[Statistics] Michael Slater's career
Brendan Jones
openers we've had in quite a long while. His career stats are below,
with comments following.
MICHAEL J. SLATER (AUS)
Debut: 3 June 1993 vs England, Old Trafford, Manchester
CAREER STATS
vs M I RUNS NO AVG 0s 50s 100s
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
ENG 11 20 1039 0 51.95 0 3 4
NZ 3 4 305 0 76.25 0 1 1
SAF 6 11 436 1 43.60 0 3 0
PAK 3 5 244 0 48.80 0 1 1
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
TOTAL 23 40 2024 1 51.90 0 8 6
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
HIGHEST SCORES
---------------------------------------
176 v ENG Brisbane 1994/95
168 v NZ Hobart 1993/94
152 v ENG Lord's 1993
124 v ENG Perth 1994/95
110 v PAK Rawalpindi 1994
103 v ENG Sydney 1994/95
---------------------------------------
SCORE HISTOGRAM
-------------------
0- 9 7
10-19 3
20-29 8
30-39 2
40-49 6
50-59 2
60-69 1
70-79 1
80-89 0
90-99 3
100+ 6
-------------------
HOW OUT
-------------------
Caught 24
Bowled 7
LBW 6
Run Out 1
Stumped 1
Not Out 1
-------------------
WHEN OUT
-------------------
1 22
2 9
3 5
4 2
5 1
Not Out 1
-------------------
DISMISSED MOST BY
-------------------
Donald (SAF) 5
Such (ENG) 4
DeVilliers (SAF) 4
Patel (NZ) 3
Malcolm (ENG) 3
DeFrietas (ENG) 3
-------------------
CAREER SCORES
vs ENGLAND 1993
1st TEST
3-7 June 1993
Old Trafford, Manchester.
c Stewart b DeFreitas 58 (1-128)
c Caddick b Such 27 (2-46)
2nd TEST
17-21 June 1993 Lord's, London
c B Smith(sub) b. Lewis 152 (1-260)
3rd TEST
1-5 July 1993 at Trent Bridge, Nottingham.
lbw b Caddick 40 (2-74)
b Such 26 (1-46)
4th TEST
22-26 July 1993 at Headingly, Leeds.
b Ilott 67 (2-110)
5th TEST
5-9 August 1993 at Edgbaston, Birmingham
c Smith b Such 22 (1-34)
c Thorpe b Such 8 (2-12)
6th TEST
19-23 August 1993 at The Oval, London
c Gooch b Malcolm 4 (1-9)
c Stewart b Watkin 12 (1-23)
vs NEW ZEALAND 1993/94
1st TEST
12-16 November 1993, WACA Ground, Perth.
c Patel b Cairns 10 (1-37)
c Blain b Patel 99 (1-198)
2nd TEST
26-30 November 1993, Bellerive Oval, Hobart.
c Morrison b Patel 168 (2-300)
3rd TEST
3-7 December 1993, Wollongabba Ground, Brisbane.
c Blain b Patel 28 (1-80)
vs SOUTH AFRICA 1993/94
1st TEST
26-30 December 1993, MCG, Melbourne
c Kirsten b Donald 32 (1-57)
2nd TEST
2-6 January 1994, Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney
b Donald 92 (5-179)
b de Villiers 1 (1-4)
3rd TEST
28 Jan - 1 Feb 1994, Adelaide Oval, Adelaide
c Rhodes b Donald 53 (1-83)
lbw b Donald 7 (1-23)
4th TEST
4-8 Mar 1994, Wanderers, Johannesburg.
c Hudson b de Villiers 26 (1-35)
b de Villiers 41 (2-95)
5th TEST
17-21 Mar 1994, Newlands, Cape Town.
c P Kirsten b de Villiers 26 (1-40)
not out 43
6th TEST
25-29 Mar 1994, Kingsmead, Durban.
c Rhodes b Matthews 20 (2-47)
lbw b Donald 95 (4-157)
vs PAKISTAN 1994
1st TEST
28 Sep - 2 Oct 1994, National Stadium, Karachi.
lbw b Akram 36 (4-95)
lbw b Mushtaq 23 (2-49)
2nd TEST
5-9 Oct 1994, Rawalpindi.
c Inzamam b Kamal 110 (3-198)
b Waqar 1 (1-2)
3rd TEST
1-5 Nov 1994, Gaddafi Stadium, Lahore.
c Moin b Kamal 74 (3-126)
vs ENGLAND 1994/95
1st TEST
25-29 Nov 1994, Wollongabba Ground, Brisbane
c Gatting b Gooch 176 (3-308)
lbw b Gough 45 (1-109)
2nd TEST
24-29 Dec 1994, MCG, Melbourne
run out 3 (1-10)
st Rhodes b Tufnell 44 (2-81)
3rd TEST
1-5 January 1995, SCG, Sydney
b Malcolm 11 (1-12)
c Tufnell b Fraser 103 (1-208)
4th TEST
26-30 Jan 1995, Adelaide Oval, Adelaide
c Atherton b DeFreitas 67 (1-128)
c Tufnell b Malcolm 5 (3-22)
5th TEST
3-7 Feb 1995, WACA, Perth.
c Lewis b DeFreitas 124 (3-238)
c Atherton b Fraser 45 (1-75)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAREER STATS
An opening bat averaging 51.9 is exceptional, and his conversion rate
of 50s to 100s is awesome. Very few test batsman have scored nearly
as many 100s as 50s. If his three scores in the 90s had have been
converted to centuries, he'd have scored more 100s than 50s.
Slater is yet to be dismissed for 0 (he bought Goochie a beer in Perth :-)
He has been dismissed for 1 twice.
On the duckless career stats, he's near the top in every category: 23
duckless matches [2nd to J.W.Burke (Aus) and B.D.Julien (WI) with 24 matches]
40 duckless innings [2nd to J.W.Burke (Aus) with 44 innings] and leads
the duckless run aggregate easily - the next highest is 1352 runs by
H.L.Collins (Aus). He should lead on all these marks after the West Indies,
ducks notwithstanding.
A duckless tour of the West Indies could also see Slater get closer to
Aravinda de Silva's record of most runs to first duck, which stands at 2779.
HIGHEST SCORES
These show Slater generally goes on and gets a big hundred. No
propensity to fall immediately after reaching the hundred.
SCORE HISTOGRAM
If you don't get Slater out for less than 50, he's odds-on to get a ton.
HOW OUT
This shows he's technically an excellent player too. Caught dismissals
are nearly double his bowled plus lbw count. Players who get out often
bowled or lbw usually have an obvious technical deficiency. Large
number of caught dismissals are partly a result of being an opening
batsman but mostly a result of him being an aggressive batsman.
WHEN OUT
Almost always first or second wicket to fall. Given his average, this
means he builds big partnerships with Taylor and gets the team off to
a good start. Taylor/Slater opening stand stats to be posted next.
DISMISSED MOST BY
No particular weakness in evidence here. Two fast bowlers, two
offspinners, two medium-fast seamers.
--
Brendan Jones | WWW : http://www.mpce.mq.edu.au/~brendan/
Electronics Department | Email: bre...@mpce.mq.edu.au .---------------------
Macquarie University | Voice: +61 2 850 9072 | Only 2040 days to go
NSW 2109 AUSTRALIA | Fax : +61 2 850 9128 | SYDNEY 2000 OLYMPICS
BRADLEY SPARKES
>HOW OUT
>This shows he's technically an excellent player too. Caught dismissals
>are nearly double his bowled plus lbw count. Players who get out often
>bowled or lbw usually have an obvious technical deficiency. Large
>number of caught dismissals are partly a result of being an opening
>batsman but mostly a result of him being an aggressive batsman.
Have you got any info on how often he has been caught behind square? or even
just w/k or slip?
Pramod Koshy
Brendan Jones <bre...@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au> wrote:
>Michael Slater is my favourite Aussie cricketer and one of the best
>openers we've had in quite a long while. His career stats are below,
>with comments following.
>
>HIGHEST SCORES
>---------------------------------------
>176 v ENG Brisbane 1994/95
>168 v NZ Hobart 1993/94
>152 v ENG Lord's 1993
>124 v ENG Perth 1994/95
>110 v PAK Rawalpindi 1994
>103 v ENG Sydney 1994/95
>---------------------------------------
stand stats to be posted next.
>
6 centuries, and out of that 4 comes against the weakest team, and you call
him one of the best ?
He'll find century making a whole lot more difficult in the WI. You had
better make your judgement on this guy after the WI tour.
These are my fav's who should do well in the WI
David Boon and M Waugh.
But even these two wouldn't prevent the WI give Australia a thrashing.
Afterall the a much stronger Aussie team lost to the WI the last time the
Aussies toured .
Pramod Koshy.
Graham Jenkin
> 6 centuries, and out of that 4 comes against the weakest team, and you call
> him one of the best ?
> He'll find century making a whole lot more difficult in the WI. You had
> better make your judgement on this guy after the WI tour.
TOTALLY AGREE!! So many people reckon the sun shines out of this guy's
butt! ... but I've got no idea why. He is yet to prove himself against
the world's best. Don't get me wrong. I reckon Slater's a great batsman
and will probably one day be Australian captain (as so many people are
saying), but he, like that other pseudo-legend Shane Warne, is yet to
prove himself worthy by beating the best. Since so many Aussie fans are
expecting him to perform, I hope he (and SW) doesn't buckle under the
pressure. If he does, he'll be disowned by the Australian public ...
as is our nature.
> Pramod Koshy.
____ ____
/ ___|_ __ __ _ / ___|_ __ __ _
| | _| '__/ _` | | _| '__/ _` | Graham Jenkin
| |_| | | | (_| | |_| | | | (_| | University of Queensland
\____|_| \__,_|\____|_| \__,_| G.Je...@mailbox.uq.oz.au
Ritesh KAUSHIK
>vs NEW ZEALAND 1993/94
>1st TEST
>12-16 November 1993, WACA Ground, Perth.
>c Patel b Cairns 10 (1-37)
>c Blain b Patel 99 (1-198)
>2nd TEST
>26-30 November 1993, Bellerive Oval, Hobart.
>c Morrison b Patel 168 (2-300)
>3rd TEST
>3-7 December 1993, Wollongabba Ground, Brisbane.
>c Blain b Patel 28 (1-80)
This is interesting, Slater has played 3 tests against New Zealand and
every time he was dismissed Patel was involved.
His scores of 168 in second test and 99 in first , suggest that he was
not troubled by Patel. Was it over-confidence, or loss of concentration
against Patel ?
Brendan Jones
> [details v NZ deleted]
> This is interesting, Slater has played 3 tests against New Zealand and
> every time he was dismissed Patel was involved. His scores of 168 in
> second test and 99 in first , suggest that he was not troubled by Patel.
> Was it over-confidence, or loss of concentration against Patel ?
His 99 dismissal was a nick through to Blain trying to run the ball down
to 3rd man to get his 1st home ton. That was inexperience. His 168
dismissal was tiredness, trying to heave Patel down the ground. I can't
remember the details of the other two dismissals.
Slater usually gets out through over-confidence, loss of concentration,
or exhaustion. It takes a very good ball to get him out by genuinely
beating him.
--
Brendan Jones | WWW : http://www.mpce.mq.edu.au/~brendan/
Electronics Department | Email: bre...@mpce.mq.edu.au .---------------------
Macquarie University | Voice: +61 2 850 9072 | Only 2039 days to go
Harish Chandramouli
BJ> Anyone who scores a century and a fifty in five innings against Pakistan
BJ> in Pakistan against the lethal W&W combination (and on their first tour
BJ> there) has gotta have some class. And he's pretty unlucky to only score
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* Surely you mean pretty lucky? After all he was dropped on nought against
SA, and then went to make 95.
BJ> His four centuries against the "weakest team" (NOT - more like the 5th
BJ> strongest team not the 9th) are a by-product of the number of tests he's
BJ> played against England.
* Disagree once again - England are certainly behind India and
South Africa - as of this moment anyway.
BJ> His RATE of scoring centuries against England is EXACTLY the same as
BJ> against Pakistan - 1 century every 5 innings. His RATE of scoring
BJ> fifties against Pakistan is HIGHER than his rate of scoring fifties
BJ> against England - 1 fifty every 5 innings rather than 1 every 7.
God, don't tell me that after the first 50 Slater scores in the Windies
(assuming its in the first two tests) you'll come up with yet another
comparison about how 1/4 is far better than 1/7 - my point is, these
are hardly large enough set of data for you to play around with. Wait
awhile - say another 2/3 years :-)
BJ> And so what did Slater score against Malcolm at the WACA?
BJ> 124 and 45.
* Make sure not to forget to divide the 124 by 3 - yet another example of
how he's punished the opposition after an early let off (or rather
3 let offs in this case). Lets not forget here once again, that he would
have falled 108 short of that 110 in Pakistan, had that catch been
taken off Wasim Akram's bowling when Slater was on two. Quite amazing
really, how he capitalizes on dropped chances (especially in the gully
- his weakness perhaps ?) - I wonder if any of his other
tons had early reprieves. Of course (as someone was telling me a couple
of days ago) dropped catches are part and parcel of the game - so I
really shouldn't be going on and on - still one begins what the Lara's
and Slater's did for a living in their last lives :-)
BJ> Slater will show his class anywhere.
* Agreed (finally) - whether he scores 10, or 100 he does it with class -
certainly my "favourite" opener in test cricket today. My humble opinion is,
even though he has class and concentration one must'nt forget that he's had had Lady Luck on his side - so its a bit too early to say really - of course
he hasn't failed in a series, and in the final analysis I guess thats what
counts. But I for one tend to be rather prudent when it comes to cricketers
like Slater and Lara - whose averages are greatly exaggerated by the fact
that their opponents fingers turn to butter whenever the two mentioned are
at the crease.
BJ> whilst McGrath is also in excellent form.
* Hmm he does well in ONE test and suddenly achieves peak form ? Amazing
how you can predict that this "form" will last really...sort of like
your 1/5 is better than 1/7 argument.
* I personally bet that Slater will come out of the West Indies with an
average of 40 (for the series) - lets see how far out my prediction
proves to be :-)
Stephen Devaux
Chandramouli) writes:
>
>But I for one tend to be rather prudent when it comes to cricketers
> like Slater and Lara - whose averages are greatly exaggerated by the
fact
> that their opponents fingers turn to butter whenever the two
mentioned are
> at the crease.
>
Whooo! That's an interesting charge. Every player gets dropped at
times, and I sure can't speak for ALL of Lara's Test innings, but let's
look at the ones I CAN address:
375 vs. England ---- chanceless.
277 vs Australia --- one difficult chance, in the 170's, if I recall.
167 vs. England ---- chanceless.
151 vs. N.Z. ---- although I haven't gotten The Cricketer yet, I have
not heard of any chances.
91 vs. India ----- chanceless.
So I'm not sure where all these chances that are puffing up his Test
average are coming from. Lara did give some chances in his 501*, but
that was a first class match. And even then, although I think he gave 3
chances, the chances average out to something like 1 every 125 runs.
As Red Stripe followers will confirm, Lara actually does not give many
chances because he tends to keep the ball on the ground, unlike someone
like Viv.
>
Fraternally in cricket,
Steve the Bajan
Chris Godfred-Spenning
>In article <bpspa1.6...@pfs01.cc.monash.edu.au> bps...@pfs01.cc.monash.edu.au (BRADLEY SPARKES) writes:
>> Have you got any info on how often he has been caught behind square?
>> or even just w/k or slip?
Slater has been caught in the field 19 times and behind wicket
5 times
Cheers, ChrisG.
Rohan Chandran
>Cheeka said:
>>But I for one tend to be rather prudent when it comes to cricketers
>> like Slater and Lara - whose averages are greatly exaggerated by the
>fact
>> that their opponents fingers turn to butter whenever the two
>mentioned are
>> at the crease.
>>
>
>Whooo! That's an interesting charge. Every player gets dropped at
>times, and I sure can't speak for ALL of Lara's Test innings, but let's
>look at the ones I CAN address:
Very true. But while I love watching Lara bat, and don't dispute that
he does a pretty good job of it, I've not seen many players get
dropped as often as he does. Or have chances missed in general (e.g.
stumpings)
>375 vs. England ---- chanceless.
As far as nothing going straight to hand is concerned, yes. But it's
not like there were no close calls etc. For most other batsmen one
gets the feeling (obviously this is a bit of an unfair coment, but
still..) that one of those close calls would have gone a few inches
either way and been catchable. And I've seen every ball of this
innings, so no-one is going to convince me that there were *no* close
calls :)
>277 vs Australia --- one difficult chance, in the 170's, if I recall.
Haven't seen the NZ innings or anything in India, but those apart this
is to my mind the best innings Lara has played to date. I think there
may have been one more chance though - but it's been a while and I
don't recall that well.
>167 vs. England ---- chanceless.
I have a feeling in the back of my head that there was a dropped
catch, but what is certain is that Jack Russell fluffed up the easiest
of stumping chances whilst Lara was in his nineties. 999 times out of
1000 a 'keeper would have been successful. It's not Lara's fault, nor
his problem, that he seems to get the other 1 occurrence in such
cases, but at the same time, one can't deny that it happens.
>151 vs. N.Z. ---- although I haven't gotten The Cricketer yet, I have
> not heard of any chances.
No idea about this one.
>91 vs. India ----- chanceless.
Nor this. But note that throughout the India series he was dropped
regularly, in one innings he was dropped thrice before reaching 15.
Not something that happens regularly. And against Pakistan, he was
dropped so regularly it wasn't funny.
>So I'm not sure where all these chances that are puffing up his Test
>average are coming from.
Now this is where I tend to tread a middle-ground. To my mind, the
chances are there, and he is possibly the luckiest (bit of a misnomer
I guess) batsman around. However, I don't believe that this fact
should be used to detract from his average or his performance.
>Lara did give some chances in his 501*, but
Only saw highlights of this innings, but it certainly was nowhere near
one of his better knocks, IMHO.
>As Red Stripe followers will confirm, Lara actually does not give many
>chances because he tends to keep the ball on the ground, unlike someone
>like Viv.
Maybe in Red Stripe cricket. But in Test cricket, and in ODI's (not
that they matter :-) ), Lara does give chances. Of that I am in little
doubt.
Incidentally, Venky wrote somewhere that Lara was showing why he is
the best bat in the world, despite a minor hiccup in India. A little
correction, Venky. Tendulkar is the best bat in the world, an opinion
I have held since the beginning of 1993 and have seen no reason to
change since.
Rohan [ Azhar is still the greatest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]
Joshua Saunders
: DISMISSED MOST BY
: -------------------
: Donald (SAF) 5
: Such (ENG) 4
: DeVilliers (SAF) 4
: Patel (NZ) 3
: Malcolm (ENG) 3
: DeFrietas (ENG) 3
: -------------------
: DISMISSED MOST BY
: No particular weakness in evidence here. Two fast bowlers, two
: offspinners, two medium-fast seamers.
I disagree. He opens, which means he faces the quicks at the start of his
innings. And does a very good job. But the spinners listed above are not
the best around. In fact Patel is one of the worst (at test level). I
would suggest he has a weakness to spin. Not a HUGE problem, but the sort
of thing he could work on to improve his game.
He will love the Windies though.
Cheers, Josh
Joshua Saunders
: In article <3hpma8$6...@sunb.ocs.mq.edu.au>,
: Brendan Jones <bre...@macadam.mpce.mq.edu.au> wrote:
: >Michael Slater is my favourite Aussie cricketer and one of the best
: >openers we've had in quite a long while. His career stats are below,
: >with comments following.
: >
: >HIGHEST SCORES
: >---------------------------------------
: >176 v ENG Brisbane 1994/95
: >168 v NZ Hobart 1993/94
: >152 v ENG Lord's 1993
: >124 v ENG Perth 1994/95
: >110 v PAK Rawalpindi 1994
: >103 v ENG Sydney 1994/95
: >---------------------------------------
: stand stats to be posted next.
: >
: 6 centuries, and out of that 4 comes against the weakest team, and you call
: him one of the best ?
England aren't the weakest, but they aren't that good. He has of course
played 11 of his 20 tests against England, so it's hardly surprising that
he has done OK. His form against Pakistan and South Africa was bloody
good too. He top scored in the Sydney test last year (92) on a bastard of
a pitch. That innings would have been worth a big hundred anywhere else.
: He'll find century making a whole lot more difficult in the WI. You had
: better make your judgement on this guy after the WI tour.
No he won't. He loves fast bowling. The pitches in WI aren't THAT fast
anymore. Slats will be just fine. If Australia win the toss and bat in
the first test they'll be trying to set the tone for the series. Slaters
role in the first innings of the first test is crucial.
: These are my fav's who should do well in the WI
: David Boon and M Waugh.
These two will have to do well. WE can't carry guys like Geoff Marsh
against the Windies. And if Boon stays out of form some hard choices
might be made.
: But even these two wouldn't prevent the WI give Australia a thrashing.
: Afterall the a much stronger Aussie team lost to the WI the last time the
: Aussies toured .
This is rubbish. Geoff MArsh better than Slater?
Matthews better than Warne?
Whitney better than Fleming?
Border probably is better than Blewett, but Blewett doesn't mind the fast
stuff either. As an opener he is the perfect guy for a middle order
against the Windies. And Ponting is SUPPOSED to be the best player of
pace in Australia. And if we fail as you think, he won't be out of the
side for long.
Just one thing though. Taylor and MWaugh had very good seasons in 90/1.
They don't have to repeat that, but they will need to hold their own if
Australia are to do creditably well.
I still think 1-1. Those tipping 3-1 or 4-0 to WI are misguided in the
extreme.
Of course all this is just idle chatter till the series starts anyway.
Cheers, Josh
Stephen Devaux
Sridharan) writes:
>
>R. Bharat Rao (bha...@scr.siemens.com) wrote:
>
>: sde...@ix.netcom.com (Stephen Devaux) writes:
>
>[...deleted...]
>
>: >In their place, Windies have Lara and Adams, neither of whom at this
>: >point in their careers suffers greatly by comparison to Viv at his
BEST.
>
>-------
>Stephen, I agree that the performances of Lara and Adams is incredibly
>important to the team right now... as important as the contribution of
>Viv Richards was when he was the leading light in the West Indies
batting
>order. But, comparing them to "Viv at his BEST"? I like both Lara and
>Adams, and could never do that to them :-) It would just be too cruel
:-)
>-------
>
>: I pretty agree with most of your comments on rsc, but am in TOTAL
>: DISAGREEMENT with this one. Adams, brilliant as he has been, should
>: not be mentioned in the same sentence as Viv Richards, except as in
>: "Jimmy Adams ain't no Viv Richards" (at least, as of yet). Believe
>: me, this is no disrespect to Adams, who would make my World XI at
this
>: moment, but there is virtually NO POINT in Vivian Richards career,
>: except perhaps the very, very end, where I would not trade BOTH Lara
>: and Adams for Richards...
>
>-------
>Bharat, for *once*, I find myself in agreement with you (and I say this
>after scanning the post completely for any statements about Mohinder
>Amarnath :-))
>
>
Recently, Bharat took me to task for maintaining that the performances
thus far by Jimmy Adams and
Brian Lara do not suffer terribly by comparison with Viv Richards AT HIS
BEST. Clearly, they don't suffer by comparison to Viv's career
performance (Viv 50.2, BL 58.1, JA 86.4) But, of course, batting
performances of most players tend to deteriorate as they get older
(Lloyd, Imran and Kapil are three notable exceptions; there have been
others).
What Bharat's criticism did was to make me realize that I was not
sufficiently knowledgeable of the year-after-year peaks and valleys of
the middle portion of Viv's career (since it fell during my "Dark Ages,"
when,after 12 years on this cricket-barren continent, I stopped fighting
my way to the London Times. So I had caught Viv's early career, and
then I caught his last 4 or 5 series, but how did he do, year in and
out, in the meantime? Did he consistently compile series averages in
the 50's? Or did he bounce back and forth between the teens and the
nineties? Did he have a stretch of 3 or 4 years where he slumped,
followed by a purple patch of similar length?
So I went to the records. Here's what I found: Viv was remarkably
consistent across his career. His first 3 series, of 13 tests, thru the
75-76 series in Aus, he averaged just 37.9. For his next 8 series,
spanning 5 1/2 years, 31 matches and 45 innings, he averaged 73.8, with
11 tons, raising his career batting average to 62.0. Had he retired at
that point, he would have had the second highest career average of all
players with over 20 Tests, although he had by then played in 44 Tests.
Thereafter, without ever really having an extended and/or disastrous
slump, his average slipped downwards. Starting with the WI tour of Aus
in the '81-'82 season, and approximately coinciding with his 30th
birthday, his average slipped to its final 50.2 by his retirement in
'92. His stats during this period:
SER 16 , M 77, I 114, NO 8, HS 208, 100's 11, R 4571, AVE 43.1
This is not great, but for most players it would be a fine career. What
is noticeable, however, is that, until near the end, Viv contiued to be
a remarkably consistent threat: After turning 30, he never again
scored 2 centuries in one series; but he did score ONE century in SEVEN
SUCCESSIVE SERIES, keeping his average at 54.6. From the beginning of
that '81-'82 tour to Aus until after the '86 season, when he was 34 1/2,
Viv's stat were:
SER 8, M 38, I 54, NO 4, HS 208, 100's 7, R 2251, AVE 45.0
It may be of note that, during the last two of these series, he became
captain. This seemed to revitalize him somewhat, and in those 9 matches
he scored 641 runs at an ave. of 64.1.
In the final stage of Viv's career, he played ten series and missed
periodic games and even series due to health problems. The stats for
the final stage:
SER 10, M 39, I 60, NO 4, HS 146, 100's 4, R 2320, AVE 41.4
Hardly disgraceful.
This exercise brings to mind a number of thoughts.
1. At what age does a batsman start to fade? In baseball, popular
wisdom had it that a batter of 32 was "in his prime" until a few years
ago, when baseball statistician Bill James put that theory under the
computer. He discovered a clear downtrend in almost all players after
age 28. I suspect that such a trend could also be isolated in cricket,
although it would not surprise me if, due to cricket's emphasis on
concentration and technique and de-emphasis of strength and speed
(compared to baseball), the age in cricket were closer to 30. Has
anyone seen such a statistical analysis? If not, I hope to perform
analysis of the (limited) stats available to me at some point in the
near future.
2. Although I felt that both Richards and George Headly belonged on an
all-time Windies team, I had always considered Richards below Headley.
This analysis reverses that feeling. Headley played Test cricket from
1930 to 1954. Below are Headley's career Test stats, juxtaposed against
Viv's career stats:
Headley M 22, I 40, NO 4, HS 270*, 100s 10, R 2190, AVE 60.8
Richards M 121, I 182, NO 12, HS 291, 100s 24, R 8540, AVE 50.2
But now let us suppose that Viv hadn't played all those extra games?
Suppose his career had stopped after 21 games, the '76 series in
England:
Headley M 22, I 40, NO 4, HS 270*, 100s 10, R 2190, AVE 60.8
Richards M 21, I 36, NO 2, HS 291, 100s 8, R 2181, AVE 64.1
"Ah!" I hear you cry. "But that's not fair! Headley played an entire
career. He was nearly 45 when he retired in '54. Viv was only 24 after
that summer of '76. he hadn't yet suffered those ravages of age you
just admitted exist. You can't have it both ways!" (BTW, is that the
most common sentence of all on rsc?)
So let us exclude all series played by both players begun after their
30th birthday! This turns out to be both simple and productive, since
WWII started right after Headley's 30th birthday, and he only played
five innings after that, when he was 38-44. His scores then were 29, 7*
and 2, 16 and 1.
Viv's 30th birthday occurred right after that '82 series in Aus. The
comparative stats:
Headley M 19, I 35, NO 3, HS 270*, 100s 10, R 2135, AVE 66.7
Richards M 47, I 74, NO 4, HS 291, 100s 13, R 4129, AVE 59.0
If that last series vs. Aus had occurred a few weeks later, Viv's
average would be 62.0.
Overall, I confess that I am not persuaded that Viv was not as good a
batsman as George. When I take into account that, when Headley played,
the ONLY opposition was Australia and England (S.A., of course, never
played Windies), while now Test cricket is available to billions more in
cricketing nations like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe (the
truth is, England hasn't gotten weaker; the rest of the world has just
gotten stronger) and the fact that I believe the fielding in Viv's day
was MUCH better than in Headley's (I KNOW it's better than in the late
Fifties and early Sixties, when I was watching it regularly, an
improvement I attribute to ODIs), then I have to go with Viv, though
with no disparagement to Panama's greatest player.
This, of course, all came up vis a vis Adams and Lara. Below are
comparisons between them and Viv at comparable stages in Viv's career.
Lara M 21, I 34, NO 0, HS 375, 100s 4, R 1975, AVE 58.1
(AGE 25)
Richards M 21, I 36, NO 2, HS 291, 100s 8, R 2181, AVE 64.1
(AGE 24)
Adams M 14, I 21, NO 6, HS 174*, 100s 4, R 1296, AVE 86.4 (AGE
27)
Richards M 13, I 23, NO 2, HS 192*, 100s 2, R 796, AVE 37.9
(AGE 23)
My conclusion: that Lara and Adams are both fine players and doing
remarkably well. Lara is young and (frightening as this may be to
bowlers) may still have a "purple patch" ahead that will take him on a
par with Viv.
Adams, on the other hand, may have benefited by a later introduction to
Tests. He is certainly performing spectacularly (this is probably his
purple patch) but will probably not sustain it (for more than 2 or 3
more years, of course!).
Finally, here are the comparative figures of Adams vs. Viv's spectacular
purple patch, from India in WI in '76 thru WI in Eng in 1981, a period
of 5 1/2 years and 8 series.
Adams M 14, I 21, NO 6, HS 174*, 100s 4, R 1296, AVE 86.4
Richards M 34, I 45, NO 2, HS 291, 100s 10, R 3173, AVE 73.8
In order to look as good over a comparable period ("not to suffer by
comparison," as I said in the posting that caused Bharat to take me to
task), Adams will have to get the following stats over the next few
years:
Adams M 20, I 28, NO 0, HS 291, 100s 6, R 1877, AVE 67.7
Hm, Bharat, I think you're right. I don't see Jimmy doing it. But,
while indeed my statement is wrong, I think that your statement:
>:..."but there is virtually NO POINT in Vivian Richards career,
>: except perhaps the very, very end, where I would not trade BOTH Lara
>: and Adams for Richards..."
.. must also be called into question, considering Viv's solid but
unspectacular performance for the dozen or so years outside his PP.
BUT PLEASE NOTE: THE BAJAN IS ADMITTING HE'S WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING.
DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH TILL THE NEXT TIME THIS HAPPENS...
R. Bharat Rao
>Recently, Bharat took me to task for maintaining that the performances
>thus far by Jimmy Adams and
>Brian Lara do not suffer terribly by comparison with Viv Richards AT HIS
>BEST. Clearly, they don't suffer by comparison to Viv's career
Stephen, some *superb* analysis there (are you sure you aren't a
closet statistician? Be careful, you may soon attract aprobation of
rsc for that:-). Anyway, your numbers require careful consideration,
and I'll look through them more closely.
>Hm, Bharat, [deleted], I think that your statement:
>
>>:..."but there is virtually NO POINT in Vivian Richards career,
>>: except perhaps the very, very end, where I would not trade BOTH Lara
>>: and Adams for Richards..."
>.. must also be called into question, considering Viv's solid but
>unspectacular performance for the dozen or so years outside his PP.
Just to clarify. I meant actually, that I'd swap Richards for Lara
and Adams (just Adams' batting, not his keeping) together -- for
course, if that meant replacing Lara and Adams with Richards and say,
a sack of potatoes:-), then I'd go for Lara and Adams. But what I
meant was over much of his career, I'd rather have Richards plus the
first replacement bat outside the test team (so lets say, someone with
a 33-36 run average as a bat), for Lara and Adams as batsmen..
However, perhaps I too am overestimating Richards, because I missed
out on Test cricket from 1986 to 1990, and that coincides with the
downslope of his career as you pointed out. So, I'd like to amend
that statement -- certainly I'd rather have Richards (1977 to 1982)
plus an average bat for Lara and Adams TOGETHER at any stage of their
career. However, Richards did slip a lot -- his average fell a good
10 runs, and it is possible that I'm overestimating.
Now, as far as head-up goes, I suspect I'd still take Richards over
EITHER of these two almost until 1988-89 or so -- partly, thats
because I believe that Lara still has a ways to go, and Adams is
largely unproven as of yet (by that I mean, that I seriously doubt
he's as good as his 80ish average indicates, but then I doubt anyone,
barring Bradman, was ever that good).
>BUT PLEASE NOTE: THE BAJAN IS ADMITTING HE'S WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING.
>DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH TILL THE NEXT TIME THIS HAPPENS...
Heh...
>Fraternally in cricket,
>Steve the Bajan
Again, great number crunching.. now if we could get a postscript file
graphing this; just kidding:-)...
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao, E-mail:bha...@scr.siemens.com (note the change)
Siemens Corporate Research, 755 College Road East,
Princeton, NJ 08540, Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)
<Above opinions are exclusively the author's, and don't represent SCR>
Hamish Laws
Saunders) wrote:
> This is rubbish. Geoff MArsh better than Slater?
No, but I never saw him jump around like Slater facing Malcolm, and Ambrose
is far more accurate than Malcolm, Walsh isn't much worse so he (Slater)
won't have the same number of balls to play shots to.
> Whitney better than Fleming?
Hey, What are Fleming's best bowling figures in tests, did he take a bag of
5 versus the windies on the adelaide oval and then not get picked for the
next tour?
Chico Khan
> In article <3ib6kh$5...@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
> sde...@ix.netcom.com "Stephen Devaux" writes:
> > Overall, I confess that I am not persuaded that Viv was not as good a
> > batsman as George. When I take into account that, when Headley played,
> > the ONLY opposition was Australia and England (S.A., of course, never
> > played Windies), while now Test cricket is available to billions more in
> > cricketing nations like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe (the
> > truth is, England hasn't gotten weaker; the rest of the world has just
> > gotten stronger) and the fact that I believe the fielding in Viv's day
^^^^^^^^^
Didn't think I'd ever read this phrase coming from your pen, Steve.
The implication is that there are no statistics to back it up and,
according to the "Devaux and Bharat Rao" doctrine, if it ain't
quatifiable, it ain't meaningful. Right? :-)
> On the other hand, I think it is much harder to perform well in a
> comparatively weak team, as Headley did, compared to doing so in a very
> strong one, as Richards did. I would be reluctant to attempt to rank
> the two of them, but if you held a gun at my head I think I would put
> Headley first.
I agree with John, it's tougher for a *batsman* to perform well
in a weak team. (I think the opposite is true for a bowler, but
that's for another discussion.) I would also go with Headley,
except with a not so small margin, it would be an easier decision
from me.
> John Hall, Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk | I always mean what I say,
Chico.
bart Janssen
(Stephen Devaux) wrote:
> ball by a spectacular dive? All these ARE capturable, given a desire
> and effort. And, unfortunately, cricket is still in the dark ages when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> it comes to statistical analysis. Given the data that DO exist, i'm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> wlling to do my part.
My God and here I was thinking cricket was a sport played by and for
statisticians.
Me I just play and watch
Bart
R. Bharat Rao
>> > gotten stronger) and the fact that I believe the fielding in Viv's day
> ^^^^^^^^^
>Didn't think I'd ever read this phrase coming from your pen, Steve.
>The implication is that there are no statistics to back it up and,
>according to the "Devaux and Bharat Rao" doctrine, if it ain't
>quatifiable, it ain't meaningful. Right? :-)
Not at all Chico. There is a lot more to cricket than numbers and
statistics. All I, and I believe (there's that word again, heh)
Stephen, are saying can boil down to Occam's Razor. Do not attribute
causality to that which can be explained by random phenomena.
For instance, take the "Gavaskar padded his stats in dull draws while
Viswanath came through in crises" -- a favorite of many Indians from
the South of India in the late 70s. Now, if we (a) clearly define
"crisis situation" before hand (i.e., not as "when Viswanath
succeeded") and then plot or graph Viswanath's performances in those
situations. Then also plot Viswanath's performances in non-crisis
situations. THEN SUPPOSE we find that Viswanath's "crisis"
performances are very similar to his non-crisis performances (i.e.,
within acceptable statistical bounds), I can then conclude that
Viswanath's performance, at least, was roughly the same as his
non-crisis performances, rather than assuming that he somehow
magically turned it on... (* See below)
Also, you can define any measure you want -- if you can't I submit
that it is very subjective -- that does not make the measure invalid;
it simply makes it subjective. For instance, I think Majid Khan was
absolutely wonderful to watch -- it wasn't just his flowing drives or
his nonchalent arrogance, but the entire package and the sheer bravado
at pulling off strokes that no one else could. I can't put a number
on this "elegance" quantity, but in my book Majid was the most amazing
batsman I have seen. But but since I can't measure that, it is a
SUBJECTIVE opinion; other's may prefer Alvin Kallicharan, Gundappa
Viswanath, or David Gower (#'s 2, 3, and 4 on my "elegance" list).
By no means is this an inappropriate quality -- it just is subjective
rather than objective.
>Chico.
Bharat
ALERT: This is only for real stat-heads, so read at your peril:
* The interesting case is what if Viswanath's "crisis" performances
are significantly better than his non-crisis performances. Can we
then conclude that Viswanath was a "crisis man"? Actually, not quite.
First, we need to prove that "crisis" situations are those which do
effect performances; namely, that a crisis situation is not just an
arbitrary sub-sample (for example, the same as scores on Tuesday
versus scores on other days).
To take an analogy, lets toss several coins a thousand times and chart
Heads/Tails; lets give a Heads a score of 1, and Tails a score of 0.
Now define an arbitrary subsample, say every 10th toss, i.e., #'s 10,
20, ... 160, 170, ... and call this a sub-sample of the entire sample
(ie., all the tosses).
If we look at the subsample for a particular coin's, call it A, we may
find A has a LOT more heads than tails in the subsample (in fact, we
can guarantee that if we toss enough coins, then a few will have lots
more heads than tails, and others more tails than heads), but in the
overall sample (all 1000 tosses) A has roughly even heads and tails.
So, do we then conclude that the coin A somehow altered its
performance to improve its score (i.e., get more heads) in the
subsample? Of course not, we say that the difference in A's
"behavior" on the overall sample and the subsample can be explained by
random variation. (The reason we do say it is random, rather than an
effect of the subsampling, is that the subsampling variance is
consistent with it being a arbitrary subsample of the overall sample.)
Similarly, why attribute "crises" or "clutch" performance? The point
is that IF the variation of performance during crisis situations, is
that same as the variation in performance on Tuesday's versus
non-Tuesday's (which as far as I know is unlikely to be a cause), I
believe it is correct BY OCCAM's RAZOR, to say that crisis situations
have NO discernable effect.
On the other hand if the variation IS DIFFERENT, then we can conclude
crisis situations do have a material difference, and that certain
batsmen are crisis batsmen, and others are not. The numbers exist to
do this, and many other interesting analysis. I agree with Stephen
that it is a pity that it has not been done.
R. Bharat Rao
> And btw if you read above you will see that I agree that Slater is a
>better bat than Geoff Marsh but that the innings in Perth casts some doubt
>on how well Mike will go in the west indies. He may do very very well but
I don't think it casts any doubt. If anything it shows his courage.
He had broken finger for God's sake, and it is to his credit (and to
some extent his stupidity) that he continued batting...
Brendan Jones
> How many matches has Slater played against a fully packed, high quality,
> experienced at test level pace attack? As I recall in Pakistan Younis and
> Akram were only together for one of the three matches
Waqar and Wasim played the first *two* tests. Michael Slater scored 110
against the two W's in the first innings of the 2nd test. His average
against Pakistan is 48.80. 'nuff said IMHO.
> I agree that Slater is a better bat than Geoff Marsh but that the innings
> in Perth casts some doubt on how well Mike will go in the west indies.
In Perth, Slater thumped Malcolm to the fence four or five times before
(unluckily) having his thumb broken. Perth showed Slater has no fear in
taking on extremely fiery bowling, and can score a helluva lot of runs
very quickly. Even after his thumb was broken, be batted on for another
20 runs or so until the small matter of his thumb being hit again, and
he was caught at slip. And you think this "casts some doubt"??
The other thing is the pitches in WI aren't nearly as fast or bouncy as
the WACA. If Slater can handle Malcolm on the WACA, and W&W at Rawalpindi,
he can handle Ambrose and Walsh in the WI.
> He may do very very well but if Malcolm can unsettle him he may well be
> in deep against Ambrose, Walsh etc.
Malcolm might unsettle Slater, but it doesn't seem effective in either
getting him out or stopping him from scoring runs, and that's what
really counts. Over five test matches, Malcolm has managed to get Slater
out a grand total of three times. During this, Slater has scored another
three centuries.
And as one is an opening bat and the other is an opening bowler, that's
hardly a good result for Malcolm.
--
Brendan Jones | WWW : http://www.mpce.mq.edu.au/~brendan/
Electronics Department | Email: bre...@mpce.mq.edu.au .---------------------
Macquarie University | Voice: +61 2 850 9072 | Only 2024 days to go
Hamish Laws
Saunders) wrote:
> Hamish Laws (h_l...@postofice.utas.edu.au) wrote:
> : In article <3huc3r$e...@inferno.mpx.com.au>, jos...@jolt.mpx.com.au (Joshua
> : Saunders) wrote:
>
>
> : > This is rubbish. Geoff MArsh better than Slater?
> : No, but I never saw him jump around like Slater facing Malcolm, and Ambrose
> : is far more accurate than Malcolm, Walsh isn't much worse so he (Slater)
> : won't have the same number of balls to play shots to.
>
> On the other hand, Marsh was never in long enough to jump around. I don't
> think you can maintain that MArsh was better/equal to SLater in any test
> capacity.
How many matches has Slater played against a fully packed, high quality,
experienced at test level pace attack? As I recall in Pakistan Younis and
Akram were only together for one of the three matches, the South Africans
are still inexperienced at test level and England was not exactly a
consistantly devestating attack (Although Keith Fletcher may still
disagree)
And btw if you read above you will see that I agree that Slater is a
better bat than Geoff Marsh but that the innings in Perth casts some doubt
on how well Mike will go in the west indies. He may do very very well but
if Malcolm can unsettle him he may well be in deep against Ambrose, Walsh
etc.
>
> : > Whitney better than Fleming?
>
> : Hey, What are Fleming's best bowling figures in tests, did he take a bag of
> : 5 versus the windies on the adelaide oval and then not get picked for the
> : next tour?
>
> Heard about the youth tour a couple of years ago? Hear what Fleming did?
No I haven't heard about that and I'd be interested to, on the other hand
performances at youth level do not equate to test match performances, nor
does performance as a junior indicate similar performances as a senior.
Redpath or Stackpole was considered to be potentially a great spin bowler
until he turned 20 and was flown for expert coaching to Clarrie Grimmett.
Ian Craig was hailed as a great batsman for his efforts while 18 or so and
has a test average of under 20 I believe.
But if on the youth tour Fleming managed to dismiss say, Richardson,
Haynes, Lara, Arthurton, Richards, Greenidge and other batsmen of class in
a serious match atmospehere then this may be some indication of his ability
if his average was acceptable.
>
> Cheers, josh