Post WW2 Dream XI

[bagapath]

the middle order poll is open now

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/41935-middle-order-post-ww2-dream-xi.html

 

[Slifer]

Gavaskar
Hayden
Richards
Lara
Chappell
Sobers
Miller
Gilchrist
Marshall
Warne
Lillee

Y no Imran????

 

[Ikki]

Y no Imran????

Because I have Miller. Miller > Imran. The difference between them is that essentially Miller is better overall. Slightly worse bowler, if that, but distinctly better batsman. He also tended to perform with bat and ball together more than Imran - who got better as a batsman towards the end of his career, as he bowled less. Miller really was a genuine match-winner with either discipline. He was actually a specialist batsman, as his FC average of almost 50 shows. Probably the most gifted all-rounder cricketer ever, and it seems like after his experience with War he didn't really try. For the first half of his career he averaged 45 with the bat and 21 with the ball. And not like Imran's feat with the bat, with his average being misleading because of not-outs.

 

[zaremba]

Ikki you're nothing if not consistent in your loyalty to your Aussie heroes.

And not like Imran's feat with the bat, with his average being misleading because of not-outs.

No it's not. Not-outs don't mislead. What would be misleading would be to pretend that a batsman who was good enough to avoid being dismissed when his team's innings came to an end was in fact dismissed.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki you're nothing if not consistent in your loyalty to your Aussie heroes.

No it's not. Not-outs don't mislead. What would be misleading would be to pretend that a batsman who was good enough to avoid being dismissed when his team's innings came to an end was in fact dismissed.

Yes, they do, when you are talking about someone who was a tail-ender for most of their career - Imran. Miller was a middle-order batsman for pretty much all his career - 3rd, 4th and 5th were his main positions. Imran, for only 20 tests, was at 6, pretty much the rest below.

For example, the touted 50+ runs average in his (Imran's) last years bring a per innings run average of 37. 37-50; a huge difference. Miller, in his peak, for half his career, averaged about 45 which is a per innings run average of 40 IIRC. 40-45; a small difference. Runs that "could" have been gotten here are much different, coming from a tail-ender. It is more valuable in what he "could" have contributed per inning. The difference between Lara's average and runs per innings is about 1-2 runs - as is usually the case amongst specialist batsmen, or upper order ones.

And look at their 50s and 100s. Imran has 1 less 100 and only 5 more 50s, despite playing 39 more innings. We care in how they affected the game/match, and it's clear to see.

 

[zaremba]

Imran wasn't "a tailender for most of his career". He tended to bat at 7 or 8 in his early years, moving up to 6 or 7 later on.

However your post seems to proceed on the rather curious assumption that batting below 6 makes you a tailender. I agree that, by that measure, Imran was indeed a tailender for most of his career. The same, of course, goes for Adam Gilchrist.

Anyhow regardless of where you bat, if you're not out what curtails your ability to score is not the limitations of your own batting but the simple fact that your team's innings has ended - perhaps by running out of partners, perhaps by a declaration, perhaps by the end of the game. I don't see why you should in any sense be "marked down" for that.

For example, the touted 50+ runs average in his (Imran's) last years bring a per innings run average of 37. 37-50; a huge difference. Miller, in his peak, for half his career, averaged about 45 which is a per innings run average of 40 IIRC. 40-45; a small difference. Runs that "could" have been gotten here are much different, coming from a tail-ender. It is more valuable in what he "could" have contributed per inning. The difference between Lara's average and runs per innings is about 1-2 runs - as is usually the case amongst specialist batsmen, or upper order ones.

Compared with your "per innings run average" the infamous "first chance average" seems a model of logic and relevance.

 

[Ikki]

Imran wasn't "a tailender for most of his career". He tended to bat at 7 or 8 in his early years, moving up to 6 or 7 later on.

However your post seems to proceed on the rather curious assumption that batting below 6 makes you a tailender. I agree that, by that measure, Imran was indeed a tailender for most of his career. The same, of course, goes for Adam Gilchrist.

Anyhow regardless of where you bat, if you're not out what curtails your ability to score is not the limitations of your own batting but the simple fact that your team's innings has ended - perhaps by running out of partners, perhaps by a declaration, perhaps by the end of the game. I don't see why you should in any sense be "marked down" for that.

Let's not dumb ourselves down. It's not merely the position but the approach and ability Imran had. The only reason Gilchrist batted at 7 was because Australia could afford him to bat there.

The simple fact is that Imran didn't score many runs per innings and no matter the value you wish to place on not getting out, it doesn't beat scoring more runs in the same match. When you bat at 7 or below for most of your career, you are more likely to accumulate not-outs. Not-outs are not assigned directly to the scores achieved, they are simply detracted from the innings before the runs are divided between the remaining innings. Which means I can get 200 as a #5 and have accumulated many not-outs at #8 and it will help my average; compared to the other #5 that has been there for most if not all his career. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.

Simply put, pretty much every indicator about their batting puts Miller ahead bar the career average...and that's purely down to the number of not-outs - as I showed you by showing you their comparative per innings prowess. Even as a number 6, although doing very well, he was hardly the match-winning #6 that would have an average of 60. He was more plucky and swashbuckling than anything else. Didn't have a great SR IIRC, just kinda hung in there most times.

If we were comparing Tendulkar and Chappell; yes, by all means, those not-outs take a different meaning - a much more positive one. In this case, you are bringing that argument here, where the variables and batsmen are different.

 

[Ikki]

Compared with your "per innings run average" the infamous "first chance average" seems a model of logic and relevance.

Again, let's not dumb ourselves down. It makes perfect sense here. They aren't comparable because one played all his career as a middle-order bat whilst the other played most of it as a lower-order bat. They face different troubles and the value of not-outs of a middle-order bat > lower-order bat - for obvious reasons.

 

[zaremba]

The simple fact is that Imran didn't score many runs per innings

Well that's a pretty unsurprising consequence of batting down the order, don't you think? The players who bat higher up the order will tend, for blindingly obvious reasons, to have more opportunities to score (a) runs, (b) bigger scores and (c) centuries.

Not-outs are not assigned directly to the scores achieved, they are simply detracted from the innings before the runs are divided between the remaining innings. Which means I can get 200 as a #5 and have accumulated many not-outs at #8 and it will help my average; compared to the other #5 that has been there for most if not all his career. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.

I may be being really dumb here - it wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last - but I honestly don't begin to understand the point you're trying to make here. Not-outs don't help your average; they just don't count against it in the way that dismissals do.

For me, the simple logic of the batting average is that you divide runs scored (being the measure of the batsman's successes) by the times dismissed (being the measure of the batsman's failures).

(If anything, this tends to operate to the disadvantage of the batsman with a higher number of not-outs because, relatively speaking, he will have managed to negotiate more starts to an innings (ie the most precarious part of the batsman's existence) than the batsman with fewer not-outs.)

 

[zaremba]

They aren't comparable because one played all his career as a middle-order bat whilst the other played most of it as a lower-order bat. They face different troubles

Well this is a different point, and perhaps a more valid one, than the one you're trying to make about not-outs.

 

[Ikki]

Well that's a pretty unsurprising consequence of batting down the order, don't you think? The players who bat higher up the order will tend, for blindingly obvious reasons, to have more opportunities to score (a) runs, (b) bigger scores and (c) centuries.

That's kinda the point. The runs he usually accumulated whilst being not-out were unimportant when he batted lower down the innings.

I may be being really dumb here - it wouldn't be the first time and it certainly won't be the last - but I honestly don't begin to understand the point you're trying to make here.

For me, the simple logic of the batting average is that you divide runs scored (being the measure of the batsman's successes) by the times dismissed (being the measure of the batsman's failures).

(If anything, this tends to operate to the disadvantage of the batsman with a higher number of not-outs because, relatively speaking, he will have managed to negotiate more starts to an innings (ie the most precarious part of the batsman's existence) than the batsman with fewer not-outs.)

No. Think of it like this: what is the difference between a batsman that opens and a lower-order batsman. Their not-outs are going to be greatly different. Middle-order and lower order less so but the same principle. The not-outs are not assigned to scores. For example if I get 100* and 10* that's still 1 not out that will be detracted from my dismissals and increasing my average. Whilst this may have merits for upper order batsmen, it loses them for lower order batsmen. Because there are more factors contributing to the not-outs in question than the batsmen themselves.

For example, look at Imran at #6. He averages 60; do you really think he was doing better than Sobers? No; because per innings he only average 40 runs. He just swiped and scraped and stayed at the line (which is probably a separate argument). Look at his not-outs at #6. Half of them are totally unimportant. Either weather intervened or there wasn't much time, or they declared with Imran playing a bit part...something like that. Someone who bats higher up the order is hardly ever likely to benefit from that.

Of Imran's 25 not-outs, 15 of them are at 7 or below - which makes all the aforementioned scenarios in the above even more prevalent. So, only, really, for top or middle-order batsmen do I buy that argument where the batsman was actually hindered in scoring runs - because they are actually likely to the longer they're there.

 

[Ikki]

Well this is a different point, and perhaps a more valid one, than the one you're trying to make about not-outs.

I said Imran's batting average is misleading because of not-outs. Instead of asking me why and to explain you had a go at me.

 

[Ikki]

Also, The Sean could clarify this; did Miller take Bradman's role at #3 once he retired or what? It looks like he did and in hindsight that's quite a compliment to him. Although, he struggled.

 

[zaremba]

That's kinda the point. The runs he accumulated whilst being not-out were unimportant.

Sorry that one's way over my head as well. How do you reach that conclusion?

For example if I get 100* and 10* that's still 1 not out that will be detracted from my dismissals and increasing my average. Whilst this may have merits for upper order batsmen, it loses them for lower order batsmen. Because there are more factors contributing to the not-outs in question than the batsmen itself.

You're persistently falling into the trap of viewing a not-out as increasing an average. It doesn't. It just doesn't count against it in the way that a dismissal does.

As in example, look at Imran at #6. He averages 60; do you really think he was doing better than Sobers? No; because per innings he only average 40 runs. He just swiped and scraped and stayed at the line. Look at his not-outs at #6. Half of them are totally unimportant. Either weather intervened or there wasn't much time, or they declared with Imran playing a bit part...something like that. Someone who bats higher up the order is hardly ever likely to benefit from that.

Again, your argument seems to proceed on the basis that Imran was "benefitting" from the not-out. With respect, it's completely fallacious.

Put it this way: if he's left not-out on (say) 40, he's been deprived of the chance of scoring more runs, and perhaps adding to his tally of centuries. The fact that he didn't have that chance is no reflection on his ability. What defines his ability is his ability to score runs when given the chance to do so. And the batting average provides a gloriously pure way of demonstrating that (albeit that it needs to be read in context with regard to conditions, opposition, era, etc).

 

[zaremba]

I said Imran's batting average is misleading because of not-outs. Instead of asking me why and to explain you had a go at me.

Aw come on - I'm not trying to have a go at you - and in any case you're big enough to stick up for yourself!

 

[Ikki]

Sorry that one's way over my head as well. How do you reach that conclusion?

LOL, ok, because a large portion of the not-outs Imran secured were as a tailender/lower-order batsman. Most of those not-outs are single-digit/unimportant scores.

You're persistently falling into the trap of viewing a not-out as increasing an average. It doesn't. It just doesn't count against it in the way that a dismissal does.

If I get 100 runs at #5 in one innings, it is much different to, 10*, 10*, 10*, 10* at #8 and a 60 at #5. Essentially, it's the same average but it goes without saying which one is harder to do.

Getting a not out with a large score is much harder to do in the middle order than get a small score not out and a medium score out lower down.

Again, your argument seems to proceed on the basis that Imran was "benefitting" from the not-out. With respect, it's completely fallacious.

Put it this way: if he's left not-out on (say) 40, he's been deprived of the chance of scoring more runs, and perhaps adding to his tally of centuries. The fact that he didn't have that chance is no reflection on his ability. What defines his ability is his ability to score runs when given the chance to do so. And the batting average provides a gloriously pure way of demonstrating that (albeit that it needs to be read in context with regard to conditions, opposition, era, etc).

You're hypothesising, I am going by his actual not-outs. A lot of his not-outs are a) single-digit scores b) unimportant (in that it was maybe 10-30 and for whatever reason, other than the batsman's grit, the innings had to end)

They don't deprive him to show anything because as batsman that bats that low he is unlikely to score more. That's the whole reason he is there in the first place. If anything, him not getting out at the stage of his career adds better to the later stage in his career where he can actually hold a bat.

Miller has 7 not-outs which is roughly standard for a middle-order batsman, with respect to the amount of innings he has played. 2 of then are 50+ scores (in fact they are both almost 150 scores). Imran has 25 not-outs. To give you some perspective, Sachin Tendulkar has played almost double the amount of Tests as Imran and only has 27 not-outs. In 10 of them Imran has 50+ scores. We'll ignore the others as not-outs for both batsmen.

Miller averages 35 (actual: 37)
Imran averages 33 (actual: 38)

Even then, Miller is ahead. Think about this: even though Imran has played 39 more innings, he has only scored 849 more runs.

I would only buy your point if they both batted the same position for most of their career.

 

[Ikki]

I also knew that Imran, when moved upto #6 and improved, bowled much less, but I didn't know how he did. I just went and manually calculated it.

In all innings where Imran batted at #6:

[B]Innings Balls Runs Wickets  Avg.   SR[/B]
  23    3344  1393   42    33.17  79.62

So, he did tail off as expected and was less of an all-rounder in the sense that he was at one stage a great bowler and less of a batsman, and towards the end more of a batsman and less of a bowler (an infrequent one).

 

[Ikki]

Or another way at looking at it, in an attempt to take out the effect of so many not outs, I've gotten their averages for outs and their averages for not-outs:

          [B]Out Avg. [COLOR="DarkGreen"]Not-out Avg.[/COLOR][/B]
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Miller[/COLOR][/B]      [U]32.2     54.6[/U]
[b]Imran[/B]       26.43    45.5

 

[Matt79]

I'd have guessed that Hassett and then Harvey took the #3 position once Bradman retired in most cases.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Would've never thought that Miller was better then Imran but after going through this thread - Ikki has totally convinced me that Miller was the better allrounder.