Australian test selection 2018/19

[the big bambino]

They will though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

So Tim Paine has more dismissals than Wade and has played 3 less tests.

Largely meaningless

He had the highest rate of dismissals per match of any Australian wicket keeper who has played 10 tests or more.

Largely meaningless

He has the second highest test batting average for an Australian wicket keeper behind Gilchrist.

ok that's a good achievement, though I doubt it will stay there

He has the most runs for an Australian wicket keeper who is also captain, 9 runs ahead of Gilchrist.

Also meaningless

 

[stephen]

Dismissals per innings isn't a meaningless stat for a keeper. Sure, it's not the whole picture and it's not as meaningful as barring average is to a batsman but it is important.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Dismissals per innings isn't a meaningless stat for a keeper. Sure, it's not the whole picture and it's not as meaningful as barring average is to a batsman but it is important.

That's why I said "largely meaningless" rather than "completely meaningless"

It doesn't necessarily tell you anything

 

[trundler]

Kamran Akmal, Geraint Jones and BJ Watling rank higher on that than Alan Knott. Depends on too many variables to be of value.

 

[Spark]

Dismissals per innings isn't a meaningless stat for a keeper. Sure, it's not the whole picture and it's not as meaningful as barring average is to a batsman but it is important.

is it though?

 

[Starfighter]

is it though?

It's more of an indicator of the bowling attack and the modes of dismissal as anything. Pant tied the match record at Adelaide yet you wouldn't have said his keeping was exceptionally brilliant throughout the match or series.

 

[trundler]

Or ever, at any point in his career thus far.

 

[Spark]

It's more of an indicator of the bowling attack and the modes of dismissal as anything. Pant tied the match record at Adelaide yet you wouldn't have said his keeping was exceptionally brilliant throughout the match or series.

right, exactly. it tells you effectively zero (i.e. imperceptible above noise) about the quality of the keeper themselves.

 

[Spikey]

at one point GJones, Gilchrist, Kamran Akmal and Rad Haddin were at the top of "dismissals per innings" list

 

[trundler]

What do we think of Labuschagne's bowling? He did ok in the UAE and was decent in the practice match even though the wickets he got were figured to him. I'd say he could be a decent 5th bowler IF he was a good enough batsman, say a 40+ average in the Shield.

 

[Starfighter]

What do we think of Labuschagne's bowling? He did ok in the UAE and was decent in the practice match even though the wickets he got were figured to him. I'd say he could be a decent 5th bowler IF he was a good enough batsman, say a 40+ average in the Shield.

It shouldn't be a factor in his selection at this stage. If the rest of the batsmen were better then maybe but batting ability should be the sole concern currently.

 

[trundler]

Yeah, you're right. If he was a good enough batsmen his bowling would be real handy. But he's not and so would be another Mitch Marsh.

 

[the big bambino]

right, exactly. it tells you effectively zero (i.e. imperceptible above noise) about the quality of the keeper themselves.

Why not though? I mean if he was a crap keeper he would’ve shelled his chances and never have equaled the match record. Imo keeping is the trickiest discipline to judge with just stats. But at some point you have to allow things like dismissals per match, byes per 100 runs, dismissals/drops ratios influence your opinion of a keeper.

 

[Spark]

dismissals/drops and byes can be useful in very narrow circumstances. i don't see dismissals/match ever being useful.

 

[the big bambino]

Is there any statistical measure you’d trust and if not would you rate a keeper just by observation?

 

[Spark]

Is there any statistical measure you’d trust and if not would you rate a keeper just by observation?

i mean, it's kind of hard to answer this question because i feel the way it's posed philosophically leads me towards a way of viewing stats in cricket in a way that i just don't agree with, insofar as all statistical analyses give you fixed, defined answers to fixed, define questions and almost all misuse of stats in cricket and particularly on this forum result from people extending statistical analysis beyond their appropriate range of applicability.

which is a long winded way of saying statistical measures are there to inform, not lead

 

[Top_Cat]

ok that's a good achievement, though I doubt it will stay there

Even if it didn't, it obscures the fact he hasn't come close to scoring a ton nor looked like it. His batting is only relevant when compared to the rabble above him in the order.

Both Haddin and Wade were genuine number 7's who had moments, rightly or wrongly, where they were considered for a top-6 spot. They had the capability to at least make the opposition sport multiple plans for them if they got away. Paine's clinging to 7 because Cummins need to send down 15 overs a day at pace.

Since coming back, Paine's keeping has been neat, at best. That means it's probably correct to rate him the best in the country but it doesn't follow that he's a good stumper. There's a big regression toward a very low mean coming unless he retires first.

 

[Red]

Both Haddin and Wade were genuine number 7's who had moments, rightly or wrongly, where they were considered for a top-6 spot. They had the capability to at least make the opposition sport multiple plans for them if they got away.

This is a very generous interpretation of Wade's abilities as a test match batsman, imo.

 

[aussie tragic]

With Patterson added to the test squad, what are the odds that Burns and Renshaw now both miss out, with Patterson and Pucovski straight swaps in the order for the dropped Smarsh and Handscomb?