Laxman's corrected average

I just found out today that Laxman's average against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh is actually worse than his career average (~22 vs Ban, 40 vs Zim, compared to 42+), surprisingly enough. That then might be why his average shows up so poorly (relatively) compared to the averages of his more fancied teammates. I, for one, have never felt that he was much below say, atleast Dravid, in terms of batting calibre - Dravid maybe has got a better technique, by a shade.

So, assuming that Laxman's poor averages against the lesser teams are because he couldn't lift his game due to the lack of any significant challenge when playing them, or some other reason like that including fewer opportunities to play them, and not because those bowlers "found him out", we should be able to correct his average to bring it on par with his teammates' for comparison.

From eyeballing Sachin, Dravid and Ganguly's stats against the two teams, their average average seems to be about 80 or so (SRT ~ 100, Dravid ~ 80, Ganguly ~ 60). Using '80' as the average against Ban and Zim to recalculate Laxman's average, keeping the number of matches he's played against them unchanged, his corrected average comes out to be 46.06. And surely he hasn't played as many matches as the others have not because of some fault of his. If I ramp up that parameter to an average 10 matches and 20 innings (again, he bats low), the average goes up to 48.45, not a bad figure at all.

So when speaking of Laxman's average, we should all use the corrected 48. Or turn everyone else's down, which can be a difficult task because his stats are the anomaly.

Interestingly enough if you take out the times Laxman has got an incorrect decision his average rises to 52.63.

If you add the runs he should have got for Sourav Ganguly being slow and lazy and not running fast enough its up to 54.67

And if you remove all the times he's been dismissed by a bowler I don't like his average is an astronomical 84.63.

His average in every innings he scored 0 runs in is 0

But I wouldn't do that coz that's just stupid. If you can exclude stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for say Murali, esp. for the purposes of comparing him to Warne, I don't know why I can't do this.

If, on the other hand, you want to sit down and exclude those stats for all batsmen, you're welcome to do so. But it's surprising that it doesn't strike you as anomalous that someone can have worse stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as compared to their career stats. Or you should take your pms meds I suppose.

HH_pink wrote:But I wouldn't do that coz that's just stupid. If you can exclude stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for say Murali, esp. for the purposes of comparing him to Warne, I don't know why I can't do this.

If, on the other hand, you want to sit down and exclude those stats for all batsmen, you're welcome to do so. But it's surprising that it doesn't strike you as anomalous that someone can have worse stats against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe as compared to their career stats. Or you should take your pms meds I suppose.

But those games are genreally excluded from the comparison coz Warnie only played a couple of games against those teams, so it's like comparing apples and oranges otherwise.

You are simply cherry-picking to help you hero look better.

If I had my way then all so-called Tests involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would be stricken from the records.

But then if I had my way then major nations like SA, Ind & Aus would all play 5 Test series against each other, all illegal bowling actions would be banned and the whole world would have to adopt the English 3 pin plug - things would be great and I would be happy. It ain't going to happen though i'm afraid.

Laxman is not my hero. That's a blasphemous thing to say. I have no particular preference among Dravid, Laxman, and Ganguly, one way or the other.

Gary 111 wrote:If I had my way then all so-called Tests involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would be stricken from the records.

But then if I had my way then major nations like SA, Ind & Aus would all play 5 Test series against each other, all illegal bowling actions would be banned and the whole world would have to adopt the English 3 pin plug - things would be great and I would be happy. It ain't going to happen though i'm afraid.

True, and that's why we have stats that can be more or less objectively manipulated.

Gary 111 wrote:If I had my way then all so-called Tests involving Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would be stricken from the records.

But then if I had my way then major nations like SA, Ind & Aus would all play 5 Test series against each other, all illegal bowling actions would be banned and the whole world would have to adopt the English 3 pin plug - things would be great and I would be happy. It ain't going to happen though i'm afraid.

You had my vote until the bit about the 3-pin English plug. That's just stupid.

Interesting argument but there's no way that Laxman is anywhere near as good as Dravid.

In an era where Sangakkara and Yousuf average 56 though you somehow feel Laxman is worth more than 42. He's seriously good on his day.

I mean Hashan Tillekaratne's got a higher Test average than Laxman (without wanting to repeat my 'stupid defensive Sri Lankan batsmen who are sh!te with inexplicably high test averages' tirade)

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Interesting argument but there's no way that Laxman is anywhere near as good as Dravid.

Dravid has a better defence...VVS has more shots

Both ****** hard to get out when they are set

Pah, Laxman's not even as good as Vaughan.

Dravid has some excellent, free flowing, orthodox strokes when he's in the mood. A bit like Kallis.

Gary 111 wrote:Interestingly enough if you take out the times Laxman has got an incorrect decision his average rises to 52.63.

If you add the runs he should have got for Sourav Ganguly being slow and lazy and not running fast enough its up to 54.67

And if you remove all the times he's been dismissed by a bowler I don't like his average is an astronomical 84.63.

He deserves exactly what he's got. He averages in the 30s against Pak, England, South Africa and Sri Lanka.

Yes LLL

Yes, embee.

Funny you should mention Vaughan, an era when everyone seems to average 40+ and some ordinary players are above 50 these two seem to have very low averages. I mean there's very few batsmen in the world who could bat like this:

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63867.html
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64010.html


Down under, against great bowlers, under pressure. And all these runs were absolute class and a joy to watch. I just can't see Graeme Smith or MoYo batting anything like that. Never mind Hashan Tillaka-f**king-ratne. Yet for some reason they average the same as him.[/url]

Vaughan's average is a tiny ounce under 44. A player of his class and ability should be averaging around 4 or 5 runs higher than that but he's not that far off and still has a few years yet to boost it.

He's averaging 55 since his return to Test cricket in 2007. Granted it's only been 6 Tests and 3 of them were against the Windies but he's going in the right direction.

Vaughan "always" gives an early chance ...if you dont take it he will make you pay

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Pah, Laxman's not even as good as Vaughan.

Dravid has some excellent, free flowing, orthodox strokes when he's in the mood. A bit like Kallis.

Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

HH_pink wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Pah, Laxman's not even as good as Vaughan.

Dravid has some excellent, free flowing, orthodox strokes when he's in the mood. A bit like Kallis.

Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

No he's not.

He's better than Lampard

fdgdfgdf

Zat wrote:

HH_pink wrote:Laxman is every bit as good as Vaughan.

That doesn't say much.

Vaughan is/was crap.

Then how crap were the Australian bowlers in 2002-03?