by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:39:01
thanks in advance
by Ken Higg » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:09:36
> thanks in advance
To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
Higgsy
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 14:52:43
> > It was mentioned in another thread that the batting average of all test
> > players combined was about 35, I would like to know if this is true as I
> > have a gut feeling that it should be lower. There must be a lot more
bunnies
> > like McGrath pulling the average down than batsmen averaging over 50
pulling
> > it up. If it is true I would love a link to see how they worked it out.
> > thanks in advance
> I think the figures are under dispute.
> Moby claims 35.
> deep point claims 29, positions 1-6 being 36/37.
> To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
> Higgsy
by Ken Higg » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:28:50
> > > It was mentioned in another thread that the batting average of all test
> > > players combined was about 35, I would like to know if this is true as I
> > > have a gut feeling that it should be lower. There must be a lot more
> bunnies
> > > like McGrath pulling the average down than batsmen averaging over 50
> pulling
> > > it up. If it is true I would love a link to see how they worked it out.
> > > thanks in advance
> > I think the figures are under dispute.
> > Moby claims 35.
> > deep point claims 29, positions 1-6 being 36/37.
> > To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
> > Higgsy
> so has the calculation been done or not, if it has been done I'd love to see
> the link. If you had a calculator how would you do the sum?
Higgsy
by Slippery Sa » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 15:24:09
http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/STATS/AUS/TEST_AVS_BAT_AU...
Based on all matches up to and including
Test # 1620: Pakistan v Australia at Sharjah, 3rd Test, 19/10/2002
(includes M Waugh and Macgill)
1. Now adding up all the averages (414.2) and dividing by the number of
players (13), I get:
31.86.
2. Weighting it by the number of innnings played (for no good reason) - when
I sum the total of the individual averages multiplied by the respective
player's total innings (40949.94) then divide it by the total number of
innings (1121), I get:
36.52
So in other words, because the Australian batsmen are more experienced than
the bowlers, the weighted average is higher. The first figure is probably
more relevant.
Sam
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:23:34
> > > > It was mentioned in another thread that the batting average of all
test
> > > > players combined was about 35, I would like to know if this is true
as I
> > > > have a gut feeling that it should be lower. There must be a lot more
> > bunnies
> > > > like McGrath pulling the average down than batsmen averaging over 50
> > pulling
> > > > it up. If it is true I would love a link to see how they worked it
out.
> > > > thanks in advance
> > > I think the figures are under dispute.
> > > Moby claims 35.
> > > deep point claims 29, positions 1-6 being 36/37.
> > > To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
> > > Higgsy
> > so has the calculation been done or not, if it has been done I'd love to
see
> > the link. If you had a calculator how would you do the sum?
> I thought dp had done it
> Higgsy
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:24:47
> > > > It was mentioned in another thread that the batting average of all
test
> > > > players combined was about 35, I would like to know if this is true
as I
> > > > have a gut feeling that it should be lower. There must be a lot more
> > bunnies
> > > > like McGrath pulling the average down than batsmen averaging over 50
> > pulling
> > > > it up. If it is true I would love a link to see how they worked it
out.
> > > > thanks in advance
> > > I think the figures are under dispute.
> > > Moby claims 35.
> > > deep point claims 29, positions 1-6 being 36/37.
> > > To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
> > > Higgsy
> > so has the calculation been done or not, if it has been done I'd love to
see
> > the link. If you had a calculator how would you do the sum?
> I thought dp had done it
> Higgsy
by S:va » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:32:36
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:51:55
> thanks in advance
by Slippery Sa » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:19:17
Given the Australian team's success over the last few years I would assume
it would have the highest average or pretty close to it. Thus you'd have to
deduce the average of all players would be less than that of the Australian
team, that is: < 31.86
I could work out the average across the board in the same way, by combining
all the current teams, and dropping each table into Excel, but to be honest
I don't know that I could be ***ed. If you're that interested why not do it
yourself. You know how to use Excel, right?
Sam
by S:va » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:28:59
> Given the Australian team's success over the last few years I would assume
> it would have the highest average or pretty close to it. Thus you'd have
to
> deduce the average of all players would be less than that of the
Australian
> team, that is: < 31.86
by S:va » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 17:35:37
> Sounds a bit high to me. Let's take these stats for the current Australian
> team, which I'm guessing probably has the highest average:
> Based on all matches up to and including
> Test # 1620: Pakistan v Australia at Sharjah, 3rd Test, 19/10/2002
> (includes M Waugh and Macgill)
> 1. Now adding up all the averages (414.2) and dividing by the number of
> players (13), I get:
> 31.86.
> 2. Weighting it by the number of innnings played (for no good reason) -
when
> I sum the total of the individual averages multiplied by the respective
> player's total innings (40949.94) then divide it by the total number of
> innings (1121), I get:
> 36.52
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:06:23
> Did you read my post?
snip the answer I didn't ask for
by Herman De Wae » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:08:07
>>>It was mentioned in another thread that the batting average of all test
>>>players combined was about 35, I would like to know if this is true as I
>>>have a gut feeling that it should be lower. There must be a lot more
> bunnies
>>>like McGrath pulling the average down than batsmen averaging over 50
> pulling
>>>it up. If it is true I would love a link to see how they worked it out.
>>>thanks in advance
>>I think the figures are under dispute.
>>Moby claims 35.
>>deep point claims 29, positions 1-6 being 36/37.
>>To me, without having tried the calculation, 29 looks more like it.
>>Higgsy
> so has the calculation been done or not, if it has been done I'd love to see
> the link. If you had a calculator how would you do the sum?
by dechuck » Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:22:34
1. Players maintaining Test batting Average of 40.00 in a career
2. Batting average challenge (average of scores over 100, minimum 10 centuries).
3. Batting average over the last 10 Tests (active players)
4. Aus: Australia Test averages June 1993-May 1994, Summer Averages
5. Higher ODI Average than Test Average
6. Matt Prior's Test Average more than FC average
7. Ashes tour averages + tests averages
8. Differences in Ranji averages with Test level averages
9. Gilchrist - highest batting average of current players
10. Active Players with batting averages over 45...
11. Largest fall in Test average for a player with 5+ Tests
12. Aslam: Highest Test batting average for any consecutive block of 10 Test matches
13. AVERAGES: Leading Australian First Class Averages
14. Highest average-average of victims