Cricket 24/7  

Welcome to the Cricket 24/7.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. There are also more forums available to members, such as the Lounge - where members chat about just about anything under the sun except cricket!

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.


Go Back   Cricket 24/7 > Cricket Discussion Forums > International Cricket
Register FAQDonate Members List Calendar Casino Articles Terms of Use Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25th August 2018, 23:03   #181
Bestie
International Material
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Exeter
Posts: 1,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post
Averages of said batsmen since 2014
Maxwell 32.11
Warner 51.77
Finch 40.09
Smith 47.67
Head 37.00
M Marsh 37.54
Stoinis 45.84
Wade 29.68

So, Finch just about gets to an an average of 40. The rest aren't even close. So, which of them (apart from Warner) do you consider top tier batting talent?

Also, you never answered what your threshold for good strike rates was.
I'd agree that Smith is a level below the very best in ODIs. I'd suggest that Bairstow, Buttler, Warner, Root, Kohli, Dhawan, Taylor and Azam are ahead of him off the top of my head, and maybe De Kock and Williamson too. Doesn't mean he isn't a fine player but his average, as you have handily provided, is consistently good but rarely exceptional across a year and his SR is the same (I'd say 85-90 is the lower band of acceptable for players averaging 45+, 100+ is a good SR although usually one won't find that across a career for players with more than 4 years or so of regular ODI cricket).

Root, Azam and Kohli score at a similar rate to Smith but with comfortably higher averages and the others score faster with comparable averages. Buttler and Taylor over the last few years (with one exception apiece) and Bairstow for the last 18 months have been totally different beasts from Smith, and indeed pretty much all ODI batsmen around.
Bestie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th August 2018, 23:56   #182
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post
Averages of said batsmen since 2014
Maxwell 32.11
Warner 51.77
Finch 40.09
Smith 47.67
Head 37.00
M Marsh 37.54
Stoinis 45.84
Wade 29.68

So, Finch just about gets to an an average of 40. The rest aren't even close. So, which of them (apart from Warner) do you consider top tier batting talent?

Also, you never answered what your threshold for good strike rates was.
None of them other than Warner, although Maxwell if given the opportunity at the top of the order I think will be up there as he's already pretty close.

If you'd watched Smith over the last couple of years you'd know what I mean by his S/R isn't high enough every time he has to up it for his team to win he invariably fails.

There's no magic number across all players as each team plays on different pitches, I was trying to demonstrate with my post on Australias Strike Rates that Smith is basically below all of them and that's not because he's guiding his team home expertly it's because he struggles to do it and when he tries he normally doesn't last long.

The last match I remember him actually helping Australia to win was against NZ when he got 150+ batting first and the NZ team threw their wickets away but that was during the Aussie summer before last and although he obviously hasn't played in the last few months I've probably seen him 20 times since then thanks to BT getting the Aussie cricket tv rights.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 12:15   #183
aNarcHy2day
County 1st Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: India
Team(s): Mumbai Indians, Punjab Ranji Team
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
None of them other than Warner, although Maxwell if given the opportunity at the top of the order I think will be up there as he's already pretty close.

If you'd watched Smith over the last couple of years you'd know what I mean by his S/R isn't high enough every time he has to up it for his team to win he invariably fails.

There's no magic number across all players as each team plays on different pitches, I was trying to demonstrate with my post on Australias Strike Rates that Smith is basically below all of them and that's not because he's guiding his team home expertly it's because he struggles to do it and when he tries he normally doesn't last long.

The last match I remember him actually helping Australia to win was against NZ when he got 150+ batting first and the NZ team threw their wickets away but that was during the Aussie summer before last and although he obviously hasn't played in the last few months I've probably seen him 20 times since then thanks to BT getting the Aussie cricket tv rights.


See? More fun making a reasoned argument, isn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestie View Post
I'd agree that Smith is a level below the very best in ODIs. I'd suggest that Bairstow, Buttler, Warner, Root, Kohli, Dhawan, Taylor and Azam are ahead of him off the top of my head, and maybe De Kock and Williamson too. Doesn't mean he isn't a fine player but his average, as you have handily provided, is consistently good but rarely exceptional across a year and his SR is the same (I'd say 85-90 is the lower band of acceptable for players averaging 45+, 100+ is a good SR although usually one won't find that across a career for players with more than 4 years or so of regular ODI cricket).

Root, Azam and Kohli score at a similar rate to Smith but with comfortably higher averages and the others score faster with comparable averages. Buttler and Taylor over the last few years (with one exception apiece) and Bairstow for the last 18 months have been totally different beasts from Smith, and indeed pretty much all ODI batsmen around.
You are correct on some of those assertions while off on others.



Root, Williamson, Dhawan, Guptill and Amla have very similar numbers to Smith over the last 4 years.

Kohli, Warner, De Villiers, Sharma and (weirdly) Du Plessis are probably in their own small galaxy. Azam too, but I would like to ask why those who claim Smith's 87/ 100 SR to be too slow should not turn around and question Azam's strike rate of 85 and a bit?

Talking of Strike Rates, Ross Taylor has a strike rate of 82 that even I would consider slow. Yet somehow he has been a 'different beast'.

Finally, purely on the subject of averages, Buttler's Average of 40 is in no way comparable to Smith's average of 50.
aNarcHy2day is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 13:04   #184
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother View Post
James Vince is a better batsman than Jimmy Anderson but it doesn't mean he's any good.
Interestingly Anderson's highest Test score is only 2 less than Vince's......... (83 vs 81) Granted he's played a lot more innings, but he is a relative rabbit (on paper)
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 13:12   #185
us3rname13
Bat In Hand
 
us3rname13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 12
I think it's disingenuous to go back 4 years, especially for this England team that have played dramatically differently since the World Cup. Statistically, since the World Cup, every England batsman has a higher strike-rate than Steve Smith. Four of them have higher averages and more runs scored. There's a very strong case given the strength of statistics that he wouldn't make an England ODI side on the strength of his performances post World Cup.

The Top 5 -

Virat Kohli, 3242 runs @ 79.07, s/r 97.35
Joe Root, 2998 runs @ 62.45, s/r 91.15
Rohit Sharma, 2528 runs @ 58.79, s/r 96.85
Williamson, 2470 runs @ 49.40, s/r 84.21
Quinton de Kock, 2442 runs @ 50.87, s/r 99.10

Selected Others -

Babar Azam, 1973 runs @ 54.80, s/r 85.67
Steve Smith, 1882 runs @ 42.77, s/r 84.01
Jos Buttler, 1868 runs @ 49.15, s/r 121.45
Jonny Bairstow. 1843 runs @ 54.20, s/r 107.90
AB de Villiers, 1636 runs @ 52.77, s/r 111.90
Ben Stokes, 1564 runs @ 46.00, s/r 97.75
us3rname13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 13:31   #186
Rebelstar
International Material
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
Root gets slammed a decent amount for his S/R of around 90 though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
Yes that's right, also that Trott batted at pretty much the same rate throughout the innings and couldn't accelerate. He only hit 3 sixes in 65 innings.
Root's SR in ODIs was 80.48 after 53 ODIs and 83.04 after he'd played half his current ODI total innings. He's accelerated a bit since, but it's still only 86 which is more like "around 85" than "around 90"

it's not bad by any stretch, the problem is when Trott was in the side making runs there were others scoring too slowly also.

ODI SRs and aves* of batsmen in/around Trott

128.64 Buttler* (ave 23.27)
86.58 Pietersen (ave 40.73)
86.17 Morgan* (ave 39.68)
83.33 Root* (ave 40.33)
77.85 Bopara (ave 30.63)
77.16 Bell (ave 37.87)
77.13 Cook (ave 36.41)
77.06 Trott (ave 51.25)
63.33 Carberry (ave 19.00)

*ODI career final figures unless still going eg Root, Morgan and Buttler's are as at the time of Trott's final ODI.

Checked a few series back and those seem to be the main players in the latter ODI career of Trott, not including Kieswetter and Patel or indeed early career Stokes (batting #8 the one ODI I spotted him in)

Point being a lot of batsmen were scoring high 70s or low to mid 80s, it wasn't as if Trott was the only slow accumulater, except he did at least put runs on the board and not quick 20s

If picking an ODI XI out of that lot I'd pick KP and Trott first, although Buttler has since dragged his average up to 40.36 for a small loss of SR.

It's only recently England have more than the odd one or two batsmen scoring at SR 100+ , Roy, Buttler and Bairstow from the last series, yet back when England couldn't bat or bowl for toffee in ODIs people slated the likes of Trott for not scoring quickly enough when few England batsmen were........ (any better)


And to give the SRs some perspective, here's how many balls a batsman would have to face to score 40 on various SRs

SR 77 - 40 runs off 52 balls
SR 80 - 40 runs off 50 balls
SR 83 - 40 runs off 48 balls
SR 86 - 40 runs off 47 balls (or 46, it falls on 86.5)
SR 89 - 40 runs off 45 balls

SR 95 - 40 runs off 42 balls

So for even KP vs Trott to be both scoring 40 then Trott would take a whopping 5 balls longer/more......... or take it as 6 balls if you like given
his SR was 86.5 . Wouldn't matter nearly as much if other batsmen were scoring much faster, and even then it wouldn't probably matter at all, the problem was he scored somewhat slower than most, but not by much and the problem was having so many not scoring quickly, target the one for whom it was more observed/more obvious
Rebelstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 14:05   #187
aNarcHy2day
County 1st Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: India
Team(s): Mumbai Indians, Punjab Ranji Team
Posts: 317
The basis of the argument was Steve Smith and his post renaissance self-was a world class player. And that change happened four years back. Hence the statistics. It has nothing to do with England.
aNarcHy2day is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 14:48   #188
aNarcHy2day
County 1st Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: India
Team(s): Mumbai Indians, Punjab Ranji Team
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Root's SR in ODIs was 80.48 after 53 ODIs and 83.04 after he'd played half his current ODI total innings. He's accelerated a bit since, but it's still only 86 which is more like "around 85" than "around 90"

it's not bad by any stretch, the problem is when Trott was in the side making runs there were others scoring too slowly also.

ODI SRs and aves* of batsmen in/around Trott

128.64 Buttler* (ave 23.27)
86.58 Pietersen (ave 40.73)
86.17 Morgan* (ave 39.68)
83.33 Root* (ave 40.33)
77.85 Bopara (ave 30.63)
77.16 Bell (ave 37.87)
77.13 Cook (ave 36.41)
77.06 Trott (ave 51.25)
63.33 Carberry (ave 19.00)

*ODI career final figures unless still going eg Root, Morgan and Buttler's are as at the time of Trott's final ODI.

Checked a few series back and those seem to be the main players in the latter ODI career of Trott, not including Kieswetter and Patel or indeed early career Stokes (batting #8 the one ODI I spotted him in)

Point being a lot of batsmen were scoring high 70s or low to mid 80s, it wasn't as if Trott was the only slow accumulater, except he did at least put runs on the board and not quick 20s

If picking an ODI XI out of that lot I'd pick KP and Trott first, although Buttler has since dragged his average up to 40.36 for a small loss of SR.

It's only recently England have more than the odd one or two batsmen scoring at SR 100+ , Roy, Buttler and Bairstow from the last series, yet back when England couldn't bat or bowl for toffee in ODIs people slated the likes of Trott for not scoring quickly enough when few England batsmen were........ (any better)


And to give the SRs some perspective, here's how many balls a batsman would have to face to score 40 on various SRs

SR 77 - 40 runs off 52 balls
SR 80 - 40 runs off 50 balls
SR 83 - 40 runs off 48 balls
SR 86 - 40 runs off 47 balls (or 46, it falls on 86.5)
SR 89 - 40 runs off 45 balls

SR 95 - 40 runs off 42 balls

So for even KP vs Trott to be both scoring 40 then Trott would take a whopping 5 balls longer/more......... or take it as 6 balls if you like given
his SR was 86.5 . Wouldn't matter nearly as much if other batsmen were scoring much faster, and even then it wouldn't probably matter at all, the problem was he scored somewhat slower than most, but not by much and the problem was having so many not scoring quickly, target the one for whom it was more observed/more obvious

My two cents on Trott and KP as an outsider.

Trott always struck me as someone who, if the going for England got tough, he would down tools and go 'this match is done, how can I get the most runs'.

KP, on the other hand, came across as someone who just wanted to win a game of cricket.
aNarcHy2day is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 15:21   #189
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post


See? More fun making a reasoned argument, isn't it?
Not really, anyone who's watches Smith in the last couple of years would know he's not a world class ODI player, unless your definition of world class is very wide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by us3rname13 View Post

Statistically, since the World Cup, every England batsman has a higher strike-rate than Steve Smith. Four of them have higher averages and more runs scored. There's a very strong case given the strength of statistics that he wouldn't make an England ODI side on the strength of his performances post World Cup.
He wouldn't, or at least shouldn't on most pitches we play ODI's on. Morgan shouldn't either though so whether he would or not I have no idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebelstar View Post
Root's SR in ODIs was 80.48 after 53 ODIs and 83.04 after he'd played half his current ODI total innings. He's accelerated a bit since, but it's still only 86 which is more like "around 85" than "around 90"
I was talking about recently since England have actually finally worked out how to win ODI's since the world cup :-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post
The basis of the argument was Steve Smith and his post renaissance self-was a world class player. And that change happened four years back. Hence the statistics. It has nothing to do with England.
Except this "world class" ODI player shouldn't even make it in to the England ODI team

Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post
Finally, purely on the subject of averages, Buttler's Average of 40 is in no way comparable to Smith's average of 50.
Well it's obviously comparable just not as good, but if by that you're saying Smith is a better ODI player than Buttler then there's really no hope.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 16:05   #190
aNarcHy2day
County 1st Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: India
Team(s): Mumbai Indians, Punjab Ranji Team
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
Not really, anyone who's watches Smith in the last couple of years would know he's not a world class ODI player, unless your definition of world class is very wide.
I have presented multiple stats over the last couple of posts which make the case that if you don't consider Smith world class, you shouldn't consider Amla, Root, Guptill and Williamson world class either. So you are very welcome to exclude them too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
Except this "world class" ODI player shouldn't even make it in to the England ODI team.
Given that he is a WC winner who scored 5 consecutive 50+ scores in the last WC including a semi-final century while England has won F all, not entirely sure he'd want to be in an England ODI team.



Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
Well it's obviously comparable just not as good, but if by that you're saying Smith is a better ODI player than Buttler then there's really no hope.
Didn't make any such case now, did I? I even prefixed my statement with 'purely on the subject of averages'. An assertion was made regarding comparable averages for players with higher strike rates which doesn't seem accurate since the last I checked, 50 is 10 more than 40, which is a lot. And if you don't think so, there's really no hope.
aNarcHy2day is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 16:31   #191
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by aNarcHy2day View Post
I have presented multiple stats over the last couple of posts which make the case that if you don't consider Smith world class, you shouldn't consider Amla, Root, Guptill and Williamson world class either. So you are very welcome to exclude them too.
I don't think any of those 4 are clearly world class, none of them should get in a fictional world XI side on the average ODI pitch these days, although if the pitch offered plenty to the bowlers they'd all bar Guptill have a decent shout.

Amla was world class but has dropped off noticeably in the last couple of years (in tests as well). Williamson and Root are both a bit better than Smith, Guptill about on par.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th August 2018, 17:10   #192
aNarcHy2day
County 1st Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: India
Team(s): Mumbai Indians, Punjab Ranji Team
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ101 View Post
I don't think any of those 4 are clearly world class, none of them should get in a fictional world XI side on the average ODI pitch these days, although if the pitch offered plenty to the bowlers they'd all bar Guptill have a decent shout.

Amla was world class but has dropped off noticeably in the last couple of years (in tests as well). Williamson and Root are both a bit better than Smith, Guptill about on par.
If you don't consider 3 of the media branded 'Fab Four' to be World Class in ODI's even when they are at the top of the run getters lists in most years, I do suggest having a relook at the criteria you set.

That being said, I fully appreciate the fact that you are not a hypocrite and will live and die on the same sword. Respect.
aNarcHy2day is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 09:11   #193
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Interesting diversion for the test thread to have taken.

I’m largely with AJ on this debate. Smith is a plausible ODI batsman who’s clearly good enough to get into the Aussie side without any questions asked but by no means an exceptional one. Root is a good comparator, as someone who’s scored more runs, at a better average and SR but is still himself not, in my view, in the very top tier of ODI batsmen, because his SR just isn’t good enough. The fact that Root is pretty a guy you’d pick very soon behind Kohli (perhaps equal with Williamson and Azam) to chase any score of 300 or fewer, especially lots fewer on a difficult track and is a very good insurance policy against the more explosive batsmen blowing themselves up doesn’t quite disguise that he’s not so good at chasing or setting really big totals. I think it makes sense, even with England’s very deep line up of hitters, for there to be one really high class accumulator in the team plus someone like Morgan who can accumulate or smash (although he’s not good enough overall, his game is of the right type). On the post WC record though, I’d definitely take Hales, Roy, Bairstow (God) and Buttler (God) ahead of Root. I’m willing to accept that this may actually be wrong on overall utility, because it’s complex and I’ve not done any modelling but nevertheless, that’s my view. I’m not willing to accept that Bairstow and Buttler aren’t both better than Root, by the way, no matter what the rankings say. Bear in mind, this is a critique of the excellent Root, not of the significantly less excellent Smith.

As your own table shows, Anarchy, Smith is not in the top few on average or runs scored and almost everyone who averages better also betters his SR. Then there are lots of batsmen with somewhat worse averages but better to much better SRs, like Roy and especially Buttler. Depends a bit on how you define the nebulous world class / front rank / top tier but he’s not top 10 for me and might struggle a bit to be top 15.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde

Last edited by Fatslogger : 27th August 2018 at 09:48.
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 09:44   #194
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Hmm, actually giving this a bit more thought, I’ve got a couple of counter arguments in favour of Smith which also apply to an extent to Root. Firstly, for Aus, although not for England, with a rather dodgy overall batting line up, you’d want a high average a bit more and a high SR a bit less, looking to hold the side together. Also, even for England, you do want some stodge. A side with say five batsmen getting 40 from 40 leaves you on average at 200 plus extras for 5 from 200 balls and leaves the tail perhaps a few too many balls to face, although if your 6 down is something like Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Willey, Plunkett, Rashid you’d be happy enough with that and wouldn’t want to slow down for safety’s sake. On a worse than average day you’d prefer Root ahead of one of your 40 off 40 guys though and you certainly would with a worse tail. Depends a bit on what you already have too: if stacked with batsmen getting 45+ at SR circa 90 you’d want hitters more.

This really belongs on a different thread, doesn’t it? Grannie or Chin, there’s a post WC SR thread isn’t there?
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 12:34   #195
Chin Music
Administrator
 
Chin Music's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: la sala de opinion equivocada
Team(s): ****
Posts: 24,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Hmm, actually giving this a bit more thought, I’ve got a couple of counter arguments in favour of Smith which also apply to an extent to Root. Firstly, for Aus, although not for England, with a rather dodgy overall batting line up, you’d want a high average a bit more and a high SR a bit less, looking to hold the side together. Also, even for England, you do want some stodge. A side with say five batsmen getting 40 from 40 leaves you on average at 200 plus extras for 5 from 200 balls and leaves the tail perhaps a few too many balls to face, although if your 6 down is something like Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Willey, Plunkett, Rashid you’d be happy enough with that and wouldn’t want to slow down for safety’s sake. On a worse than average day you’d prefer Root ahead of one of your 40 off 40 guys though and you certainly would with a worse tail. Depends a bit on what you already have too: if stacked with batsmen getting 45+ at SR circa 90 you’d want hitters more.

This really belongs on a different thread, doesn’t it? Grannie or Chin, there’s a post WC SR thread isn’t there?
Duly moved all Smith short form related posts to the par score thread, which of course might give you the chance to have a go at Sir Virgs again should you wish!
__________________
Quote:
"One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated" - Thomas More
Chin Music is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 16:04   #196
Fatslogger
Self Confessed Mentalist
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hitchin
Team(s): England and Liverpool
Age: 42
Posts: 43,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chin Music View Post
Duly moved all Smith short form related posts to the par score thread, which of course might give you the chance to have a go at Sir Virgs again should you wish!
Cheers Chin.

Surely nobody would be rude enough to point out how horribly badly SVaZ was swimming against the tide earlier this thread. Having said that, while we’re here...

Today’s a good day for it too, after Somerset got through their Blast QF handily enough.
__________________
Work is the curse of the drinking classes - Wilde
Fatslogger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 17:12   #197
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatslogger View Post
Cheers Chin.

Surely nobody would be rude enough to point out how horribly badly SVaZ was swimming against the tide earlier this thread. Having said that, while we’re here...

Today’s a good day for it too, after Somerset got through their Blast QF handily enough.
What is the par score since the World Cup then? How many players average over 40 at better than run a ball?

What is the average first innings score over the last 2 years?

Have we now reached the par score that many on here foolishly claimed we had reached at the lady’s World Cup?
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 17:39   #198
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
What is the par score since the World Cup then? How many players average over 40 at better than run a ball?

What is the average first innings score over the last 2 years?

Have we now reached the par score that many on here foolishly claimed we had reached at the lady’s World Cup?
Just for England or overall?

For England since the world cup rather than 2 years.
3 Players average over 40 and a S/R of over 100 (CurranT is one of them though + Buttler and Bairstow). Stokes(45/97), Hales(41/98), Roy(39/104) and Woakes(39.62!,102) are very close. In the last two years Hales also makes it.

304 is what we're averaging in the first innings score (ignoring the WI game where only 2 overs were bowled). 309 in the last two years.

Of the 37 times we've batted first we've scored 300+ 23 times and lost 5 of those.

Last edited by AJ101 : 27th August 2018 at 18:02.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 19:38   #199
Sir Virgs and Zamora
Posting God
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 21,272
So comfortably the best side averages as near as dammit 300. Doesn’t this show that 300 is absolutely not par yet? We are the best and only just do so and when we get it we win (despite bowling not being great).

How often do other sides win when make 300?

I would suggest still far more won that lost.
Sir Virgs and Zamora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2018, 23:57   #200
AJ101
International Material
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Virgs and Zamora View Post
So comfortably the best side averages as near as dammit 300. Doesn’t this show that 300 is absolutely not par yet? We are the best and only just do so and when we get it we win (despite bowling not being great).

How often do other sides win when make 300?

I would suggest still far more won that lost.
It depends what you mean by only just do so, England get 300+ around 2/3 of the time.

106-21 with 1 no result from all teams.

For teams batting second 300+ has won 77 games but lost 46.

Just like any cricket the par score will change with conditions.
AJ101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 16:45.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Cricket247.org