The Ashes 2010/11

[littlebabyjesus]

But that side of stats is pointless in that it doesn't tell you who you should pick for the team or whether that person is doing well. Hayden did well for Aus, Fleming did well for NZ. One averaged 50, the other 40. Comparisons across teams or eras are purely of academic interest – v. good eg would be Kaheer Khan: his low-30s bowling average shows that he's a very good bowler because he plays half his matches in India. If he were South African, that average would be far less impressive.

 

[Teaboy]

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.

Kabbes analysis although no doubt statistically correct doesnt have much grounding in actual cricket though, thats just not how the game works. Theres so many other factors involved, its not always how many you get its when you get them, against who? In what conditions? etc etc

Pieterson for example has scored big runs against great attacks when the chips are really down, up until this series (and perhaps even still) the same could not be said for Bell. Yet apparently Bell is the first name on the team sheet these days.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Over a long career, your headline average tells a pretty good story, though.

 

[mattie]

But that side of stats is pointless in that it doesn't tell you who you should pick for the team or whether that person is doing well. Hayden did well for Aus, Fleming did well for NZ. One averaged 50, the other 40. Comparisons across teams or eras are purely of academic interest – v. good eg would be Kaheer Khan: his low-30s bowling average shows that he's a very good bowler because he plays half his matches in India. If he were South African, that average would be far less impressive.

Yes. Stats won't tell you that. Judgement of ability, fitness, form, confidence etc etc tell you that.

Was the decision to put Bresnan in for Finn based on statistics?

 

[Teaboy]

But that side of stats is pointless in that it doesn't tell you who you should pick for the team or whether that person is doing well. Hayden did well for Aus, Fleming did well for NZ. One averaged 50, the other 40. Comparisons across teams or eras are purely of academic interest – v. good eg would be Kaheer Khan: his low-30s bowling average shows that he's a very good bowler because he plays half his matches in India. If he were South African, that average would be far less impressive.

India is a graveyard for seam bowlers, if zaheer khan played in SA his figures would be way more impressive. He's an excellent and underated bowler.

 

[mattie]

Kabbes analysis although no doubt statistically correct doesnt have much grounding in actual cricket though, thats just not how the game works. Theres so many other factors involved, its not always how many you get its when you get them, against who? In what conditions? etc etc

Pieterson for example has scored big runs against great attacks when the chips are really down, up until this series (and perhaps even still) the same could not be said for Bell. Yet apparently Bell is the first name on the team sheet these days.

Exactly that. Any numerical analysis relies upon identifying and quantifying all salient factors. Which you simply cannot do, in any meaningful way, in cricket.

As I mentioned before, career averages will begin to converge to something representative, but it's not solely representative of the individual. I maintain - what would Hayden's and Flemings' career averages look like if the nationalities were reversed?

 

[Idaho]

Kabbes analysis although no doubt statistically correct doesnt have much grounding in actual cricket though, thats just not how the game works. Theres so many other factors involved, its not always how many you get its when you get them, against who? In what conditions? etc etc

Pieterson for example has scored big runs against great attacks when the chips are really down, up until this series (and perhaps even still) the same could not be said for Bell. Yet apparently Bell is the first name on the team sheet these days.

Because consistency is the holy grail for selectors. They know they can pick someone and that's 40 runs in the bank. Whereas the Pieterson types are totally maddening to watch. They veer (often within the same over) between brilliance and idiocy.

 

[kabbes]

Over a long career, your headline average tells a pretty good story, though.

Definitely. Although your "true" average changes over a career, so even this can hide the story.

I'd say that the most meaningful average for a batsman at any given time is probably the moving average judged over the last 20 innings (or possibly 12 months). It's long enough to gain some statistical credibility but short enough not to include irrelevant data.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes. Michael Hussey is in fact an example of a player whose place in the team was saved by relatively ancient performances. He was a very lucky boy to start this last Ashes series.

 

[Santino]

Could well have been 5-0 without Hussey.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

True. His selection was a triumph of hope over experience, though. I would actually use this 8-month break from test cricket to retire both him and Ponting.

 

[Santino]

Retire Hussey? Srsly?

 

[Teaboy]

Definitely. Although your "true" average changes over a career, so even this can hide the story.

I'd say that the most meaningful average for a batsman at any given time is probably the moving average judged over the last 20 innings (or possible 12 months). It's long enough to gain some statistical credibility but short enough not to include irrelevant data.

12 months is for me perhaps not long enough. Last winter England toured SA, facing Steyne and Morkal on their own turf was never going to be easy. Then the English summer was dominated by the bowlers because the ball was hooping around, it was a very strange summer to say the least.

As a result England went into this last series with some bowlers quite high in the rankings but with only Trott featuring in the batting rankings.

Its not easy for selectors because there are so many intangibles to consider and stats only help us so far. It think perhaps the last 24 months would give a more accurate representation, but how many struggling cricketers get given two years to sort their technique out?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Retire Hussey? Srsly?

Yep. He had three glorious tests. These came after a prolonged slump, and I saw signs of that slump returning in the last two matches.

 

[Santino]

If you really wanted to track your own players, you could also make adustments for easy chances given in otherwise good innings (e.g., if you give an easy catch to first slip that goes down, your score is counted from that point, and not the 127 runs scored subsequently), and for poor decisions given by the umpire.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Its not easy for selectors because there are so many intangibles to consider and stats only help us so far. It think perhaps the last 24 months would give a more accurate representation, but how many struggling cricketers get given two years to sort their technique out?

A certain Michael Hussey.

 

[kabbes]

In terms of sorting your technique out: this is where trends are so important. It's not just about where you are, it's about which direction you're moving in. Looking at the trend of your moving average will tell you whether a batsman is generally on his way up or down.

24 months might be more appropriate. Cricket is a slow moving game without many matches! (But that's why I prefer something based on number of innings instead.)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you really wanted to track your own players, you could also make adustments for easy chances given in otherwise good innings (e.g., if you give an easy catch to first slip that goes down, your score is counted from that point, and not the 127 runs scored subsequently), and for poor decisions given by the umpire.

Not quite – those 127 runs count hugely as an innings in themselves after the catch. Also players can have a bad day – Watson was dropped twice before he was finally out for 5 in the last test. You shouldn't penalise that too much.

That said, players can go on a horrible run of luck sometimes. Hussein had a trot of unfortunate dismissals.

 

[mattie]

Or you could just watch them play.

Stats are retrospective. Better to be a little more proactive, perhaps, rather than summing it up and noting at the end of a lost series that the batsmen weren't very good?

It seems to me Hughes was picked on statistical form - if not immediately recent, than over a period of time. It's the only way my poor tiny mind can rationalise how that stance and technique got anywhere near an Ashes opener berth.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Graeme Smith has a horrible technique. And a great test record.

It's not just Hughes' loose technique that makes him so crap. It's also his awful judgement.

 

[mattie]

Graeme Smith has a horrible technique. And a great test record.

It's not just Hughes' loose technique that makes him so crap. It's also his awful judgement.

It's Smith's mentality that sets him apart, a significant factor in getting the Captaincy so young.

But, God, Hughes was awful, wasn't he?

 

[embree]

except Enfglish 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 dodn't, and only the latter looked like getting near.

more than that - non WA batsmen have been struggling at Perth for a long time.

 

[kabbes]

Just watching them play can take you both ways though. You have all kinds of unconscious biases, for a start -- if I think a player is a good player then I will subconsciously tend to pick up on what he does well and discount what he does badly. That's just built into us. The only way to avoid that is have some kind of bias-free objective framework to use as a context.

The other problem is, well, take Pietersen as an example. Watching him for six innings, I could just as easily conclude that he is a liability who gives his wicket away than I could conclude that he is a match-winning batsman. Without objective success criteria, you're still left arguing about the same things anyway!

 

[Santino]

I like to think that KP contributed this series by making Australia search high and low for a left-arm spinner, no matter how shit they were.

 

[embree]

Regarding previous comments about Tait, he would've made a difference to the Test series only in that England would have made even more massive scores. He's even more of a basket case than Johnson, which is why he only plays 20/20

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Just watching them play can take you both ways though. You have all kinds of unconscious biases, for a start -- if I think a player is a good player then I will subconsciously tend to pick up on what he does well and discount what he does badly. That's just built into us. The only way to avoid that is have some kind of bias-free objective framework to use as a context.

Yes. To go back to Smith, you look at him bat and you think 'oh he won't last long'. Then you come back a few hours later, and he's got a hundred, and still looks like he won't last long. His double hundreds against England a few years ago are among my most frustrating cricket-watching memories. You can't knock his stats, though – he knows his own game and he knows what he can and can't do, and crucially sticks rigidly to it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Regarding previous comments about Tait, he would've made a difference to the Test series only in that England would have made even more massive scores. He's even more of a basket case than Johnson, which is why he only plays 20/20

I thought he went down to 2020 because of injuries.

 

[DrRingDing]

Regarding previous comments about Tait, he would've made a difference to the Test series only in that England would have made even more massive scores. He's even more of a basket case than Johnson, which is why he only plays 20/20

He's got a ODI average of 23. Better than most of Englands bowlers.

 

[DrRingDing]

....and he hasn't played enough tests to be judge fully.

 

[embree]

I thought he went down to 2020 because of injuries.

bit more to it than that I think. you have to want to return from injury to be able to do so and he just couldn't be arsed