The Ashes 2010/11

[kabbes]

Given that the team has seven frontline batsmen, each of whom gets two gos per match, how important is consistency?

Very important.

Look, I'm not denying that KP is good to have. I was just raising the possibility that within the context of a discussion of the 2005 and 2010 teams, it might be that KP's place could be vulnerable. To me, he was the weakest of the batsmen after Collingwood.

But I concluded, if you remember rightly, that he could keep his place.

 

[mattie]

First Twenty20 tomorrow, for anyone with any appetite for it.

It's on at a less ungodly hour as well.

I must say that any bowling line-up which includes both Tait and Johnson could be 'interesting'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Restricting this to the top six, they potentially get 12 gos per match.

If you have a batter who makes a big score every five or six innings and otherwise mostly fails, you're doing well.

That's why overall average is the most telling stat.

 

[DrRingDing]

First Twenty20 tomorrow, for anyone with any appetite for it.

It's on at a less ungodly hour as well.

I must say that any bowling line-up which includes both Tait and Johnson could be 'interesting'.

Tait would of made a difference to the test series IMO. The last time I saw him against England he tore through the order.

 

[Teaboy]

Tait would of made a difference to the test series IMO. The last time I saw him against England he tore through the order.

Not in my opinion, never test standard, just another wang it as fast as you can slinger. Many great fast bowlers have had bad injuries and modified their bowling style to continue playing (Akhtar, Ambrose, Walsh etc etc), they all had in common that they wernt just fast they were clever bowlers.

Tait is completly one dimensional and would have been found out everywhere except the fastest pitches. He'd done alright at Perth but would have gone all round the park everywhere else, just like a certain other one dimensional wanger.

 

[paulhackett]

Tait would of made a difference to the test series IMO. The last time I saw him against England he tore through the order.

Tait getting twatted by Pollard

 

[kabbes]

Restricting this to the top six, they potentially get 12 gos per match.

If you have a batter who makes a big score every five or six innings and otherwise mostly fails, you're doing well.

That's why overall average is the most telling stat.

If you have six batsmen who only get runs worth speaking of one in six innings then a staggering one in three innings will see your whole team fail (which will necessitate a desperate rear-guard action in the next innings) and, even assuming an independence that doesn't exist, you will score completely fuck all in one in nine test matches.

Another way of putting it: in a five match series, you can expect your team to score something like 100-150 all out for their first innings in one or two matches. You're then just hoping that they can rescue it in their second innings, but they're not going to win the match from there.

That's no way to be a force in world cricket. It's simply not good enough. Your batsmen either need to get a great score 1-in-6 and do reasonably OK the rest of the time or they need to be getting great scores more like 2-in-6 or 3-in-6, in which case they can be rubbish the rest of the time.

 

[Teaboy]

^^^^^ What has any of this actually got to do with cricket?

 

[Santino]

Yeah, what place do stats have in cricket?

 

[Streathamite]

60, actually. And take out his single good innings (which, no matter how good, was still just one innings) and he averaged just 26.6 for the remaining five innings he played. That's not good.

For comparison, here are the averages for the other top batsman exclusing their highest score:

Cook: 88.5
Trott: 46.2
Bell: 42.8
Strauss: 32.9
Prior: 26.8

It gives you an idea of how consistent they were, rather than it being disguised by a single good performance.

alternatively; pieterson got a double ton, a half-century, 43 (still OK), 36, and then tyhe double disaster that was perth and applie
s to every English batsman. Of 6 innings, that'sa more than OK, and hardly his (or Bell's fault), if they didn't get maximum chances at the wicket

 

[kabbes]

^^^^^ What has any of this actually got to do with cricket?

That KP scoring a fantastic score in one innings and averaging 26.6 for his other five innings should make his place potentially vulnerable to another top-drawer batsman. That he should be more vulnerable (based on this series alone) than Cook, Trott, Bell and Strauss.

 

[mattie]

Yeah, what place do stats have in cricket?

Far too high a place, in my honest opinion.

 

[Santino]

Far too high a place, in my honest opinion.

Get. Off. This. Thread.

 

[kabbes]

alternatively; pieterson got a double ton, a half-century, 43 (still OK), 36, and then tyhe double disaster that was perth and applie
s to every English batsman. Of 6 innings, that'sa more than OK, and hardly his (or Bell's fault), if they didn't get maximum chances at the wicket

Despite that "double disaster", the other English batsmen still managed to average much higher that Pietersen did when you exclude their best score.

Bell averaged 42.8 from his five innings excluding his best score. Two of those innings were at Perth.

In a way, this is the point -- Perth wouldn't have been a disaster if we didn't have batsmen that failed!

 

[mattie]

Get. Off. This. Thread.

I prefer my sports without standard deviations, ta muchly.

 

[Streathamite]

If you have six batsmen who only get runs worth speaking of one in six innings then a staggering one in three innings will see your whole team fail (which will necessitate a desperate rear-guard action in the next innings) and, even assuming an independence that doesn't exist, you will score completely fuck all in one in nine test matches.

except that doesn't apply to England cos a) with Broad fit, they have a long top-class batting order b) they have cook and trott who seem guaranteed 1 in every 3 to score shedloads and b) statto corner knoweth not psychology.
Ergo, Pietersen's record eminently worthwhile, ditto the one-every-four-test-or-so shambolic England batting collapse.

 

[Streathamite]

In a way, this is the point -- Perth wouldn't have been a disaster if we didn't have batsmen that failed!

except English batsmen have been failing at Perth regularly and consistently since the early 70s!
and the point on bell don't hold; pietersen scored a double-century.; strauss didn't, bell didn't, trott didn't, and only the latter looked like getting near.

 

[Teaboy]

That KP scoring a fantastic score in one innings and averaging 26.6 for his other five innings should make his place potentially vulnerable to another top-drawer batsman. That he should be more vulnerable (based on this series alone) than Cook, Trott, Bell and Strauss.

Good job we don't select on one series alone then, particuarly when someone has just averaged 60, although clearly they were the wrong sort of runs.

 

[Teaboy]

Yeah, what place do stats have in cricket?

Relevant stats are useful, the other stats are just for bearded oddballs that love the game but couldnt even hold a bat let alone use it.

 

[kabbes]

Surprising level of defensiveness in support of KP! Especially given my conclusion was that he was still better than any of the batsmen from 2005.

 

[mattie]

Relevant stats are useful, the other stats are just for bearded oddballs that love the game but couldnt even hold a bat let alone use it.

Pretty much my opinion.

I do think they sometimes make for interesting hypotheticals though - for example, what would have happened to the career averages of Matthew Hayden and Stephen Fleming if we swapped them across the Tasman?

 

[Idaho]

I really don't mind if we drop Pieterson. I think everyone buys into the hype - and so it becomes necessary to play him. We believe that we are weaker without him, and so do the opposition. However the reality is that most of the time he doesn't get scores.

 

[Santino]

Yeah, those cunts who enjoy looking at stats. They deserve our scorn.

 

[Idaho]

Pretty much my opinion.

I do think they sometimes make for interesting hypotheticals though - for example, what would have happened to the career averages of Matthew Hayden and Stephen Fleming if we swapped them across the Tasman?

That's the pointless side of stats. Kabbes is correct with his analysis. It shows the rate at which you need to be scoring and performing as a batsman.

 

[Santino]

Should a batting line-up be picked in the same way as a bowling attack, i.e. to fulfill different roles? Or do you just pick your best batsmen?

 

[paulhackett]

Should a batting line-up be picked in the same way as a bowling attack, i.e. to fulfill different roles? Or do you just pick your best batsmen?

Definitely different roles - look at the emphasis placed on Clarke's ability to bat at 4 rather than 5, dropping Ponting down from 3, whether Bell can bat at 3 (or 4 or 5 or 6). Guess it depends on the strength of the tail as well?

 

[Teaboy]

Surprising level of defensiveness in support of KP! Especially given my conclusion was that he was still better than any of the batsmen from 2005.

Not really, wasnt it you earlier in this thread agreeing that you can't take Hussey's and Haddin's score out of the aussie's first innings at the gabba and then say they struggled? Well you can't really take KP's double century out and then say he struggled. Yeah, he'd probably wanted another big score but if he averages 60 in the next few series I'll take that even if he scores 400 in the 1st test and then nothing in the rest.

For a long time now I've thought that England 'fans' (well some of them) don't deserve KP (not including you in this btw, general point). KP bashing has become a bit of a constant and quite frankly I'm bored of it. His stats speak for themselves, but because his personality doesnt fit or because he has a tendency to lose his wicket playing a big shot he should be dropped.

Its all bollocks really, we should just get behind our talented players and hopefully they will continue to develop. As someone who watched so much English rubbish in the 1990's I'm pretty glad he's around.

 

[mattie]

That's the pointless side of stats. Kabbes is correct with his analysis. It shows the rate at which you need to be scoring and performing as a batsman.

The question you should be asking is - would Matthew Hayden have had the freedom to be so aggressive in his approach without Warne and McGrath in the team? It's not even solely down to Hayden's decisions, the opposition Captain would have more than Hayden's strengths and weaknesses to consider when setting a field - which would impact Hayden's percentages, strike rate etc etc ad infinitum.

I mention this as it's something that should always be considered, but is pretty much always excluded form any statistical consideration. Basically trying to express anything as joyously variable and inscrutable as Test cricket in a few percentages is hardly representative. Where they are useful is in identifying anomalies or interesting patterns and seeking an explanation for them. Essentially, as the precursor to a question, not the answer to a question.

I would argue the above is the relevant side of stats, not the pointless.

 

[Teaboy]

I really don't mind if we drop Pieterson. I think everyone buys into the hype - and so it becomes necessary to play him. We believe that we are weaker without him, and so do the opposition. However the reality is that most of the time he doesn't get scores.

Rot.

 

[Santino]

Definitely different roles - look at the emphasis placed on Clarke's ability to bat at 4 rather than 5, dropping Ponting down from 3, whether Bell can bat at 3 (or 4 or 5 or 6). Guess it depends on the strength of the tail as well?

I know people talk about it, but I don't know whether it really means anything.