taste jokes OS in order to derail this impeding **** fight.......

It was a little too effective the last time I did this.