Hear, Hear, Hear : Lend me your Ear

Slats4ever said:

thank you so much for answering my question about the Zim v Bangladesh one... i'll try to come up with more questions. i'm seriously thinking about trying to answer one of these as well. u should be a politician SJS... turn anything into something believable

Click to expand...

What do you mean young man ?

I havent turned anything into anything.

The stats speak for them selves !!

Hello all...

SJS, apologies for not getting onto this Agarkar/McGrath conundrum...things are a bit busy at the moment. With this in mind I think it's only fair that I step back and give Vic Orthodox the Head Stats role as my input here will be minimal at best for at least the next couple of weeks.

I'm off to Falls Creek next week to work for the winter so I'm currently trying to get stuff organised for that, and am working in the meantime...thus there's not a lot leftover for stats analysis unfortunately. Now I know that we should all look to the great God Stat in times of trouble, but I feel that at this point in my life I have to leave out the decimal points and simply deal with whole numbers. I look forward to the day I can return to the fold with frivolous tales of numbers divisible by three and long nights spent square rooting, but until the move is complete and we're bunked down in a little country hut with the internet being beamed in via a sweating mouse on a wildly spinning wheel...I feel I must tend my resignation.

I would like to swap with Vic and become the roving reporter if that's at all possible...ducking in occasionally to pick up floating work?

Yours in numbers,

SOC.

Alrighty, while I'm waiting for confirmation on what the job structure shall be in light of this news, I'm going to take on the Agakar > McGrath as a bowler task.

Coming in the next two hours...

Jack's Late Night Theses, numero tre

Much to the delight of his many supporters, I wish to proclaim that Ajit Agarkar is much a much better bowler than Glenn McGrath, whom has somehow managed to take 499 test wickets, a measly 446 more than AA. The man known around these forums simply by his initials (no, not TEC ) is often ridiculed as much as admired in Cricket Web circles. I'm here today to inform you that such criticism is unwarranted. While almost as many consider Glenn McGrath to be the greatest seamer of the past 10 years compared to those who think he's lucky, I believe that neither group is right. Yes, Glenn is a wonderful bowler, but the only fast bowler worth "ooh ahh"-ing about in my books is Ajit Agark-"ooh"-ar. And now why.

When comparing their records, at first sight I thought, "Wow, this actually seems difficult ". Glenn McGrath does average 25 runs per wicket less than AA. But when you break down their respective stats, you see a number of areas where Ajit has it all over Glenn. And it is these areas that are most vital.

Now, before you bring in total records, I'd like to defend Ajit quickly. When one breaks his stats down into his record in each test, his record in the 1st test outstrips that of his 2nd, his 2nd outshines his 3rd, and it continually gets worse. What this indicates is that, and it is completely the fault of the body with which God gave him to work with (even though some might argue Ajit is God) cannot stand the toil of bowling in consecutive Tests. And I agree...I mean, give the guy a break, he is 4'2 and weighs 19kg. Therefore, we can legitimately not compare whole records and draw conclusions from that, we must highlight specific facts to display who has been the greater exponent of pace bowling.

Now, after my intense analysis of both players, the most glaring of McGrath's (many) weaknesses is his record in 2003, arguably the best year of batting in cricketing history. We saw the following luminaries in wonderful form: Dravid (average of 100.37), Laxman (85), Ponting (100.2), Hayden (77.17), Lara (74.66), Tendulkar (17, not bad considering his recent form ) Kallis (50), Sangakkara (50), and Farzeez Maharoof managed to average 55.23 versus Pakistan U/19s. God, even Ed Smith managed a Test Match 50 in 2003! This truly was the year when the mettle of bowlers was tested.

And it is in this year where we see the true class of the two competitors come to the fore. In one less game throughout the calendar year, Ajit Agarkar took twice as many wickets, despite playing against the best team in the world in all the games in which he played during the calendar year. His average of 27.18 during this time, with the extraordinary strike rate of 44.9, makes Glenn McGrath look like the true amateur he is, with only 8 wickets throughout the whole calendar year, taking them at 35.25 runs per wicket, and with 100 balls seperating each wicket. Yes, Glenn had to bowl 16.4 overs before taking a wicket, on average, during the period in which batting was at its hardest, while the little jockey who's ears account for half his body weight (despite this handicap) was on average taking a wicket once every 7.3 overs. Go figure...wait, I'll do it for you. It means Ajit is better.

I also discovered that Ajit is a much more competitive player in times of turmoil. Any cricket lover knows the confidence sapping effect of losing the toss. Well, when India loses the toss, our favourite little man manages to get back up on the horse and fight on, averaging 11 runs less per wicket when Sourav does the wrong thing by his team. Yet McGrath slumps, not showing the fighting character when things aren't going Australia's way and averages 2 runs per wicket more when his captain has lost the toss. So it can be concluded that McGrath is just a frontrunner who's fantastic when things are going his way, but can't fight back from adversity, unlike our 'Git.

The final, and many would say the most damning, statistic I would like to bring to your attention (although I do have many more, its just that after Jack's Late Night Theses, numero due I was made aware in no uncertain terms *cough*Deja Moo*cough* that if its too long, people won't bother reading it ....shush, Deja, it was clearly implied ) is that Agarkar clearly outshines McGrath in respect to their records versus the powerhouse Bangladesh. Now, after my esteemed colleague SJS, the widely recognised guru of statistics, proved that Bangladesh are a greater side than Australia, we see that Bangladesh are effectively the number 1 ranked side in the world. Therefore, when comparing their record against the best, we see that Glenn McGrath averages a reasonable 24.8, but yet it seems grotesquely large and obsolete in comparison to the Great AA's average of 21 versus the benchmark of world cricket. Agarkar also takes a wicket against Bangladesh every 63 balls, outshining one G. McGrath by three balls, and despite all this talk about McGrath's supposed miserlyness, the real scrooge is Agarkar, who's economy rate against the best is only 2 runs per over. It is these statistics that show that, even when McGrath does do well, Agarkar outpoints him, especially against the better competition.

Simply put, Agarkar completely pantses Glenn McGrath in all aspects of bowling. So while Glenn runs round the pool table with his pants round his ankles, we can further bathe in the glory of the Great One's triumph. Despite Ajit coming up against so many hardships, the main being asked, "Excuse me Mr. Dettori/Oliver/Cochrane/Yoda, can you please sign this for my brother?" all the time, he has in his thus far limited opportunites risen above the cream, above the hot air, and has hit his head upon the roof. So it is with such confidence that I point out that Ajit Agarkar will soon regain his spot in the Indian line-up, as I have it on good word that Greg Chappell is a massive fan of this column and in particular SJS' work (damn I want Son of Coco's vacated job )

Pity he stopped coming here when he saw the logic behind the "first chance theory"...and realised he'd have a career average of 22.3

Some brilliant stuff there :

- When one breaks his stats down into his record in each test, his record in the 1st test outstrips that of his 2nd, his 2nd outshines his 3rd, and it continually gets worse

- give the guy a break, he is 4'2 and weighs 19kg

- the little jockey who's ears account for half his body weight

- Despite Agit coming up against so many hardships, the main being asked, "Excuse me Mr. Dettori/Oliver/Cochrane/Yoda

I think the brilliance of your oratory outstrips your analytical strengths. I suggest you consider writing editorials for us.

Just a minor correction.
It is AJit .

You must understand that typos are looked at very very criticaly by our clientele and the very credibility of your statistical diagnosis may be questioned if you confused the parentage of the Black Bradman and the only great Kiwi fast bowler for example

Fixed. And just generally, with so many AA fans around here, (no not that AA Langeveldt ) I just hope that I've done him justice.

I knew AA/McGrath would be worth the wait. Go on, now, prove that Habibul Bashar > Ricky Ponting........ Although, I think it might be easy, going by your performances so far.....

Lol, this thread is great. Sorry to pile more work on you guys but i'd like to you to prove that:

Rikki Clarke > Andrew Flintoff.

Have fun.

Refund!

List of Points to Prove...

That Habibul Bashar is better than Ricky Ponting
That Rikki Clarke is better than Andrew Flintoff
That Sachin Tendulkar has been of more worth to India than Rahul Dravid since 2001.
That Curlty Ambrose is a greater batsman than Brian Lara.

The last one looks particularly curly...in fact, they all do.

KishanTeli said:

Lol, this thread is great. Sorry to pile more work on you guys but i'd like to you to prove that:

Rikki Clarke > Andrew Flintoff.

Have fun.

Click to expand...

Rikki WHO ???

I'm not even going to regard this as official work, more of just a "favour". This is a tad too easy for my liking.

Andrew Flintoff has only a .44 advantage in batting averages, while Rikki Clarke has a 19 run advantage when comparing averages with the ball in Test cricket. In fact, Rikki averages only 15, making him arguably the best bowler in the world, especially seeing as he has taken these figures against the best side in the worl. And to adjust the ledger batting-wise, Clarke has the upperhand in comparison of their FC averages.

And to add injury to insult, Queen Elizabeth II (of the 20c coin variety) tells me that Rikki is even better looking. Therefore, one can conclude that Rikki Clarke takes Andrew Flintoff "downtown" any day of the week.

SJS said:

Rikki WHO ???

Click to expand...

That one deserves to be done by Eddie.

This is one comparison that has come to us where two all time greats are being compared. This is not a case where we can say things like x is not fit to lick the muck of y's shoes. No sir ! These are two all time greats and we need to look very carefuly to see the subtle differences and settle this argument.

Consistency

There has ben a lot of discussion of late about Tendulkar's batting. His supporters refuse to accept that he has slipped into a batting form from which he will never recover and should retire. To support this argument they offer his average of 90 something in test matches in 2004. Similar averages are toted by Laxman's fans to boost his claim to a place in the Indian ODI team.

However the detractors in both these cases point out, and with a lot of merit, to what is hidden behind these averages, viz, an inconsistency that is totally unacceptable from top notch players.I think consistency of performance over long periods of time really show the good from the great and the all time great.

So, I decided to check the stats of these two West Indian greats on this attribute. I tel you a shock of huge [proportions awaited me.

Lara and Ambrose have played 98 and 116 matches (Lara todate0. I decided to track their cumulative average over their careers. It is obvious that in the early part of their careers, the fluctuations would be more, in either direction, since the smal number of innings can easily skew the average with one great innings or a few very bad ones.

So I decided to leave out the first 30 test matches. It tok away the realy turbulent period of Lara when his averaged had diped to as low as 22.0 And I believe in being very fair in in my choice of stats.

Now, I took the average of both players at the end of the 30th test, I took the average at the end of the entire period under consideration and I took the highs and the lows in between.

Taking the starting average as 0.00, I then compared it to the high, the low and the final. Thus the figures for the high, low and end averages indicate the deviation from the starting point. Here are the results.

PLAYER......START......HIGH........LOW.....END
Lara...............0.00.........-2.41........- 11.18...- 4.66
Ambrose .......0.00.....+ 0.15........- 1.76......- 0.65

I have always known Ambrose to be an extremely consistent batsman but I must admit that even I was extremely impressed by these remarkable testimonies of this remarkable batsman !!

Conclusion : Ambrose was one of the most consistent batsmen in the history of the game with his cumulative average over the last 68 tests of his career moving in a band of less than 2 runs per innings !!! For Lara the fluctuation is SIX times as much. Futhermore Lara continuously declined after his first 30 test matches while Ambrose touched greeater heights on more than a dozen occasions !!

The gap between Ambrose's highest and lowest ever test innings was only 53 runs ! For Lara the gap is a shocking 400 runs. Lara , on this parameter, is the worlds most inconsistent batsman. No other batsman in the history of the game has such a HUGE gap betwen his best and his worst !!

Price on his wicket

There is always a lot of discussion on how the really great batsmen put a high price on their wickets and refuse to surrender their wickets to bowlers, howsoever great. Now how does one measure this characterstic. It is quite simple really and this is what we found.

Ambrose simply refused to give up his wicket and actually managed to thwart the efforts of the finest bowlers in the world on as many as 29 occasions in his 98 tests.

Lara, who played 18 tests more and arguably against declining world bowling standards, refused to yield his wicket to bowlers only 6 times in 116 tests. Shameful I would say.

Conclusion : Ambrose was a fighter who put a great value to his wicket and was successful once every 3.37 tests whil for Lara this figure was a deplorable once every 19.3 tests !!

Minnow basher Lara

Throughoput his career Ambrose reserved his best performances against the best sides. So much so that when it became clear that a very weak Bangladesh were on the verge of gaining test selection, this gallant batsman refuse to participate in such non-contests and promptly retired from the game. We all know that Lara's has a massive test average against Bangladesh.

Even against Zimbabwe, which we took for comparison since both these batsmen played against this team, he has averages higher than against sides like India, Pakistan, New zealand, Australia, South Africa.

Ambrose on the other hand, has his lowest average against Zimbabwe !! He averages more against all other test playing countries. . He averaged 100 % more against South Africa and Australia than he did against Zimbabwe, 160 % more against England, over 340% better against India and New Zealand and a whopping 480 % more against sri Lanka !!!


Conclusion : Like all great sportsmen, Ambrose was at his sublime best against the best sides in the world and refused to waste his talents and lost interest when facing weak opposition.

And all this when he had to shore up the innings in the company of tailenders most of the time and besides being the teams star bowler as well !!

lol awesome sjs, simply awesome. this thread has caused me to start visiting cc again.

vic_orthdox said:

That Habibul Bashar is better than Ricky Ponting

Click to expand...

OK, my turn.

Habibul Bashar - the greatest batsman of the current era

Habibul Bashar is one of the unsung heroes of world cricket today. Because he plays in such a poor team, his efforts is rarely appreciated as much as Ricky Ponting - Australia's best batsman, who only gets acclaim because his team wins so much. However, Bashar outshines the great Ponting to a large degree, and here's why.

1) Record in meetings between the two sides.

I was expecting the great Ponting to, at least, outscore Habibul Bashar in their individual matches. After all, Ponting has only had to face Mashrafe Mortaza, Tapash "slow-medium" Baisya and Khaled "0 for 404" Mahmud - Bashar faced a full-strength Australian attack with Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie, Brett Lee and Stuart MacGill. The names alone should send shivers down the spine of most batsmen - while Bangladesh's attack merely induces laughter. But the mighty Ricky Ponting was outscored in every match by Bashar when the two played together - not only that, but on home soil! In the first match, Bashar made 16 and an impressive 54 - the whimpering Ponting scored 10 off 28 balls before getting out to Baisya. In the second match, Ponting admittedly made 59, but Bashar made 71 runs in total in the match - and averaged 35.25 for the series, Ponting 34.50.

2) Record in winning games

Habibul Bashar is a match-winner. There is no doubt about it. While Ricky Ponting averages a respectable 62 in matches that Australia have won - probably because the rest of the line-up has given him good support and he can bash the bowlers - Habibul Bashar, in contrast, has very little support from his fellow batsmen, who all average below 30. Yet, in matches where Bangladesh has won, he averages a whopping 74.50 - 12 more than the great Ponting.

3) Record in third match innings

The third innings is when matches are often won or lost. It's where targets are set for opposition to chase, or when matches are saved following on after a bad first innings. However, Ricky Ponting struggles to play in these crucial innings - suggesting that he's not a team player, but a man who just boosts his average. In fact, he's never scored a century in the third match innings, and averages a whimpering 36. Bashar, by contrast, has made 108 in a third innings - impressive when you think of the time pressure that might be on, and also the pressure to draw the matches and the whimpering batting line-up that falls around him. He also averages nearly 39 - better than Ponting.

Conclusion: Ricky Ponting is an over-rated first-innings bully who struggles when the chips are down and would do terribly if not for his team-mates who saves him - Habibul Bashar, meanwhile, is capable of playing match-winning innings, and scores well against the best.

Exactly, Bashar is at his best when his back is to the wall, witness how his performance increases by nearly 30% when his side is following on. Ponting by contrast, is clearly worried about the possibility of the follow on, in 80% of instances he choses to hide from the possibility of the follow on by batting first.

SJS said:

Lara versus Ambrose : Comparing West Indian Batting Genius !!​

This is one comparison that has come to us where two all time greats are being compared. This is not a case where we can say things like x is not fit to lick the muck of y's shoes. No sir ! These are two all time greats and we need to look very carefuly to see the subtle differences and settle this argument.

Consistency

There has ben a lot of discussion of late about Tendulkar's batting. His supporters refuse to accept that he has slipped into a batting form from which he will never recover and should retire. To support this argument they offer his average of 90 something in test matches in 2004. Similar averages are toted by Laxman's fans to boost his claim to a place in the Indian ODI team.

However the detractors in both these cases point out, and with a lot of merit, to what is hidden behind these averages, viz, an inconsistency that is totally unacceptable from top notch players.I think consistency of performance over long periods of time really show the good from the great and the all time great.

So, I decided to check the stats of these two West Indian greats on this attribute. I tel you a shock of huge [proportions awaited me.

Lara and Ambrose have played 98 and 116 matches (Lara todate0. I decided to track their cumulative average over their careers. It is obvious that in the early part of their careers, the fluctuations would be more, in either direction, since the smal number of innings can easily skew the average with one great innings or a few very bad ones.

So I decided to leave out the first 30 test matches. It tok away the realy turbulent period of Lara when his averaged had diped to as low as 22.0 And I believe in being very fair in in my choice of stats.

Now, I took the average of both players at the end of the 30th test, I took the average at the end of the entire period under consideration and I took the highs and the lows in between.

Taking the starting average as 0.00, I then compared it to the high, the low and the final. Thus the figures for the high, low and end averages indicate the deviation from the starting point. Here are the results.

PLAYER......START......HIGH........LOW.....END
Lara...............0.00.........-2.41........- 11.18...- 4.66
Ambrose .......0.00.....+ 0.15........- 1.76......- 0.65

I have always known Ambrose to be an extremely consistent batsman but I must admit that even I was extremely impressed by these remarkable testimonies of this remarkable batsman !!

Conclusion : Ambrose was one of the most consistent batsmen in the history of the game with his cumulative average over the last 68 tests of his career moving in a band of less than 2 runs per innings !!! For Lara the fluctuation is SIX times as much. Futhermore Lara continuously declined after his first 30 test matches while Ambrose touched greeater heights on more than a dozen occasions !!

The gap between Ambrose's highest and lowest ever test innings was only 53 runs ! For Lara the gap is a shocking 400 runs. Lara , on this parameter, is the worlds most inconsistent batsman. No other batsman in the history of the game has such a HUGE gap betwen his best and his worst !!

Price on his wicket

There is always a lot of discussion on how the really great batsmen put a high price on their wickets and refuse to surrender their wickets to bowlers, howsoever great. Now how does one measure this characterstic. It is quite simple really and this is what we found.

Ambrose simply refused to give up his wicket and actually managed to thwart the efforts of the finest bowlers in the world on as many as 29 occasions in his 98 tests.

Lara, who played 18 tests more and arguably against declining world bowling standards, refused to yield his wicket to bowlers only 6 times in 116 tests. Shameful I would say.

Conclusion : Ambrose was a fighter who put a great value to his wicket and was successful once every 3.37 tests whil for Lara this figure was a deplorable once every 19.3 tests !!

Minnow basher Lara

Throughoput his career Ambrose reserved his best performances against the best sides. So much so that when it became clear that a very weak Bangladesh were on the verge of gaining test selection, this gallant batsman refuse to participate in such non-contests and promptly retired from the game. We all know that Lara's has a massive test average against Bangladesh.

Even against Zimbabwe, which we took for comparison since both these batsmen played against this team, he has averages higher than against sides like India, Pakistan, New zealand, Australia, South Africa.

Ambrose on the other hand, has his lowest average against Zimbabwe !! He averages more against all other test playing countries. . He averaged 100 % more against South Africa and Australia than he did against Zimbabwe, 160 % more against England, over 340% better against India and New Zealand and a whopping 480 % more against sri Lanka !!!


Conclusion : Like all great sportsmen, Ambrose was at his sublime best against the best sides in the world and refused to waste his talents and lost interest when facing weak opposition.

And all this when he had to shore up the innings in the company of tailenders most of the time and besides being the teams star bowler as well !!

We dont want to insult the intelligence of our clientele by writing down the final conclusion. Its so obvious !!​

Click to expand...

you have way too much time on your hands man...