Who is really to blame for Australia's batting collapses post 2007 in Ashes series?

[Ruckus]

From another point of view, if the in form batsmen actually cash in with big runs they could easily cover the lack of form for the other batsmen. Fact is, they've criminally failed when well set.

'Sigh'... I just spent the past hour discussing that point (in which I disagree) with other people haha...sorry but I can't be bothered going into it again in detail. Basically my argument in short is: Watson and Katich have actually been averaging very well, and that is all that matters lol...

 

[Ruckus]

wtf

yeah sorry haha I missed that. But I think the thread title is probably too specific, because our problems have been in general, not just affecting the Ashes.

 

[GotSpin]

'Sigh'... I just spent the past hour discussing that point (in which I disagree) with other people haha...sorry but I can't be bothered going into it again in detail. Basically my argument in short is: Watson and Katich have actually been averaging very well, and that is all that matters lol...

I haven't been following CW so I wouldn't know.

I know they're averaging very well, but it's not helping the team when they fold after getting to a half century.

 

[Ruckus]

I haven't been following CW so I wouldn't know.

I know they're averaging very well, but it's not helping the team when they fold after getting to a half century.

That's true, but seeing as though they are still averaging well it is wrong to expect more from them - i.e. by wanting them to convert more, is essentially wanting them to average 60-70+. We shouldn't have to have certain players putting in superhuman efforts to cover for our underperforming batsmen.

 

[TumTum]

Exactly. Even if Ponting is coming in at 1/0, he is still good enough to make runs.

 

[GotSpin]

That's true, but seeing as though they are still averaging well it is wrong to expect more from them - i.e. by wanting them to convert more, is essentially wanting them to average 60-70+. We shouldn't have to have certain players putting in superhuman efforts to cover for our underperforming batsmen.

This is not about averages as such though. When a top order batsmen makes a start, he needs to make it something big. Getting out between 30-55, while looking good statistically, doesn't help the team at all.

 

[TumTum]

This is not about averages as such though. When a top order batsmen makes a start, he needs to make it something big. Getting out between 30-55, while looking good statistically, doesn't help the team at all.

Helps see off the new ball almost every innings.

 

[Hit Wicket]

The discussion here can be understood by taking the examples of Watson and Ponting.

Watson has been in really good form and has not been converting his 50s into 100s or big 100s during this run of form. When Ponting was in really good form, he was converting every other 50 into a 100. This is reflected in the fact that Watson's average in his good form is around the 45-50 mark and Ponting was around the 65 mark.

When Ponting has hit bad form, his conversion has gone down, so have the number of starts and so has his average to around 40. When Watson hits bad form, his average will drop lower. Or even if it is around the 40 mark, he would have wasted his good form by averaging only 50 in that period of good form.

Most top class batsmen in top form would have averages around the 65 range and not 45-50 which Watson has, and that can be achieved only by converting starts into 100s.

Yes, one can argue simplistically that scoring 50 in every innings does the job. But that's not how real life works :

1. The batsman will invariably go through a form slump.

2. In any particular test innings on a normal track, typically 2-3 of the top 7 do fail.

3. During any particular time, there are going to be batsmen in the line up who are not in the best form of their lives. To cover up for their lower output during this productivity slump, the batsman in form needs to score big.

 

[Ruckus]

Most top class batsmen in top form would have averages around the 65 range and not 45-50 which Watson has, and that can be achieved only by converting starts into 100s.

Last year Watson DID average 65 and only made 1 hundred.

 

[TumTum]

The discussion here can be understood by taking the examples of Watson and Ponting.

Watson has been in really good form and has not been converting his 50s into 100s or big 100s during this run of form. When Ponting was in really good form, he was converting every other 50 into a 100. This is reflected in the fact that Watson's average in his good form is around the 45-50 mark and Ponting was around the 65 mark.

When Ponting has hit bad form, his conversion has gone down, so have the number of starts and so has his average to around 40. When Watson hits bad form, his average will drop lower. Or even if it is around the 40 mark, he would have wasted his good form by averaging only 50 in that period of good form.

Most top class batsmen in top form would have averages around the 65 range and not 45-50 which Watson has, and that can be achieved only by converting starts into 100s.

Yes, one can argue simplistically that scoring 50 in every innings does the job. But that's not how real life works :

1. The batsman will invariably go through a form slump.

2. In any particular test innings on a normal track, typically 2-3 of the top 7 do fail.

3. During any particular time, there are going to be batsmen in the line up who are not in the best form of their lives. To cover up for their lower output during this productivity slump, the batsman in form needs to score big.

Ponting is a far better player than Watson, you can't compare them that easily.

You are assuming Watson is in good form, we haven't even seen him perform badly yet to get a true idea of his form.

Problem is those 2-3 of the top 7 fail on a consistent basis. You must allow for a few failures from the openers as well, but so far they are doing their job well, you can't expect them to score big knowing how fragile the rest of the line-up is.

 

[Hit Wicket]

Last year Watson DID average 65 and only made 1 hundred.

When I was giving the 65/50 example numbers, I had more in mind the longer periods of form which are usually discussed for batsmen like a run of at least 2-3 years or 25-30 tests.

But your numbers illustrate my point further. A top class batsman in top form over 1 year with 7-8 tests would average even 75-80+.

And this year his average has been markedly lower - 42, with the same conversion rate illustrating my point that he has got out cheaply more often this year than last. Unless, he can start converting starts the 40-45 range is where he will end up ultimately because of the simple fact that in real life he will not get as many starts in poor form as he was when he was in top form.

 

[Ruckus]

When I was giving the 65/50 example numbers, I had more in mind the longer periods of form which are usually discussed for batsmen like a run of at least 2-3 years or 25-30 tests.

But your numbers illustrate my point further. A top class batsman in top form over 1 year with 7-8 tests would average even 75-80+.

And this year his average has been markedly lower - 42, with the same conversion rate illustrating my point that he has got out cheaply more often this year than last. Unless, he can start converting starts the 40-45 range is where he will end up ultimately because of the simple fact that in real life he will not get as many starts in poor form as he was when he was in top form.

I just totally disagree with your premise that you need to convert more to maintain a high average. Plenty of top players have maintained high averages over their entire careers despite having relatively poor conversion rates. Some players just score differently to others. Also, whose to say if Watson is even in 'good form' at the moment. He might well average 90+ next year. Just because he has been getting starts and getting out doesn't mean he is 'wasting his good form'. Maybe him getting out is due to him not being in very good form. Either case is possible.

 

[Hit Wicket]

You are assuming Watson is in good form, we haven't even seen him perform badly yet to get a true idea of his form.

Problem is those 2-3 of the top 7 fail on a consistent basis. You must allow for a few failures from the openers as well, but so far they are doing their job well, you can't expect them to score big knowing how fragile the rest of the line-up is.

Watson is in good form. He was in bad form when he toured India in 2008. He is going to hit those kind of slumps again in the future, happens to every batsman.

Problem is the openers are not sufficiently covering up for the out of form players by scoring the big runs, something like Hussey did with his 195 at Brisbane. If the openers had played that kind of innings at Adelaide score would have been 0-0.

 

[Hit Wicket]

I just totally disagree with your premise that you need to convert more to maintain a high average. Plenty of top players have maintained high averages over their entire careers despite having relatively poor conversion rates. Some players just score differently to others. Also, whose to say if Watson is even in 'good form' at the moment. He might well average 90+ next year. Just because he has been getting starts and getting out doesn't mean he is 'wasting his good form'. Maybe him getting out is due to him not being in very good form. Either case is possible.

Can you name 5 top order batsmen in this history of cricket who have a 45+ average and a conversion rate of less than 20%?

Regarding, Watson's form I've replied above. If you really believe Watson is in poor form and will peak at 90+ the discussion is futile.

 

[social]

When I was giving the 65/50 example numbers, I had more in mind the longer periods of form which are usually discussed for batsmen like a run of at least 2-3 years or 25-30 tests.

But your numbers illustrate my point further. A top class batsman in top form over 1 year with 7-8 tests would average even 75-80+.

And this year his average has been markedly lower - 42, with the same conversion rate illustrating my point that he has got out cheaply more often this year than last. Unless, he can start converting starts the 40-45 range is where he will end up ultimately because of the simple fact that in real life he will not get as many starts in poor form as he was when he was in top form.

Chanderpaul scored 1 hundred in his first 27 tests and averaged 42, and 2 in his first 51 whilst averaging similarly

It's not ideal but I'm not so sure that it's worse than a player like Cook who converts many of his starts but is prone to long periods where he cant buy a run because his technique stinks

Watto would be the least of our problems IF Ponting, Katich and Katich werent underperforming

 

[Ruckus]

Can you name 5 top order batsmen in this history of cricket who have a 45+ average and a conversion rate of less than 20%?

Regarding, Watson's form I've replied above. If you really believe Watson is in poor form and will peak at 90+ the discussion is futile.

It doesn't make sense to use 20%, because Watson's 100/50 ratio simply won't stay at that. He is early in his career as an opener.

Chanderpaul, 48.98, 100/50 ratio 40%.
Inzaman-ul-Haq, 49.60, 100/50 ratio 54%
Viv Richards, 50.23, 100/50 ratio 53%
Boycott, 47.72, 100/50 ratio 52%

Etc.

You can compare those batsmen who all average around 50, to others who average around 50 and have better 100/50 ratios

E.g. Hayden, 50.73, 100/50 ratio of over 100%.

Hence, different batsmen can still maintain high averages without the same 100/50 ratios.

 

[TumTum]

You can't have a conversion rate over 100%. This is why I reckon the 50s stats are wrong, it should be for 50+ scores and not 50-100.

 

[Ruckus]

You can't have a conversion rate over 100%. This is why I reckon the 50s stats are wrong, it should be for 50+ scores and not 50-100.

Yeah that's true actually. Why are they called conversion rates then, when it is really just a ratio of 50's to 100's?

 

[Hit Wicket]

Chanderpaul scored 1 hundred in his first 27 tests and averaged 42, and 2 in his first 51 whilst averaging similarly

It's not ideal but I'm not so sure that it's worse than a player like Cook who converts many of his starts but is prone to long periods where he cant buy a run because his technique stinks

Watto would be the least of our problems IF Ponting, Katich and Katich werent underperforming

Chanderpaul was a 19 year old when he made his debut and played a lot of those innings at number 5/6 from where it is not that easy to convert into centuries.

It doesn't make sense to use 20%, because Watson's conversion rate simply won't stay at that. He is early in his career as an opener.

Chanderpaul, 48.98, conversion rate 40%.
Inzaman-ul-Haq, 49.60, conversion rate 54%
Viv Richards, 50.23, conversion rate 53%
Boycott, 47.72, conversion rate 52%

Etc.

You can compare those batsmen who all average around 50, to others who average around 50 and have better conversion rates.

E.g. Hayden, 50.73, conversion rate over 100%.

Hence, different batsmen can still maintain high averages without the same conversion rates.

Don't think anyone would be complaining if Watson had a 100/50 ratio of 40%+ as an opener. BTW, comparison to Chanderpaul, Inzamam, and Richards is not fair. They batted at 5/6 for significant portions of their careers.

 

[four_or_six]

Maybe Watson would play more longer innings if the bowling wasn't so crap and he has to bowl quite a lot. I am surprised that your all-rounder averaging 50 with the bat is your biggest problem. And conversion rates look a bit artificial, he did get that string of 90s which if the were a string of 101s we might not be having this debate.

As for the thread title, I would blame The middle order, mainly Hussey (up until 2 weeks ago) and North, not assisted by Johnson's poor form at 8.