The Bill Frindall Match and Series records thread

[1000yardstare]

It's hard to believe that only 18 England batsman have more than 2000 ODI runs. Today Bell became number 18. I wonder if Vaughan will end his ODI career on 1982 runs or will Trescothick and Strauss play in ODIs again. Players still playing in bold -

1 Stewart - 4677
2 Trescothick - 4335
3 Gooch - 4290
4 Lamb 4010
5 Hick - 3846
6 Knight - 3637
7 Collingwood - 3458
8 Gower - 3170
9 Flintoff - 2989
10 Pietersen - 2447
11 Smith - 2419
12 Thorpe - 2380
13 Hussain - 2332
14 Strauss - 2239
15 Botham - 2113
16 Gatting - 2095
17 Fairbrother - 2092
18 Bell - 2038

19 Vaughan - 1982
20 Atherton - 1791

[Michelle Fivefer]

I think someone said that Pietersen was the quickest England player to reach 2000 runs.*

Fairbrother took 71 innings to make his 2092. Bell should shortly overtake him, although he has so far played only 60 innings. Harvey was one of our best ODI players, and the reason he didn't make more runs is that he was our finisher, coming in at 4, 5 or 6 and notched up 18 not outs.

*Edit. Have just checked and KP achieved 2000 ODI runs during his 45th innings, at Barbados in the World Cup 21/407 (where he made a century).

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by FastBowlersUnion

It's hard to believe that only 18 England batsman have more than 2000 ODI runs. Today Bell became number 18. I wonder if Vaughan will end his ODI career on 1982 runs or will Trescothick and Strauss play in ODIs again. Players still playing in bold -

1 Stewart - 4677
2 Trescothick - 4335
3 Gooch - 4290
4 Lamb 4010
5 Hick - 3846
6 Knight - 3637
7 Collingwood - 3458
8 Gower - 3170
9 Flintoff - 2989
10 Pietersen - 2447
11 Smith - 2419
12 Thorpe - 2380
13 Hussain - 2332
14 Strauss - 2239
15 Botham - 2113
16 Gatting - 2095
17 Fairbrother - 2092
18 Bell - 2038

19 Vaughan - 1982
20 Atherton - 1791

Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.

Yes, interesting that. He's where you'd expect him to be based on appearances. He has had the chance to build big innings, batting mostly at 3 with a few goes at opening. He did bat at 9 once too, mind you.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Yes, interesting that. He's where you'd expect him to be based on appearances. He has had the chance to build big innings, batting mostly at 3 with a few goes at opening. He did bat at 9 once too, mind you.

So also have most of that list as well, with the only exceptions Collingwood, Fairbrother and Flintoff.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

So also have most of that list as well, with the only exceptions Collingwood, Fairbrother and Flintoff.

Flintoff has had his chances, even if he's not batted in the top order much, mainly being at 5 or 6. I suppose England generally doesn't take long to lose 3 or 4 wickets. Similar applies to Collingwood. More seriously though, you wouldn't expect middle order players to accumulate as many runs, nor to manage as high an average. Their SRs ought perhaps to be a bit higher though.

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.

Where can I find the appearances list? I can only see most runs, averages, strike rate, etc.

[zxb]

Originally Posted by Michelle Fivefer

Where can I find the appearances list? I can only see most runs, averages, strike rate, etc.

My invoice is in the post

[1000yardstare]

Most players to play over 100 ODIs

24 - Pakistan, West Indies, India
21 - Australia
18 - Sri Lanka
17 - New Zealand
15 - South Africa
12 - England
6 - Zimbabwe
4 - Bangladesh

I was surprised to see West Indies had 24 players who had played over 100 matches.

[Aidan11]

I'm surprised England had that many. Colllingwood looks set to become England's most capped ODI player over the next year or two

[Michelle Fivefer]

Originally Posted by zxb

My invoice is in the post

Thanks.

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Bell is 24th on the appearances list. Gough, DeFreitas, Ealham, Willis and Anderson are the only ones ahead of him in that list who have scored fewer than him, although he has scored more than MP Vaughan.

Having looked at the list, I don't think this is particularly relevant or significant information. Of the batsmen ahead of him in matches played and runs scored, only Robin Smith (71) and Pietersen (67) are within near range of Bell's 62.

From his next 16 matches he needs an average of only 12.63 to overtake Strauss's total of 2239 from 78. To overtake Thorpe's 2280 from 82 matches the average would be 12.1. For Hussain's 2332 from 88 matches, 11.35. Obviously he should achieve these targets well before playing that number of matches as he wouldn't keep his place with an average around 12!

Sterner targets are Nick Knight and the other batsmen with over 100 ODIs, and he would have to be very good to reach Knight's 3637 from exactly 100 matches. The batsmen with over 120 matches and over 4000 runs are in a class of their own.


Edit: NB the Cricinfo list of most matches quotes matches not innings. So I should point out that Bell has played 62 matches but only 60 innings. I used 60 in the earlier post but 62 in this one, as per the listing.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Flintoff has had his chances, even if he's not batted in the top order much, mainly being at 5 or 6. I suppose England generally doesn't take long to lose 3 or 4 wickets. Similar applies to Collingwood. More seriously though, you wouldn't expect middle order players to accumulate as many runs, nor to manage as high an average. Their SRs ought perhaps to be a bit higher though.

Id have thought they'd have a good chance of a decent average with the not out opportunities - a la Bevan.

Although, of course, we are talking about England here.

[zxb]

94 extra in 50 overs. That has to be a record.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Kim

Id have thought they'd have a good chance of a decent average with the not out opportunities - a la Bevan.

Although, of course, we are talking about England here.

Bevan was an exception though. Generally the lower order guys get out having a low percentage flog more often than the upper order batsmen.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Bevan was an exception though. Generally the lower order guys get out having a low percentage flog more often than the upper order batsmen.

Not sure about that FS - Colly's 28 not outs in 128 ODIs compared to Bells 4 in 60 for example. But there may be other interpretations of those figures and I doubt either of us are interested enough in this to get into it.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Kim

Not sure about that FS - Colly's 28 not outs in 128 ODIs compared to Bells 4 in 60 for example. But there may be other interpretations of those figures and I doubt either of us are interested enough in this to get into it.

Oh I don't know. Of course the lower in the order a batsman is the more likely he is to be not out but the compensating disadvantage is that he doesn't get to take advantage of getting in to the same extent. A good look at the stats might be regarded as a bit pointless because of course one would expect the top order batsmen to be the better players and hence have the higher averages but even so, I think not outs are a bit of a red herring. After all, despite many fewer not outs, Bell has a higher ODI average than Colly, doesn't he?

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

Oh I don't know. Of course the lower in the order a batsman is the more likely he is to be not out but the compensating disadvantage is that he doesn't get to take advantage of getting in to the same extent. A good look at the stats might be regarded as a bit pointless because of course one would expect the top order batsmen to be the better players and hence have the higher averages but even so, I think not outs are a bit of a red herring. After all, despite many fewer not outs, Bell has a higher ODI average than Colly, doesn't he?

I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.

[Fatslogger]

Originally Posted by Kim

I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.

I suspect there are too many variables for a robust statistical analysis.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by Fatslogger

I suspect there are too many variables for a robust statistical analysis.

Thank Christ for that.

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Kim

I know. Delicious isnt it? The compensating disadvantage of being more likley to be not out is facing fewer balls so being unable to get more runs Id have thought. And you would have to be a better mathemetician than me to weigh up the relative importance of these factors. Being not out 21% of the ime (Colly) as opposed to 6% of the time (Bell) may or may not compensate for fewer balls faced but "red herring" seems a bit strong.

One-day cricket is about a trade-off between average and run-rate.

You'd expect your top order batsmen to average more, but slower, and your lower order batsman to average fewer, but quicker.