Welcome
Where did you get these stats?
Hello,
Are you Afridi14 from the bbc 606. Can you tell me where World Chimp has gone. He was extremely annoying and that made him incredibly interesting.
Anyway I got these stats from CricInfo, just took the runs and divided by the innings and ignored the not outs because when you are a top class batsman, the not outs don't really count. It's the innings you play. how often have we seen bore draws ending up with one of these batsman making a mountain of run with a * at the end, boosting the averages.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Hello neon, you are also a former 606ite as I remember you.
There's also Kash and WinningWays, Dilbert, Gboycottnut, Choppingwood and Gingerfinch that I remember.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I remember you, JustTrue, are you a Pakistani fan? Or were you not accused by some on the old 606 for being a Pakistani fan but not saying whether you were or not... I'm pretty sure you always backed us...Anyway, welcome and interesting stats. Let me digest...
JustTrue, you know what you should've done...Typed down the differences between their average with and without the *
Anyway, Sachin's difference is around about 7...and his dear friends Bradman's is about 12.5... Though, if you compare Sanga and Sachin, who average around the same, Sanga clearly whoops his ass!
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.
"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?
JT I remember u from 606. Welcome aboard.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Batting Averages without the *
Page 1 of 1
posted on 17/2/12
Welcome
Where did you get these stats?
posted on 17/2/12
Hello,
Are you Afridi14 from the bbc 606. Can you tell me where World Chimp has gone. He was extremely annoying and that made him incredibly interesting.
Anyway I got these stats from CricInfo, just took the runs and divided by the innings and ignored the not outs because when you are a top class batsman, the not outs don't really count. It's the innings you play. how often have we seen bore draws ending up with one of these batsman making a mountain of run with a * at the end, boosting the averages.
posted on 17/2/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/2/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/2/12
Hello neon, you are also a former 606ite as I remember you.
There's also Kash and WinningWays, Dilbert, Gboycottnut, Choppingwood and Gingerfinch that I remember.
posted on 17/2/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 17/2/12
I remember you, JustTrue, are you a Pakistani fan? Or were you not accused by some on the old 606 for being a Pakistani fan but not saying whether you were or not... I'm pretty sure you always backed us...Anyway, welcome and interesting stats. Let me digest...
posted on 17/2/12
JustTrue, you know what you should've done...Typed down the differences between their average with and without the *
Anyway, Sachin's difference is around about 7...and his dear friends Bradman's is about 12.5... Though, if you compare Sanga and Sachin, who average around the same, Sanga clearly whoops his ass!
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.
Page 1 of 1