Cricket Thread: There's no cricket on for months

Remove this Banner Ad

Well he's only made 2x Test 100s, one of which was the 161 he made against the District Club standard Sri Lankan team, back in February 2019.

Since then, he's played 18 innings, for the following results:
  • 10+ - 14
  • 50+ - 4
  • 100+ - 1
  • Not Out - 2
To be clear, if he scored 100+, then that's counted as 10+, 50+, and 100+.

Notes:
  • He's very good at getting a start, failing to make double digits only 4 times from 18 innings.
  • He consistently gets out between 10-49, with 10 of his 18 innings ending in this range. He gets in, but then finds a way of getting himself out, before making a real contribution to the scoreboard.
  • A 1-in-4 conversion rate of 50s to 100s isn't great, but it's not awful. Good batsmen convert at around 1-in-3. Really good batsmen convert at almost 1-in-2 (Smith has converted 27 of 58).
  • His most recent 100 was almost 2 years ago, in the 2019 Boxing Day Test (vs New Zealand).
  • He only played 5 innings in 2020, failing to reach 50 in any of them.
  • COVID has really screwed with Australia's Test cricket program. Head only played 3 tests in 2020, and none (so far) in 2021. That doesn't give us a lot of recent data points to work with.
Given that he hasn't scored a century in almost 2 years, and hasn't played a Test Match in nearly 11 months, I'm not sure how you can argue that "he's converted more 50s to 100s recently". Maybe at Shield level? Definitely not at Test Match level.

Source:
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...=1;template=results;type=batting;view=innings
I was only talking about Sheffield Shield. He's barely played tests so no, I wasn't referring to games he hasn't played.
 
For purposes of comparison, here are the relative records of Steve Smith and Travis Head. One is a world class batsman, the other is barely Test Match standard.

Smith
Innings: 139
50+ scores: 58
100+ scores: 27

Smith reaches 50 every 2.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 5.1 innings.
He converts 46.6% of his 50s into 100s.

Head
Innings: 31
50+ scores: 9
100+ scores: 2

Head reaches 50 every 3.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 15.5 innings.
He converts only 22.2% of his 50s into 100s.
Are you still just talking about test stats?

No one is arguing the circumstances a few year's ago that got Heads dropped. We're arguing about what he's shown since then.
 
Someone averaging 39.8 after 19 test matches isn't "barely test match standard," regardless of playing a couple of tests against a weaker team that everyone gets to play

Plenty of players will play more tests with a worse record than Head
Why do people point to his average, and think that it means something?

He's scored 1153 runs, of which 307 came from a 2-match series, against a Sri Lankan team which was barely District Cricket standard. Against all other nations, his average is a pitiful 29.17. How about we start referring to that average, instead of the artificially inflated one?

Not too many test batsmen can sustain a career averaging less than 30.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Henry Hunt starting to become a very solid member of the redbacks. Odds on to be a possible opener for Australia if his improvement continues to occur. Showing more than weatherald atm.
He's a real old school long form cricketer. Leaves well, values his wicket highly, defensively sound.

He has an attacking game that he uses in white ball cricket at club level (plays ramps etc) but seems to be able to keep his red ball technique and white ball technique completely separate. Other players struggle with this

Hasn't been given a chance in one dayers for SA yet but I think he will in time.
 
He's a real old school long form cricketer. Leaves well, values his wicket highly, defensively sound.

He has an attacking game that he uses in white ball cricket at club level (plays ramps etc) but seems to be able to keep his red ball technique and white ball technique completely separate. Other players struggle with this

Hasn't been given a chance in one dayers for SA yet but I think he will in time.

thanks for that drugs
 
For purposes of comparison, here are the relative records of Steve Smith and Travis Head. One is a world class batsman, the other is barely Test Match standard.

Smith
Innings: 139
50+ scores: 58
100+ scores: 27

Smith reaches 50 every 2.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 5.1 innings.
He converts 46.6% of his 50s into 100s.

Head
Innings: 31
50+ scores: 9
100+ scores: 2

Head reaches 50 every 3.4 innings.
He reaches 100 every 15.5 innings.
He converts only 22.2% of his 50s into 100s.
One is the best bat since Bradman. Unfair comparison.
 
Why do people point to his average, and think that it means something?

He's scored 1153 runs, of which 307 came from a 2-match series, against a Sri Lankan team which was barely District Cricket standard. Against all other nations, his average is a pitiful 29.17. How about we start referring to that average, instead of the artificially inflated one?

Not too many test batsmen can sustain a career averaging less than 30.
That's true of almost every player

There are harder runs and easier runs

Ben Stokes averages 37 overall and has played a number of tests against weaker teams.
 
That's true of almost every player

There are harder runs and easier runs

Ben Stokes averages 37 overall and has played a number of tests against weaker teams.

Exactly, Stokes has played 29 innings against India and only averages 27. His record in Asian countries is really poor. But that's excluding where he's done well
 
I don't want to make excuses for the Redbacks (because we've sucked for decades and don't deserve any outs) but losing the last two tosses has been harmful

Sent in on greentops each time. Skittled. Better conditions when they bat.
 
How many more games does he get before the ashes??

a smoky to partner Warner maybe?
It's all about timing your run

Head piled on runs before the squad was being finalised. Now that it's decision time the runs have dried up.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

One is the best bat since Bradman. Unfair comparison.
OK... here's the comparison with Damien Martyn. Martyn was a good, but not great, middle order batsman.

Martyn
Avg: 46.37 (40+ against everyone except England & Bangladesh)
Innings: 109
50+: 36
100+: 13

Reached 50 every 3.0 innings
Reached 100 every 8.4 innings
Converted 36% of his 50s into 100s.

Comparing him to Steve Smith was unfair - OK, I agree. Martyn is the type of player that we should be using as the yardstick, and Head's record is nowhere close.
 
It's all about timing your run

Head piled on runs before the squad was being finalised. Now that it's decision time the runs have dried up.
Always good to pick someone in form.

Look at Burns last year, worst form of his career, they picked him anyway and it’s has probably ended his international career, when his record shows he should have been given a few more chances earlier on.
 
OK... here's the comparison with Damien Martyn. Martyn was a good, but not great, middle order batsman.

Martyn
Avg: 46.37 (40+ against everyone except England & Bangladesh)
Innings: 109
50+: 36
100+: 13

Reached 50 every 3.0 innings
Reached 100 every 8.4 innings
Converted 36% of his 50s into 100s.

Comparing him to Steve Smith was unfair - OK, I agree. Martyn is the type of player that we should be using as the yardstick, and Head's record is nowhere close.
Martyn was better than good!!
 
That's true of almost every player

There are harder runs and easier runs

Ben Stokes averages 37 overall and has played a number of tests against weaker teams.
Stokes has a good record against most teams, with the outliers being a couple of poor results.
Head has a poor record against most teams, with the outlier being a solitary good result.

See the difference?

Stokes is also an all-rounder, picked as much for his bowling as batting. Head is a batsman, with the ability to bowl the occasional over of spin as an added bonus.
 
Stokes has a good record against most teams, with the outliers being a couple of poor results.
Head has a poor record against most teams, with the outlier being a solitary good result.

See the difference?

Stokes is also an all-rounder, picked as much for his bowling as batting. Head is a batsman, with the ability to bowl the occasional over of spin as an added bonus.
You can perform whatever contortions you want to explain away his average. All players get to play weak teams.

He averages 42 against New Zealand. Are they no good?
 
You can perform whatever contortions you want to explain away his average. All players get to play weak teams.

He averages 42 against New Zealand. Are they no good?
In Australia... not good at all.

Either way, this is what he should be achieving against all countries. This should be a par result. The fact that you're arguing an average of 42 is an abnormally good result shows how poor he is overall.

Like I said.. his outliers are the good results. For good players, the outliers are the bad results.
 
134 not out. Can play.
Could we have two Redbacks in the test top 6?
First class batting average of 36 going into this game so barely Shield standard sadly. Should never have been picked for this match
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket Thread: There's no cricket on for months

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top