Shocking Declines

[Jarquis]

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Averaged about 34 in 30 tests in this period .

And if u remove the Newzealand tour in 2009 , he averaged 30.08 in 27 tests in a continuity from dec 2006 to march 2009.

And if u remove one test against bangladesh too ,he averaged below 30(28 odd) in 26 tests.

Before this he was averaging 58.21 In 105 TESTS.

I just ran it from a point until the present day as just selecting dates doesn't suggest a complete decline. Obviously in that period Dravid was poor but it wasn't just a decline but he was obviously majorly out of form as well. He's proven he can still be as good as he ever was, evidence of this are his performances since 08/09.

 

[Lostman]

More players than not follow such a path, but the first and third phases in the case of good Test cricketers usually last no more than 3-4 games (sometimes 8-9) or so, while the middle phase will hopefully last however many games are played over the course of ~10 years. When I judge a player who's had a lengthy spell of being Test-class, I exclude such rookie\diminished-period games and examine only the stage in which they were what they are remembered as - good Test players.

While I agree that the last phase can generally be cut short due to dropping or retirement, I don't think you can expect any player to hit stride within the 1st 10 games.

 

[King Pietersen]

I well remember journeyman Surrey seamer Ray Baker topping the season's batting averages after being dismissed only twice all year, and of course there was this famous occurrence (which involved some collusion I believe):

The Home of CricketArchive

That's quality. Also interesting to note that the list includes William Herbert Hobbs Sutcliffe, what a magnificent name that is. Shame he was nowhere near as good a player as his father.

 

[Cevno]

I just ran it from a point until the present day as just selecting dates doesn't suggest a complete decline. Obviously in that period Dravid was poor but it wasn't just a decline but he was obviously majorly out of form as well. He's proven he can still be as good as he ever was, evidence of this are his performances since 08/09.

Agree it wasn't a decline.
But a pretty mighty slump ,which had India not persisted with him could have gone down as a decline.

Or conversely this period where he is scoring some runs could be a spurt the other way in a decline.

 

[Richard]

1022 runs at an average of 78.61 from nine Tests.

To put the renaissance into some sort of perspective, between the aforemtnioned date of 01 Jan 2007 and his century against England. Dravid mustered 1411 runs from 25 Tests at 32.81.

And to make it more remarkable still, from 2006/07 to the First Test against England in 2008/09, he averaged a mere 26.95 in 24 Tests against Test-class sides. Having, as stated, averaged 58-odd from the start of his career to 2006.

 

[Richard]

While I agree that the last phase can generally be cut short due to dropping or retirement, I don't think you can expect any player to hit stride within the 1st 10 games.

Most players will be dropped and sent back to the drawing-board if they fail for 3-4 games early in their careers, then be forced to wait a while before coming back stronger. The likes of Gus Logie who get extended first spells without being axed despite awful performances are rare.

Equally, the likes of Carl Hooper who take 30 games or so before they get the hang of Test cricket are extremely unusual. Most players have been dumped for good before they get that many chances - only exceptional talents like Graeme Hick and, indeed, Hooper are likely to get more than that.

 

[Lostman]

Most players will be dropped and sent back to the drawing-board if they fail for 3-4 games early in their careers, then be forced to wait a while before coming back stronger. The likes of Gus Logie who get extended first spells without being axed despite awful performances are rare.

Equally, the likes of Carl Hooper who take 30 games or so before they get the hang of Test cricket are extremely unusual. Most players have been dumped for good before they get that many chances - only exceptional talents like Graeme Hick and, indeed, Hooper are likely to get more than that.

I am not saying that they would fail in these games, but their stats would be much better later on.
P.S tried to do a quick statsguru search on a few a players but it seems you cant sort by number of games, only dates? Too lazy to try.

 

[Richard]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between a player's "peak" (which is often over-emphasised) and his "plateau" (which is to my mind far more important).

It is rare for players, who go on to have a good Test career, to have more than a few games early on where they're not Test standard players. That's very distinct from yet to produce their very best performances. For most players, their very best will last for only perhaps a year or so, or else will only be produced in very small (2-3 game) spurts.

To give the example of Michael Atherton, because his case fits well with near enough everything I've talked about:
1989 (2 games) was his "novice" spell - he was picked too early and wasn't up to requirements.
1990-1992/93 was his "inductory" spell - he was mostly a Test-standard batsman in this time, but he was beginning to show signs of his fallibility to his back condition and did not produce his best.
1993-1996 was his "peak" period - a way to suppress the problems had been ascertained, and he was barely out of the runs.
1996/97-2000/01 was a past-peak-but-still-on-plateau period - there were times when the injury could no longer be suppressed and when that happened (Zimbabwe 1996/97, Australia 1998/99) he was a walking wicket, but otherwise he was mostly still good for runs apart from a couple of consecutive series' in 1997 and 1998 where he struggled.
2000/01-2001 (10 games) was his "decline" period - he was no longer good enough any more and struggled against everyone he faced.

But more broadly, 1990-2000 (in terms of calendar-years) was his "plateau" period - throughout, he could be said to be (when not operating under grossly reduced fitness) a Test-class batsman and a pretty decent one at that. He played 90-odd games when fit in this time, and it is that, not 1989 or 2001 or the brief periods where he lost fitness, on which I judge him.

Most players will feature some of the above, though not that many will feature everything Atherton did. It is incredibly rare for a player to have a lengthy Test career of being Test-class throughout and not endure any significant fluctuations in productivity.

 

[zaremba]

FTR I don't agree that Atherton wasn't up to the job when first picked for Test cricket.

 

[Teja.]

I think it's important to draw a distinction between a player's "peak" (which is often over-emphasised) and his "plateau" (which is to my mind far more important).

It is rare for players, who go on to have a good Test career, to have more than a few games early on where they're not Test standard players. That's very distinct from yet to produce their very best performances. For most players, their very best will last for only perhaps a year or so, or else will only be produced in very small (2-3 game) spurts.

To give the example of Michael Atherton, because his case fits well with near enough everything I've talked about:
1989 (2 games) was his "novice" spell - he was picked too early and wasn't up to requirements.
1990-1992/93 was his "inductory" spell - he was mostly a Test-standard batsman in this time, but he was beginning to show signs of his fallibility to his back condition and did not produce his best.
1993-1996 was his "peak" period - a way to suppress the problems had been ascertained, and he was barely out of the runs.
1996/97-2000/01 was a past-peak-but-still-on-plateau period - there were times when the injury could no longer be suppressed and when that happened (Zimbabwe 1996/97, Australia 1998/99) he was a walking wicket, but otherwise he was mostly still good for runs apart from a couple of consecutive series' in 1997 and 1998 where he struggled.
2000/01-2001 (10 games) was his "decline" period - he was no longer good enough any more and struggled against everyone he faced.


But more broadly, 1990-2000 (in terms of calendar-years) was his "plateau" period - throughout, he could be said to be (when not operating under grossly reduced fitness) a Test-class batsman and a pretty decent one at that. He played 90-odd games when fit in this time, and it is that, not 1989 or 2001 or the brief periods where he lost fitness, on which I judge him.

Most players will feature some of the above, though not that many will feature everything Atherton did. It is incredibly rare for a player to have a lengthy Test career of being Test-class throughout and not endure any significant fluctuations in productivity.

So how would you judge SRT who has had two 'peak' periods(in the middle of one rather) and a poor patch in between?

 

[Richard]

FTR I don't agree that Atherton wasn't up to the job when first picked for Test cricket.

Well he himself believed he wasn't, and his domestic performances until then certainly also suggest that, to me.

A real shame the chaos of 1989 meant he was thrown in too early. Everyone would've been so much better-off if he'd debuted in 1990.

 

[Richard]

So how would you judge SRT who has had two 'peak' periods(in the middle of one rather) and a poor patch in between?

Same sort of thing as Brian Lara, who had something much the same - though Lara's poor was far, far less poor than Tendulkar's poor and Tendulkar's longer good lasted far longer than either of Lara's good (his shorter good is still in motion as this post is typed so we don't know how long it's going to keep going for).

What exactly do you mean by "how would I judge" such players?

 

[Teja.]

Same sort of thing as Brian Lara, who had something much the same - though Lara's poor was far, far less poor than Tendulkar's poor and Tendulkar's longer good lasted far longer than either of Lara's good (his shorter good is still in motion as this post is typed so we don't know how long it's going to keep going for).

What exactly do you mean by "how would I judge" such players?

I was borrowing a word from your Atherton post.

 

[Richard]

Aha, yes, I see. I'd tend to rate Tenudlkar on the basis of the start of his first peak period (like most he took a little while to get the hang of Test cricket, even less surprisingly than most given he was just 16 when first picked) to whenever the end of this second peak is. If he has ~10 bad games before retirement I'll place zero importance on them, same way I place zero relevance on 1989/90.

 

[Manee]

If so I'd say all of he, Pathan, Maninder and Hirwani were never-really-were's more than anything. I don't know the ins and outs of the 1980s spinners but they only had very short-term periods of success. Pathan I was always adamant I didn't rate and I'm not surprised how he's turned-out.

Pathan was never much of a Test bowler, considering the red ball never hooped for him, as consistently or as much as the white ball did. However, in ODI cricket, he was once a very capable wicket taker, all before he lost his swing and ruined his bowling action in 2007. Even though his pace is at 120kph these days, he is looking like he is swinging the ball considerably, I hope this means he will return to ODI form.