Meaningless and stupid cricket statistics

[shortpitched713]

Players who were much more/less successful opening vs the middle order. (min 20 innings opening)

Better opening
Mitchell 2390 @ 56.90 vs 1081 @ 37.27
Khawaja 2722 @ 56.70 vs 2641 @ 39.41
Simpson 3664 @ 55.51 vs 1205 @ 31.71
Ponsford 1517 @ 54.17 vs 605 @ 37.81
Amiss 3276 @ 53.70 vs 336 @ 19.76
Woodfull 2036 @ 50.90 vs 264 @ 26.40
Katich 2928 @ 50.48 vs 1260 @ 36.00
Rohit 2242 @ 48.73 vs 1585 @ 39.62
Langer 5112 @ 48.22 vs 2584 @ 40.37
Gibbs 5242 @ 47.22 vs 925 @ 25.69
Vaughan 3093 @ 45.48 vs 2626 @ 37.51
Stewart 3348 @ 44.64 vs 5115 @ 36.79
Gooch 7811 @ 43.88 vs 1089 @ 35.12
Atapattu 5317 @ 43.22 vs 185 @ 10.27 (20 innings!)
Majid Khan 1985 @ 42.23 vs 1946 @ 36.03
Watson 2049 @ 40.98 vs 1682 @ 30.03
Mankad 1548 @ 40.73 vs 561 @ 19.34


Worse opening
Dravid 807 @ 42.47 vs 12481 @ 53.11
Kirsten 5726 @ 41.79 vs 1563 @ 65.12
de Villiers 1265 @ 36.14 vs 7500 @ 54.34
Taylor 1228 @ 36.11 vs 1708 @ 44.94
Trumper 1650 @ 33.00 vs 1513 @ 48.80
Blewett 588 @ 29.40 vs 1964 @ 35.70
Laxman 685 @ 28.54 vs 8096 @ 48.47
Howarth 535 @ 24.31 vs 1996 @ 35.64
Masakadza 564 @ 23.50 vs 1659 @ 33.18
Bailey 484 @ 21.04 vs 1806 @ 33.04

These are actually useful cricket stats.

 

[shortpitched713]

So it appears opening is the easier gig. So greats who get points for opening compared to their middle order rivals can gagf.

No. This is not what it means. The middle order ones who failed at opening simply didn't do well enough at the gig to get to 20 innings minimum cutoff.

 

[Coronis]

These are actually useful cricket stats.

Maybe. But I didn’t think it really warranted a new thread.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

I like when stats have a story attached to them, like Lara 688 or Sir Curtly’s insane spell in Australia.

Also, I want to get this off my chest…I like when a player’s stats comes from the fifth test of the series. I know, these stats are mighty rare these days, but it shows the real test of test. Last hurdle. 4th innings of a match which is the last match of a 5-test series to win or draw the series. Legends

I guess it is a sign of the times.

 

[honestbharani]

I like when stats have a story attached to them, like Lara 688 or Sir Curtly’s insane spell in Australia.

Also, I want to get this off my chest…I like when a player’s stats comes from the fifth test of the series. I know, these stats are mighty rare these days, but it shows the real test of test. Last hurdle. 4th innings of a match which is the last match of a 5-test series to win or draw the series. Legends

I guess it is a sign of the times.

Yeah I always knew Karun Nair was the GOAT.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yeah I always knew Karun Nair was the GOAT.

He needs to finish the story…like Cody

 

[Victor Ian]

No. This is not what it means. The middle order ones who failed at opening simply didn't do well enough at the gig to get to 20 innings minimum cutoff.

The openers who couldn't handle the furnace of middle order are also not in the list. Of those who can transition with some semblance of okness, more go up the order. It's easier.

 

[Victor Ian]

The openers who couldn't handle the furnace of middle order are also not in the list. Of those who can transition with some semblance of okness, more go up the order. It's easier.

I speak from experience. I was a lower middle order hack. Some genius promoted me to opening hack... but I made runs. The only thing harder is that you have less time between innings to eat ice cream.

 

[kyear2]

So it appears opening is the easier gig. So greats who get points for opening compared to their middle order rivals can gagf.

I know this was fully meant as a joke, but.... Is the openers tax real, or do the best bats just prefer the middle order?

Like is spin bowling harder or do most talented youngsters just want to bat or bowl fast?

 

[Victor Ian]

I know this was fully meant as a joke, but.... Is the openers tax real, or do the best bats just prefer the middle order?

Like is spin bowling harder or do most talented youngsters just want to bat or bowl fast?

I don't know. They say you have to be able to counter early movement. But when you hit the ball, runs come easier. Pace works both ways. But don't ask me. I'm a 5th grade hack just looking for reasons to not rate Gavaskar. Ask jedi or something.

 

[GIMH]

Players who were much more/less successful opening vs the middle order. (min 20 innings opening)

Better opening
Mitchell 2390 @ 56.90 vs 1081 @ 37.27
Khawaja 2722 @ 56.70 vs 2641 @ 39.41
Simpson 3664 @ 55.51 vs 1205 @ 31.71
Ponsford 1517 @ 54.17 vs 605 @ 37.81
Amiss 3276 @ 53.70 vs 336 @ 19.76
Woodfull 2036 @ 50.90 vs 264 @ 26.40
Katich 2928 @ 50.48 vs 1260 @ 36.00
Rohit 2242 @ 48.73 vs 1585 @ 39.62
Langer 5112 @ 48.22 vs 2584 @ 40.37
Gibbs 5242 @ 47.22 vs 925 @ 25.69
Vaughan 3093 @ 45.48 vs 2626 @ 37.51
Stewart 3348 @ 44.64 vs 5115 @ 36.79
Gooch 7811 @ 43.88 vs 1089 @ 35.12
Atapattu 5317 @ 43.22 vs 185 @ 10.27 (20 innings!)
Majid Khan 1985 @ 42.23 vs 1946 @ 36.03
Watson 2049 @ 40.98 vs 1682 @ 30.03
Mankad 1548 @ 40.73 vs 561 @ 19.34


Worse opening
Dravid 807 @ 42.47 vs 12481 @ 53.11
Kirsten 5726 @ 41.79 vs 1563 @ 65.12
de Villiers 1265 @ 36.14 vs 7500 @ 54.34
Taylor 1228 @ 36.11 vs 1708 @ 44.94
Trumper 1650 @ 33.00 vs 1513 @ 48.80
Blewett 588 @ 29.40 vs 1964 @ 35.70
Laxman 685 @ 28.54 vs 8096 @ 48.47
Howarth 535 @ 24.31 vs 1996 @ 35.64
Masakadza 564 @ 23.50 vs 1659 @ 33.18
Bailey 484 @ 21.04 vs 1806 @ 33.04

Sir Alastair Cook averaged 52 at 3

 

[Immenso]

Ken Rutherford averaged 4.60 as an opener.

Averaged 29.86 when not an opener.

 

[Prince EWS]

I know this was fully meant as a joke, but.... Is the openers tax real, or do the best bats just prefer the middle order?

It's a bit of both for sure IMO.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I don't know. They say you have to be able to counter early movement. But when you hit the ball, runs come easier. Pace works both ways. But don't ask me. I'm a 5th grade hack just looking for reasons to not rate Gavaskar. Ask jedi or something.

As someone who made 10,000 Test runs on Cricket Coach 2007 I will get back to you shortly with my thoughts

 

[AndrewB]

The Test in which Alan Hurst mankaded Sikander Bakht - the 1979 Aus v PK Perth Test - was the last in which 8-ball overs were bowled. As a direct result of the run out, Hurst was the last player to have ".7" in his bowling figures (24.7-2-94-5). Geoff Dymock was the last to have .6, in the first innings of the same match (21.6-4-65-3).
Later that day, Javed Miandad became the last player to bowl a (legitimate) 8-ball over in a Test, and then Mudassar Nazar became the last player to start one.
(The first ".7" in a Test went to Jack Gregory in the first Test with 8-ball overs: 28.7-2-111-5 in the 1924 Sydney Test).

Another minor rule change from around then (which I only learnt about recently) is that if a bowler is unable to complete an over, it apparently didn't come into the Laws until 1980 that another bowler should complete the over (instead of just abandoning it). It's less easy to see when the last 'abandoned' over was - possibly one from Imran in the 1979 Delhi Test. An early 'completed' over occurred at Jamaica in 1981, Jackman completing Dilley's 3rd over (Dilley having 'retired for boot repairs', according to the Wisden Book of Test Cricket).

 

[Coronis]

idk whether this is actually meaningless or not. Sunny is a great player and a borderline top 10 batsman for me and 4th opener all time.

Amongst ATG batsman though he does fall very short in one particular measure.

Average in wins: 43.97

I only bring it up because almost every other great batsmen, (and definitely every other bonafide ATG batsmen) have their averages go up, sometimes quite significantly in winning efforts. Other notable batsmen who drop down are McCabe at 43 and May at 40. Morris goes from 46 to 47 and the rest are all 50+

Whether this is a pointer towards his actual matchwinning ability or bowling contributions being larger from Kapil and the spinners relative to other teams I don’t know. Viswanath (49), Vengsarkar (47) and Amarnath (42) are other Indian bats from that era I think of.

Also shoutout to big daddy Kane. Averages 80 in wins behind only Voges and Bradman (153 and 130) for players who’ve won 10 matches. 20 tons in wins in just 42 matches, only behind Ponting 30/108, Waugh 25/86, Bradman 23/30, Hayden 23/71, Kallis 22/82, Smith 21/58. Tied with Tendulkar (20 in 72) and Root (20 in 61)

 

[ankitj]

Average in wins

Yeah completely meaningless. Belongs in this thread

 

[ankitj]

I only bring it up because almost every other great batsmen, (and definitely every other bonafide ATG batsmen) have their averages go up, sometimes quite significantly in winning efforts

Well obviously. You win more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. It is obvious that a player should average better in wins. Corollary of this is that average in losses should be more valuable given losses make up contests where odds are stacked against a player.

Although more strictly, you should never filter by match result because match result is not a condition that applies when a player is playing (unlike quality of opposition or pitch condition).

 

[TheJediBrah]

average in wins is an important statistic, it shows how valuable the runs you make actually are. No point making big scores when your team loses anyway, might as well have made a duck.

Lower the relative average in wins is generally a sign of a selfish player and/or a racist

 

[Coronis]

Well obviously. You win more matches against weaker teams and in favourable conditions. It is obvious that a player should average better in wins. Corollary of this is that average in losses should be more valuable given losses make up contests where odds are stacked against a player.

Although more strictly, you should never filter by match result because match result is not a condition that applies when a player is playing (unlike quality of opposition or pitch condition).

Well yes I don’t strictly filter that. As I said its just extremely odd that Gavaskar’s win average drops so much.