andrew flintoff was a bit **** really

[cnerd123]

It's not a totally invalid criticism in general, being too much of a rocks and diamonds player is definitely a thing. That said, if you spent your career scoring 3 tons every 10 innings and averaging 60 you'd be an ATG regardless of your frequent failures - as I've said before, it's when you're Marcus North that it's more of a problem



This is pretty incredible tbh

Steve Smith is not so much 'Rocks and Diamonds' as 'Diamonds and smaller, less prettier Diamonds'

 

[h_hurricane]

Can anyone take a guess on what Bradman's average would be if all his hundreds are removed ? The answer lies here

 

[cnerd123]

Can anyone take a guess on what Bradman's average would be if all his hundreds are removed ? The answer lies here

Haha yesssss Steve Smith is #BetterThanBradman

 

[mr_mister]

Knew it'd be lower than Smiths. Bradman turned so many centuries into 200+ scores, never got out in the 90s and converted his 50s into tons better than anyone


So is there some brainlet way of interpreting this data to Smith being more useful to his side than Bradman?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A high average with centuries taken out could be seen as a failure to convert starts.

 

[mr_mister]

but it could also be seen as making more consistent contributions!

what would be preferred?

Scores of 50, 50, and 50 in 3 ODI matches, or scores of 0, 150 and 0 in the same games


You could sub out ODI matches to just be the 1st innings of test matches if you want

 

[Line and Length]

Can anyone take a guess on what Bradman's average would be if all his hundreds are removed ? The answer lies here

There are quite a number of Test batsmen who are around Bradman's "centuries removed" average of 34.

 

[mr_mister]

Oh and fun fact, 10 of Bradman's 29 centuries were followed by a score under 20 in his next innings. 4 were followed by scores under 5.

Bradman was rocks and diamonds, but the diamonds were 10 carat diamonds and came more often than the rocks

 

[mr_mister]

I'd like to know Bradman's stats if he was like Mark Waugh and threw away his tons after getting them, never eclipsing 153 at test level.

Can anyone dig this one up for me? I'm dumb

 

[Bijed]

A high average with centuries taken out could be seen as a failure to convert starts.

Kinda depends on exactly how many centuries you've had to take out. Given 2 careers with a similar amount of tons, the one who made lots of decent scores in between whilst the otherone tended to make low scores when they weren't going big is definitely better, if more frustrating (in a way, batsmen consistently making single-figure scores is frustrating too) and arguably underperforming.

We (rightly) give batsmen a lot of stick for getting out after a start or not turning a fifty into a century, but we do sometimes overlook that more runs = good, even if you don't make a 'match-shaping' contribution. Even scoring at 20, as opposed to 5 or something can be the difference between victory and defeat in a tight game, even though at the time they got out we'd be bemoaning how 20s are worthless

 

[stephen]

Averaging 40 and 27 over a five match series against the best side in the world isn't MOTS worthy. Vintage Stephen

I'd like to know Bradman's stats if he was like Mark Waugh and threw away his tons after getting them, never eclipsing 153 at test level.

Can anyone dig this one up for me? I'm dumb

If he got out exactly on 100 every time he got to triple figures he would average 59.

 

[mr_mister]

ah, so the reason he averages 99 was due to downskill skiing after bringing up the 3 figures

 

[h_hurricane]

I'd like to know Bradman's stats if he was like Mark Waugh and threw away his tons after getting them, never eclipsing 153 at test level.

Can anyone dig this one up for me? I'm dumb

Bradman scored 29 hundreds and Waugh 20. If 20 of Bradman's hundreds exactly followed Waugh's pattern and the remaining 9 are an average Mark Waugh hundred(which is 120 by the way), the Don would still be averaging a bit over 70.

80 innings, 5095 runs, 8 not outs. Average : 70.76

Why 8 not outs : Bradman finished not out 4 times before crossing a hundred, Waugh was not out 4 times after crossing a hundred.

 

[mr_mister]

thankyou for the prompt and efficient work!

 

[Adders]

If he got out exactly on 100 every time he got to triple figures he would average 59.

Why did you quote GIMH's post there? Seems to be totally irrelevant to what your answering/saying?

 

[Starfighter]

So is there some brainlet way of interpreting this data to Smith being more useful to his side than Bradman?

You're not aiming high enough. You haven't realised that if you take away Bradman's tons he's worse than Shaun Marsh.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What does Flintoff average if you take out all his centuries and 5-fors?

 

[cnerd123]

What does Flintoff average if you take out all his centuries and 5-fors?

h_hurricane get on this please

 

[h_hurricane]

What does Flintoff average if you take out all his centuries and 5-fors?

Averages 27.30 with the bat and 34.03 with the ball. Not a massive dip from his overall numbers. Not achieving enough 5 fors or 100s helps him here.

 

[Starfighter]

Averages 27.30 with the bat and 34.03 with the ball. Not a massive dip from his overall numbers. Not achieving enough 5 fors or 100s helps him here.

It's hard to diminish someone's figures by taking out all their good performances when they hardly had any.