Test only batsmen

[Craig]

Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick, Hamish Marshall, Ramnaresh Sarwan, Steve Harmison...

Vaughan? Harmison?

 

[tooextracool]

As those stats show?? My God, after 4 games, Michael Clarke was averaging 208. If we're gonna pigeon-hole a player after 4 matches, then I've been right all along: He is the best!

richardson has a very simple strategy as batsman....block.block.block.(block)to the power100.coverdrive.block.block.coverdrive.block.block.flick.block.block.
and its quite simple that as an odi player with such a limited variety of shots he is not going to get anywhere. its no surprise he said that he wished he were an adam gilchrist.

 

[tooextracool]

Debateable...

And also balanced out by Clarke being a better one day bat /QUOTE]
He is? I always pictured a 27.72 avge with 1 hundred and 17 fifties to be > a 20.44 avge with 4 fifties.

the thing with butcher is that he drops more than half the catches that come his way....clearly in ODIs you have to be at least a decent fielder to be able to make the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Atherton had a useful ODI career avge of 35podd. Matt Elliott played just 1 ODI and scored 1 from 6 balls before being caught by Adam Hollioake off Gough (Gough took 5/44).

Matt Horne averages 20.41 overall in ODI's. That's better than McCullum, Blackwell and Rikki Clarke.

Yet not as good as the average of Michael Kasprowicz!

 

[a massive zebra]

Based on what? His List A record isn't outstanding.

Neither is Strauss or Vaughan. And I thought you enjoyed England's random selection policy with no regard for county performances.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Except selections aren't based on something you can describe statistically...

 

[Neil Pickup]

Seeing as you're such a fan of statistics, I thought I'd take it a step further and bring back an analysis I did last December.

It compared the Test Average and FC Average for the 35 batsmen (FC average > 30) who have debuted for England since Winter 1989/90:

The Product Moment Correlation Coefficient resulted as 0.238.

This translates as "no use whatsoever" because...

Once I do a regression analysis of the two stats, using the FC Average as the independent variable and Test Average as the dependent variable...

We get an R-squared value of 5.8%

This means, literally, that 5.8% of the variation of these players' Test averages can be explained by the variation of FC average, and the other 94.2% comes down to something entirely different.

Or, in graphical form,

 

[twctopcat]

Good old Ramps on the right there holding his own. An anomoly if ever there was one.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Good old Ramps on the right there holding his own. An anomoly if ever there was one.

Spotted the Minitab yet?

 

[twctopcat]

Correction, prob Hick.

 

[twctopcat]

It's got Bernie written all over it. Oh the joys if you do stats theory in the 2nd year.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Correction, prob Hick.

It is Hick - Ramprakash is 48/27.

 

[a massive zebra]

The reason for this lack of correlation is probably the fact that you have included players who only played a game or two. Anyone can fail or succeed in a few games. I would suggest that if you only included players who have played at least 10 Tests the correlation would be much higher.

 

[Neil Pickup]

The reason for this lack of correlation is probably the fact that you have included players who only played a game or two. Anyone can fail or succeed in a few games. I would suggest that if you only included players who have played at least 10 Tests the correlation would be much higher.

Well, obviously, because then you'd knock out all the major failures who were so poor that they never got another shot.

 

[a massive zebra]

Well, obviously, because then you'd knock out all the major failures who were so poor that they never got another shot.

So you concede that there is a correlation in averages for players who have had an extended career?

You don't know that all the people who failed on their only chance for England would not succeed if given another chance. Heck, when Flintoff first played for England he was hardly worth his place in a county side and on merit should have been dropped. In other words he was so poor that on the basis of his first few performances he should never have been given another shot. But look at him now, probably the best allrounder from the northern hemisphere and England's best since Botham.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Cutting the sample of players debuting since 1990 with FC averages above 30 down to those who played ten tests or more, we only get 14 players.

N Hussain, AJ Stewart, CC Lewis, GA Hick, MR Ramprakash, GP Thorpe, SJ Rhodes, C White, JP Crawley, NV Knight, MA Butcher, A Flintoff, MP Vaughan and ME Trescothick.

Our PMCC is... 0.226
And R-squared is... 5.12%

So, no, there's even less of a correlation when we make it extended careers.

If we take the retired players (Hussain, Stewart, Lewis) out of the equation.. then we're left with 0.0981 and a massive 0.96%.

Make of that what you will.

 

[marc71178]

He is? I always pictured a 27.72 avge with 1 hundred and 17 fifties to be > a 20.44 avge with 4 fifties.

Yes IMO - it's got to be looked at in relation to position.

 

[marc71178]

So you concede that there is a correlation in averages for players who have had an extended career?

Logic dictates that that should always happen - if they don't perform, they're career isn't extended!

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

As those stats show?? My God, after 4 games, Michael Clarke was averaging 208. If we're gonna pigeon-hole a player after 4 matches, then I've been right all along: He is the best!

Look at Richardson's ODI Strike Rate, its pretty poor compared with other NZ players. It would never get you in the NZ ODI side (and he is an opener).

Infact Glenn McGrath has a better ODI bating strike rate than Richardson (49.47).

 

[Craig]

So you concede that there is a correlation in averages for players who have had an extended career?

You don't know that all the people who failed on their only chance for England would not succeed if given another chance. Heck, when Flintoff first played for England he was hardly worth his place in a county side and on merit should have been dropped. In other words he was so poor that on the basis of his first few performances he should never have been given another shot. But look at him now, probably the best allrounder from the northern hemisphere and England's best since Botham.

And the thing that annoy's me is that Flintoff didn't start of that great, and got chance after chance purely on "potential", yet somebody like Ed Smith is flicked after three Tests.

And unfortunatly his career is probbaly over