*Official* England in Sri Lanka

[Richard]

Yes, and the Sky is Purple, the Grass is Pink, and the flying Pigs are bombing Baghdad.

Sorry to shatter your illusion, but not many people would consider any of the above true. Those who did would probably be considered lunatics.

 

[Richard]

Why not go further and take out a few more where he didn't get past 10, would make your perceived average for him look better.

Yes, but that would be wholly pointless as it would just be randomly selecting innings' to remove, as supposed to taking out a stratified cluster where the circumstances were undeniably extremely different to the rest of the time.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Sorry to shatter your illusion, but not many people would consider any of the above true. Those who did would probably be considered lunatics.

What if we are all colourblind except Marc?

 

[Richard]

That that is seen by the minority is the colourblind sight.
If the majority sees something, it is the case.
That's the only way this World works.

 

[Neil Pickup]

OK, Alex Tudor is really a number 3, so he's clearly a wonderful batsman.

Hick's a number 6 - 38.15 - moderate success. 2 centuries in 14.

He prefers the pressure in the sixth test. Average 87.66. Godlike.

And an interesting one here - Series won 19.13, Drawn 39.10, Lost 36.76...

Shane Warne - clearly a number 8 - 19.89, 8x50 - almost an all rounder...

And are you not portraying yourself as colourblind?

 

[Richard]

Some will place value on these sets of stats. Personally I think they're all just coincidences. Warne 19.89; OK, yes, but when you look at who's batting before him, there's no case for moving on up.
It's up to the individual to form her\his opinion based on what she\he places value on. I feel that opening innings are oranges compared to the apples of batting in the middle-order.
Ramprakash's detractors would naturally much prefer to blur them all into one.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry to shatter your illusion, but not many people would consider any of the above true. Those who did would probably be considered lunatics.

Well I could say exactly the same thing about the postthat was aimed at.

 

[marc71178]

Some will place value on these sets of stats. Personally I think they're all just coincidences.

So when the stats don't suit your theory they're just coincidences, yet when they back your claim, they're 100% fine. OK...

I feel that opening innings are oranges compared to the apples of batting in the middle-order.

Yet you consistently say that someone is proven at scoring runs opening should be moved to thte middle order whilst moving someone who is proven and settled in the middle order should open?

 

[Richard]

Yes, I do, because Vaughan is a proven quantity in the middle-order and Butcher is a proven quantity as an opener.
And no, I really do get rather tired of repeating this - I form my theories based on the stats. Not form my views then search for stats to back them up (which anyone could do - you could make a case for Mark Robinson being the best batsman ever if you wanted to).
If you want to dispute the value of the stats I quote, fine, but you won't change my valuing of them.

 

[marc71178]

Yes, I do, because Vaughan is a proven quantity in the middle-order and Butcher is a proven quantity as an opener.

Test Career averages by position:

Vaughan opening - 51.89
Vauagan in middle order - 33.95

Butcher at number 3 - 38.94
Butcher opening - 29.54

Proven quantities - yeah, a full 27 runs per innings less between them by switching positions.

 

[Richard]

If you ask me these stats don't tell the story, as you know as I've told you before.

 

[marc71178]

If you ask me these stats don't tell the story, as you know as I've told you before.

Why not?

They clearly show the players are much more effective in the current roles.

 

[raju]

Why not?

They clearly show the players are much more effective in the current roles.

No they don't because it doesn't take into account first chance averages which are the only foolproof method of assessing a player's worth.

So Vaughan is crap, and so are Hayden and Gilchrist. Butcher and Ramprakash have a true average of 85.35 each and Bill Athey walks on water.

 

[Legglancer]

Isn't Murali the best # 11 batsman currently ???? In the last series he has out performed most of Englands top order batsman in the average and strike rate ..... I think he deserves a promotion.

 

[Richard]

No they don't because it doesn't take into account first chance averages which are the only foolproof method of assessing a player's worth.

So Vaughan is crap, and so are Hayden and Gilchrist. Butcher and Ramprakash have a true average of 85.35 each and Bill Athey walks on water.

Bill Athey, Hayden and Gilchrist have no place in the Butcher-Vaughan argument. Nor does Butcher's first-chance average.
The signficant thing is periods. Got 2 minutes left today so will explain later.

 

[marc71178]

Bill Athey, Hayden and Gilchrist have no place in the Butcher-Vaughan argument. Nor does Butcher's first-chance average.
The signficant thing is periods.

Athey, Hayden and Gilchrist were ridicule names.

I thought that first chance averages meant SO much more than any other method of assessing batsmen, so why doesn't it have a place?

And how do periods overcome the FACT that between them Vaughan and Butcher average 27 less runs per innings batting where you think they should than batting where they currently do?

 

[Craig]

Would this be upsetting team balance if England played two 'keepers, say Read as a 'keeper and G.Jones a batsman?

 

[marc71178]

Would this be upsetting team balance if England played two 'keepers, say Read as a 'keeper and G.Jones a batsman?

Why?

Jones is not good enough to make the team as a specialist batsman!

 

[Craig]

It was just a thought.

 

[Richard]

Athey, Hayden and Gilchrist were ridicule names.

No, you don't say.
I was dispelling sarcasm with my favourite tack - treat it as serious.

I thought that first chance averages meant SO much more than any other method of assessing batsmen, so why doesn't it have a place?

Because Butcher's first-chance average in the period in question is still very impressive.

And how do periods overcome the FACT that between them Vaughan and Butcher average 27 less runs per innings batting where you think they should than batting where they currently do?

Because this fact is less relevant than the fac that Butcher had a terrible start to his Test-career, batting at one, three and even six, and another terrible period from The Second Test against Australia (1998\99) to The Fifth Test against South Africa (1999\2000), all opening.
In the 5 Tests from First v SA (1998) to First v Aus (1998\99) he did outstandingly (all opening) and in the period from 2001 onwards (batting at three and one, with three much the most common) he has done very well on some occasions and poorly on others. He had a bad series in New Zealand (2001\02) and two bad series' in late 2002 (India and Australia), otherwise he's been outstanding, whether opening or batting three.
With Vaughan first-chance averages are signficant; Vaughan has scored over 400 runs when opening that wouldn't have been scored but for let-offs. If you take Vaughan's first-chance average when opening (and exclude excuses-for-Tests against Bangladesh) it's still, I imagine, a bit better than that in the middle-order, but nowhere near as pronounced as the scorebook difference.
And because Vaughan's luck appears to have dried-up, surely this fact is significant?