How many tests is sufficient to judge a cricketer in a country?

[Victor Ian]

For a player you don't like: They need to perform at ATG level for a minimum of 250 tests to be considered 'alright'.

....unless the 1 game is a fail. Then it's proof they are a hack.

 

[Coronis]

I’ll draw the line at how many KW has played in places where he’s sucked

I really hope he can put in some strong performances in SL/India next year. Maybe he’ll even make it to the 2026 tour of Eng, doubt he’ll ever play in SA again though.

 

[Burgey]

It depends on whether you want to say a player was good or ****

 

[Bolo.]

The answer to this is a lot more than what people are playing. Groups of countries give a better picture.

On the topic of 'as many as it takes to make a point about particular players', I wonder how many people would say 5 or 6 for a group. Lillee has 4 tests in the SC. Plenty of people call it a lol sample size. Ambrose has 6. Not many people do the same.

 

[Prince EWS]

It depends on whether you want to say a player was good or ****

****

 

[Prince EWS]

The answer to this is a lot more than what people are playing. Groups of countries give a better picture.

On the topic of 'as many as it takes to make a point about particular players', I wonder how many people would say 5 or 6 for a group. Lillee has 4 tests in the SC. Plenty of people call it a lol sample size. Ambrose has 6. Not many people do the same.

Hoggard played 14.

 

[Bolo.]

Hoggard played 14.

How many runs did he score though? It is important to set some Hoggard based standards on which to judge specialist bats.

 

[subshakerz]

The answer to this is a lot more than what people are playing. Groups of countries give a better picture.

On the topic of 'as many as it takes to make a point about particular players', I wonder how many people would say 5 or 6 for a group. Lillee has 4 tests in the SC. Plenty of people call it a lol sample size. Ambrose has 6. Not many people do the same.

I feel it is insufficient in both Ambrose and Lillee cases.

 

[CricAddict]

I feel it is insufficient in both Ambrose and Lillee cases.

Nah. You have to do good in the tests that you play. If it is more than 3, its fine to judge and it is not insufficient. Lillee averages 68 in Asia while Ambrose averages 22.

 

[centurymaker]

Nah. You have to do good in the tests that you play. If it is more than 3, its fine to judge and it is not insufficient. Lillee averages 68 in Asia while Ambrose averages 22.

Disagree. Anything less than 10 is definitely not enough.

Less than 6, it is almost irrelevant, whether you average 20 or 50.

Actually I am talking about batsmen because they only get 1-2 opportunities per match.

Bowlers end up bowling a lot so you can have a slightly lower sample size for them. But less than 6 matches is still not enough.

 

[subshakerz]

Disagree. Anything less than 10 is definitely not enough.

Less than 6, it is almost irrelevant, whether you average 20 or 50.

I am talking about batsmen because they only get 1-2 opportunities per match.

Bowlers end up bowling a lot so you can have a slightly lower sample size for them. But less than 6 matches is still not enough.

I think it depends on series to me.

If someone plays six tests but as three series of 2 tests and does well in all of them, I could accept that perhaps.

 

[subshakerz]

Nah. You have to do good in the tests that you play. If it is more than 3, its fine to judge and it is not insufficient. Lillee averages 68 in Asia while Ambrose averages 22.

Lillee has basically one series, hardly enough to judge anything.

 

[Bolo.]

I feel it is insufficient in both Ambrose and Lillee cases.

I tend to agree, particularly considering the fact that Ambrose has only 18 wickets.

I think you can read more into success than failure though. A couple of failures mean nothing- the best players still fail. A couple of successes are fairly indicative of coming to terms with conditions.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Probably like 50.

This is the prime reason analysis by checklist is ****ing stupid.

I think this is far more applicable to batsmen than bowlers. Sample sizes can skew numbers for batsmen because getting out cheaply for a handful of innings happens to even the best batsmen in prime form due to a variety of reasons. Also only takes one ball to get you out, so it doesn't necessarily indicate a weakness in those conditions.

Bowling samples are much more reliable (if still nowhere close to perfect) because they are going to bowl a huge number of balls even if they aren't getting wickets. Their sample size is inherently bigger than a batsman's and things like bad umpiring decisions will have a smaller effect on their numbers if it's a tiny number of games.

 

[trundler]

I tend to agree, particularly considering the fact that Ambrose has only 18 wickets.

I think you can read more into success than failure though. A couple of failures mean nothing- the best players still fail. A couple of successes are fairly indicative of coming to terms with conditions.

It can still be a fluke though. Sehwag got a century in his first innings in SA then never did anything again because he wasn't suited to those conditions technically.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It can still be a fluke though. Sehwag got a century in his first innings in SA then never did anything again because he wasn't suited to those conditions technically.

That could've been a batting position thing Tbf. He could've done better if he continued at 6. He was always going to suck as an opener.

 

[Spark]

If you want statistical precision to the point that people obsessed with cricketing statistics usually demand then the actual answer is probably like a hundred.

Of course "sampling some hidden underlying probability distribution of innings scores to try and get the Real Average" is not actually how cricket works so we don't have to do that, but it does mean that "averages in country" and "averages in series" aren't very meaningful on their own. They can be useful as proxies for other discussions though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I feel it is insufficient in both Ambrose and Lillee cases.

Yes I would classify both more as unproven in traditional subcontinent conditions rather than outright failures.

 

[Daemon]

Lillee also only played on decks where no quicks did well, so it’s even harsher to judge him with that small a sample size. Though you might say that’s just how it is in the SC.

 

[Prince EWS]

Lillee also only played on decks where no quicks did well, so it’s even harsher to judge him with that small a sample size. Though you might say that’s just how it is in the SC.

IND vs ENG Cricket Scorecard, 1st Test at Nagpur, March 01 - 05, 2006

Get cricket scorecard of 1st Test, IND vs ENG, England tour of India 2005/06 at Vidarbha Cricket Association Ground, Nagpur dated March 01 - 05, 2006.

www.espncricinfo.com