Averaging 35 will be accepted again

[honestbharani]

Overall average for top 6 batsmen in the history of the game 37.14

View attachment 29177

Overall average for top 6 batsmen in the 1990s 36.57

View attachment 29179

Overall average for top 6 batsmen in the 2000s was 39.54

View attachment 29178

Give or take, essentially a 3 run difference between eras. Not taking night watchmen into account.

Can we do the same for 2010s?

And IMO, the change happened post 2015 WC. Will be interesting to see if that is borne out by stats.

 

[Flem274*]

The year 2000 brings the 00s down too (average 32). 2001 onwards is the boom time.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Can we do the same for 2010s?

And IMO, the change happened post 2015 WC. Will be interesting to see if that is borne out by stats.

Here is year-by-year runs per wicket averages.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

1990-2002 relatively similar (30-33 runs per wicket) and then there is a huge spike period from 2003-2010 (basically 35-37 runs per wicket).

From 2010-2017 it's somewhere in between the 90s and the 00s (32-35).

From 2018-current is one of the most productive eras for bowlers.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Nice.

Anyone have a way of figuring out tailender run as a % of total too? It feels like we're seeing a lot more. Would again probably break it up similar to the above rather than a whole decade - there's been a clear shift since 2015, and arguably more since 2017/2018.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Since 2017

178150 runs scored

26435 runs scored by 8-11

Around ~15%

In the 2000s 459217 runs scored, 61833 by 8-11 for ~13.5%

 

[Starfighter]

It's time to make an update of a chart I made about three years ago:



The short answer is no.

 

[a massive zebra]

People have claimed this literally every decade in the history of cricket. It has never been true and it's not true now. The only noticeable trend in that chart is a reduction in the proportion of tailender runs between the beginning of Tests and about 1930, as the averages of top order batsmen increased but tailender averages remained static. I guess this points to an 1. An improvement in batting techniques among specialist batsmen and 2. An improvement in pitches, which the specialist batsmen were most able to take advantage of.

If we ignore the Bradman factor, the proportion of tailender runs has remained stable for almost a century.

 

[The Sean]

Can’t help but feel Prior wasn’t fully appreciated round these parts at the time. But that might just be there was one particularly prominent detractor who was a big voice round here back then.

Yeah, absolutely superb cricketer - always seemed to play well when I was at the ground watching him too, which helped!

Daily reminder that Prior > Haddin.

Wait, were there people seriously arguing the opposite of this??

 

[morgieb]

Can’t help but feel Prior wasn’t fully appreciated round these parts at the time. But that might just be there was one particularly prominent detractor who was a big voice round here back then.

Prior seems pretty forgotten in hindsight, yes. Probably a case of being so poor with the gloves at the start of his career that he never quite shook off that reputation despite him being quite solid for much of his Test career and having a **** end to his career. But he was a very solid keeper/bat for several years.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Prior is one of the modern generation of terrible keepers who became bordering on adequate through learning his trade at the highest level instead of being picked because he could keep. Since James Bracey has now played all bets are off for the worst England keeper ever. Even Prior was never that bad at any time.

 

[Flametree]

More random stats....

Currently there are
5 players with 1000+ career runs and a 50+ average (Marnus + "big 4")
Another 5 averaging 45-50 (Warner, Rohit, Taylor, Pujara, Agarwal).
And 7 more averaging 40-45.
The 20th best average for players with 1000+ runs is Markram at 39.7


Go back 10 years to the end of 2011:
There were 12 players with 1000+ runs and averaging 50+. Jonathon Trott was top of the list, then Kallis, Sangakkara, Tendulkar, Dravid, Younis Khan, Samaraweera, Bravo, Ponting, Jayawardene, Pietersen, Hussey.
Another 9 were averaging 45-50 : Cook, Smith, de Villiers, Bell, Chanderpaul, Amla, Laxman, Misbah, Clarke
The 20th best average was Misbah's 46.35
Another 12 players were averaging over 40, and the top sub 40 average was Shane Watson in 34th.


At end of 2001
8 x 50+ (Tendulkar top with 57.96, then Flower, Richardson, Dravid, Martyn, Gilchrist, Waugh, Lara)
6 more 45-50 and a total of 29 players averaging 40+
20th best was Mohammad Yousuf on 42.98.


At end of 1991
6x 50+ averages (Andrew Jones top!, with 1700 runs at 54.9.... then Javed, Mark Taylor, Robin Smith, Border, Richards)
Just 4x players were averaging 45-50,
and another 7 players were averaging over 40 (so 17 in total), and 20th was Greg Matthews averaging 39.19.


At end of 1981
4x 50+ averages (Richards top with 60, then Javed, Chappell G, Gavaskar)
Just 3 players averaging between 45-50 and another 7 40-45.
20th best was Vengsarkar, averaging 36.7 at the time.

Of course there were just 6 test sides vs the 10 that have contributed players to lists in later years...


At end of 1971,
Just 2 players averaging over 50 (Sobers and Walters)
only 5 more averaging 45+, and just 5 more 40+
the 20th best average was Asif Iqbal on 33.3


At end of 1961
5x 50+ : Sobers, Barrington, O'Neill, Saeed Ahmed, Worrell
4x 45-50, and 8 more over 40, and 20th was Graveney at 39.2

At end of 1951 there were 8x players averaging over 50 - Worrell, Weekes, Harvey, Hutton, Hazare, Nourse, Morris, Compton
I haven't checked all the lower-average players here, and I suspect there might not actually be 20 players with 1000 runs given how few tests most non Aus or Eng players would have played at this point.



All numbers calculated fairly manually so there may be errors, and there could be arguments over who was a current player at any point in time. Eg if a player played their last test in 1970 but were still playing first class cricket in 1971, should they be in the 1971 list? I've excluded them... Likewise someone like Bert Sutcliffe who seemingly retired in 1959 but played 8 tests in 1965, is not included in the 1961 numbers... But I did include players if there was just a 1-2 year gap in an otherwise consistent career. Eg, Chris Gayle is in 2011's numbers even though he didn't play a test in that year, given he played 12 tests in the next three years.

 

[Starfighter]

People have claimed this literally every decade in the history of cricket. It has never been true and it's not true now. The only noticeable trend in that chart is a reduction in the proportion of tailender runs between the beginning of Tests and about 1930, as the averages of top order batsmen increased but tailender averages remained static. I guess this points to an 1. An improvement in batting techniques among specialist batsmen and 2. An improvement in pitches, which the specialist batsmen were most able to take advantage of.

I think some part of the higher proportion of tail runs in the early decades is also things like odd and variable batting orders, lack of clearly defined roles, SA's "specialist batsmen" in their early years being complete crap and small sample sizes (for example the 1870s sample is only three tests which include Allen Hill's highest FC score, one of Charlie Absolom's four FC fifties and so on) which coincidentally have some good performances.

I do feel like tail ender techniques may have gotten a bit better on average (helmets deserve a lot of thanks there) and there's fewer who will just go out and slog, but I think a lot of it is a case of people fooling themselves with their memory of recent notable occurrences. If you look back through history frustrating tail partnerships are dime-a-dozen, despite expectations otherwise. The genuine rabbit has never been as common as people have made out - I think some very notable figures might colour perception there.

 

[Teja.]

Think Rahul was the third best batsman by a distance and excellent opening the innings for India in the series gone by. He will go away with a average of 39 which is far above the average batsman in the series but won't look flash on a quick cricinfo search. Pujara and Kohli's averages in the early 30s are also actually quite creditable in the broader context of the series:



With both legs combined, 8 tests is a decent portion of a an average test career. Within that space, averaging in the 30s is not world class, but when only 2 full time batsmen (who have played 4/8 at least) are able to do better than that, consigning Pant and Kohli's performances below to 'dire' seems harsh.

 

[GIMH]

All the India averages need adjusting. Add two dismissals and no runs. Cheers.

 

[Shady Slim]

Think Rahul was the third best batsman by a distance and excellent opening the innings for India in the series gone by. He will go away with a average of 39 which is far above the average batsman in the series but won't look flash on a quick cricinfo search. Pujara and Kohli's averages in the early 30s are also actually quite creditable in the broader context of the series:

View attachment 29258

With both legs combined, 8 tests is a decent portion of a an average test career. Within that space, averaging in the 30s is not world class, but when only 2 full time batsmen (who have played 4/8 at least) are able to do better than that, consigning Pant and Kohli's performances below to 'dire' seems harsh.

View attachment 29259

i will say in defense of kohli further - something that i'm not entirely keen on doing necessarily - compare exactly the breakdown of his score's to pujara's too. as much as i back pujara, he's got a not out and a 91 in there while kohli's scores had a bit less variance. he did have more ducks, however times that he didn't make duck he seems to have managed to at least offer something, which i am sure is an improvement on his past tours of the anglo isles

 

[Teja.]

i will say in defense of kohli further - something that i'm not entirely keen on doing necessarily - compare exactly the breakdown of his score's to pujara's too. as much as i back pujara, he's got a not out and a 91 in there while kohli's scores had a bit less variance. he did have more ducks, however times that he didn't make duck he seems to have managed to at least offer something, which i am sure is an improvement on his past tours of the anglo isles

Tbf, he did do this in his last tour of England:

 

[Kirkut]

I don't see much variations in the type of pitches at least for Australia. The pitches there have always been roads with more bounce and pace than other countries on average.

Except that WACA seems to have slowed down since the late eighties and same could be said for Gabba too, other than that it's always been the same.

 

[Kirkut]

There is a decline in batting standards today, I could be wrong here though. Most batsmen rarely use their wrists to play spinners and also do not have the mental concentration power to play a long innings like Jayawardene scoring daddy 200s.

But it can be simultaneously argued that the bowlers in 2000s would get tired in the middle of the day and simply went through motions. With improved fitness standards today and workload management, fast bowlers are able to maintain the same intensity throughout the day as they did in the first spell, which in turn makes batting difficult.

 

[honestbharani]

Think Rahul was the third best batsman by a distance and excellent opening the innings for India in the series gone by. He will go away with a average of 39 which is far above the average batsman in the series but won't look flash on a quick cricinfo search. Pujara and Kohli's averages in the early 30s are also actually quite creditable in the broader context of the series:

View attachment 29258

With both legs combined, 8 tests is a decent portion of a an average test career. Within that space, averaging in the 30s is not world class, but when only 2 full time batsmen (who have played 4/8 at least) are able to do better than that, consigning Pant and Kohli's performances below to 'dire' seems harsh.

View attachment 29259

Your second image is not sorted by average, is it?

 

[_00_deathscar]

Your second image is not sorted by average, is it?

Runs
Otherwise it becomes very clear that Washy > any batsman who ever lived, ever