Statistics

Entertainment Cricket and Other Sports
1

A number of threads were started here recently in which statistics have often formed the basis of proving a point. My question is are stats the best way to arrive at a certain point of view or should other factors also be taken into consideration? It seems to me that some guppies have tried to say that stas prove everything. If so, then the following stats prove that Gilchrist is the best batsmen in the world and not Sachin or Lara. The question is: Is he the best batsmen in the world?
http://www-ind.cricket.org/link_to_database/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGHEST_AVS.html

Qualification: 20 innings



Name                Mat    I  NO  Runs   HS     Ave 100  50   Ct St Team

AC Gilchrist         31   44   8  2160  204*  60.00   6  11  122 10 AUS
SR Tendulkar         96  154  15  8004  217   57.58  29  32   64  - IND
KC Sangakkara        21   33   3  1553  230   51.76   4   7   60  6 SL
R Dravid             60  103  11  4733  200*  51.44  10  26   73  - IND
DPMD Jayawardene     42   66   5  3076  242   50.42   9  15   56  - SL
SR Waugh            148  233  41  9600  200   50.00  27  44  102  - AUS
BC Lara              88  154   4  7423  375   49.48  18  36  109  - WI
Inzamam-ul-Haq       81  133  13  5929  329   49.40  16  31   64  - PAK
Yousuf Youhana       39   64   5  2823  204*  47.84   9  15   41  - PAK

I have only taken stats of current players.

2

Stats doesn't prove much most of the time, but sometimes they can come in handy.
If they prove that Gilchrist is best in the world today then he deserves that title, we always think the best in the world is the player we like, in case of Indians, it is Tendulkur.
I'm not going to start the topic if Tendulkur is the best or not but he is highly over rated especially from his country mates, again stats show that he has 10,000+ runs, but look at how many times he has batted, not to take anything away from our great Sachin, he is a good batsman, maybe the best in the world currently, but sometimes he gets the treatment and the attention that he doesn't deserves.
The biggest example is the current tour of Windies, where Tendulkur batted inconsistently and other sideline batsmans like Dravid and Laxman batted consistently but Tendulkur still got more attention, if you look at the past year or 2 performances, you would be surprised that Tendulkur is not the best batsman in the team but sideline players like Dravid and VVX Laxam are.

3

[quote]
Originally posted by UMAIR316:
he is highly over rated especially from his country mates, again stats show that he has 10,000+ runs, but look at how many times he has batted, not to take anything away from our great Sachin, he is a good batsman, maybe the best in the world currently, but sometimes he gets the treatment and the attention that he doesn't deserves.
[/quote]

On the contarary - He hardly gets the treatment he deserves. One failure and people start questioning his form. People keep questioning his ability to win matches for India for Example - In Test match against Pakistan (which Pak won by 12 runs, At Madras ) He scored 136 runs and when he was out India needed only 17 runs to win the TEST match with three wickets in hand - India Lost the match by 12 runs. Tendulkar was blamed for not winning the match for India.

[quote]
The biggest example is the current tour of Windies, where Tendulkur batted inconsistently and other sideline batsmans like Dravid and Laxman batted consistently but Tendulkur still got more attention, if you look at the past year or 2 performances, you would be surprised that Tendulkur is not the best batsman in the team but sideline players like Dravid and VVX Laxam are.
[/quote]

My dear friend - this is where the avg comes handy - He scored 331 runs in WI with an avg of 41.37. And Who told you that he got more attention, Instead our people started telling that He is out of form and he cant' win matches and god knows what. Sachin's performance in last 2 years has been very good against Australia he score 2 half centuries and 1 century (in 3 tests), Against zimbabwe he scored 3 Centuries and 2 50s (in 6 tests 4 home, 2 away), Against SA 1 100 (Away , 2 tests), Against England 1 100, 2 50s (3 tests, Home)
Please tell me where is the Inconsistency. Laxman and Dravid are good players but not in the same class as Sachin. Laxman is performing well after given numerous chances. Respect has to be earned, Laxman is yet to earn it.

Personally, I dont care what the statitics say, for me Haynes/Greenidge will always be the best opening pair, Marshall/Holding/Roberts/Garner the best fast bowling combination, King best batsman, Warnie best spinner and West Indies team of lates 70s and 80s ander Lloyd will be the best team.

I ,at times, may have used the statistics to prove something, but that was just because some friends here try to downplay someone's achievment.

AK

4

I agree that statistic doesnt prove many thing but it does give a very fair idea.

Most importantly if some people are too blind to figure out obvious things and there is no way someone want to get convinced whatever logic you give then you have to go back to stats to decide.

Yes , Gilchrsit is very good batsman if you go by current form but then he needs to maintain this average for a much longer priod of time in both for of cricket.Like let him play another 20-30 test and maintain this average then we can say that he is really best.

Moreover here is record from onedayers



Gikchrist 133  128   5  4203  154   34.17  89.69   7  23  180  31
Sachin    287  279  27 11103  186*  44.05  86.62  31  55   92   0

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited May 30, 2002).]

5

[quote]
Originally posted by andha_qanoon:
**Yes , Gilchrsit is very good batsman if you go by current form but then he needs to maintain this average for a much longer priod of time in both for of cricket.Like let him play another 20-30 test and maintain this average then we can say that he is really best.

**
[/quote]

Yup agreed, and that is what I am trying to say, Stats can hide many obvious facts, like in this case, Gilchrist has suddenly run into very good form recently and has managed to take his average above every other current player. But to prove that he is as good as Lara or Sachin he will have to maintain this average over a longer period. Thats where stats mask reality.

6

I agree with AQ..
Even in the above stats given by Ehsan ,one can stil prove Sachin a better batsmen than Gilchrist..Gilchrist played only 31 matches compared to sachin's 96.
I do agree with the fact that stats doesnt prove everything but it gives you a clear idea...

7

To be a best batsman , does he need to have remarkable record in both forms of cricket ? or just a test?

8

[quote]
Originally posted by sherrybaba:
**To be a best batsman , does he need to have remarkable record in both forms of cricket ? or just a test?

**
[/quote]

Yes...he need to ....!!!

9

[quote]
Originally posted by andha_qanoon:
**I agree that statistic doesnt prove many thing but it does give a very fair idea.

Most importantly if some people are too blind to figure out obvious things and there is no way someone want to get convinced whatever logic you give then you have to go back to stats to decide.

Yes , Gilchrsit is very good batsman if you go by current form but then he needs to maintain this average for a much longer priod of time in both for of cricket.Like let him play another 20-30 test and maintain this average then we can say that he is really best.

Moreover here is record from onedayers



Gikchrist 133  128   5  4203  154   34.17  89.69   7  23  180  31
Sachin    287  279  27 11103  186*  44.05  86.62  31  55   92   0

[This message has been edited by ehsan (edited May 30, 2002).]**
[/quote]

I said that way back in that thread where AQ compared Tendulkar with Pakistani batsman... Im glad you realized that now AQ...

10

What new did u get in this message spook?

11

[quote]
Originally posted by andha_qanoon:
**What new did u get in this message spook?

**
[/quote]

new? kya keh raha hai?

12

[quote]
Originally posted by ehsan:
*A number of threads were started here recently in which statistics have often formed the basis of proving a point. *
[/quote]

statistics never lie, they can only mislead you