Which Team Has The Most Allrounder's????

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

the stats that you have shown look at his last 20 games only. if you look at his average over a 2 year period, you will see that his average has remained the same. in fact his average after the tour of india was a touch under 40. it then fell to 36 and its now upto 40 thanks to the series against bangladesh. whether or not hes performed better than in domestic cricket is irrelevant because he hasnt shown too much improvement in tests in a 2 year period, and in fact for most of his career.

I'm looking at his most recent stats as a measure of his most recent performances. Makes sense? The failures before these most recent stats are irrelevant as to show any improvement. It's a pretty idiot proof concept. He averages 37.45 in the last two years to the date of his last Test match. That's not counting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

His series averages within that period...

27.60 in India
49.66 in Bangladesh
47.83 v Australia
40 v Sri Lanka
30.50 v Zimbabwe
49 v South Africa
27.42 v England
301 v Bangladesh
33.37 v England

Minus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the equation and he's really only had a poor time against England and in India.

Sarwan cummulative averages...

33.68 pre Sri Lanka 2001
37.82 post Sri Lanka 2001/pre India 2002
39.31 post India 2002/pre NZ 2002
37.71 post NZ 2002/pre India 2002
36.53 post India 2002/pre Ban 2002
37.39 post Ban 2002/pre Aus 2003
38.59 post Aus 2003/pre SL 2003
38.67 post SL 2003/pre Zim 2003
38.11 post Zim 2003/pre SA 2003
39.41 post SA 2003/pre Eng 2004
37.57 post Eng 2004/pre Ban 2004
41.78 post Ban 2004/pre Eng 2004
40.97 post Eng 2004

Those are the stats of career average, but totally irrelevant to my initial point anyway.

 

[tooextracool]

I'm looking at his most recent stats as a measure of his most recent performances. Makes sense? The failures before these most recent stats are irrelevant as to show any improvement. It's a pretty idiot proof concept. He averages 37.45 in the last two years to the date of his last Test match. That's not counting Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

His series averages within that period...

27.60 in India
49.66 in Bangladesh
47.83 v Australia
40 v Sri Lanka
30.50 v Zimbabwe
49 v South Africa
27.42 v England
301 v Bangladesh
33.37 v England

Minus Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from the equation and he's really only had a poor time against England and in India.

Sarwan cummulative averages...

33.68 pre Sri Lanka 2001
37.82 post Sri Lanka 2001/pre India 2002
39.31 post India 2002/pre NZ 2002
37.71 post NZ 2002/pre India 2002
36.53 post India 2002/pre Ban 2002
37.39 post Ban 2002/pre Aus 2003
38.59 post Aus 2003/pre SL 2003
38.67 post SL 2003/pre Zim 2003
38.11 post Zim 2003/pre SA 2003
39.41 post SA 2003/pre Eng 2004
37.57 post Eng 2004/pre Ban 2004
41.78 post Ban 2004/pre Eng 2004
40.97 post Eng 2004

Those are the stats of career average, but totally irrelevant to my initial point anyway.

yes i know but given that only 2 years ago his average fell from 40 to 36, im inclined to believe that what hes done in the last 20 tests is only another one of his periods of form, and given what hes done in his last 2 series against test class opposition, it certainly looks that way too.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

yes i know but given that only 2 years ago his average fell from 40 to 36, im inclined to believe that what hes done in the last 20 tests is only another one of his periods of form,

Interestingly enough Sarwan's batting average at Test level has only ever been over 40 after 5 Tests and since his 261* v Bangladesh. Aside from that it's been a steady mid30's climbing toward 40. Interesting eh? 40 to 36?

and given what hes done in his last 2 series against test class opposition, it certainly looks that way too.

Meaning Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa are less than Test class?

 

[bryce]

please sarwan has taken over two unrelated threads, lets stop before another becomes a victim

 

[tooextracool]

Interestingly enough Sarwan's batting average at Test level has only ever been over 40 after 5 Tests and since his 261* v Bangladesh. Aside from that it's been a steady mid30's climbing toward 40. Interesting eh? 40 to 36?

22 39 5 1364 91 40.11 0 13 4 65 1 5th Test v Ind 2001/02 [1604]
22 40 5 1376 91 39.31 0 13 4 12 3
23 41 5 1376 91 38.22 0 13 5 0 2 1st Test v NZ 2002 [1607]
23 42 5 1394 91 37.67 0 13 5 18 4
24 43 5 1433 91 37.71 0 13 5 39 2 2nd Test v NZ 2002 [1608]
25 44 5 1455 91 37.30 0 13 5 22 2 1st Test v Ind 2002/03 [1616]
25 45 5 1472 91 36.80 0 13 5 17 3
26 46 5 1491 91 36.36 0 13 5 19 1 2nd Test v Ind 2002/03 [1618]
26 47 5 1569 91 37.35 0 14 5 78 3
27 48 5 1571 91 36.53 0 14 5 2 2 3rd Test v Ind 2002/03 [1622]
28 49 5 1690 119 38.40 1 14 5 119 2 1st Test v BD 2002/03 [1630]
29 50 5 1707 119 37.93 1 14 5 17 2 2nd Test v BD 2002/03 [1632]
29 51 5 1720 119 37.39 1 14 5 13 4
30 52 5 1746 119 37.14 1 14 5 26 2 2nd Test v Aus 2002/03 [1639]
30 53 5 1780 119 37.08 1 14 5 34 4
31 54 5 1820 119 37.14 1 14 5 40 2 3rd Test v Aus 2002/03 [1643]
31 55 5 1878 119 37.56 1 15 5 58 3
32 56 5 1902 119 37.29 1 15 5 24 2 4th Test v Aus 2002/03 [1645]
32 57 5 2007 119 38.59 2 15 5 105 4
33 58 5 2014 119 38.00 2 15 5 7 2 1st Test v SL 2003 [1648]
34 59 5 2045 119 37.87 2 15 5 31 2 2nd Test v SL 2003 [1649]
34 60 5 2127 119 38.67 2 16 5 82 4
35 61 5 2136 119 38.14 2 16 5 9 2 1st Test v Zim 2003/04 [1668]
35 62 5 2175 119 38.15 2 16 5 39 4
36 63 5 2240 119 38.62 2 17 5 65 1 2nd Test v Zim 2003/04 [1669]
36 64 5 2249 119 38.11 2 17 5 9 3
37 65 5 2270 119 37.83 2 17 5 21 2 1st Test v SA 2003/04 [1674]
37 66 5 2278 119 37.34 2 17 5 8 4
38 67 5 2282 119 36.80 2 17 5 4 1 2nd Test v SA 2003/04

magic isnt it?

Meaning Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa are less than Test class?

i said last 2 series, which were both against england. and as i stated earlier, his performances against australia and SA can be taken as periods of form, while his performances against england can be taken as periods out of form. cross those 2 out and you get his overall average.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

magic isnt it?

Mistake accepted. Noted though that his average was over for 40 for all of that one Test match against India. He then played 3 innings of 39, 18 an 0 v NZ and struggled somewhat in India. That's 7 innings of poor form until he ended the India series with 78 in his 7th innings of an 8-inning trot. Better players have had longer draughts of poor form. You're going to base your entire theory on 7 bad innings spread over 4 or 5 months?

i said last 2 series, which were both against england. and as i stated earlier, his performances against australia and SA can be taken as periods of form, while his performances against england can be taken as periods out of form. cross those 2 out and you get his overall average.

Oh, well then I totally agree. Players perform better when they're in form than out of it. Of course Sarwan is an anomaly in that he experienced good form against 3 teams last year and then struggled in 2 series against the same team this year.

Adam Gilchrist averages 29.95 in his career against India. Some players just don't do as well against certain teams as they do against others. It's cricket. It's life.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

please sarwan has taken over two unrelated threads, lets stop before another becomes a victim

Nay. The other pedantic argument was Lara-related. I say was because it's just one-man strong now.

 

[tooextracool]

Mistake accepted. Noted though that his average was over for 40 for all of that one Test match against India. He then played 3 innings of 39, 18 an 0 v NZ and struggled somewhat in India. That's 7 innings of poor form until he ended the India series with 78 in his 7th innings of an 8-inning trot. Better players have had longer draughts of poor form. You're going to base your entire theory on 7 bad innings spread over 4 or 5 months?

nope im basing my entire theory on the fact that we've seen his average fall down from 40 before, which seems to suggest that he hasnt improved much since that period. his average now would be 38ish if it werent for the b'desh series.

Oh, well then I totally agree. Players perform better when they're in form than out of it. Of course Sarwan is an anomaly in that he experienced good form against 3 teams last year and then struggled in 2 series against the same team this year.

Adam Gilchrist averages 29.95 in his career against India. Some players just don't do as well against certain teams as they do against others. It's cricket. It's life.

but in sarwan's case its inconsistency, gilchrist has problems against quality spin bowling, its highly unlikely that he will ever score prolifically in a series against india or SL. sarwan though can score prolifically in one series and then fail miserably in the other.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

nope im basing my entire theory on the fact that we've seen his average fall down from 40 before, which seems to suggest that he hasnt improved much since that period. his average now would be 38ish if it werent for the b'desh series.
Righto, new approach...
He then played 3 innings of 39, 18 an 0 v NZ and struggled somewhat in India. That's 7 innings of poor form until he ended the India series with 78 in his 7th innings of an 8-inning trot. Better players have had longer draughts of poor form. You're going to base your entire theory on 7 bad innings spread over 4 or 5 months?

This time maybe you'll actually consider my point and then respond.

but in sarwan's case its inconsistency, gilchrist has problems against quality spin bowling, its highly unlikely that he will ever score prolifically in a series against india or SL. sarwan though can score prolifically in one series and then fail miserably in the other.

Oh dear...
It's much like how this "conversation" started with me making a point that Sarwan has improved from a 32-average FC player to a Test class batsman, which is undeniable.
Quite clearly (so I thought) Gilchrist was but an example of a situation where a player struggles more against a particular team than others.

Let's hear about that Brian Charles Lara fella who averages 37.66 against India - 15 runs less than his career average. Let's hear about his problems with quality spin...

 

[tooextracool]

Oh dear...
It's much like how this "conversation" started with me making a point that Sarwan has improved from a 32-average FC player to a Test class batsman, which is undeniable....

yes and ive said in several posts before, whether or not it is an improvement from his domestic record is irrelevant. if someone has shown barely any improvement in his international career, how can it be an example of improving with age?

Quite clearly (so I thought) Gilchrist was but an example of a situation where a player struggles more against a particular team than others

as does every player to ever play cricket. of course the fact that gilchrist averages 50+ doesnt change anything does it?

Let's hear about that Brian Charles Lara fella who averages 37.66 against India - 15 runs less than his career average. Let's hear about his problems with quality spin...

oh yes what a miserable average that is, just a shade under 40, absolutely pathetic that, especially considering that he more than makes it up against the rest of the quality teams.
and of course his average against india is somewhat skewed by the last ind-WI series in the WI, where he returned from that elbow injury and was clearly nowhere near his best in that series.

 

[marc71178]

An allrounder in the contempary sense, which is why they are bits and pieces types sometimes, to me means someone who is capable of making contributions on a consistent basis with their least strong suit.

That's all well and good until you then say that Vettori, Mills, Franklin and Adams are all-rounders - none of whom fit that criteria.

 

[Richard]

Vettori is worth a place for his bowling alone - his batting is a useful extra.
Mills and Franklin are bowlers whose batting would be useful extras - if they had anything to be extra to (ie Mills and Franklin are - at present at least, and no, that does not mean they can't improve - not good enough).
Adams is simply a poor all-rounder - a bits-and-pieces player, in other words. Neither his bowling nor his batting is good enough.

 

[Richard]

that's trash

It is?
You, clearly, then, have not seen Mushtaq Ahmed provide a demonstration of turning the ball on some of the most smooth surfaces known to mankind? Including polished steel.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It is?
You, clearly, then, have not seen Mushtaq Ahmed provide a demonstration of turning the ball on some of the most smooth surfaces known to mankind? Including polished steel.

Can he turn it on dry sand? Can he turn it on rough concrete?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

yes and ive said in several posts before, whether or not it is an improvement from his domestic record is irrelevant. if someone has shown barely any improvement in his international career, how can it be an example of improving with age?
as does every player to ever play cricket. of course the fact that gilchrist averages 50+ doesnt change anything does it?
oh yes what a miserable average that is, just a shade under 40, absolutely pathetic that, especially considering that he more than makes it up against the rest of the quality teams.
and of course his average against india is somewhat skewed by the last ind-WI series in the WI, where he returned from that elbow injury and was clearly nowhere near his best in that series.

*Sigh* As we've done this already, you win, I lose. You're right, I'm wrong. I'm tired, you're not. Agree to disagree.

 

[bryce]

It is?
You, clearly, then, have not seen Mushtaq Ahmed provide a demonstration of turning the ball on some of the most smooth surfaces known to mankind? Including polished steel.

first of all i haven't, not that it changes anything, your original claim was:

Not for a wristspinner.
Wristspinners don't need turning pitches to take turn the ball dangerously, they'll turn it on anything.

i'm not disputing that they cannot turn it on any surface, but you implied they do not need an aiding surface to turn it dangerously and i have seen(example) kaneria(the second/third best leggie in the world) bowl in new zealand and you would definately not classify the turn he got as dangerous.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Seeing as I can turn it on both those surfaces, I'd back Mushtaq to

 

[Richard]

The thing is, Mushtaq could actually hit the spot where he was aiming at at least 11 times out of 12... rather than the 1 out of 6 that is a real achievement for some...

 

[Richard]

Can he turn it on dry sand? Can he turn it on rough concrete?

Given that I can do both, I presume so.

 

[Richard]

i'm not disputing that they cannot turn it on any surface, but you implied they do not need an aiding surface to turn it dangerously and i have seen(example) kaneria(the second/third best leggie in the world) bowl in new zealand and you would definately not classify the turn he got as dangerous.

I should have added "dangerously" in there.
Yes, Mushtaq can turn it a couple of feet on all the surfaces I mentioned.
Kaneria, however, is not, presently, the biggest spinner of the ball you'll see (just like Kumble, really), and while his accuracy is rare and precious he's not the best example to use.
I'd be extremely loath to say that we'll not see him giving it a Mushtaq-like wrip in the course of the next few years.