Leaving out the minnows...

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I cant believe one can rate a 50 against Australia and a 50 against Bangladesh equally. As far as I am concerned, Sachin's highest score in test cricket is 241 n.o. against Australia in Sydney. His highest score in first class cricket is 248 vs Bangladesh.

Well, of course. To take this to a further extreme, Graham Gooch's 154* vs. the West Indies on a terrible wicket at Headingley against an attack of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh and Patterson is often held in much higher esteem than his 333 (plus 2nd innings hundred) against a weak Indian bowling attack on a flat wicket at Lord's.

No one is saying that the 248 vs. Bangladesh is superior to his 241* at Sydney, but I would argue that it shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Uppercut]

This thread reminds me of Jigga's legendary motivational picture.

 

[tooextracool]

Personally, it needs to be looked at in context. For example, its hard to see how the WI attack between 2002-2007 was any better than Bangladesh' bowling attack. People will point to the likes of Lara and Chanderpaul as to reasons why WI were test class but the bottom line is that they still didn't possess a bowler who was remotely test class with Dillon and perhaps Collymore the only ones coming close. Runs against attacks composed of the Tino Bests, Vasbert Drakes', Adam Sanfords, Omari Banks', Darren Powells and even the early Jerome Taylors, Fidel Edwards and Corey Collymores should not count anymore than some of the runs scored against the Bangladesh bowling attacks,

 

[Goughy]

Personally, it needs to be looked at in context. For example, its hard to see how the WI attack between 2002-2007 was any better than Bangladesh' bowling attack. People will point to the likes of Lara and Chanderpaul as to reasons why WI were test class but the bottom line is that they still didn't possess a bowler who was remotely test class with Dillon and perhaps Collymore the only ones coming close. Runs against attacks composed of the Tino Bests, Vasbert Drakes', Adam Sanfords, Omari Banks', Darren Powells and even the early Jerome Taylors, Fidel Edwards and Corey Collymores should not count anymore than some of the runs scored against the Bangladesh bowling attacks,

For the time period you mention the Bang attack averaged 14 more a wicket compared to WI.

Bangladesh had a team bowling average of 53. 53! WI were never close to that bad. The attacks are not comparable.

 

[bagapath]

No one is saying that the 248 vs. Bangladesh is superior to his 241* at Sydney

sure no one did. no one should. that is why i choose to leave out bangladesh altogether because they are not in the same league as the rest of the nations. west indies beat india at home in 2002. india had beaten australia at home in 2001. so it is not unfair to keep windies in the pool. but bangladesh hasnt beaten anyone anywhere.

 

[Uppercut]

For the time period you mention the Bang attack averaged 14 more a wicket compared to WI.

Bangladesh had a team bowling average of 53. 53! WI were never close to that bad. The attacks are not comparable.

This. People don't realise just how bad Bangladesh really are.

 

[Pothas]

For the time period you mention the Bang attack averaged 14 more a wicket compared to WI.

Bangladesh had a team bowling average of 53. 53! WI were never close to that bad. The attacks are not comparable.

Yeah West Indies were never as bad as Bangladesh but the attack that I saw Rob Key make a double century against was hardly county standard.

 

[tooextracool]

For the time period you mention the Bang attack averaged 14 more a wicket compared to WI.

Bangladesh had a team bowling average of 53. 53! WI were never close to that bad. The attacks are not comparable.

It wasnt supposed to be a comparison between the two teams during the same period of time. My point was that the WI bowling attack from 2002-07 was probably as bad as the present day Bangladesh bowling attack (you could say last 1-2 years).

I fail to see how the likes of Mashrafe Mortaza, Enamul Haque Jr, Shakib Al Hasan etc are that much worse than Fidel Edwards, Adam Sanford, Tino Best, Vasbert Drakes, Darren Powell, or Dwayne Bravo. Not one of those WI bowlers were averaging anything lower than the high 30s with the exception of Collymore and to an extent Pedro Collins.

Not that I don't think performances against Bangladesh should be excluded, but if that is the case then excluding performances against present day Bangladesh is equivalent to excluding performances against the 2002-07 WI side.

 

[silentstriker]

For the time period you mention the Bang attack averaged 14 more a wicket compared to WI.

Bangladesh had a team bowling average of 53. 53! WI were never close to that bad. The attacks are not comparable.

India as a team averages 43 away from home for a few years there. And average 41 for the whole decade. Surely that meets the criteria too?

 

[bagapath]

India as a team averages 43 away from home for a few years there. And average 41 for the whole decade. Surely that meets the criteria too?

no. 53 is still 12 points away. 12 is huge. 41 is not equal to 53.

and SS. you would not rank viswanath (41) on par with g.chappell (53) surely!

 

[tooextracool]

no. 53 is still 12 points away. 12 is huge. 41 is not equal to 53.

Interestingly enough, Bangladesh since the start of the year in 2008 are averaging around 37 per wicket which is actually better than WI in the same period as well as better than the WI in the 2002-07 period.

 

[Athlai]

Interesting to see that Bangers have done better than Windies and Lanka in the last 3 years away from home and nearly the same as England.

 

[NUFAN]

Bangladesh are just insanely unlucky. I can't believe how many Cricketers perform great against them.

















J35t.

 

[bagapath]

since 2002 WI has a win - loss ratio of 0.26. they lose slightly under 4 matches for every win they achieve. bangladesh has a win-loss ratio of 0.06. they lose 15 matches for each victory they achieve. the numbers are even worse for bangla if we looked at the stats from the turn of the century. while one team is terrible the other one is a minnow.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[tooextracool]

since 2002 WI has a win - loss ratio of 0.26. they lose slightly under 4 matches for every win they achieve. bangladesh has a win-loss ratio of 0.06. they lose 15 matches for each victory they achieve. the numbers are even worse for bangla if we looked at the stats from the turn of the century. while one team is terrible the other one is a minnow.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

How is this relevant to the argument? One side had Brian Lara, Shiv Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan to bat for them while the other had Aftab Ahmed, Javed Omar and Habibul Bashar. Go figure which one was more likely to win.

The point I am making here is that scoring runs against the WI bowling attack between 2002-07 was no more difficult than scoring runs against Bangladesh ATM. In other words, the bowling attacks are comparable. Therefore if you are to discount runs scored against Bangladesh in recent times then you also need to discount runs scored against WI since 2002.

 

[Zinzan]

There's been an interesting if some what fractious debate in the ...Daniel Vettori thread regarding what stats should be included and excluded from a player's record in order to allow comparison and standardisation.

The 'easy way' of doing this is by excluding Bangladesh. Yet, we only seem to be willing to do this if it supports the weight of the argument that we're trying to prove.

Why should we leave out Bangladesh? Yes, certain players succeed against them - being the supposed weaker team, but what about the players who fail to succeed against this apparently inferior opposition. Harbhajan, for example, has pretty poor stats vs. Bangladesh - so subtracting them from his analysis improves his results. But surely, his failure to succeed against Bangladesh shows some kind of deficiency?

Also, there is debate as to what else constitutes 'minnow'. Let's exclude Zimbabwe, but why would we want to exclude a Zimbabwe including the Flower Brothers, Neil Johnson, Campbell, Streak and the Strangs? Would we want to?

What about minnows in the past? Surely the stats in early South Africa games should be excluded to? What about New Zealand or Sri Lanka? If so, when did they stop being a minnow and start being a welcome team in the mainstream? When Hadlee started playing? When Aravinda de Silva was at the top of his game?

Then, what about excluding freak batting or bowling paradises? Surely the recent 1st India vs. Sri Lanka team inflates the batsmen's averages; whilst similarly deflating the bowler's averages? The Napier wicket in NZ has been somewhat freakish in its flatness over the last 10 years (a West Indies vs. NZ test about 6 or 7 years ago sticks in my mind as being a prime example). Is it unfair to include big scores in these games in any batting analysis?

What if a team is particularly weak in a country? Should we exclude England or New Zealand's performances in Sri Lanka if (which I can't guarantee they are) they are unrepresentatively substandard?

Even if you exclude all of this 'erroneous' information in order to acheive some utopian standardisation - you're still left with records like Vettori vs. Harbhajan where Harby has played the majority of his tests in India in very different conditions from the majority of Vettori's games in New Zealand. Think of it the other way round, a bog standard seam bowler in NZ can get super bowling stats against decent teams whilst a much better Indian or Pakistani seamer may struggle to be comparable due to playing on home surfaces.

My personal belief is that excluding Bangladesh is just focusing on the tip of the iceberg. I, personally, would not exclude any stats from an analysis of a player - its impossible to standardise records. However, the performance of a 'Vettori' could be caveated with the footnote that 40-odd wickets of his have been taken against Bangladesh.

What are your thoughts on 'The Minnows'. What would you take out of people's records given the chance?

Top Thread HD & one I was thinking of creating myself in response to the one-dimensional & very simplistic analysis by some in the Vettori thread.


I just think if one wants to do a proper analysis between players like Vettori & Harby for example, they need to do a proper one & actually analyze all test played, the grounds, the opposition (including relative strengths at the time) as well as factors such as whether their side is dominating the match or not. I don't care what people say, all other things equal, it would be easier for Harby bowling against Oz if India had just racked up 450 in the first innings (& Aust are under some pressure) than it would be for Vettori if NZ had only racked up 200 in the first innings. It's also easier when other bowlers in the team are taking wickets at the other end, as although a bowler may not get as many wickets in this instance, their bowling average & SR would be better.

Is it just a mere coincidence that Vettori's average is so so much more impressive in games Bond (our only world-class bowler for donkey's years) plays?

All this suggests to me Vettori's average would have been a better (not significantly, but maybe closer to 30) had he played for a stronger test side (including being able to bowl to New Zealander's), where batsman wouldn't just look to milk/defend him, because they know they have good bowlers coming in from the other end as well.i.e what happens when Bond plays.

Now before Upper's jumps in his "that's all only hypothetical' argument', let me say, yes it is hypothetical, but still should be considered & discussed when making such a comparison. Just like it's only hypothetical (for rugby fans) to suggest Brian O'Driscoll would have probably scored more test tries from the same amount of games had he played for the All Blacks....doubt many rugby fans wouldn't argue too much with that theory hypothetical or not.


FTR, I personally don't have a problem with those who say the minnow's should be excluded to provide perspective on a players career, provided that don't just turn-off & remained close-minded at that point (i.e Bagar's) & actually consider other factors as well that in some instances, can provide even more perspective

 

[bagapath]

How is this relevant to the argument? One side had Brian Lara, Shiv Chanderpaul and Ramnaresh Sarwan to bat for them while the other had Aftab Ahmed, Javed Omar and Habibul Bashar. Go figure which one was more likely to win.

The point I am making here is that scoring runs against the WI bowling attack between 2002-07 was no more difficult than scoring runs against Bangladesh ATM. In other words, the bowling attacks are comparable. Therefore if you are to discount runs scored against Bangladesh in recent times then you also need to discount runs scored against WI since 2002.

we can argue this point to death; the death of all other forum members out of boredom. but the simple fact is a team wins tests with its bowlers. west indies won many more tests than bangladesh in the given period. meaning their bowlers manged to take 20 wickets at least once for every 4 losses they suffered. for bangladesh to achieve it once, they have to lose 15 matches. you simply cant call their bowlers were of the same standard.

 

[tooextracool]

Whilst it is true that a good bowling attack>>a good batting attack, the bottom line is that you need to be able to put runs on the board to win games and Bangladesh have not been able to do that in recent times. Both sides had terrible bowling attacks, but the difference being that WI batsman gave their bowlers, no matter how poor, occasionally something to work with and won those tests, while the Bangladesh batsmen didnt. You can't take 20 wickets if your batsmen are struggling to put 150 on the board and falling to innings defeats.

 

[bagapath]

FTR, I personally don't have a problem with those who say the minnow's should be excluded to provide perspective on a players career, provided that don't just turn-off & remained close-minded at that point (i.e Bagar's) & actually consider other factors as well that in some instances, can provide even more perspective

zinzan. am i that bagar you have in mind? calling me close minded is hurtful, dude. it is as controversial as naming trumper the greatest batsman before WW1. it is possible, i am willing to concede. but grace, stanley jackson, ranji, hill and hobbs were all there too.

one of the most important performances against bangladesh is gilchrist's century that saved australia from a humilating defeat. bangladesh had australia down on the mat till then. had that performance from b'desh made them more confident i would have been very happy. who wont like to see more interesting matches around the globe? but the next game showed they still were a few rungs below international class. even in that same game they went on to lose big time like amateurs.

i am making that point to illustrate the fact that there will be individual occasions in a team's (or even a player's) history when such odd situations arise out of sheer chance. those will have to occur more frequently for us to consider the team (or a player) more seriously overall. that is why it is difficult and, in my mind, illogical to pick and choose specific performances. i am more interested in using overall figures in looking at stats. cherry picking looks dishonest to me, somehow.

 

[bagapath]

You can't take 20 wickets if your batsmen are struggling to put 150 on the board and falling to innings defeats.

dont want to turn this into a batting vs bowling argument. i believe bangladesh cant take 20 wickets anyway. unless they win at least once for every five losses they cant be compared with WI. of course west indies can start losing more and more and come down to bangla's level. which means we will have one more minnow.