Are multi-format greats a thing of past?

[TheJediBrah]

Are strike rates in Australia consistently lower? In 2015 world cup there were 2 double hundreds and in knockout stages more 300+ team scores than in any other world cup.

I wouldn't have thought so. 2015 World cup was it's own beast though, very flat wickets, and it was the first time (or close to it) where they did the 4 fielders outside the ring restriction for the whole innings. Hence there were some monstrous scores and it was very hard to defend. They've since changed the field restriction rules so that you can have 5 out after the 40th over.

 

[ankitj]

It's much of muchness really.

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

 

[stephen]

Are strike rates in Australia consistently lower? In 2015 world cup there were 2 double hundreds and in knockout stages more 300+ team scores than in any other world cup.

A lot of the games played in the world cup were on smaller fields and in New Zealand. It's not indicative of the majority of international games, which are played on the larger grounds.

 

[stephen]

Between the top teams in the last decade, grouped by country:

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Sorting by RPO, Australia is 5th on the list of run rates by host country (with a reasonable number of ODIs).

Sorting by average, Australia is again 5th on the list.

Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the West Indies and the UAE are the places below it. We can probably conclude that the reason they're lower is because the host team hasn't been good over the last decade.

When you just look at away team stats:

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo

Teams bat slower in Australia than they do anywhere but the WI and Bangladesh.

 

[Red]

I

The corollary of this is that Garner is probably not as good in ODI cricket as is often made out. I still rate him number 1 but I'm beginning to think I might be over rating him.

Or people don't just think Garner is the best ever solely based on numbers...

Garner was made for economical bowling. Everything about him was suited to limiting runs. He would have been an out and out legend of 20/20

 

[Starfighter]

Or people don't just think Garner is the best ever solely based on numbers...

Garner was made for economical bowling. Everything about him was suited to limiting runs. He would have been an out and out legend of 20/20

Garner didn't have the knuckleball or slower bouncer or whatever other trash that Andrew Tye bowls and gets belted over the boundary. He can't have been any good.

 

[marc71178]

The problem is there is no way of knowing either way. I don’t think anyone from a past era can definitely be said that they’d be a guaranteed success in a game that they haven’t played (and I’d include modern ODI cricket as being that as well)

 

[Manee]

I think there is an extent to which general perception matters a great deal. I think public opinion can harness trends which aren't visible by the statistics on a piece of paper. For example, Jadeja would surely qualify as ATG in all-format (Test and ODI) all-rounder. But in reality, this is clearly not the case.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think there is an extent to which general perception matters a great deal. I think public opinion can harness trends which aren't visible by the statistics on a piece of paper. For example, Jadeja would surely qualify as ATG in all-format (Test and ODI) all-rounder. But in reality, this is clearly not the case.

Eh, I think if you sub in "career averages" for "statistics" this is true, but proper analysis of statistics within context can tell you a lot more than raw averages do.

 

[Manee]

Eh, I think if you sub in "career averages" for "statistics" this is true, but proper analysis of statistics within context can tell you a lot more than raw averages do.

Potentially you're right. I just feel that one can cut the statistics to say whatever they want. As an example of something that I used to do which was taking runs in tough conditions as the true test of greatness:
- Is NZ counted as tough conditions or small boundaries undermine that
- Is England flat or seaming
- Is Australia hard for Australian batsmen (vice versa for India)

These are illustrative questions - I'm sure someone could cleverly reply to each with short, witty answers. But hopefully my point makes sense. Kohli > Pujara in Tests, he was the big wicket in England - I don't need any analysis to tell me that. Dhawan and Vijay were always going to fail - likewise, this was predictable. Ashwin will never be reliable outside of Asia. Etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

Potentially you're right. I just feel that one can cut the statistics to say whatever they want.

Right, ex post facto use of statistics is extremely annoying. As is the extremely narrow use of statistics (ie pretending "statistics" just means one statistic applied repetitively).

But given how often I tend to actually disagree with the conventional wisdom when it comes to current players in current situations, it wouldn't make sense for me to put huge amounts of stock in that when rating already retired players.

 

[Manee]

But given how often I tend to actually disagree with the conventional wisdom when it comes to current players in current situations, it wouldn't make sense for me to put huge amounts of stock in that when rating already retired players.

Fair.

 

[Uppercut]

I think there is an extent to which general perception matters a great deal. I think public opinion can harness trends which aren't visible by the statistics on a piece of paper. For example, Jadeja would surely qualify as ATG in all-format (Test and ODI) all-rounder. But in reality, this is clearly not the case.

I haven't watched much cricket in a few years and **** me Jadeja has 192 test wickets @ 23?!? What the **** happened?

 

[vcs]

He's been very good.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I haven't watched much cricket in a few years and **** me Jadeja has 192 test wickets @ 23?!? What the **** happened?

He's actually pretty awesome. Doesn't even rely too much on the surface these days and manages to do a decent job even on flat pitches. It's not all "natural variation" with him anymore , the guy just bowls smartly. And he's turned himself into a test standard lower order bat who has regularly contributed vital runs. Hero.

 

[vcs]

I can see him getting dropped/rotated a lot away from Asia and keeping up a good statistical record in terms of average, but only managing 350-400 wickets. It will be tricky to figure out where to rank him in that case.

 

[OverratedSanity]

350-400 is a lot. Can't just assume he'll continue this another 6-7 years (which is what it'll take to get there). Hope he does though. I can't wait to make Jadeja vs Warne threads.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I haven't watched much cricket in a few years and **** me Jadeja has 192 test wickets @ 23?!? What the **** happened?

He's been a meme for a while. Most of his career has bullied touring sides on Indian dustbowls, on which his bowling is very well suited. So much so that he often wasn't even picked outside of Asia (though Ashwin being around is also a big part of that).

As OS mentions he's a bit more versatile these days but still unlikely to be averaging under-40 with the ball in most non-Asian conditions tbh. Does a job though and along with his batting is one of the premier all-rounders in world cricket. If he was from Bangladesh he'd probably have similar, if not better stats, than that Shaquib guy

 

[marc71178]

I haven't watched much cricket in a few years and **** me Jadeja has 192 test wickets @ 23?!? What the **** happened?

India's run of home Tests on very friendly pitches. See also Ashwin, R.

 

[vcs]

Hopefully we can attribute Anderson's run in the last few years to friendly pitches as well.