Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[LosingNow]

Drumroll please.... Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar!!!!

Read on and beat me up...

--
Batting Statistics of key Indian players : Career vs Recent i.e. since Mar 1, 2004 (Pak tour after drawn series in Australia till before current England tour) and excluding matches against B’desh and Zimbabwe.

Stats shown are Matches, Runs, HS, BatAv(rank), 100s and 50s. Rank shown is among RD, SRT, SG, VVS, MK, YS, and VS

Sachin Tendulkar
Career (all)                  137 10922 248*  55.44(2)  37  43 
Career (non-BD/ZIM)     123  9448 241*  52.19(2)  31  40
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)     22  1119 194*  34.96(4)   2   6

2 centuries, 194* against Pak and 109 against SL in Delhi in 22 matches .. averaging 1 in 11 matches recent years

Drop-off in average in recent years (non-BD/ZIM) = 17.23 runs

Rahul Dravid
Career (all)                  109  9366 270   57.46(1)  24  47
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    95  7966 270   54.19(1)  19  41
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      28  2293 270   54.59(1)   6  12

Averaging 1 century in 4+ matches
Avg increase = 0.4 runs

VVS Laxman
Career (all)                  80  4878 281   42.41(4)  10  27
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    72  4557 281   42.99(4)   9  27
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      26  1229 104   32.34(6)   2   9
Averaging 1 century in 13 matches
Drop-off in average in recent years = 10.65 runs

Sourav Ganguly
Career (all)                  93  5563 173   40.90(5)  13  27 
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    79  4662 173   39.50(5)  10  23
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      15   650  77   30.95(7)   0   4
0 centuries
Drop-off in average in recent years = 8.55 runs

Yuvraj Singh
Career (all)                  19   830 122   33.20(6)   2   3
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    17   793 122   34.47(6)   2   3
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      16   768 122   34.90(5)   2   3
Averaging 1 century in 8 matches
Increase in average in recent years = 0.43

Mohd Kaif
Career (all)                  13   624 148*  32.84(7)  1   3
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    13   624 148*  32.84(7)  1   3
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      9   483 148*  40.25(3)   1   3
Averaging 1 century in 9 matches
Increase in average in recent years = 7.41

Virender Sehwag
Career (all)                  52  4155 309   49.46(3)  12  12
Career (non-BD/ZIM)    47  3956 309   50.07(3)  12  11
Recent (non-BD/ZIM)      28  2517 309   53.55(2)   7   7
Averaging 1 century in 4 matches
Increase in average in recent years = 3.48

To summarize ...

Ranks based on entire career average vs non-BD/Zim teams ..
1.   RD   54.19
2.   SRT  52.19
3.   VS   50.07
4.   VVS  42.99
5.   SG   39.50
6.   YS   34.47
7.   MK   32.84

Ranks based on recent average vs non-BD/Zim teams..(compare with list above)
1.   RD 54.59 (+0.4 runs vs career avg..see above)
2.   VS 53.55 (+3.48)
3.   MK 40.25 (+7.41)
4.   SRT 34.96(-17.23) …holy cow!!
5.   YS 34.90 (+0.43)
6.   VVS 32.34(-10.65)
7.   SG 30.95(-8.55)

Thoughts/conclusions:
1.SRT’s performance has declined the most since we visited Australia last .. 17+ runs drop in average. With this performance, if he was playing for a professional baseball team in America, they would have invoked the “diminished skills clause”. Why is he still an untouchable? Do I hear – sponsors, centuries against BD, TINA, etc
2.RD and VS have dominated this era .. see below the contributions to Indian wins in this time period
3.Contrary to popular belief, YS and MK have done relatively well…given their limited opportunities. Of course, the sample size(specially in MK’s case) is small but preliminary indications are that TINA is probably more a myth than reality. If anything, they deserve chances ahead of our maharathis – specially the fast diminishing SRT!!
4.VVS and SG have had significant declines too. It is time to legitimately question their value to the test team – specially SG, if he is not a captain; specially if they are blocking our ability to give chance to another youngster.
5.We appear to have screwed up our selections. VS dropped from tests based on one bad series in SA (perhaps due to lack of confidence and support). MK dropped from tests in SA after his ODI performance. Are the new selectors looking at different numbers or are they going more by gut-feel?
---

Now how did Team India perform during this time period

                P    W   L    T    D   W/L
Overall                 405  90 131  1 183 0.69
Non-BD/ZIM               391  80 130  1 180 0.62
Recent(non-BD/Zim)    28  10   8  0  10  1.25

Who contributed with batting in these 10 wins?

1.   Ind bt Pak in Multan by an inn and 52 runs. VS 309, SRT 194*. MOM = VS. VS = major, SRT = minor contributions
2.   Ind bt Pak in Rawalpindi by an inn and 131 runs. RD 270, SG 77, VVS 71. MOM : RD. RD = major , SG/VVS = minor
3.   Ind bt Aus in Mumbai by 13 runs. VVS 69, SRT 55. MOM : Murali Kartik. Bowler gets credit for win. VVS/SRT = minor
4.   Ind bt SA in Kol by 8 wkts. VS 88, RD 80+47. MOM : HS. VS and RD = minor
5.   Ind bt Pak in Kol by 195 runs. RD 110+135. SRT 52+52, VS 81, KKD 93. MOM :RD. RD = major 
6.   Ind bt SL in Del by 188 runs. SRT 109, IKP 93, VVS 69, YS 77, SG 40+39, RD 53. MOM : AK. Team effort in batting but SRT highest scorer. SRT = minor; YS = minor; IP = minor
7.   Ind bt SL in Ahm by 259 runs. VVS 104, IKP 82, YS 75. MOM : HS. VVS = minor; YS/IP = minor
8.   Ind bt Eng in Moh by 9 wkts. RD 95+42, VS 76. MOM: AK. RD amd VS =  minor
9.   Ind bt WI in Kingston by 49 runs. RD 81+68. MOM :RD. RD = major
10.   Ind bt SA in J’burg by 123 runs. VVS 73+28, SG 51+25, SRT 44+14. MOM : SS. VVS and SG = minor

Base on my rough assessment.. RD = 3 major + 2 minor; VS = 1 major and 2 minor; SRT = 3 minor; VVS = 4 minor; SG = 2 minor. YS and IP had 2 minor contributions(with bat) as well.

Bottomline : We had a good win/loss ratio in this period with 4 away wins.. and major batting contributors were RD and VS.
--

I seriously think it is
a. Time to phase out SRT, SG, VVS even in tests...and phase in YS, MK and others.
b. Time to bring back VS in tests with proper backing, not the way it was done in SA (hello, colonel).
c. Time to reinvest in IKP. He has and can contribute in our wins.

--
E&OE - source for stats Cricinfo.

[keep-it-cool]

LN ... good stuff ... i agree, the lack of alternatives is a myth. It only applies if you try to find an alternative for these players at their peak ... and, barring RD, none of them have been at their peak for a long time.

[broadbat]

Generally what is known to everyone but are not willing to accept.

[fineleg]

Great stuff, LN.

SRT 

[sudzz]

great stuff sir, I completely concur with your analysis.

I think the sooner we give these guys a good send off the better, I dont think these chaps are made of stuff that will make them put the team above themselves....

So buh bye SRT/SG/VVS and welcome VS/YS/MK/Badri(?)/SR(?)/

My bigger worry is that with AK's final throw of the dice in we have no one to replace him in terms of sheer grit and determination, PC? what about the rest Pragyan Ojha?, and the others?

I sure hope someone at BCCI is spending even 1/5th the time that we are spending on discussing such issues .....

[dextrous]

Excluding minnows...okay. But given that we usually compete with minnows, who scores against the minnows if Sachin and Ganguly don't? Further, what's holding back the other players of the world from scoring against the minnows? And does that mean Bradman's stats should be adjusted to remove India? And should we take away all the stats of players who scored against the very minnowish NZ team? BTW, should the minnow # not take into account Zim's bowling strength with Streak, Brandes, Strang, Bliganaut, etc. who have bowled for them in the past?

I like my stats wholesome, like my entertainment!

[LosingNow]

who scores against the minnows if Sachin and Ganguly don't?

Give YS, MK ..and others a chance and they will. There is ample evidence that they will

[keep-it-cool]

Further, what's holding back the other players of the world from scoring against the minnows?

Nothing. As is evident from SL's recent scores against Bangladesh. Did they score less than 500 in any completed innings??

[LosingNow]

OK, Dex.. here we go...on your request...their stats in recent times against all teams.

SRT 26  1657 248*  47.34(3)   5   6
RD   34  2820 270   57.55(1)   8  15
VVS 30  1418 140   33.76(6)     3   9
SG   21  1054 101   37.64(5)   2   6
YS   18   805 122   33.54(7)   2   3
MK   9   483 148*  40.25(4)   1   3
VS   32  2642 309   51.80(2)   7   7

Ranks based on recent average vs all teams..
1.   RD 57.55 (+0.09 runs vs career avg against all teams)
2.   VS 51.80 (+2.34)
3.   SRT 47.34(-8.10)
4.   MK 40.25 (+7.41)
5.   SG 37.64 (-3.26)
6.   VVS 33.76(-8.65)
7.   YS 33.54 (+0.34)

---

SRT moved from 4 to 3 (with a 13 run increase in average vs non-minnows) and SG from 7 to 5 (and a 7 run increase in average vs non-minnows)...

yeah!!! Now we have counted those centuries against Zim and BD.
 
The diminishing skills conclusions from the previous post still is valid...notice the negatives. 

Maybe we should have SRT and SG play just against Zim and BD only.. they are so damn effective against them!!

[WicketView]

Stats or no stats, there is hardly any doubt that skills have diminished, from their peaks. However, I don't think your stats are actually viable. I am sure Mohd. Kaif's average is boosted by a couple of not out innings against WI, when the team declared.  While this usually does not matter in the stats of a batsman who has had a long career, such things can strongly affect averages when the number of matches is as low as 9.

Secondly, the comparison is not accurate (not that you can help it), because you are comparing performances on the WI tour with the SAF tour. The two had entirely different levels of difficulty.

Actually, I have a question: If there was one spot available for these guys, whom would you pick? YS or MK?
(Personally, my gut feeling is MK is ahead of YS mainly on account of technique, but YS may have  better results to deserve it)

[fineleg]

yeah!!! Now we have counted those centuries against Zim and BD.
 

Maybe we should have SRT and SG play just against Zim and BD only.. they are so damn effective against them!!

Eggjacktly 

[broadbat]

If there was one spot available for these guys, whom would you pick? YS or MK?

From the looks of it there are going to be a lot of slots available.

[keep-it-cool]

If there was one spot available for these guys, whom would you pick? YS or MK?

From the looks of it there are going to be a lot of slots available.

fat chance ... if it had to happen, it would have happened by now.

[dextrous]

OK, Dex.. here we go...on your request...their stats in recent times against all teams.

SRT 26  1657 248*  47.34(3)   5   6
RD   34  2820 270   57.55(1)   8  15
VVS 30  1418 140   33.76(6)     3   9
SG   21  1054 101   37.64(5)   2   6
YS   18   805 122   33.54(7)   2   3
MK   9   483 148*  40.25(4)   1   3
VS   32  2642 309   51.80(2)   7   7

Ranks based on recent average vs all teams..
1.   RD 57.55 (+0.09 runs vs career avg against all teams)
2.   VS 51.80 (+2.34)
3.   SRT 47.34(-8.10)
4.   MK 40.25 (+7.41)
5.   SG 37.64 (-3.26)
6.   VVS 33.76(-8.65)
7.   YS 33.54 (+0.34)

---

SRT moved from 4 to 3 (with a 13 run increase in average vs non-minnows) and SG from 7 to 5 (and a 7 run increase in average vs non-minnows)...

yeah!!! Now we have counted those centuries against Zim and BD.
 
The diminishing skills conclusions from the previous post still is valid...notice the negatives. 

Maybe we should have SRT and SG play just against Zim and BD only.. they are so damn effective against them!!

Thanks, LN.

Hey, if it weren't for Kambli, India would never have won those clean sweeps against Eng, Zim, and SL in the early 90s. Too bad he wasn't around when England E won the Mumbai test last year.

[schumi]

Excluding minnows...okay. But given that we usually compete with minnows, who scores against the minnows if Sachin and Ganguly don't? Further, what's holding back the other players of the world from scoring against the minnows? And does that mean Bradman's stats should be adjusted to remove India? And should we take away all the stats of players who scored against the very minnowish NZ team? BTW, should the minnow # not take into account Zim's bowling strength with Streak, Brandes, Strang, Bliganaut, etc. who have bowled for them in the past?

I like my stats wholesome, like my entertainment!

Yes, Agree with Dex. Lets drop SRT and SG against non minnows and let them compete when playing with minnows !!!

[schumi]

Excluding minnows...okay. But given that we usually compete with minnows, who scores against the minnows if Sachin and Ganguly don't? Further, what's holding back the other players of the world from scoring against the minnows? And does that mean Bradman's stats should be adjusted to remove India? And should we take away all the stats of players who scored against the very minnowish NZ team? BTW, should the minnow # not take into account Zim's bowling strength with Streak, Brandes, Strang, Bliganaut, etc. who have bowled for them in the past?

I like my stats wholesome, like my entertainment!

Yes, Agree with Dex. Lets drop SRT and SG against non minnows and let them compete when playing with minnows !!!

Maybe we should have SRT and SG play just against Zim and BD only.. they are so damn effective against them!!

Sorry LN, I didnt see your post.

[RicePlateReddy]

I seriously think it is
a. Time to phase out SRT, SG, VVS even in tests...and phase in YS, MK and others.

Nice stats again.

But I disagree with the quoted conclusion. I have no confidence that this phased in breed you propose will fare better (and I suspect they will fare far worse) even when given the same number of opportunities.

And if you phase out SRT, SG and VVS, then RD should also be in that band.

I think it is curtains for VVS now, and I have no pity for him. Highly talented fellow but lazy bum who has never delivered what is expected from him.

[ruchir]

LN -- I think it's time we urgently think about replacing SRT with VS, VSL with MK and SG with YS in Tests.

KOP -- What gives you the non-confidence that phased in breed with not fare same or better than phased out breed? How can you say that unless and until the new breed has been given a long enough run and failed? Per LN's stats, RD has actually improved since 2004. Why would you want to remove a batsman who is improving? It is SRT, VVS, SG who are the main defaulters in diminishing averages (in that order). I say, give the new breed a couple of consecutive Test series and see how they do. If they fail, get back the senior citizens while searching for new replacements. If they succeed, good for us.

[RicePlateReddy]

KOP -- What gives you the non-confidence that phased in breed with not fare same or better than phased out breed? How can you say that unless and until the new breed has been given a long enough run and failed? Per LN's stats, RD has actually improved since 2004. Why would you want to remove a batsman who is improving? It is SRT, VVS, SG who are the main defaulters in diminishing averages (in that order). I say, give the new breed a couple of consecutive Test series and see how they do. If they fail, get back the senior citizens while searching for new replacements. If they succeed, good for us.

I will dwell on 1 stat above a little more. Recent average against non minnows:

1.   RD 54.59
2.   VS 53.55
3.   MK 40.25
4.   SRT 34.96
5.   YS 34.90
6.   VVS 32.34
7.   SG 30.95

There was a joke of a test match against Pakistan, on a ridiculously easy pitch where RD and VS made merry and virtually posted a world record opening partnership - the rest did not even get to bat. 9 wickets fell in that match with over 1150 runs scored. Take that out and RD's average drops by 3 more and VS's by about 4. Still good averages, but place them in little better and fairer perspective.

I think the real metric that should be considered in this period are how much each one scored relative to their teammates in that innings. Sadly, I don't have the time to do that right now, though I will come back to it. (This was the same idea I proposed earlier and will do for good adoption in the stats section). This will reflect a pressure factor, plus likely will indicate that batting was not a stroll in the park. And this allows including the minnow stats also as the relative weightage becomes key.

Back to the quoted stats -- what the heck has YS done to demand a place? He is still below a terribly out of touch and struggling SRT. The right question to ask is does SRT have it in him to come out of this slump? I think we have seen indications that it is possible. A young turk should perform clearly better than the faltering maharathi to make a claim. Not come in with the "but I have done no worse than you" excuse.

VS should have never gone away -- because the fellows chosen to replace him are not even as mediocre as him.

Now coming to Kaif -- I would like to see the averages of the others in the games that Kaif played before acknowledging that he need to come in at the expense of others. I am sure he needs to be on the fringes. Not convinced he commands a place now.

[keep-it-cool]

KOP -- What gives you the non-confidence that phased in breed with not fare same or better than phased out breed? How can you say that unless and until the new breed has been given a long enough run and failed? Per LN's stats, RD has actually improved since 2004. Why would you want to remove a batsman who is improving? It is SRT, VVS, SG who are the main defaulters in diminishing averages (in that order). I say, give the new breed a couple of consecutive Test series and see how they do. If they fail, get back the senior citizens while searching for new replacements. If they succeed, good for us.

I will dwell on 1 stat above a little more. Recent average against non minnows:

1.   RD 54.59
2.   VS 53.55
3.   MK 40.25
4.   SRT 34.96
5.   YS 34.90
6.   VVS 32.34
7.   SG 30.95

There was a joke of a test match against Pakistan, on a ridiculously easy pitch where RD and VS made merry and virtually posted a world record opening partnership - the rest did not even get to bat. 9 wickets fell in that match with over 1150 runs scored. Take that out and RD's average drops by 3 more and VS's by about 4. Still good averages, but place them in little better and fairer perspective.

I think the real metric that should be considered in this period are how much each one scored relative to their teammates in that innings. Sadly, I don't have the time to do that right now, though I will come back to it. (This was the same idea I proposed earlier and will do for good adoption in the stats section). This will reflect a pressure factor, plus likely will indicate that batting was not a stroll in the park. And this allows including the minnow stats also as the relative weightage becomes key.

Back to the quoted stats -- what the heck has YS done to demand a place? He is still below a terribly out of touch and struggling SRT. The right question to ask is does SRT have it in him to come out of this slump? I think we have seen indications that it is possible. A young turk should perform clearly better than the faltering maharathi to make a claim. Not come in with the "but I have done no worse than you" excuse.

VS should have never gone away -- because the fellows chosen to replace him are not even as mediocre as him.

Now coming to Kaif -- I would like to see the averages of the others in the games that Kaif played before acknowledging that he need to come in at the expense of others. I am sure he needs to be on the fringes. Not convinced he commands a place now.

KoP, this analysis was done by S Rajesh of cricinfo ... but for ODIs ... and the conclusion there was that Kaif generally scores very well in matches where the other batsmen in the team have not done well.

There was a thread where this was fiercely debated .... maybe you will be able to locate it.

[natty]

Drumroll please.... Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar!!!!
Read on and beat me up...

Spot on.   One minor quibble is that the drop off/increase should be taken relative (in proportion) to the original average..  Even then, SRT comes off with majorly diminished skill set (he still easily deserves a spot in the 1-dayers though).  I dont think much will be lost by phasing out the maharathis (except RD) in tests.

[ruchir]

There was a joke of a test match against Pakistan, on a ridiculously easy pitch where RD and VS made merry and virtually posted a world record opening partnership - the rest did not even get to bat. 9 wickets fell in that match with over 1150 runs scored. Take that out and RD's average drops by 3 more and VS's by about 4. Still good averages, but place them in little better and fairer perspective.

BD and ZIM are declared/certified Test minnows. How many games are you going to take out of consideration before SRT/SG/VVS averages look good and VS/YS/MK averages look bad? Likewise, should I find something or the other wrong with the game every time SRT/SG/VVS score runs, and call it a joke of a game? 

I think the real metric that should be considered in this period are how much each one scored relative to their teammates in that innings. Sadly, I don't have the time to do that right now, though I will come back to it. (This was the same idea I proposed earlier and will do for good adoption in the stats section). This will reflect a pressure factor, plus likely will indicate that batting was not a stroll in the park. And this allows including the minnow stats also as the relative weightage becomes key.

Which team mate? Others playing in the team OR the one who is suppose to replace him? If it is others in the team, how does it matter? If it is verses the one replacing him, then only VS and SRT have played a good number of games together. SG/YS and VVS/MK have not played too many games together. So it is difficult to compare them in the same game together.

VS / SRT -- In his 52 Test career, VS has played 87 innings, scored 4155 runs @ 49.46 with 3 not outs. Since VS made his debut, SRT has played 53 tests, 85 innings, scored 4003 runs @ 52.67 with 9 not out. Among those 9 not outs are 2 double hundred, bolstering his average even further. If we see a simple runs/inning figure, VS = 47.76, and SRT = 47.09. Evidently, VS is better than SRT and can replace him.

This is not one-to-one games, but this is taking SRT's games from the debut date of VS.

Back to the quoted stats -- what the heck has YS done to demand a place? He is still below a terribly out of touch and struggling SRT. The right question to ask is does SRT have it in him to come out of this slump? I think we have seen indications that it is possible. A young turk should perform clearly better than the faltering maharathi to make a claim. Not come in with the "but I have done no worse than you" excuse.

Okay. One one hand you want the young turk to show himself better than the Maharathi. On the other hand you are not willing to give the young turk a chance of proving himself. If he doesn't get a chance of playing, pray tell me how will he prove himself to be better than the Maharathi? Any ideas? Unless SG and VVS are replaced by YS and MK in at least a couple series, how will we know for sure that they are worse than the seniors?

VS should have never gone away -- because the fellows chosen to replace him are not even as mediocre as him.

Agree.

Now coming to Kaif -- I would like to see the averages of the others in the games that Kaif played before acknowledging that he need to come in at the expense of others. I am sure he needs to be on the fringes. Not convinced he commands a place now.

Again, how does it matter how Kaif performed compared to say MSD, or WJ, or VS. What's the benefit of this comparison? Is Kaif replacing any one of them? If not, then why bother comparing? Either compare Kaif to the person he is replacing, or take his figures in isolation. I don't see comparing a Kaif to SRT and saying he doesn't measure up to SRT so he can't replace VVSL. And if you are replacing VVSL with MK and comparing them together, here is how they match up in what ever little they have played together:

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T2_14-18OCT2004.html
MK   = 64
VVS = 4

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T3_26-30OCT2004.html
MK   = 55, 7
VVS = 13, 2

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T4_03-07NOV2004.html
MK   = 2, 25
VVS = 1, 69

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T3_18-22DEC2005.html
MK   = 4, 9
VVS = 104, 5

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_T1_01-05MAR2006.html
MK   = 91, DNB
VVS = 0, 0*

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239920.html
MK   = 29, 46*
VVS = 13, 31

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239921.html
MK   = 148*
VVS = 0

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html
MK   = 0, DNB
VVS = 100, 63

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239923.html
MK   = 13, 6
VVS = 18, 16

So, MK and VVS have batted in 14 innings together (leaving out the DNB ones). MK has scored 499 runs in these 14 innings, while VVSL has scored 439 runs. There is only one inning where VVS scored 63 while MK did not bat. Even adding that, VVSL goes just 3 runs beyond MK. Meaning, playing one full inning extra VVSL scores just 3 runs more than MK!! What does this show? To me, it shows that MK is better than VVSL more times, when given a chance. MK scored more than VVSL 8 times. VVSL scored more than MK 5 times (excluding the DNB inning).

And that's exactly what Me, LN and few others are saying. Unless we give young turks enough chances, how will they show that they are better than seniors? You want the seniors to play, but want youngsters to show themselves better than seniors without playing.

[kban1]

How they performed in T1:

NAME                        I1             I2                 Tot           Avg

KD Karthik                   5          60                 65        32.50
W Jaffer                    58            8                 66        33.00
R Dravid                     2            9                  11           5.50
SR Tendulkar             37           16                53         26.50
SC Ganguly              34            40                74          37.00
VVS Laxman             15           39               54        27.00
MS Dhoni                   0           76*               76        76.00

[RicePlateReddy]

There was a joke of a test match against Pakistan, on a ridiculously easy pitch where RD and VS made merry and virtually posted a world record opening partnership - the rest did not even get to bat. 9 wickets fell in that match with over 1150 runs scored. Take that out and RD's average drops by 3 more and VS's by about 4. Still good averages, but place them in little better and fairer perspective.

BD and ZIM are declared/certified Test minnows. How many games are you going to take out of consideration before SRT/SG/VVS averages look good and VS/YS/MK averages look bad? Likewise, should I find something or the other wrong with the game every time SRT/SG/VVS score runs, and call it a joke of a game? 

Ruchir, I am going to take out all the games of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh for obvious reasons. It was LN who showed stats without this included, and I liked it and used it. I also pointed out a waste of a test match on "the worst wicket for bowlers I have ever seen" (quote: Imran Khan at the mid way point of the Pakistan innings). There is nothing selective about this, and one can surely point these out when discussing stats. If you think this is biased you are welcome to find another horribly lop sided match within and make your argument.

My aim is not to unequivocally state that A is better than B. I am willing to be proven wrong in my leanings and I have no favorites in the team. I am basically against your assertions that the Maharathis exclusively suck. The whole bunch lack consistency of late. And Mohamed Kaif does not seem a messiah who is unjustly denied his place. As a whole he has got what he deserves.

I think the real metric that should be considered in this period are how much each one scored relative to their teammates in that innings. Sadly, I don't have the time to do that right now, though I will come back to it. (This was the same idea I proposed earlier and will do for good adoption in the stats section). This will reflect a pressure factor, plus likely will indicate that batting was not a stroll in the park. And this allows including the minnow stats also as the relative weightage becomes key.

Which team mate? Others playing in the team OR the one who is suppose to replace him? If it is others in the team, how does it matter? If it is verses the one replacing him, then only VS and SRT have played a good number of games together. SG/YS and VVS/MK have not played too many games together. So it is difficult to compare them in the same game together.

Your performance relative to the others in the team (who are playing, obviously) is a very valuable metric. This does not need to include all the players - just those who are playing. I am suggesting a weighted average, where the higher the weight if the other full time batsmen perform far worse than you. This will establish that a 148* when two others higher in the order scored centuries does not disproportionally contribute to an average. Equally, it will weigh a VVS Laxman 70 in a critical low scoring cause much more than it otherwise would have contributed. I have no idea how this will pan out -- may be it will show SRT to be a FTB for all I know. But I think it would be a valuable indicator to base an argument on.

VS / SRT -- In his 52 Test career, VS has played 87 innings, scored 4155 runs @ 49.46 with 3 not outs. Since VS made his debut, SRT has played 53 tests, 85 innings, scored 4003 runs @ 52.67 with 9 not out. Among those 9 not outs are 2 double hundred, bolstering his average even further. If we see a simple runs/inning figure, VS = 47.76, and SRT = 47.09. Evidently, VS is better than SRT and can replace him.

I never said that, neither do I believe so. I am not out to use statistics solely as the barometer. But used and weighted suitably, it could be incisive.

Back to the quoted stats -- what the heck has YS done to demand a place? He is still below a terribly out of touch and struggling SRT. The right question to ask is does SRT have it in him to come out of this slump? I think we have seen indications that it is possible. A young turk should perform clearly better than the faltering maharathi to make a claim. Not come in with the "but I have done no worse than you" excuse.

Okay. One one hand you want the young turk to show himself better than the Maharathi. On the other hand you are not willing to give the young turk a chance of proving himself. If he doesn't get a chance of playing, pray tell me how will he prove himself to be better than the Maharathi? Any ideas? Unless SG and VVS are replaced by YS and MK in at least a couple series, how will we know for sure that they are worse than the seniors?

Yuvraj has got sufficient chances. Tough luck, you are against players who were supreme in their prime and still show glimpses of brilliance that make it impossible to eliminate them from contention. You have to make the most of the limited opportunities. Yuvraj hasn't.

The relative metric still holds - it shows what leadership X provided when X played and when X held the batting together relative to the rest of the team. In the opportunities that Yuvraj got, it would be worthwhile to study his relative performance.

And that's exactly what Me, LN and few others are saying. Unless we give young turks enough chances, how will they show that they are better than seniors? You want the seniors to play, but want youngsters to show themselves better than seniors without playing.

We disagree on the point that Yuvraj hasn't got enough chances. A pity that injury hurt his continuity, but that is his karma.

Right now, as far as I can tell, there is no political motive to keep SG in the team. He has earned his spot for now - how long he keeps it is iffy. SG, VVS and YS will fight for 2 spots, especially after Dhoni's 2nd innings show.

Interestingly, Laxman himself had to make it the hard way playing musical chairs in and out of the team and the ridiculous movements in batting position. And now he is expected to yield to an inconsistent guy, because he is a "maharathi".

[WicketView]

Did you guys watch Yuvraj during the Ireland series?

He seemed entirely out of sorts even if he managed to hold his wicket, and share the man of the match award.

[LosingNow]

Back to the quoted stats -- what the heck has YS done to demand a place? He is still below a terribly out of touch and struggling SRT. The right question to ask is does SRT have it in him to come out of this slump? I think we have seen indications that it is possible. A young turk should perform clearly better than the faltering maharathi to make a claim. Not come in with the "but I have done no worse than you" excuse.

KOP ...

[LosingNow]

Yuvraj has got sufficient chances. Tough luck, you are against players who were supreme in their prime and still show glimpses of brilliance that make it impossible to eliminate them from contention. You have to make the most of the limited opportunities. Yuvraj hasn't.

Another one!

[LosingNow]

Kban:
You have consistently said that YS has been given enough chances and has not "earned" his place.

Changed your mind? (now that he is not going to replace SG )

[kban1]

Kban:
You have consistently said that YS has been given enough chances and has not "earned" his place.

Changed your mind? (now that he is not going to replace SG )

Yes, I have consistently said that YS does not deserve a chance (by dropping SG, VVS or RD) without staking his claim when given a chance in tests.

A chance came his way, he has grabbed it with both hands and staked his claim with an innings of immense class. So he has made his claim for the spot through performance.

I have not changed my mind about my original statement nor about Yuvraj's talent or class (he has had both in plenty). But I would now say that he deserves a test spot based on the criteria I set for him to make it in.

And it had nothing to do with SG -when he was staking his claim, SG was the most secure batsman in the Indian middle order  .

[LosingNow]

And it had nothing to do with SG -when he was staking his claim, SG was the most secure batsman in the Indian middle order  .

LOL.. no!
Anyway, now that he is in the team.. I personally think he can be the next Lara (and CI is not off the mark with that article)
--
BTW, where is KOP.. a vegetarian eating crow would be quite a sight

[kban1]

And it had nothing to do with SG -when he was staking his claim, SG was the most secure batsman in the Indian middle order  .

LOL.. no!
Anyway, now that he is in the team.. I personally think he can be the next Lara (an CI is not off the mark with that article)
--
BTW, where is KOP.. a vegetarian eating crow would be quite a sight

Of course he was -- when many of you were clamoring for his inclusion in the Indian test team, SG had just finished the SA series where he was top scorer followed by the England tour where he was the 2nd highest scorer.

The person in danger of being dropped, had the selectors followed the "Diwali ki muft laddu bato" logic to include Yuvi would have been Rahul Dravid, but of course Dravid has always been an untouchable even in the thought processes of fans who were ironically clamoring for Yuvi's inclusion --caveat being it had to be at the cost of one of SG, SRT or VVS.

So no, if anything I was one who was looking at facts  -- and facts said SG, VVS, and SRT could not be dropped on form. And a batsman of Rahul Dravid's class deserved to be given a longer rope than what the muft ki laddoo bato proponents were suggesting.

Oh the irony!!

[dhruvdeepak]

can we talk about the original contention of this thread 

[LosingNow]

can we talk about the original contention of this thread 

What about that?

[kban1]

can we talk about the original contention of this thread 

Sure, here goes -- 2nd line is minnow adjusted (since the end of the last aus tour)

RD
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
39       66            8            3095    53.36       8           17
33       59            8            2568    50.35       6           14

SRT
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
31       49            6            2024    47.07       5           10
29       44            4            1486    37.15       2           10

VVS
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
35       56            9            1818    38.68       4           8
31       52            9            1629    37.88       3           8

VS
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
32       54            3            2642    51.80       7           7
28       49            2            2517    53.55       7           7

SG
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
26       40            2            1746    45.95       4           8
20       33            2            1342    43.29       2           6

YS
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
19       28            3            974      38.96       3           3
17       26            3            937      40.74       3           3

Kaif
T          I            NO          Runs      Avg        C           F
9         14            2            483      40.25       1          3
9         14            2            483      40.25       1          3

[dextrous]

can we talk about the original contention of this thread 

Sure, here goes -- 2nd line is minnow adjusted (since the end of the last aus tour)

i think the south african tour is a better timeline to follow. last australian tour seems like distant past.

[kban1]

i think the south african tour is a better timeline to follow. last australian tour seems like distant past.

Not sure I want to upset that many devotees of the resident god of Indian cricket