My International OverRated XI

[Goughy]

Yeah so it doesn't count when you are up against the best team in the world, and need your best player to stand up tall and score runs eh? Explain to me why Inzy averages so little both against Australia and in Australia.

Well I can't say for sure why the case is but I can see trends and understand stats.

Inzi has only played 14 tests against Aus in 14 years. This is a small statistical sample and he has not played against Aus in Pak for 7 years and only 6 games total.

Lara has played against Aus 31 times in his 15 year career. A sample size this big can survive and is not overly swollen or decimated by a run of good or bad form.

Lara has had runs of 8 innings without a 50 and 2 more runs of 6 innings against Australia.

Ul-Haqs longest run against Australia without a 50 is 5 innings and this is his current run. Due to the small sample size of games this run of bad form affects the stats far greater than a run of bad form by Lara.

Also Lara averages 25 more against Australia in the WI than in Aus. I don't quite know what that means but it seems relevant

 

[tooextracool]

In fact his teammates perfom better when he is not in the team. This is an unfortunate legacy and reflects badly.

and thats happened so often has it not?

 

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Goughy
In fact his teammates perfom better when he is not in the team. This is an unfortunate legacy and reflects badly.

and thats happened so often has it not?

Well this took a long time and I had no idea if the stats would back me up. Anyway Im sure Ill be criticised some where for this.

I took Lara's last 60 games. Roughly 1/2 of his career total when he would definately be a senior and influential player. During the time period in which he played his last 60 games he missed a total of 17.

Of those 17, 11 were played away from home (always more difficult).

The team went 6 wins-5 draws-6 loses. 3 of the wins were against Zimbabwe, but the last game against Zim was in 2001 when they still had a decent team.

These 17 games also include a tough tour to India and the series in Sri Lanka when they played without many of their established stars due to the disagreement with the Board.

They also beat Pakistan and forced South Africa to follow on.

Anyway here are the stats for the batsmen who played in a decent number of the tests Lara missed.

M. Samuels

• Career Av = 28.18
• Av. in games without Lara = 64.4

J. Adams

• Career Av = 41.26
• Av. in games without Lara = 63

W. Hinds

• Career Av = 33.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 54.14

R. Sarwan

• Career Av = 39.89
• Av. in games without Lara = 47.75

D. Ganga

• Career Av = 24.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 38

S. Chanderpaul

• Career Av = 45.47
• Av. in games without Lara = 50.10

There are 2 guys whose average is virtually identical (though both are still marginally higher)

R. Hinds

• Career Av = 24.19
• Av. in games without Lara = 26.25

C. Gayle

• Career Av = 39.1
• Av. in games without Lara = 40.11

and of all the batsmen who played any considerable time without Lara in the team only 1 has a lower average than in his career.

S. Campbell

• Career Av = 32.38
• Av. in games without Lara = 24.1

Its been a common whisper in cricketing circles that West Indian batsmen play better without Lara (we can speculate about why without ever really knowing the reason. Is he a bad teammate? do the others rely on him too much to the detriment of his own game? does he intimidate his own teammates? Your guess is as good as mine).

Whether is proves anything to you, thats for you to decide.

I can't do any more than start with a hypothosis and run a controlled experiment that indicates the hypothosis to be correct.

Again the reason I think Lara is overrated is not because I don't think he is a great player. I do. I would just put a couple of others from around the world ahead of him if I was building a team. A single wicket contest would be a different story.

 

[Slifer]

Originally Posted by Goughy
In fact his teammates perfom better when he is not in the team. This is an unfortunate legacy and reflects badly.



Well this took a long time and I had no idea if the stats would back me up. Anyway Im sure Ill be criticised some where for this.

I took Lara's last 60 games. Roughly 1/2 of his career total when he would definately be a senior and influential player. During the time period in which he played his last 60 games he missed a total of 17.

Of those 17, 11 were played away from home (always more difficult).

The team went 6 wins-5 draws-6 loses. 3 of the wins were against Zimbabwe, but the last game against Zim was in 2001 when they still had a decent team.

These 17 games also include a tough tour to India and the series in Sri Lanka when they played without many of their established stars due to the disagreement with the Board.

They also beat Pakistan and forced South Africa to follow on.

Anyway here are the stats for the batsmen who played in a decent number of the tests Lara missed.

M. Samuels

• Career Av = 28.18
• Av. in games without Lara = 64.4

J. Adams

• Career Av = 41.26
• Av. in games without Lara = 63

W. Hinds

• Career Av = 33.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 54.14

R. Sarwan

• Career Av = 39.89
• Av. in games without Lara = 47.75

D. Ganga

• Career Av = 24.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 38

S. Chanderpaul

• Career Av = 45.47
• Av. in games without Lara = 50.10

There are 2 guys whose average is virtually identical (though both are still marginally higher)

R. Hinds

• Career Av = 24.19
• Av. in games without Lara = 26.25

C. Gayle

• Career Av = 39.1
• Av. in games without Lara = 40.11

and of all the batsmen who played any considerable time without Lara in the team only 1 has a lower average than in his career.

S. Campbell

• Career Av = 32.38
• Av. in games without Lara = 24.1

Its been a common whisper in cricketing circles that West Indian batsmen play better without Lara (we can speculate about why without ever really knowing the reason. Is he a bad teammate? do the others rely on him too much to the detriment of his own game? does he intimidate his own teammates? Your guess is as good as mine).

Whether is proves anything to you, thats for you to decide.

I can't do any more than start with a hypothosis and run a controlled experiment that indicates the hypothosis to be correct.

Again the reason I think Lara is overrated is not because I don't think he is a great player. I do. I would just put a couple of others from around the world ahead of him if I was building a team. A single wicket contest would be a different story.

Like who i would like to know who u would have in ur team (ahead of Lara) if u knew u were about to play the best team in the world?

 

[Dick Rockett]

This is a test cricket thread. His economy rate is increasing.

As for the last 10 games they are a blip that hides a true trend.

4 tests agains Zim and Bang with 31 wickets @ 12.1
6 tests against Aus= 19 @ 44.68

Any period in which 40% of games are played against the minnows will scew the stats. The numbers against Aus are not special.

I used the last 10 tests as an example simply because Howzstat shows that info as an indication of recent form. As I already pointed out, Statsguru shows both Vettori's bowling averages have been dropping for the last couple of years, and he certainly hasn't been playing exclusively against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Economy rate is hardly a huge concern in tests, but if you must make a big deal over it, a career stat of 2.68 RPO is no disgrace, especially when you consider the increased runrates in recent seasons. I'd also like to know where you get the info that says his economy rate is increasing. I can't seem to get Statsguru to do it, but if I'm missing something, please let me know.

Also, seeing as we're using Giles as a comparison, a quick look at his record shows that his average is 5 runs higher, and he also boasts an inferior strike rate and RPO.

I'm certainly not claiming that Daniel Vettori is an all time great, but certainly not overrated.

 

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Goughy
In fact his teammates perfom better when he is not in the team. This is an unfortunate legacy and reflects badly.



Well this took a long time and I had no idea if the stats would back me up. Anyway Im sure Ill be criticised some where for this.

I took Lara's last 60 games. Roughly 1/2 of his career total when he would definately be a senior and influential player. During the time period in which he played his last 60 games he missed a total of 17.

Of those 17, 11 were played away from home (always more difficult).

The team went 6 wins-5 draws-6 loses. 3 of the wins were against Zimbabwe, but the last game against Zim was in 2001 when they still had a decent team.

These 17 games also include a tough tour to India and the series in Sri Lanka when they played without many of their established stars due to the disagreement with the Board.

They also beat Pakistan and forced South Africa to follow on.

Anyway here are the stats for the batsmen who played in a decent number of the tests Lara missed.

M. Samuels

• Career Av = 28.18
• Av. in games without Lara = 64.4

J. Adams

• Career Av = 41.26
• Av. in games without Lara = 63

W. Hinds

• Career Av = 33.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 54.14

R. Sarwan

• Career Av = 39.89
• Av. in games without Lara = 47.75

D. Ganga

• Career Av = 24.01
• Av. in games without Lara = 38

S. Chanderpaul

• Career Av = 45.47
• Av. in games without Lara = 50.10

There are 2 guys whose average is virtually identical (though both are still marginally higher)

R. Hinds

• Career Av = 24.19
• Av. in games without Lara = 26.25

C. Gayle

• Career Av = 39.1
• Av. in games without Lara = 40.11

and of all the batsmen who played any considerable time without Lara in the team only 1 has a lower average than in his career.

S. Campbell

• Career Av = 32.38
• Av. in games without Lara = 24.1

Its been a common whisper in cricketing circles that West Indian batsmen play better without Lara (we can speculate about why without ever really knowing the reason. Is he a bad teammate? do the others rely on him too much to the detriment of his own game? does he intimidate his own teammates? Your guess is as good as mine).

Whether is proves anything to you, thats for you to decide.

I can't do any more than start with a hypothosis and run a controlled experiment that indicates the hypothosis to be correct.

Again the reason I think Lara is overrated is not because I don't think he is a great player. I do. I would just put a couple of others from around the world ahead of him if I was building a team. A single wicket contest would be a different story.

i cant quite find 17 games, ive found 15 for which the record stands 6-5-4(wins,draws, losses). surprisingly enough 5 out of 6 of those wins came against bangladesh or zimbabwe, and the one victory was a 1 wicket victory against pakistan. those were games you'd expect any team to win with or without lara IMO. and would it be that surprising to you that all of those players average a lot more than their career average in those games given that 1/3rd of the sample includes games against minnows?

 

[Goughy]

i cant quite find 17 games, ive found 15 for which the record stands 6-5-4(wins,draws, losses). surprisingly enough 5 out of 6 of those wins came against bangladesh or zimbabwe, and the one victory was a 1 wicket victory against pakistan. those were games you'd expect any team to win with or without lara IMO. and would it be that surprising to you that all of those players average a lot more than their career average in those games given that 1/3rd of the sample includes games against minnows?

I never hid any of those facts. But again te Zim team they played against was not the minnows thay currently are. Cannot compare the Zim team of late 90's early 2000's to the team now. Not saying they were great but they were competetive.

Also 1/3 of the games may have been against what you term "minnows", but 2/3rds were away in alien conditions.

Obviously made you think enough to check it out.

 

[marc71178]

As I already pointed out, Statsguru shows both Vettori's bowling averages have been dropping for the last couple of years, and he certainly hasn't been playing exclusively against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

No, but the only reason they've dropped in Tests is because of those games.

 

[Goughy]

Like who i would like to know who u would have in ur team (ahead of Lara) if u knew u were about to play the best team in the world?

Well, I would have a middle order of Ponting, Dravid, Inzi and Kallis.

Lara has been brilliant and has single handedly won a few games for WI. However, this sticks in our mind more than the fact that he is more inconsistent than the others I have mentioned. Also as I have mentioned before he has padded his stats in draws more than others.

If Im choosing the best XI then consistency is just as important as ability (all the others apart from Inzi also have a higher batting av.)
If I am designing the best team in the world I do not want 1 brilliant innings followed by a bad one. I would want to keep the opposition under pressure from a constant weight of runs throughout the series.

Laras Inconsistency
% of Test innings when out for under 20 runs
Lara - 39.81
Inzi - 37.85
Kallis - 35.4
Dravid - 31.73
Ponting - 31.32

% of innings with a score greater than 50
Kallis - 37.89
Inzi - 37.85
Dravid - 37.72
Ponting - 36.14
Lara - 35.65

He ranks last on both lists
Lara is the only player of the 5 with a higher % of innings under 20 than over 50.

Lara does not even top the % of innings over 100. That belongs to Ponting at 16.87%.
Lara, Inzi and Kallis all average between 14.1 and 14.35%

 

[Richard]

I never hid any of those facts. But again te Zim team they played against was not the minnows thay currently are. Cannot compare the Zim team of late 90's early 2000's to the team now. Not saying they were great but they were competetive.

One simple threshold: WC2003.
Before that, games against them were worth considering as Tests and ODIs.
After, they're not.

 

[SJS]

Put any player, howsoever great, in the period when he is past his prime or is going through a prolonged patch of bad form and you can call him over rated.

Thats what much of this list looks like.

I could put a period of time to most players in the history of the game when they could be put in a list like this.

This is less a list (largely) NOT of over rated players but one of "Players Not Currently at Their Peak"

 

[Jono]

Well, I would have a middle order of Ponting, Dravid, Inzi and Kallis.

Lara has been brilliant and has single handedly won a few games for WI. However, this sticks in our mind more than the fact that he is more inconsistent than the others I have mentioned. Also as I have mentioned before he has padded his stats in draws more than others.

If Im choosing the best XI then consistency is just as important as ability (all the others apart from Inzi also have a higher batting av.)
If I am designing the best team in the world I do not want 1 brilliant innings followed by a bad one. I would want to keep the opposition under pressure from a constant weight of runs throughout the series.

Laras Inconsistency
% of Test innings when out for under 20 runs
Lara - 39.81
Inzi - 37.85
Kallis - 35.4
Dravid - 31.73
Ponting - 31.32

% of innings with a score greater than 50
Kallis - 37.89
Inzi - 37.85
Dravid - 37.72
Ponting - 36.14
Lara - 35.65

He ranks last on both lists
Lara is the only player of the 5 with a higher % of innings under 20 than over 50.

Lara does not even top the % of innings over 100. That belongs to Ponting at 16.87%.
Lara, Inzi and Kallis all average between 14.1 and 14.35%

Ponting, Dravid, Inzy and Kallis have all become better batsman since the turn of the century, so you choosing them ahead of Sachin isn't a surprise (as long as its tests), and you choosing them ahead of Lara IMO is wrong but its not exactly a sin, because all 4 have been superb over the past 3 years.

However, I don't see how Kallis, Dravid, Ponting and Inzy being absolute machines in the past few years (surprise surprise, when they are in their prime (Inzy peaked late IMO, the rest are at the right age for their prime)) denigrates Lara or Tendulkar's (Sachin peaked early because of his late start, and had a longer peak than any of these guys have had yet) achievements throughout their career? It doesn't make them overrated, maybe it makes those 4 underrated, but not Sachin or Lara overrated.

 

[Jono]

Put any player, howsoever great, in the period when he is past his prime or is going through a prolonged patch of bad form and you can call him over rated.

Thats what much of this list looks like.

I could put a period of time to most players in the history of the game when they could be put in a list like this.

This is less a list (largely) NOT of over rated players but one of "Players Not Currently at Their Peak"

Stole the words right ouf of my mouth (or rather keyboard) SJS.

Brilliant as usual.

 

[tooextracool]

I never hid any of those facts. But again te Zim team they played against was not the minnows thay currently are. Cannot compare the Zim team of late 90's early 2000's to the team now. Not saying they were great but they were competetive.

and that changes the fact that they were the worst test team then how exactly? zimbabwe have never posessed even a remotely good bowling attack, and as such have never been favorites to win any series against any opponent. further only their 99 team can be considered to be test class, the one from 00/01 definetly was not.

Also 1/3 of the games may have been against what you term "minnows", but 2/3rds were away in alien conditions.

do that and you're looking at a very small sample of games over a very long period of time(12 games over 7 years?)
and i wouldnt be too surprised if most of those player's records dropped when you consider just those games.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I certainly feel that although Giles has improved heaps too, he's fairly one dimensional - turn it from outside leg.

Plenty of bowlers do that - most notably Warne.

 

[Goughy]

Stole the words right ouf of my mouth (or rather keyboard) SJS.

Brilliant as usual.

Well the last thing I looked at was for career figures, not in their prime or now. And the others out perform Lara.

Yes the Overrated list was for current form and ability not for when there are in their prime. That is why Sachin and Lara are so prominent.

I call them overrated because people forgive them for their failings and give them more leeway (which maybe they have earned) than other great players would be given.

The fact that guys would still currently pick Lara and Tendulkar over Dravid, Kallis, Inzi and Ponting when they are past their prime illustrates to me (my humble opinion) that they are being rated on reputaion and legend rather than current ability.

It does amaze me, that when I said Lara was past his prime I was told that he wasn't and I was wrong and I should look at what he has done lately.

When I look at recent stats to illustrate a point Im told you can't compare players in their prime with aging players.

Its a beautiful thing to combat opposing statements arguing the same conclusion

 

[Jono]

^ Lol, fair point. When I mentioned prime, I was primarily referring to Sachin.

Debating when exactly Lara's prime is, is a tough one, because he's been brilliant in the past 3 years, but also kicked butt in the 90s.

Its a whole different question altogether.

 

[Dick Rockett]

No, but the only reason they've dropped in Tests is because of those games.

Ok, whatever.

 

[Richard]

Put any player, howsoever great, in the period when he is past his prime or is going through a prolonged patch of bad form and you can call him over rated.

Thats what much of this list looks like.

I could put a period of time to most players in the history of the game when they could be put in a list like this.

This is less a list (largely) NOT of over rated players but one of "Players Not Currently at Their Peak"

Well put.
Botham was overrated 1984-1987.
Atherton was overrated in 2001.
Etc., etc.
Almost everyone had a down period at the start of their careers and the end.
Overrated is not an easy thing to define.

 

[Richard]

and that changes the fact that they were the worst test team then how exactly? zimbabwe have never posessed even a remotely good bowling attack, and as such have never been favorites to win any series against any opponent. further only their 99 team can be considered to be test class, the one from 00/01 definetly was not.

Zimbabwe were Test-class at all times before April 2003 - there's a difference between being the worst of the class (as WI currently are) and being utterly overwhelmed every time or almost every time they play.
This didn't happen until April 2003.