submitted by /u/diogenesjunior2 [link] [comments] |
from Cricket https://ift.tt/3gIrXI9
via IFTTT
My bet is on nicholas pooran, strikes the ball a mighty distance while averaging 49.5, has proven that he can bat well on multiple types of pitches and overall makes the west Indian side a lot more competitive.
The team launched the investigation after allegations of sexual harassment within the workplace were reported in July.
The NFL has taken over the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment within the Washington Football Team's workplace.
Owner Dan Snyder confirmed the decision in a statement, saying he suggested the move to commissioner Roger Goodell.
"Recently, The Washington Football Team launched an independent third-party investigation into allegations about our culture and incidents of harassment. In conversations with Commissioner Goodell, Tanya and I suggested that the NFL assume full oversight of the investigation so that the results are thorough, complete and trusted by the fans, the players, our employees and the public," Snyder said in a statement,
via ESPN's Adam Schefter. "I appreciate Commissioner Goodell agreeing to our suggestion and the entire Washington Football Team remains committed to fully cooperating with all aspects of the investigation."Attorney Beth Wilkinson, who is conducting the investigation, will now report to the NFL instead of the team. Washington hired Wilkinson following a report from The Washington Post last month that included 15 former female employees of the team describing their experiences with sexual harassment within the organization. Last week, the Post published another report alleging a former senior executive instructed employees to create a behind-the-scenes video for Snyder, featuring outtakes of partially nude team cheerleaders from a 2008 team swimsuit calendar shoot. Snyder later denied the allegations.
"While I was unaware of these allegations until they surfaced in the media, I take full responsibility for the culture of our organization," Snyder said in a statement. "Even before today's article, I have begun taking any and all steps necessary to ensure that the Washington Football Team is an organization that is diverse, inclusive and respectful of all."
Between its two stories, The Post interviewed 40 female employees about being sexual harassed in the workplace.
Attorneys Lisa Banks and Debra Katz, who represent over 12 former Washington employees, demanded last week that the NFL should launch its own independent investigation into the allegations and suspend Snyder pending the outcome of the probe. They also asked for Snyder's removal as majority owner if the investigation substantiates the claims.
In a statement, the Washington firm Katz, Marshall and Banks said Snyder will "release employees or former employees from any non-disclosure agreement for purposes of speaking with the investigators."
All cricket questions welcome! No question is too stupid so fret not and ask away!
Follow this link to find current match threads and upcoming scheduled threads.
This a daily thread for general cricketing discussion/conversation about all topics that don't need to be posted in their own thread.
This provides a space for things like general team changes/opinions/conversation and other frequently-asked questions or commonly-posted subjects.
Any tips guys?
Basically, can you think of a high-quality, tough, and/or meaningful innings where a batsman was either out or stranded in the 90s, that would have been remembered or valued more if the batsman had made a century?
One I think of immeidately is Kane Williamson's 97(210) in the 3rd innings against Australia at Christchurch 2016. While we still ended up losing the match fairly comfortably by 7 wickets, it was a superb rearguard action against a very good seam attack in bowling-friendly conditions. It took a peach from Bird to nip out his off-stump.
Any others you can think of?
I am impressed by some of the Caribbean Premier League team names. Barbados Tridents sounds formidable IMO.
This thread is for the discussion of local cricket matches, performances, and results from around the world.
If you played a game on the weekend let us know how you went, or share the results of a local cricket match from your area. No skill level or grade requirement, it's all for the love of the game.
Also a place to discuss cricket tactics, techniques, strategies, and general advice for improving your skills.
Follow this link to find current match threads and upcoming scheduled threads.
This a daily thread for general cricketing discussion/conversation about all topics that don't need to be posted in their own thread.
This provides a space for things like general team changes/opinions/conversation and other frequently-asked questions or commonly-posted subjects.
The reason I ask this question is because I only really saw Murali at the very end of his career (I only started watching cricket to a tragic degree in the 2010s), which is a shame because I did love watching him bowl when I had the chance.
I recently watched two videos of Murali where his wicket-taking deliveries were very different. In the first video Murali took 16 wickets against England at the Oval in 1998. Most of his wickets came from big-turning offbreaks, pitching well outside off stump and then ripping in quickly to bowl batsmen or catch them LBW. Left-handers were mostly out stumped or caught at slip due to the big turn. In fact, none of his wickets in this match came from bowling a doosra - they all appeared to be off-breaks or straighter deliveries.
The second video shows Murali taking 10 wickets against England at Lords in 2006. In this clip most of his wickets are from doosras (7 of them if I've counted correctly) where he bowls over the wicket to left-handers and catches them in-front of the stumps, or duping right-handers into playing for the turn in only to be bowled/LBW by the ball turning away. While he does catch the left-handers Trescothick with a big off-break spinning across him, the magnitude of spin on Murali's off-breaks isn't as noticeable in the 2008 clip as it is in the 1998 clip.
For those who have watched Murali's career, is this difference due to a change in his bowling style over the years? I've always assumed he bowled the doosra from the beginning - did he only develop it partway through his international career? Did he have injuries that impacted his ability to turn it as much, so he began to use variations such as the doosra more? Or is simply down to different pitches,the make-up of the opposition etc.
Thanks in advance.
The Eagles rookie WR is expected to miss a month after injuring his shoulder making a tackle in practice. SI Fantasy insider Ben Heisler discusses the fantasy ramifications.
Eagles rookie wide receiver Jalen Reagor is expected to miss 3-4 weeks after suffering a shoulder injury during practice on Sunday.
John McMullen of EagleMaven reports the injury was suffered as a result of trying to make a tackle after a pass was intercepted:"Reagor was blanketed in coverage by Avonte Maddox and a pass-breakup hung in the air for Will Parks and the Philadelphia native intercepted it before being tackled by Reagor.
The TCU product seemed to be favoring his hand or wrist and was taken inside. Sources then confirmed that the injury was with the left shoulder."
Initial reports from Geoff Mosher were that Reagor suffered a left shoulder injury on the play, and that surgery will not be required. Mosher adds that Reagor may have a slight labrum tear.
From a fantasy standpoint, Reagor's ADP (average draft position) had continued to climb since making a noticeable first impression in Training Camp. With Marquise Goodwin opting out for 2020 due to COVID-19 and Alshon Jeffery rehabbing from Lisfranc surgery, Reagor was set to be the starting "X" receiver for Carson Wentz and the Eagles when they open the season against the Washington Football Team on Sunday, September 13th.
Reagor currently is ranked as the WR49 on the board according to SI Fantasy's Advanced ADP rankings. SI Fantasy expert Michael Fabiano is ahead of consensus on Reagor, ranking him as his WR42 in his latest up-to-date Top 200 PPR Rankings.
Even with the injury, Reagor still remains my top sleeper for the 2020 season on my SI Preason Pro Breakdown.
Check out SI Fantasy team's full list of Top Sleepers for 2020 here.
Unless Jeffery is able to start the season healthy, JJ Arcega-Whiteside would be the other starting outside WR alongside DeSean Jackson. Greg Ward would play in the slot.
Additionally, the injury to Reagor could also indicate a higher role for tight end Dallas Goedert if the Eagles choose to go to more two-TE sets.
We're taking YOUR fantasy game... to the next level..Get your SI Fantasy Plus membership TODAY.
For more SI Fantasy and Gambling:
• 2020 Fantasy Football Rankings
This a weekly thread where normal subreddit rule 7 is completely relaxed. A place to share the week's best memes/image macros/low effort posts. All other rules still apply as normal.
During the rest of the week you can fill your boots with all the slop you need over at r/CricketShitpost.
Follow this link to find current match threads and upcoming scheduled threads.
This a daily thread for general cricketing discussion/conversation about all topics that don't need to be posted in their own thread.
This provides a space for things like general team changes/opinions/conversation and other frequently-asked questions or commonly-posted subjects.
Under Trevor Bayliss, a common criticism of England's Test team was that the batsmen played too aggressively rather than demonstrating patience and waiting for the bad balls to hit. The appointment of the new England head coach, Chris Silverwood, appears to have marked a shift from Bayliss in that under his leadership, our Test batting has been a little more cautious (under Bayliss, the aggregate strike rate of our Top Six was 49.98, whereas under Silverwood so far, it has been 48.05). This in and of itself is not a bad thing; in fact, it is how Test cricket is supposed to be played.
However, some England fans appear to be under the impression that the 'correct' way to play Test cricket is to block as many balls as possible unless you receive a full toss which you can hit for four; if you're really lucky, you might be able to run a single. Of course, this is an exaggeration of sorts on my part, but the general sentiment is not too far off. To be clear, I can certainly understand the mentality: After all, we have had four years of batting with INTENTTM under Bayliss and while that strategy has worked wonders for the ODI team, it has not been nearly as successful in Tests.
That being said, there have been times when that sentiment has rubbed me the wrong way, and there are two examples in particular which I want to highlight.
In both these situations, the perception among some fans appears to be that the only way to bat positively in Test cricket is to smack boundaries; if you are not blocking every ball then you must be batting as if it is a T20. This couldn't be further from the truth, however. Do people seriously believe that some of the best batsmen of the modern era (Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Smith, Kohli, Sangakkara) achieved their success through negative defensive batting?
It is easy enough to look at strike rate alone, but in Tests, success is not measured by how quickly you can score runs but rather how many runs you can score, so most people do not pay much attention to it. However, in my view, strike rotation is an important yet undervalued skill, especially in Tests where even though attempting to score boundaries can indeed be too risky, this doesn't change the fact that you can't win games without scoring runs. I would argue that any good Test batsman should at least be competent at rotating strike and running those cheeky ones and twos, though the stats may end up proving me wrong.
To this end, I would like to analyse England's Test batsmen of the past ten years (plus some past greats) using a metric I call 'rotation rate'. This is essentially just the strike rate of a particular batsman, but only after all boundaries are discounted. For example, if a batsman scores 30(50) having hit two fours and a six, their strike rate will be (30/50)*100 (i.e. 60.00) while their rotation rate will be (16/47)*100 (i.e. 34.04). In other words, through running alone, that particular batsman will be expected to score 34 runs for every 100 deliveries.
In addition to that, I'll be calculating what I call 'boundary reliance', which is simply strike rate divided by rotation rate. Yes, it really is that crude. Basically, a higher value implies that the batsman is forced to (or chooses to) score more of their runs from boundaries, whereas a lower value implies, well, the opposite. With that out of the way, it's time to begin the analysis.
As always, I am going to start with the aggregate stats of all Test batsmen (which for the purposes of this analysis I am defining as any player batting in the Top Six). However, instead of just running Statsguru on every single batsman ever, I am going to restrict it to the past ten years, for no other reason apart from the fact that I am mainly interested in seeing how modern English batsmen fare when compared to modern standards (though I will also be comparing them to past English batsmen), and ten years is modern enough for me. In addition, I will be breaking down the stats by batting position in recognition of the slightly different demands that each particular position places on its occupant.
Here is the aggregate data for all non-English batsmen for the past ten years:
Batting position | Batting average | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Openers (#1 and #2) | 34.66 | 50.59 | 26.24 | 1.93 |
Top order (#3 and #4) | 40.42 | 50.43 | 27.65 | 1.82 |
Middle order (#5 and #6) | 38.42 | 50.95 | 27.11 | 1.88 |
It would not appear from this data that top-order and middle-order batsmen are significantly better at rotating strike than opening batsmen and, perhaps surprisingly, top-order batsmen score slightly slower than openers (but are also less reliant on boundaries). However, this is for all Test batsmen, including ones who are frankly not that good. Let's see what happens when we restrict our search to only those who average 40+ with a minimum of twenty innings in the past ten years:
Batting position | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|
Openers | 58.53 | 31.05 | 1.89 |
Top order | 51.86 | 29.31 | 1.77 |
Middle order | 51.42 | 27.88 | 1.84 |
I double-checked and yes, openers who average 40+ tend to strike at nearly 60. Great openers are very good at rotating strike when compared to average openers, and are also slightly less reliant on scoring boundaries (though still more reliant than other batsmen). In other words, the best openers do not simply sit back and allow the bowlers to place them under pressure, but rather they rotate strike relatively often. The rotation rate then decreases as you move down the order.
As for the middle order, it might be the case that batting with the tail makes farming the strike more desirable than rotating the strike, which would explain why the rotation rate is relatively low. It might also simply be the case that hitting boundaries is less risky as the innings continues, so batsmen further down the order might be more open to the idea of relying on boundaries for most of their runs. Even then, though, the boundary reliance for the middle order is not as high as it is for openers.
In any case, the best batsmen do a better job at rotating the strike than the average batsman regardless of position, and are also less reliant on scoring boundaries than the average batsman (boundaries generally being more risky than running), which should hopefully prove my point regarding why it is such an important skill to master.
Finally, we can move on to England! Let's start with a position which England struggled to fill throughout most of the 2010s: The openers. It's fair to say that we've been through a lot of openers since 2010, initially due to the retirement of Andrew Strauss and later due to the retirement of Alastair Cook, but the position has also been a bit of a revolving door for England, with the result that only six openers (Burns, Cook, Hales, Jennings, Stoneman and Strauss) have batted twenty innings or more for England since 2010. Sibley barely misses out having batted nineteen innings; since he only missed the cutoff by a whisker and since he's one of the two main reasons I made this post in the first place, I'll stick him in there.
I'll also include every England opener to have averaged 40+ in the past thirty years (aside from Cook and Strauss, there's also Gooch, Stewart, Trescothick and Vaughan) and I'll include Boycott and Tavaré just to see how low they rank in terms of rotating strike.
Before I present the stats, there are three caveats. Firstly, I am only considering each batsman's stats as opener. Secondly, I am considering overall career stats, not just the stats since 2010. Finally, for Boycott, consistent ball-by-ball data for his innings is not available prior to March 1968, so the early years of his Test career are unfortunately cut off from this data set.
Player | Batting average | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Graham Gooch | 43.88 | 49.96 | 26.83 | 1.86 |
Alastair Cook | 44.86 | 46.93 | 26.45 | 1.77 |
Andrew Strauss | 40.85 | 49.03 | 26.01 | 1.89 |
Michael Vaughan | 45.48 | 54.13 | 25.41 | 2.13 |
Rory Burns | 32.44 | 44.83 | 24.35 | 1.84 |
Keaton Jennings | 25.16 | 42.32 | 23.98 | 1.76 |
Alec Stewart | 44.64 | 49.01 | 23.70 | 2.07 |
Marcus Trescothick | 43.78 | 54.51 | 22.91 | 2.38 |
Mark Stoneman | 27.68 | 44.27 | 22.84 | 1.94 |
Geoffrey Boycott | 49.68 | 35.18 | 22.46 | 1.57 |
Alex Hales | 27.28 | 43.84 | 20.13 | 2.18 |
Dom Sibley | 38.11 | 36.68 | 19.91 | 1.84 |
Chris Tavaré | 31.16 | 29.57 | 18.60 | 1.59 |
Now let's see what we can conclude from this data.
It is true that Sibley's done a good job so far, but looking at this table, I have to say that I see where the pundits are coming from. The only English openers in recent times to stay in their crease for as long as Sibley does are Hales and Stoneman, and both of them were failures. Sibley is, in fact, even worse than those two when it comes to rotating strike, and his resolve not to chase boundaries is not nearly as impenetrable as Boycott's or Tavaré's (though thankfully stronger than Hales'). No English Test opener since Boycott has succeeded while playing in the manner which Sibley has so far, and the fear that Sibley places too much pressure on himself by not taking singles is understandable. This does not mean that Sibley will fail (he could very well end up being a modern Boycott); I am just saying that if he does succeed, he will be the exception, not the norm.
Much has been made of England's problems finding an opener during the 2010s, but our top order (i.e. #3 and #4) for that period has basically been Joe Root plus whoever Ed Smith feels might do a job at any particular time. Whether or not the emergence of Zak Crawley has finally solved that issue remains to be seen, but in any case, let us compare how well our top-order batsmen have done at rotating strike. Six batsmen have batted twenty innings or more at positions #3 or #4 for England in Test matches in the past ten years: Ballance, Bell, Denly, Pietersen, Root and Trott.
In addition, I'm including any top-order batsman who averages 40+ for England with a minimum of twenty innings in those particular positions in the last thirty years...and the only one who fits that bill who hasn't already qualified is Thorpe. Wow, I didn't realise just how bad the 1990s were for English top-order batsmen. Also, I will once again be including Chris Tavaré just because I'm curious to see how low he features.
Player | Batting average | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Joe Root | 44.73 | 55.46 | 31.27 | 1.77 |
Kevin Pietersen | 48.95 | 62.48 | 30.91 | 2.02 |
Jonathan Trott | 46.89 | 47.40 | 26.46 | 1.79 |
Graham Thorpe | 41.88 | 46.45 | 26.01 | 1.79 |
Ian Bell | 35.54 | 48.29 | 25.36 | 1.90 |
Gary Ballance | 41.22 | 48.13 | 22.97 | 2.10 |
Chris Tavaré | 34.30 | 31.95 | 19.47 | 1.64 |
Joe Denly | 29.04 | 39.39 | 18.07 | 2.18 |
Time for some more observations.
That's about all I have to say regarding the top order, so now it's time to move on to the final category: The middle order.
There are seven batsmen who have batted at #5 or #6 in at least twenty innings for England in the past ten years: Moeen, Bairstow, Bell, Buttler, Malan, Root and Stokes. I'm going to include Pope solely because, along with Sibley, he's a big reason why I wanted to post this analysis in the first place; I must caution you, however, that he's only batted in fourteen innings at #5 or #6, so it's not quite as big of a sample size as I would ideally want.
In terms of England middle-order batsmen who average 40+ with a minimum of twenty innings in the past thirty years, in addition to the above, we have Collingwood, Crawley (John, not Zak), Smith (Robin, not Steve) and Thorpe. No Chris Tavaré this time, unfortunately, so everyone has a shot at claiming the 'Most Negative Batting' title.
Player | Batting average | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Joe Root | 63.68 | 55.63 | 33.01 | 1.69 |
Kevin Pietersen | 42.16 | 58.42 | 30.47 | 1.92 |
Jos Buttler | 43.08 | 56.12 | 29.71 | 1.89 |
Ollie Pope | 46.09 | 56.90 | 28.76 | 1.98 |
Jonny Bairstow | 32.88 | 51.83 | 27.92 | 1.86 |
Ian Bell | 52.35 | 50.87 | 26.88 | 1.89 |
Paul Collingwood | 40.76 | 47.20 | 26.39 | 1.79 |
Graham Thorpe | 46.51 | 45.75 | 25.58 | 1.79 |
Ben Stokes | 40.47 | 58.14 | 25.31 | 2.30 |
Robin Smith | 50.36 | 46.52 | 25.11 | 1.85 |
John Crawley | 42.57 | 41.11 | 24.69 | 1.67 |
Moeen Ali | 24.17 | 41.12 | 21.50 | 1.91 |
Dawid Malan | 32.65 | 41.77 | 19.76 | 2.11 |
Now let's analyse all that data.
As Smith and Crawley show, it is not impossible to be a good middle-order batsman while staying on strike, and as Stokes shows, it is indeed possible in the middle order to rely largely on boundaries to score runs. The exciting thing about Ollie Pope (and this is going to sound clichéd) is that he likes to look busy at the crease; he feels comfortable both with rotating the strike and with hitting boundaries. If he can continue to play in that fluent manner while still scoring runs on a consistent basis then he will hopefully develop into a very fine middle-order batsman indeed.
One thing I found interesting was that the batsmen who England fans most associate with Trevor Bayliss' 'aggressive' strategy (Hales, Bairstow, Moeen, Malan) tend actually to score slower than the 'proper' Test batsmen (with the exception of Bairstow) and also don't tend to run as often (once again, with the exception of Bairstow); instead, their issue is that they are too reliant on scoring boundaries (for the final time, with the exception of Bairstow) not necessarily because they want to show INTENTTM but rather because they feel that it's the only way they can score runs (which is the main job for any batsman).
As a check, I decided to compare the stats of Top Six batsmen under Bayliss to the stats under Chris Silverwood and to the stats under Andy Flower (who was England head coach from 2009 to 2014):
Head coach | Batting average | Strike rate | Rotation rate | Boundary reliance |
---|---|---|---|---|
Andy Flower | 40.72 | 48.70 | 25.97 | 1.88 |
Trevor Bayliss | 33.13 | 49.98 | 26.04 | 1.92 |
Chris Silverwood | 42.88 | 48.05 | 25.05 | 1.92 |
Hmm. This is awkward. My initial conclusion was going to be that the problem under Bayliss was that we were inept at rotating strike when compared to how we played under Flower and that this was what led to an over-reliance on big shots, which inevitably led to batting collapses. I would then go on to say that under Silverwood, we were not any better at strike rotation despite putting away the big shots and so our batsmen would continue to crumble under pressure and we were left not much better off as a result.
However, looking at that table there...that conclusion is no longer sustainable. Yes, we are worse at rotating strike under Silverwood than we were under Flower, but there was practically no difference in our rotation rate between Flower and Bayliss (if anything, it was higher under Bayliss), nor are we any less reliant on hitting boundaries under Silverwood than we were under Bayliss. Despite these supposed shortcomings under Silverwood (we have gotten worse at rotating strike and we are no less reliant on boundaries to score our runs), our Top Six are not only batting better than they were under Bayliss but they are batting better now than they were under Flower.
What explains this? How has our batting improved despite the fact that our batsmen are inviting even more pressure on themselves at the crease than they were inviting under Flower and Bayliss? Part of it is no doubt the fact that Silverwood is still a recent appointment and that apart from New Zealand (who we were beaten by), we haven't exactly faced strong opposition. Perhaps things will return to normal once we tour India and Australia and get whitewashed as usual.
Then again, that is quite a significant leap between Bayliss and Silverwood, too large to be mere coincidence. Could it really be the case that England batsmen are now more mentally prepared to deal with pressure from the bowling attack than they were before? Under four years of Bayliss, England scored five double centuries in Tests (three from Cook, one from Root and one from Stokes). We've had less than a year under Silverwood and England have already scored two double centuries (Root and Crawley being the batsmen responsible).
Under Flower, we had twenty-one daddy centuries in around four years and nine months at a strike rate of 58.50. Under Bayliss, we had nine daddy centuries in four years and five months at a strike rate of 67.96. Under Silverwood, we have had four daddy centuries in around ten months (that includes a global pandemic) at a strike rate of 54.70. Under Flower, positions #1 to #6 had a balls per dismissal rate of 83.63. Under Bayliss, that figure was 66.29 and under Silverwood, that figure is 89.24.
...
You know, under Silverwood, England batsmen haven't been the best at rotating strike. However, based on what has occurred so far, it seems as if we're doing alright as it is, and if we can improve our strike rotation to what it was previously, there's no reason why the Silverwood era can't be better than the Flower era.
Cricinfo | Reddit-Stream | 🌤 ☀️ 🌤 🌧 🌧
Starts at 9:30 AM local time
Please upvote for visibility. Thanks for checking new
Send feedback | Schedule | Stat Help
Please don't post illegal streaming links in match threads
The weekly thread for banter and sledging related to recent cricket results and news. Normal sub-reddit rules apply, so keep it civil. Users can still submit separate sledge threads for big matches and series. AND DON'T FORGET TO SPEAK UP OR NO-ONE WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU.
Follow this link to find current match threads and upcoming scheduled threads.
This a daily thread for general cricketing discussion/conversation about all topics that don't need to be posted in their own thread.
This provides a space for things like general team changes/opinions/conversation and other frequently-asked questions or commonly-posted subjects.
They continue to bowl expensively and rarely perform at an international level, I feel they only get repeatedly picked out of selection habit and no big name alternatives. Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood should be our 3 ODI quicks always, and maybe swap Hazlewood for Abbott for T20s. Shouldn’t be starting anyone else
Today I got this in my inbox:
Suggest a different method Harsha Bhogle
In reference to this previous thread.
Now, keep in mind, I personally feel that Root is an excellent cross format batsman, who gets vastly underrated due to his faltering test form. Even with that, he is still an excellent test batsman, up there with the best. What is interesting though is the question of whether there are any reasonable ways of making an 'across format' rating for batsmen.
This problem has two key components:
The OP of the other post made the following statement about point 2:
Do a weighted average, if you wanna, he'll still be in the top 3. P×Test+ Q×Odi+ R×T20is/(P+Q+R). Now test,odi and t20is are absolute runs scored in the respective formats. However choosing the parameters 0< P,Q,R<1 is a subjective choice, depending on what importance you assign to each format. You almost cannot generalise that, so I'd say this combined stats is a pretty good approximation from the mathematical and practical pov. 🤷
Now, I disagree with the method of averaging noted. I would suggest, and will use, a geometric mean, as it does the scaling of the different metrics for us naturally, and doesn't lead to the problem that arithmetic averages have in that sense.
The point about arbitrary choices is also important, but ultimately, if we're during a true 'cross format' rating, to me at least, it must be equally weighted.
I also disagree with their 'well, that has arbitrariness, so we can just do anything 🤷' point of view, but that's a different point.
Anyhow, we can proceed knowing that once we have the three different ratings for the three different formats, we can take a straight geometric mean to get our results. Now the question is how to make those ratings.
Also note, for the sake of comparison we'll be doing 2015 to now, as they did the last 5 years. For me this means the 2015 season to now, so the totals will be slightly different. I only thought about the direct comparability after already doing the analysis, but ultimately it's just about the same thing, and the point is more about the process anyhow. I'll also be using a 20 matches and 20 dismissals cutoff for all three formats; there's got to be a cutoff somewhere.
Now, *tests are easy. It's just the batting average. There's a point to raise about this later, which will be discussed then, but for the moment we'll run with this. The top 15 from this method over that period are below.
Player | Mat | Inns | Runs | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|
SPD Smith (AUS) | 47 | 81 | 4923 | 69.34 |
AC Voges (AUS) | 20 | 31 | 1485 | 61.88 |
V Kohli (INDIA) | 53 | 86 | 4693 | 58.66 |
KS Williamson (NZ) | 41 | 69 | 3442 | 56.43 |
CA Pujara (INDIA) | 50 | 80 | 3767 | 49.57 |
DA Warner (AUS) | 48 | 87 | 4111 | 49.53 |
RG Sharma (INDIA) | 22 | 35 | 1479 | 49.30 |
LRPL Taylor (NZ) | 39 | 65 | 2607 | 47.40 |
JE Root (ENG) | 75 | 137 | 6091 | 47.22 |
Younis Khan (PAK) | 22 | 41 | 1772 | 46.63 |
Babar Azam (PAK) | 29 | 53 | 2045 | 45.44 |
UT Khawaja (AUS) | 35 | 60 | 2510 | 44.82 |
Azhar Ali (PAK) | 42 | 78 | 3278 | 44.30 |
AN Cook (ENG) | 52 | 97 | 4049 | 44.01 |
S Dhawan (INDIA) | 21 | 35 | 1492 | 43.88 |
For ODIs and T20Is this is a bit more complicated. We need to deal with both average and SR to effectively capture their contribution to batting, particularly in T20Is. A straight geometric mean would be one method for both, but this doesn't capture the actual balance of things. Think about the two ways that an innings can go:
In the 2nd case, you always want higher SRs to maximise your score. In the first case, you need higher averages to maximise your score. On this basis, a weighted geometric mean, which can be done averaging two numbers A and B as AnBm where n+m=1, would make sense. This weighted will be between the batting average and SR, where batting average will be done to the power of the fraction of innings that the team is all out, and SR will be done to the fraction of innings that there are still batsmen at the crease.
The period chosen will be the same as the data for the players of course. All will be treated the same, even though different teams will have different fractions involved, and this arguably would impact how they play. For those curious, teams are all out 34.5% of the time in ODIs and 16.0% of the time in T20Is over the same. This means, naturally, that SR will be weighted higher in T20Is, as would be expected.
I'd also note the same logic could, to an extent, be applied to Tests, which see teams all out in 71.6% of innings. The issue here, however, is that it's not always a case of teams wanting to maximise runs in uncompleted innings, ie teams wanting draws, the impact of English, weather, etc, all plays a role. So I've decided against including such, as I can't find a self consistent manner to find the innings that this would be valid for. Just going to declarations could work, but even then there's questions about how innings are composed.
Anyhow, below are the top 15 for ODIs and T20Is for the above method:
Player | Mat | Inns | Runs | Ave | SR | Rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JC Buttler (ENG) | 87 | 70 | 2563 | 47.46 | 124.60 | 89.30 |
V Kohli (INDIA) | 90 | 89 | 5330 | 73.01 | 97.96 | 88.51 |
AB de Villiers (SA) | 41 | 39 | 1636 | 52.77 | 111.90 | 86.33 |
DA Warner (AUS) | 61 | 61 | 3220 | 57.50 | 100.16 | 82.70 |
RG Sharma (INDIA) | 89 | 88 | 4895 | 62.76 | 95.61 | 82.68 |
JM Bairstow (ENG) | 73 | 67 | 2892 | 48.20 | 107.23 | 81.37 |
F du Plessis (SA) | 69 | 65 | 3164 | 60.85 | 92.00 | 79.77 |
LRPL Taylor (NZ) | 73 | 69 | 3440 | 64.91 | 86.69 | 78.45 |
Imad Wasim (PAK) | 53 | 39 | 952 | 41.39 | 109.68 | 78.35 |
JE Root (ENG) | 92 | 87 | 4120 | 58.03 | 90.83 | 77.81 |
CH Gayle (WI) | 32 | 30 | 1259 | 41.97 | 106.24 | 77.10 |
JJ Roy (ENG) | 90 | 86 | 3459 | 41.18 | 107.09 | 77.00 |
BA Stokes (ENG) | 71 | 62 | 2400 | 50.00 | 96.66 | 76.99 |
Q de Kock (SA) | 77 | 77 | 3504 | 48.00 | 98.54 | 76.87 |
Haris Sohail (PAK) | 24 | 24 | 1128 | 56.40 | 89.59 | 76.37 |
Player | Mat | Inns | Runs | Ave | SR | Rating |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GJ Maxwell (AUS) | 37 | 34 | 1233 | 45.67 | 159.10 | 130.35 |
AJ Finch (AUS) | 39 | 39 | 1233 | 37.36 | 158.08 | 125.56 |
C Munro (NZ) | 51 | 50 | 1530 | 33.26 | 160.55 | 124.87 |
V Kohli (INDIA) | 54 | 50 | 1822 | 53.59 | 142.01 | 121.55 |
KL Rahul (INDIA) | 42 | 38 | 1461 | 45.66 | 146.10 | 121.34 |
E Lewis (WI) | 32 | 31 | 934 | 32.21 | 155.41 | 120.88 |
HG Munsey (SCOT) | 38 | 36 | 987 | 29.91 | 154.22 | 118.69 |
MJ Guptill (NZ) | 40 | 39 | 1263 | 33.24 | 150.90 | 118.52 |
Q de Kock (SA) | 24 | 24 | 769 | 33.43 | 148.46 | 117.02 |
Shoaib Malik (ICC/PAK) | 55 | 50 | 1362 | 42.56 | 140.70 | 116.25 |
Najibullah Zadran (AFG) | 52 | 45 | 872 | 34.88 | 145.33 | 115.72 |
DA Warner (AUS) | 27 | 27 | 763 | 36.33 | 143.69 | 115.37 |
Mohammad Nabi (AFG) | 53 | 49 | 1079 | 26.98 | 151.54 | 115.05 |
RG Sharma (INDIA) | 66 | 65 | 2034 | 33.34 | 144.05 | 114.04 |
EJG Morgan (ENG) | 40 | 39 | 1005 | 32.42 | 144.40 | 113.76 |
Finally, we can do the actual comparison. To be eligible, players must be eligible for all three sports in the first place, though no necessarily in the top 15 for each.
Player | Tests | ODI | T20I | Cross |
---|---|---|---|---|
V Kohli (INDIA) | 58.66 | 88.51 | 121.55 | 85.78 |
DA Warner (AUS) | 49.53 | 82.70 | 115.37 | 77.89 |
RG Sharma (INDIA) | 49.30 | 82.68 | 114.04 | 77.46 |
KS Williamson (NZ) | 56.43 | 68.65 | 103.71 | 73.79 |
LRPL Taylor (NZ) | 47.40 | 78.45 | 102.42 | 72.49 |
JE Root (ENG) | 47.22 | 77.81 | 103.16 | 72.37 |
Babar Azam (PAK) | 45.44 | 73.93 | 110.52 | 71.87 |
Q de Kock (SA) | 39.26 | 76.87 | 117.02 | 70.69 |
S Dhawan (INDIA) | 43.88 | 75.30 | 102.79 | 69.77 |
JC Buttler (ENG) | 32.54 | 89.30 | 113.64 | 69.12 |
KL Rahul (INDIA) | 34.74 | 70.72 | 121.34 | 66.80 |
Mushfiqur Rahim (BDESH) | 42.27 | 72.17 | 91.71 | 65.40 |
C de Grandhomme (NZ) | 37.03 | 68.52 | 105.85 | 64.52 |
Sarfaraz Ahmed (PAK) | 33.80 | 65.30 | 100.06 | 60.44 |
N Dickwella (SL) | 32.31 | 65.68 | 101.49 | 59.94 |
BKG Mendis (SL) | 36.98 | 59.54 | 96.26 | 59.62 |
Mahmudullah (BDESH) | 32.87 | 58.56 | 104.75 | 58.64 |
LD Chandimal (SL) | 39.76 | 57.58 | 86.56 | 58.30 |
Liton Das (BDESH) | 26.03 | 65.85 | 101.59 | 55.84 |
MJ Santner (NZ) | 25.55 | 58.81 | 87.77 | 50.90 |
This is the full list of all eligible players. Anyone not on this list did not reach the minimum requirements to be included. This includes Steve Smith, who has only played 18 T20Is in that time.