The Batsmen's Decade

This has been done before, but I was made curious by Rob's thread re Ponting and went back through the list of batsmen. Qualification is to score over 2000 runs @ 50+ in tests played since January 1 2001.

JH Kallis - 6568 @ 67.71
RT Ponting - 7098 @ 65.72
Mohammad Yousuf - 5034 @ 63.72
KC Sangakarra - 5812 @ 58.70
BC Lara - 5883 @ 58.24
R Dravid - 6361 @ 57.30
ML Hayden - 7304 @ 56.62
GP Thorpe - 2765 @ 55.30
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 4023 @ 54.36
DPMDS Jayawardene - 5385 @ 52.79
Gary Kirsten - 2785 @ 52.54
SR Tendulkar - 4872 @ 52.39
Younis Khan - 4413 @ 51.91
KP Pietersen - 2993 @ 51.60
S Chanderpaul - 4500 @ 51.13

Hussey and Flower didn't score enough runs (Hussey will top the list very soon); Sehwag and Laxman averaged slightly below 50. That leaves 15 players (assuming I didn't forget to check anyone - let me know if I did); the distribution is pretty seriously skewed, with just 3 averaging above 63, and 6 below 53. A bunch cluster between 54.3 and 58.7.

I'm sure there are a lot of fun statistical things I could do with the players on this list which might give some interesting data, but I'm not the stats machine I once was. I'll have another look at a later date (tomorrow maybe). Please discuss if anything interesting strikes you.

One point: I believe Kirsten and Chanderpaul both averaged in the 40-43 range prior to 2001. Spend enough time looking at players who played both in the 90s and 2000s and we might be able to calculate a pretty reasonable 'discount factor' - about 10 would be my offhand guess.

What about Hayden's (and Zimi's) mate?

For all the list offers though, the absence of newcomers perhaps suggests that it is as much experience that counts, as opposed to batting simply being much easier.

Quite a lot of those averages will be inflated because the weaker sides are playing far more regularly than they ought to be, and thanks to the establishment of a second-tier of minnows in the West Indies and New Zealand.

Hurrah for Leo! He's turned back the clock to a time where we talked about cricket intelligently.

"just 3 averaging above 63, and 6 below 53"

... yes.

Leo wrote:This has been done before, but I was made curious by Rob's thread re Ponting and went back through the list of batsmen. Qualification is to score over 2000 runs @ 50+ in tests played since January 1 2001.

JH Kallis - 6568 @ 67.71
RT Ponting - 7098 @ 65.72
Mohammad Yousuf - 5034 @ 63.72
KC Sangakarra - 5812 @ 58.70
BC Lara - 5883 @ 58.24
R Dravid - 6361 @ 57.30
ML Hayden - 7304 @ 56.62
GP Thorpe - 2765 @ 55.30
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 4023 @ 54.36
DPMDS Jayawardene - 5385 @ 52.79
Gary Kirsten - 2785 @ 52.54
SR Tendulkar - 4872 @ 52.39
Younis Khan - 4413 @ 51.91
KP Pietersen - 2993 @ 51.60
S Chanderpaul - 4500 @ 51.13

Hussey and Flower didn't score enough runs (Hussey will top the list very soon); Sehwag and Laxman averaged slightly below 50. That leaves 15 players (assuming I didn't forget to check anyone - let me know if I did); the distribution is pretty seriously skewed, with just 3 averaging above 63, and 6 below 53. A bunch cluster between 54.3 and 58.7.

I'm sure there are a lot of fun statistical things I could do with the players on this list which might give some interesting data, but I'm not the stats machine I once was. I'll have another look at a later date (tomorrow maybe). Please discuss if anything interesting strikes you.

How do these averages change if you take out the minows . . . bound to be a couple of minnow-bashers among that lot?

Here's some of them, taking out Zimbabwe and Bangladesh:

Jacques Kallis - 60.35
Ricky Ponting - 62.06
Mohammad Yousuf - 51.29
Kumar Sangakkara - 49.12
Brian Lara - 56.57
Rahul Dravid - 54.07
Matthew Hayden - 54.38
Graham Thorpe - 53.63
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 54.01
Mahela Jayawardene - 49.69
Gary Kirsten - 44.06
Sachin Tendulkar - 46.21

The problem with putting those kind of filters on the stats is that it risks bogging the discussion down in a whole load of mind-blowingly tedious nit-picking crap along the lines of 'Brown's 289 against Australia doesn't stack up because Warne had a sore toe that day'.

Hey, here's an idea, let's do the same for bowlers and really confuse the issue.

Fred Nerk wrote:The problem with putting those kind of filters on the stats is that it risks bogging the discussion down in a whole load of mind-blowingly tedious nit-picking crap along the lines of 'Brown's 289 against Australia doesn't stack up because Warne had a sore toe that day'.

People just end up twisting stats and situatons to their own ends.

But I suppose forums were created specifically for circular arguments.

It would be interesting to see what the bowling strike rates are for bowlers who have taken say 100 wickets this decade.

I reckon they wouldn't be that different to previous decades meaning that the higher averages can be put down to fast scoring (not just carp bowling) which itself can be predominantly attributed to smaller grounds, flatter pitches and better bats.

Hmm, Hoggard and Harmi are both striking in the fifties but both average about 30.

One observation I would make is that it seems quite common to boost your batting average to these levels on the back of a good 12 to 18 months.

MoYo's amazing year in 2006 saw his average go from sub50 to 56 even though he had been playing tests for a decade.

Sanga is doing something similar at the moment.

So it is now common to score 1000+ runs in a year at an 80+ average which really skews a career total.

Leo wrote:
Qualification is to score over 2000 runs @ 50+ in tests played since January 1 2001.

JH Kallis - 6568 @ 67.71
RT Ponting - 7098 @ 65.72
Mohammad Yousuf - 5034 @ 63.72
KC Sangakarra - 5812 @ 58.70
BC Lara - 5883 @ 58.24
R Dravid - 6361 @ 57.30
ML Hayden - 7304 @ 56.62
GP Thorpe - 2765 @ 55.30
Inzamam Ul-Haq - 4023 @ 54.36
DPMDS Jayawardene - 5385 @ 52.79
Gary Kirsten - 2785 @ 52.54
SR Tendulkar - 4872 @ 52.39
Younis Khan - 4413 @ 51.91
KP Pietersen - 2993 @ 51.60
S Chanderpaul - 4500 @ 51.13

.

For comparison - those players with 2000+ runs average > 50 since January 1st 2000 (figures from Cricinfo).

RT Ponting 65.62
JH Kallis 65.02
A Flower 63.25
Mohammad Yousuf 61.17
R Dravid 58.69
KC Sangakkara 56.37
Inzamam-ul-Haq 55.57
ML Hayden 55.26
BC Lara 54.06
SR Tendulkar 53.41
GP Thorpe 53.30
SR Waugh 53.30
DPMD Jayawardene 52.15
KP Pietersen 51.60

So L is better than T

Another random stat:

Of the top 16 runs scorers in Test cricket, and other than Inzi whose last innings took him under 50, the only batsmen who don't average more than 50 are English.

Do you really need all these tedious stats to prove what is established flaming bails fact- i.e. that batsmen have it somewhat easier these days.

I think test cricket's getting a bit perverse. Bowlers put far more strain on their bodies and have to be so much more skilful to succeed at at the highest level than batsmen, but bar a few of them, are just there to be the batsman's bitch. If I was them I'd think of going on strike until they start making pitches out of concrete, broken glass and a bit of moss like they used to in the old days.

Eric Air Emu wrote:Do you really need all these tedious stats to prove what is established flaming bails fact- i.e. that batsmen have it somewhat easier these days.

I think test cricket's getting a bit perverse. Bowlers put far more strain on their bodies and have to be so much more skilful to succeed at at the highest level than batsmen, but bar a few of them, are just there to be the batsman's bitch. If I was them I'd think of going on strike until they start making pitches out of concrete, broken glass and a bit of moss like they used to in the old days.

A good idea, but it's not going to happen is it? The various Boards of Control are so in thrall to the demands of big money (mainly media) that the prospect of a test ending in less than 10 sessions must be unthinkable to them - hence the bland paceless wonders that much test cricket is played on these days.

....and it's unlikley to change unless people vote with their feet, tv remotes and internet usage.

I propose that the entire forum totally boycotts the remainder of the current test match- no tv, no papers, no cricinfo....that'll send the message out.

It would be nice though if England's bowlers just suddenly got a lot better instead.

Eric Air Emu wrote:

It would be nice though if England's bowlers just suddenly got a lot better instead.

The bowling would look a lot more respectable if the fielding was anythink like competent.

for all the hoohaa there were more draws in the 80s (considered the golden age for fast bowling) than in the 2000s. pitches are flatter but batsmen score quicker and get themselves out more often than the bowler...hence the higher averages for bowlers but similar strike rates

Ash wrote:for all the hoohaa there were more draws in the 80s (considered the golden age for fast bowling) than in the 2000s. pitches are flatter but batsmen score quicker and get themselves out more often than the bowler...hence the higher averages for bowlers but similar strike rates

Games are protected from the weather much more effectively now than in the 80s. Improvements in drainage technology, less fussy umpiring and making up lost hours on the following day have combined to increase the number of hours played. Defensive batting skills have also diminished.

If batsmen are so much better, and bowlers are finding it so tough, why are 'keepers like Gilchrist and Boucher taking catches at a far greater rate than their technically superior predecessors in Knott, Marsh, Healy, and Wasim Bari?

I agree with Ash and Lardy that this decade is esy for batting and tough for bowling is just a myth. We have much more results oriented test matches now and most of the teams play to win instead of thinking of earning a draw.

This change in attitude can't be possible if the bowlers are poor.