Monday, January 30, 2012

Tests:  The top and bottom of the batting average totem pole

Here’s an analysis of Test batting averages from either end of the spectrum.

In the previous articles, I did some analysis in which I tabled the top and bottom of scoring rates. This seems to be a good idea to do that, covering various facets of Tests and ODIs. First, the fascinating matter of Test batting averages.

Let us look at the Top-20 batting averages of all time. The cut-off is 2000 Test runs and more.

Sno	Batsman	Team	Year	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	Avge
1	Bradman D.G	Aus	1928	52	80	10	6996	99.94
2	Pollock R.G	Saf	1963	23	41	4	2256	60.97
3	Headley G.A	Win	1930	22	40	4	2190	60.83
4	Sutcliffe H	Eng	1924	54	84	9	4555	60.73
5	Barrington K.F	Eng	1955	82	131	15	6806	58.67
6	EdeC Weekes	Win	1948	48	81	5	4455	58.62
7	Hammond W.R	Eng	1927	85	140	16	7249	58.46
8	Sobers G.St.A	Win	1954	93	160	21	8032	57.78
9	Kallis J.H	Saf	1995	150	254	39	12260	57.02
10	Hobbs J.B	Eng	1908	61	102	7	5410	56.95
11	Walcott C.L	Win	1948	44	74	7	3798	56.69
12	Hutton L	Eng	1937	79	138	15	6971	56.67
13	Trott I.J.L	Eng	2009	24	40	4	2031	56.42
14	Sangakkara K.C	Slk	2000	106	179	12	9347	55.97
15	Tendulkar S.R	Ind	1989	188	311	32	15470	55.45
16	Chappell G.S	Aus	1970	87	151	19	7110	53.86
17	Nourse A.D	Saf	1935	34	62	7	2960	53.82
18	Samaraweera T.T	Slk	2001	71	114	20	5022	53.43
19	Ponting R.T	Aus	1995	162	276	29	13196	53.43
20	Lara B.C	Win	1990	131	232	6	11953	52.89

Don Bradman is on top with 99.94, just a single shot away from having a batting average of 100.  The next batsman is nearly 40 runs, just over 40% behind. That indicates how much of daylight is between Bradman and the rest of the batsmen.

Only three other batsmen have batting averages of above 60. Headley and Sutcliffe belong to the 1920s while Graeme Pollock is of recent vintage. Who knows what levels he would have achieved if South Africa had not been ostracized because of apartheid! Then come the batsmen from 1950s and 1960s, Barrington, Weekes and Sobers, sandwiching another great from the 1920s, Hammond. Hobbs completes the Top-10.

The only batsman in the top-10 from the current generation is the wonderful Jacques Kallis who has averaged over 57. What does one say of Kallis? Only the fact that he has also captured 274 Test wickets, scored 11481 ODI runs and captured 267 ODI wickets. Only the imposing presence of Gary Sobers prevents me from anointing Kallis as the second best Test cricketer ever.

Sno	Batsman	Team	Year	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	Avge
1	Martin C.S	Nzl	2000	64	94	47	112	2.38
2	Manjural Islam(Sr)	Bng	2001	17	33	11	81	3.68
3	Maninder Singh	Ind	1982	35	38	12	99	3.81
4	Chandrasekhar B.S	Ind	1964	58	80	39	167	4.07
5	Doshi D.R	Ind	1979	33	38	10	129	4.61
6	Reid B.A	Aus	1985	27	34	14	93	4.65
7	Valentine A.L	Win	1950	36	51	21	141	4.70
8	Tufnell P.C.R	Eng	1990	42	59	29	153	5.10
9	Adcock N.A.T	Saf	1953	26	39	12	146	5.41
10	Olonga H.K	Zim	1995	30	45	11	184	5.41

Now for the bottom of the table.

Chris Martin is as much of a batting legend as Bradman was. People stop whatever they are doing to watch Martin bat. He is the only bowler with a batting average of 2.38 who people pay the gate money to enter the ground and watch. He has more zeroes (32) than Bradman has hundreds (29).

Maninder Singh has pipped Chandrasekhar with a batting average of 3.81. However Chandrasekhar holds his own with 23 ducks. India has the proud place of honour with 3 places in the Top-5. Not one of the Top-10 has reached 200 Test runs. A few of these batsmen, Martin, Chandrasekhar and Reid have captured more wickets than the runs they have scored.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Why is Laxman being made a scapegoat?

India’s disastrous Test tour of Australia has prompted an outrage and a call for heads to roll.

Normally, my articles are purely analytical and I stay away from the more common opinionated articles. However, the time is right for me to do something different in the light of what is happening in Indian Cricket. A great player and gentleman is being made a scapegoat for other’s (and, granted, his own) failures. However, I will say what I want to say based on analysis.

First some facts, to be accepted without any doubt or arguments.

Indian Cricket is going through a major crisis. Their Test Performance Index for the past 7 away Tests reads 139-561 which works out to around 20-80. I have already explained this methodology in an earlier article. This is approximately the equivalent of 7 losses by an innings and 1 run.

The bowlers are blowing hot and cold. One day they look great, the next day they go through the motions. But this is to be expected considering that, barring Zaheer and Ishant, they have captured below 100 Test wickets. And the experienced bowlers blow cold and hot.

The batting has been poor, to say the least. Dravid stood head and shoulders above the rest in England. In Australia, no one has done that. Tendulkar is the only one who has been playing well. Unfortunately, the huge albatross around his neck is weighing him down on many a crucial moment. Dravid is showing hitherto-unheard-of technical deficiencies. Laxman is completely unsure of himself. Sehwag seems to be always in a hurry. Gambhir has amnesia. He has forgotten 2008/09.

But why is that everyone, the media, former players, and the general public and all and sundry seem to pick on Laxman and to a lesser extent, Dravid?

Let me first put down some figures.

This is a concise summary of the Indian Top-5 from 1 January 2011.

Looking at what has happened over the last 12+ months, Dravid has been way above the others. Even with his current loss of form and confidence, he averages well over 55 overall and 48 in tough away matches. I was one of the guys who felt that he should have retired, while on top, at the end of the England tour. Having said that, how can anyone ask for his removal? Would Pujara move in to no.3 and settle down comfortably. Yes, certainly at home, but away???

However, Laxman’s predicament is inexplicable. Granted he is playing poorly; granted he averages 29 overseas during the past year; granted he is short of confidence. However, to say that he should be dropped from Adelaide and shown the door with a well-placed kick on his backside is amazing. It should be noted that Laxman played a significant part in three of the four wins against West Indies. He played one of the all-time great innings, 96, on a nightmare of pitch at Durban just before 2011 dawned. India would have lost badly but for that innings. And not to mention Mohali and Colombo.

If we look at the numbers, Laxman and Tendulkar are almost identical, but for the fact that the home/away performances are at variance.

Let us look at Sehwag’s performances. No one seems to be asking for the removal of Sehwag. Why? Because he is younger or that one day he could wake up and score 195 in a day. Or that the 200 in ODIs is indicative of his good form. All possibly true. But give the same concession to others also. Gambhir has only done marginally better. They average either side of 30.

Now for the Australian tour. Nothing great for anyone, not even Tendulkar.


I had a lot of respect for Sanjay Manjrekar. However, he seems to be going overboard, specifically targeting Laxman. It is one thing to say that the juniors should have been tried in the home Tests against West Indies. That is fine. But to insist on that in a crucial third Test at Australia seems silly and hare-brained. I certainly like Ganguly’s very balanced approach. He says that Laxman should be evaluated on his loss of form and recent poor performances. However, he adds that the same yardstick should apply to all. He should know. In the 15 Tests before his exit, he had scored 1344 runs at an average of almost 50, well above his career average.

If one has to rank these on recent form, it would be Dravid, Tendulkar (on better current form), Laxman, Gambhir and Sehwag.

Now for the conclusion. I think both Dravid and Laxman should retire at the end of the Australian tour, but on their own terms. They have earned that. If for nothing but those 8 glorious hours in Calcutta in 2001. And many times after that. To talk about dropping them abruptly is churlish and small-minded and indicates a memory blank-out of great history in favour of an imagined wonderful but dubious future.

They should also realize that any continuation would invite the lesser players, screeching media and the ignorant public to shout at the top of their collective voices. They are both gentlemen and should take the gentleman’s way to the exit.