Guess who's back? Don't worry nobody cares.
I used to be on BBC 606, but nobody will remember me as i was on for a very short time.
I've found some stats about runs per innings.
Sangakarra comes out very well in this analysis. When you consider he also plays as a wicketkeeper, he surely is one of the 5 greatest players of all time.
SR Tendulkar 15470 311 49.74
R Dravid 13288 286 46.46
R Ponting 13200 276 47.83
J Kallis 12260 254 48.27
B Lara 11953 232 51.52
A Border 11174 265 42.17
S Waugh 10927 260 42.03
S Gavaskar 10122 214 47.30
Mahela J 10086 213 47.35
K Sangakarr 9347 179 52.22
S C'paul 9709 234 41.49
J Miandad 8832 189 46.73
V Richards 8540 182 46.92
G Sobers 8032 160 50.20
M Waugh 8029 209 38.42
W Hammond 7249 140 51.78
K Barr'ton 6806 131 51.95
G Gooch 8900 215 41.40
I Ul-Haq 8830 200 44.15
VVS Laxman 8781 225 39.03
M Hayden 8625 184 46.88
A Stewart 8463 235 36.01
D Gower 8231 204 40.35
V Sehwag 8178 167 48.97
G Boycott 8114 193 42.04
M Yousuf 7530 156 48.27
G Chappell 7110 151 47.09
D Bradman 6996 80 87.45
L Hutton 6971 138 50.51
Y Khan 6398 133 48.11
D Compton 5807 131 44.33
M Hussey 5489 121 45.36
J Hobbs 5410 102 53.04
T S'weera 5022 114 44.05
Batting Averages without the *
posted on 17/2/12
If batting averages are so meaningful, with or without a *, India would have beaten the Aussis and England would have blown Pakistan away. Sometimes a scatchy 30 from a bowler wins a test.
posted on 17/2/12
"If batting averages are so meaningful, with or without a *, India would have beaten the Aussis and England would have blown Pakistan away. Sometimes a scatchy 30 from a bowler wins a test."
What? How did you work that one out?
posted on 17/2/12
JT I remember u from 606. Welcome aboard.
posted on 17/2/12
Nice sneer Amir.
posted on 17/2/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/2/12
Firstly, Neon and Hopefor, I don't consider this as a tool for measuring the greatness of a batsman. Just find it interesting at the difference that the * make. For guys like Chandepaul, Border and Kallis, it seems to make a massive difference.
AVFC - I have a very good memory, I think your name is Amir Mir. I remember you for your sporadic appearances on bbc 606. yes I was accused of being a Pakistani fan as I typed stats against Sachin Tendulkar, but come on, Skysport were hyping him so much at that point, I just feel a reality check was required.
However, I can't be a Pakistan fan, have you seen the negative captain, yes I know they beat England 3-0, but some of the field placings were abysmal. He seems to be making a team for now, but what happens in 5 years when Misbah, Ajmal, Cheema, Hafeez, Younis Khan and Rehman all retire. Giving youngsters like Junaid Khan only 1 test and a handful of overs is just poor future planning. Have a lot of respect for their players in the 80s and 90s, but as for the team now, to me (like most teams in the world) they look a mediocre side that can trample over other sides in their comfort zone, but will struggle big time when they venture out.
Kash, you were a top bloke back in bbc 606, nice to see you posting here.
posted on 18/2/12
England have also been negative in the way they have batted, everytime England seemed on top in this test series, they either played out numerous maidens or played a totally awful shot.
Ajmal was brilliant, have to give him credit, but I still believe had England been able to play him even half-well, guys like Gul and Rehman would never have had as much success.
Been much more positive in the ODIs, so chuffed that Finn is playing and performing. With Pattinson, Cummins, Yadhav and Philander coming through recently, the future of fast bowling looks bright.
posted on 18/2/12
Just true that was a really a stupid comment. If your playing a match for your country you have to play your best 11. if a team really wants to play youngsters then old guns should never be chosen in the squad at the first place.
And also I think if the without star and star difference is big, that would also mean the player has so many not outs and that reflects on the high ave with star?
posted on 18/2/12
Just true that was a really a stupid comment. If your playing a match for your country you have to play your best 11. if a team really wants to play youngsters then old guns should never be chosen in the squad at the first place.
And also I think if the without star and star difference is big, that would also mean the player has so many not outs and that reflects on the high ave with star?
posted on 18/2/12
ViruDaGreat,
I personally think you should have an eye on the future, not play all players just young, but pick one or two.
Australia and India have both struggled in recent years due to lack of future planning. Also, my biggest point is if you choose to play a young bowler like Junaid Khan, he deserves to bowl more overs than he did, otherwise how is he supposed to prove himself.
Regarding batsman having many stars (not outs), you may see a match-winning innings by a guy who the team can't get out, but conversely, there are occasions when an established batsman is playing with the tailenders and keeps taking singles of the first or second ball and then all wickets tumble down at the other end. This player's average may increase, but they will have not played for the team.