Read on Twitter
Who is the least performing batsman in Test history? Warning: This will be a pretty long thread.
#NotTheBest
#NotTheBest
We have often seen statistics about the best batsman or best bowler but rarely do we see statistics about the batsmen at the bottom of the list. In this thread I will try to find out who are these batsmen.
First let’s look at the criteria for finding the Test batsman who has
First let’s look at the criteria for finding the Test batsman who has
performed lesser than other batsmen. A test player who has played just one test and got a pair will obviously be at the bottom of any list but we are trying to find out a player who has played sufficient number of tests and has performed worse than all others. This gives us the
first criterion i.e. number of tests played. I have picked a convenient number of 50 tests.
Second criteria is the cricketing era. As cricket moved towards covered pitches in 1960’s, the game changed a lot. Batting became a who lot easier and hence to me cricket on covered
Second criteria is the cricketing era. As cricket moved towards covered pitches in 1960’s, the game changed a lot. Batting became a who lot easier and hence to me cricket on covered
pitches is different from cricket on uncovered pitches. Hence tests played before January 1, 1970 are not included in this analysis.
#CoveredPitches
We are trying to find out the least performing batsmen in the Test history so it makes sense to exclude bowlers form this
#CoveredPitches
We are trying to find out the least performing batsmen in the Test history so it makes sense to exclude bowlers form this
analysis. This gives us our third criteria which is the batting position. I have considered only batting positions 1 to 6 for this analysis. Batting positions 7 to 11 are generally bowlers and keepers. Some bowling/keeping allrounders will still appear in the pool but we will
address those in the analysis. Applying these three filters gives us a total of 140 players. England has the most players in this pool with 27 players while Zimbabwe has only 3 players. Other teams players are: Aus 22, SA 17, WI 17, PAK 15, SL 13, Ind 12, and BD 4.
Here is the link to the Statsguru query. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=6;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;page=3;qualmin1=50;qualval1=matches;spanmin1=1+jan+1970;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting
Now to the second part of this exercise. How to decide who from these 140 players belong to the bottom of the table. What metric or combination of metrics should be used to measure and compare the individual batting performances of these players. The most widely used metric to
gauge performance of a test batsman is average runs per innings. Out of the 140 players, Steven Smith of Australia has the highest average of 64.27 runs per innings. He will get full points for this metric and other batsman points will be calculated as their average divided by
64.27.
A batsman with an average of 50+ is for sure better than one with an average of 30. However, is a batsman with an average of 32 really much better than a batsman with an average of 30. Not necessarily. Therefore, we need to find another metric which in my view is number
A batsman with an average of 50+ is for sure better than one with an average of 30. However, is a batsman with an average of 32 really much better than a batsman with an average of 30. Not necessarily. Therefore, we need to find another metric which in my view is number
of 100’s and 50’s. A player who has scored more centuries and fifties should get some advantage over players who have lesser 100’s and 50’s. However, just like we have taken average runs per innings instead of total number of runs, we will take centuries and fifties per match
played instead of total centuries and fifties scored. Also since a century is much more valuable than a fifty, each fifty will be scored as half of a century in calculations.
Steven Smith again emerges as the top player here. He has scored 26 100’s and 27 50’s in 70 matches so
Steven Smith again emerges as the top player here. He has scored 26 100’s and 27 50’s in 70 matches so
far. His score on this metric is calculated as (26 + 0.5*27)/70 = 0.56. He will get full points on this metric as well. Other players points will be calculated as their score on this metric divided by 0.56.
In the next phase we will define weight of the two identified metrics and
In the next phase we will define weight of the two identified metrics and
calculate total points for each of the 140 batsman. I would give average runs per innings a weightage of 70% or 70 points in this analysis while 100’s and 50’s will have a combined weight of 30% or 30 points. To explain this by an example, let’s look at the points calculations
for Sir Geoffrey Boycott. His average is 50.5 runs per innings and scored 16 centuries and 29 fifties in 67 matches meeting the criteria of this study. His points on average runs per innings are 55 (50.5/64.27*70) while his points for milestone scores are 24.20 (16+0.5*29)/67*30.
He is the sixth best batsman overall and best English batsman per this analysis.
Enough of the top batsmen, let’s look at the bottom of the table. Mohammad Ashraful of Bangladesh is at the bottom of the list i.e. number 140 with only 34.84 points. However, he played at a time
Enough of the top batsmen, let’s look at the bottom of the table. Mohammad Ashraful of Bangladesh is at the bottom of the list i.e. number 140 with only 34.84 points. However, he played at a time
when Bangladesh was a new entrant to the test cricket. In fact there are other players (ADR Campbell rank 138- Zim, RS Mahanama 136- SL, and GW Flower 135- Zim) in the bottom ten of the list who played within the first fifteen years of their nations gaining test status. I would
remove these players from this analysis.
As expected, some allrounders also appear in the bottom top. IT Botham and A Flintoff both from England are great allrounders and are ranked 132 and 131 respectively. They are also excluded from the list. This leaves us with four pure
As expected, some allrounders also appear in the bottom top. IT Botham and A Flintoff both from England are great allrounders and are ranked 132 and 131 respectively. They are also excluded from the list. This leaves us with four pure
batsmen who played more than 50 test matches while batting at the positions 1 to 6 from Jan 1, 1970 onwards.
The lowest ranked batsman is MR Ramprakash of England with 38.44 points and is ranked 139. He scored at average of 27.97 runs with just 2 centuries and 11 fifties.
The lowest ranked batsman is MR Ramprakash of England with 38.44 points and is ranked 139. He scored at average of 27.97 runs with just 2 centuries and 11 fifties.
He played 50 matches from 1991 to 2002. It is surprising to notice that he managed to play 50 matches at less than 28 average for England. Probably, as stated on his profile on ESPNCricinfo, his average of 42 against Aussies allowed him to stay in team for that long. Another
reason could be the overall talent being not so great during his test career from 1991 to 2002. England lost 48 tests and won 34 tests only out of 120 matches played between his Test debut and last test for England.
The second lowest ranked batsman, on number 137, is KR
The second lowest ranked batsman, on number 137, is KR
Rutherford from New Zealand. He played 55 tests at an average of 27.16 and scored 2 100’s and 17 50’s. He scored 41.18 points. Between his test debut and last test, New Zealand played 71 tests but only managed to win 12 tests and lost 26 tests. This could be reason why he was
persisted with despite having a humble record in tests. Whats more astonishing is that he captained New Zealand between 1992 and 1995.
Rameez Raja of Pakistan is the third lowest ranked batsman. He is ranked 134 with 2 centuries and 22 fifties in 57 matches at an average of
Rameez Raja of Pakistan is the third lowest ranked batsman. He is ranked 134 with 2 centuries and 22 fifties in 57 matches at an average of
31.76. Just like Rutherford he also captained Pakistan but unlike Rutherford during Rameez Raja’s career span Pakistan won 36 tests and lost 18 only out of 97 matches. This makes Rameez’s inclusion in Pakistan team for that long a bigger mystery.
On number 133 is MN Samuels of
On number 133 is MN Samuels of
West Indies. In 67 matches meeting the criteria, he score at average of 31.57 with 6 centuries and 22 fifties. During his career, West Indies lost an astounding 83 tests and won only 27 out of 154 tests. In my view, this properly explains why he was retained in the team for such
long.
Apart from these four, other notable players near the bottom of the list are GA Hick from England at number 130 with 48.17 points. He score at average of 33.24 and had 6 centuries and 15 fifties to his name in 60 tests. On number 129, is Australia’s GR Marsh with 48.37
Apart from these four, other notable players near the bottom of the list are GA Hick from England at number 130 with 48.17 points. He score at average of 33.24 and had 6 centuries and 15 fifties to his name in 60 tests. On number 129, is Australia’s GR Marsh with 48.37
points. He averaged 33.18 with 4 centuries and 15 fifties.
#NotTheBest
#NotTheBest
