Good players based on statistics

[mattshin13]

Good players based on statistics

i am wondering for all forms of the game (test, ODI, T20) what are this minimum batting/ bowling averages would they need to be know as a good player?

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Good players based on statistics

Test -
batting - 45 ( and over)
bowling - 25 (and under)

ODI
batting - 40
bowling - 30 (maybe 25)

Twenty20
batting - 35, strike rate of over 100
bowling - 35 (ish), economy rate of 7 or less

Hard to say for twenty20 as the format is still new. Also test cricket has changed a lot over the years. The old standard was 40 for bats but bowling has sort of stayed the same, however the closer to 20 the better.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Good players based on statistics

I reckon under 30 for spin bowlers, even Warne who was arguably the greatest ever spin bowler averaged about 25.5.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Good players based on statistics

Test -
batting - 45 ( and over)
bowling - 25 (and under)

Depends what you mean by good. Does 'good' mean a servicable Test player? Or one of the better ones?

To me a competent Test bat will average 40+ and a competent Test bowler will average 30-. Mas's figures indicate very good batsmen and bowlers to me, although I suppose expected batting average has risen significantly in recent years due to the pitches people are playing on.

Bowling averages also vary pretty wildly based on what team you're in and what kind of bowler you are. Daniel Vettori is one of the alltime great LAO spinners, but you wouldn't know it just from his stats.

 

[Boris]

Re: Good players based on statistics

It also depends on the time frames. There are some past batsman that average only just 40, but are recognised as great batsman. This is mostly because they had a period of greatness but then dropped off, or the other way round.

A new age example is Hussey. If he finished his career a year ago he would have been recognised as statistically the third best batsman ever, and his career was long enough for him to be granted that considering he had played near the same amount of games as Bradman, the best under all categories. But as time and the law of averages has shown the further he played, the statistically lesser he became. The same has happened with a lot. Matthew Hayden was another, only including his last out of form patch it dropped his average of a 103 match career down from 53.4 to 50.1. That can be a difference of super great to just great these days.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Good players based on statistics

Bowling averages also vary pretty wildly based on what team you're in and what kind of bowler you are. Daniel Vettori is one of the alltime great LAO spinners, but you wouldn't know it just from his stats.

Exactly, he averages around 31.5 in both forms, and Warne arguably the greatest spinner ever about 25.5.

 

[hattrick]

Re: Good players based on statistics

@Mas - does averages really count in T20 cricket? I would think that strike rate would be more important than averages otherwise the top 3 of the respective teams will have the highest average..

Just strike rate and not average is the point I am trying to make..

 

[Boris]

Re: Good players based on statistics

@Mas - does averages really count in T20 cricket? I would think that strike rate would be more important than averages otherwise the top 3 of the respective teams will have the highest average..

Just strike rate and not average is the point I am trying to make..

I agree with you mostly, but not to be relied on completely. You could have a number 11 batsman have a S/R of 200 because he scored 2 off 1 ball, but does that make him an excellent T20 batsman? There needs to be averages, but unlike the other two forms they don't play the dominant role.

 

[mas cambios]

Re: Good players based on statistics

Depends what you mean by good. Does 'good' mean a servicable Test player? Or one of the better ones?

To me a competent Test bat will average 40+ and a competent Test bowler will average 30-. Mas's figures indicate very good batsmen and bowlers to me, although I suppose expected batting average has risen significantly in recent years due to the pitches people are playing on.

It also depends on the time frames. There are some past batsman that average only just 40, but are recognised as great batsman. This is mostly because they had a period of greatness but then dropped off, or the other way round.

I've used 45 as a marker for the last 10/15 years, which I felt was maybe more relevant to what the poster was asking. In terms of all time records then an average of 40 is considered to be the sign of a good bat. Again though, as you have both pointed out this is era dependant as an average of 30 maybe 35 was considered to be the mark before 1920 (just to pluck a rough date out of the air). This was due to uncovered pitches, lack of protective equipment and so on. The mark has crept up over the years though hence why I consider 43/5 to be the mark in the present day and age.

Bowling has always (at least in my mind) had the bench mark of an average around 20 denoting greatness. So, I reckon that anything under 30 marks you out as pretty handy. Spinners get a little more leeway so you can add 3/5 runs to their averages.

Bowling averages also vary pretty wildly based on what team you're in and what kind of bowler you are. Daniel Vettori is one of the alltime great LAO spinners, but you wouldn't know it just from his stats.

This is a fair point as most great bowlers have tended to hunt in packs (Lillee and Thompson, the West Indies pace attacks, Trueman and Statham etc) but the average of 20 or as close to still holds good. However, this is why basing opinions purely on stats is slightly dodgy as you're unable to consider the actual performance, wicket, weather, conditions, equipment and opposition etc

Would Ponting still average 50 plus if he'd been English and playing against McGrath and Warne? What would Lara have averaged if he'd been Australian? Given modern training and equipment would Bradman have broken the 120 average in tests and so on (although that is a debate for another day).

@Mas - does averages really count in T20 cricket? I would think that strike rate would be more important than averages otherwise the top 3 of the respective teams will have the highest average..

Just strike rate and not average is the point I am trying to make..

I did consider this hence the addition of strike and economy rates. Anything over a run a ball is good for batsman whilst keeping down to under a run a ball is great for bowlers. I guess that really what you're looking for is a strike rate of 120 for bats and economy as close to 6 or under for bowlers but I suppose anything under 8 is really the bench mark.

However, averages denote consistency as much as anything else. No point having a bat scoring 4 off two balls every time - a good strike rate but doing little for the team as a whole.

 

[Boris]

Re: Good players based on statistics

After that post mas, there is really nothing more to add!

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Good players based on statistics

For Tests:

Batsmen:

Serviceable: 35+ (we've been spoilt recently)
Good: 40+
Very good: 45+
Gun: 50+
Superstar: 55+

Bowlers:

Serviceable: 35-
Good: 32-
Very good: 29-
Gun: 26-
Superstar: 23-