Ultimate Batting Consistency Analysis!

[Blitz]

Yep, I'm back with another analysis.

This time, I thought of doing something different. Something a lot more technical.

I've always rated someone like Inzi over Moyo, because of consistency, so I decided to do a proper consistency analysis.

Standard Deviation will be the method. I can't really be bothered to explain it, because it took me like years to learn! :P

Basic fact, the higher your SD (Standard Deviation), the worst it is.

Heres an example:

Would you perfer player A or B over 5 innings.

A ( 0, 0, 0, 0, 200) B ( 40, 35, 50, 40, 35).

Both average 40 with the bat, but everyone would chose B right?

So that will be the analysis on here. It will obviously not be in favour of someone like Lara, and I think that is right.

400 in one innings which lead to a draw, or 8 consecutive 50s?


Qualification:

1. 7000 runs. Why? I wanted 8000, but that would skip out on Sehwag and Moyo. *Backlash*. And yes, no Bradman. Tierd of that bloody outlier!

2. Average of 50. There is one technical excemption. Inzi averages 50 for Pakistan, but his 1 ICC world team pulled him down. i still included him, because I don't care about that match, and you have to know your audience. Pakpassion :)


I will also add that elusive 'Average without not outs'. My analysis had that in it, so I thought I may as well add it. Very interesting reading !

BTW, I found out some guy on cricinfo did this in 2006. Quite different but that was a good read to. Not as updated, or thorough, or including a few other things I do.

Anyway, heres the initial SD tests:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4492/iww1.png

I think the bottom of the list was quite expected. Interestingly Border is top. A guy no one ever talks about! Averaging 50+. 10,000+ runs

While this shows consistency, it alone is quite a weak analysis. Someone scoring 0 for all his life would be better.

We need a relation with average. Basic statistical example, use the main variable.

Simply put, Average/ Standard Deviation.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/4492/iww1.png


The real table, and theres not much change.

Kallis has made a big change, and even though he is JUST 2nd, he is without a doubt the most consistent player cricketing history, at a high average.

Tendulker coming up at number 4 shows, that he is very consistent himself. Quite a way back from Kallis though, so begin those arguments again :)

Sehwag and Lara near the bottom I guess shows how flashy they have always been. Risky players, but when it comes of, awesome.


Border is probably the most underrated player in history. I mean come on, no one has ever mentioned him any great batsmen talks.


This was, by no means, an analysis showing who is the best and worst players.

Lara near the bottom just means he was inconsistent, but when he was on song, he was possibly the greatest of our time.


BTW, heres the bonus, no 'not outs' included analysis:


http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4492/iww1.png

Whats interesting is, guys near the top of the consistency model, are near the bottom of this, barring one player. KALLIS!

I've been trying to be neutral in this whole analysis, but come on....Kallis can easily lay claim to being 2nd only to Bradman, on statistics alone.


Read what you will into this stuff. I'm guessing these figures will come in use in MANY MANY arguments we have daily on Pakpassion about consistency :)

I actually got a lot more data analysis figures. Like standard error, variance, kurtosis and skewness. Just not sure if I can get a decent analysis, or what else.


I might do this for bowlers, but its harder. And probably very biased towards the spinners, Warne/Murali/Kumble, because they bowl a lot.

[Desi]

fantastic work up, pat yourself on the back for me please.

that NO chart really has some surprises, didn't really think that they influenced the outcome THAT much

[Blitz]

Someone change aonsistency to consistency.

I seem to get the titles wrong a lot :P

[armaan11]

Have the minnows being omitted ? The thing about Kallis is that he bashed some of the teams too much and averages less against some top Teams plus he never faced bowlers of his own team which is a tough side . Kallis can never be better than Lara or SRT or Ponting.

[freelance_cricketer]

Great work Blitz ! :14:

My review will come soon

[Blitz]

Have the minnows being omitted ? The thing about Kallis is that he bashed some of the teams too much and averages less against some top Teams plus he never faced bowlers of his own team which is a tough side . Kallis can never be better than Lara or SRT or Ponting.

The analysis is minnow proof.


Scoring 100 vs a minnow, and 0 vs Australia will ruin your Standard deviation.


However, scoring a 50 vs a minnow, and 50 vs Australia, will give you a perfect standard deviation.


Simple point mate, this doesn't show the greatest batsman. It shows the most consistent batsmen, and in my opinion, this is as complicated, and perfect analysis of consistency. Standard deviation works!! :))

[Cricfan4eva]

Nice work on those stats.

But I'd like to point on one thing while this may be a good analysis to judge which batsman was more consistent but it may not be proper analysis to judge which player consistently contributed in teams 'victories'.

Shane Watson in Ashes '10: 36, 41*, 51, 57, 13, 95, 5, 54, 48, 38. He was pretty consistent during Ashes but failed to provide any big start for Australia hence they never posted a big score to threaten England again Just my view that I'd take a player who is game changer than a consistent player who doesn't really score big.

[ads101]

No I'd choose the guy who got 200.

Thirty or fourties won't win matches, 200s will.

This wierd stats deviation thing is what Anwaar prove Younis Khan to be overrated and Shoaib Malik to better than Bradman

Consistency matters to a score that will win you a match. seventies, eighties, hundreds will win you matches. Hence I'd prefer a guy who scores that to a guy who scores five hundred in one match out of five.

That's why there's so much emphasis placed on centuries. A hundred is the sort of score that really wins you matches. So in my opinion a measure of a batsman's worth is more to do with the consistency at which he pushes on to get that hundred.

One of the reasons why tendulkar is clearly the best batsman of his era.

[ElRaja]

No I'd choose the guy who got 200.

Thirty or fourties won't win matches, 200s will.

This wierd stats deviation thing is what Anwaar prove Younis Khan to be overrated and Shoaib Malik to better than Bradman

Consistency matters to a score that will win you a match. seventies, eighties, hundreds will win you matches. Hence I'd prefer a guy who scores that to a guy who scores five hundred in one match out of five.

That's why there's so much emphasis placed on centuries. A hundred is the sort of score that really wins you matches. So in my opinion a measure of a batsman's worth is more to do with the consistency at which he pushes on to get that hundred.

One of the reasons why tendulkar is clearly the best batsman of his era.

i agree with you on this, id rather have a 200 and 4 ducks. your pretty much certain to win the match where you score 200 as long as you bowling attack does well.

the analysis is still interesting altho i dont see why you cant make an exception to stick bradman in their, his ave/std dev wd pbly still be one of the best, if not the best.

i dont think its surprising the two worse std dev are pbly the two most explosive test batsmen ever, your more likely to get out quick if you are going for shots before you are totally settled.

a correlation between strike rates and std deviations may go some to prove or disprove that theory tho.

[Blitz]

i agree with you on this, id rather have a 200 and 4 ducks. your pretty much certain to win the match where you score 200 as long as you bowling attack does well.

the analysis is still interesting altho i dont see why you cant make an exception to stick bradman in their, his ave/std dev wd pbly still be one of the best, if not the best.

i dont think its surprising the two worse std dev are pbly the two most explosive test batsmen ever, your more likely to get out quick if you are going for shots before you are totally settled.

a correlation between strike rates and std deviations may go some to prove or disprove that theory tho.

Nope, his SD would probably be terrible.

Its because he averages 100. So a score of 50-80 would hurt him.


Like i said, he really is the statistical term 'outlier'. He ruins analysis'.


People would probably start crying, when they see Bradman near the bottom.

[Blitz]

No I'd choose the guy who got 200.

Thirty or fourties won't win matches, 200s will..

i agree with you on this, id rather have a 200 and 4 ducks. your pretty much certain to win the match where you score 200 as long as you bowling attack does well.


400 in one innings which lead to a draw, or 8 consecutive 50s?


I think its all about opinion, but how much you lot wanna bet that theres been more 200-400 draws thens wins?

Massive scores usually mean the pitch is too flat, and it will be a draw.


30/40s was an example, but Kallis is a guy who consistently scores, on standard deviation, about 50 runs a game. Which means, you are always in it, and it would be rare to lose the game, as long as the 10 other batsmen contribute even a little bit.

[s2k]

Well i would choose the batsman who scores a 100 or 200 followed by couple of ducks....a 40 or 50 wont win you a test a hundred or double will.

[Warfare]

Good analysis Blitz.

This reminds me that I'm going to have to learn all this standard deviation crap for Maths again...not looking forward to it. Sigh.

[Blitz]

Well i would choose the batsman who scores a 100 or 200 followed by couple of ducks....a 40 or 50 wont win you a test a hundred or double will.

It was an example to show people what standard deviation means. Obviously ot very good, because people have mistaken it.


None of these batsmen score 100s. Infact, they pretty much score the same, given they have the same averages and almost same SD.


The analysis is basically:


Lara ( 70 , 30 , 70 , 30 )
Kallis( 50, 50, 50, 50 )


Again, a bit exaggarted, but closer.

[ShaunMarshRules]

Someone change aonsistency to consistency.

I seem to get the titles wrong a lot :P

I loved it. Let me add shane Watson - not the greatest batsman in the world, but imo the most consistent.

shane Watson:

Average : 41.55
Standard dev:32.76

Average/standard dev = 1.27

shane watson above everyone else.

edit: fixed calculation

[talha3]

Very good analysis. It's one thing presenting statistics but it's another talking about them, which you've done well.

[Blitz]

I loved it. Let me add shane Watson - not the greatest batsman in the world, but imo the most consistent.

shane Watson:

Average : 39.857
Standard dev:32.76

Average/standard dev = 1.22

shane watson close to everyone else- only behind kallis and border.

It doesn't work like that.

That average is less then 40. Ofcourse he's more consistent.

The Newzealander, Martin averaging 3 probably has the best SD.


You need average atleast 50, to have a fair comparison.

[ShaunMarshRules]

Nope, his SD would probably be terrible.

Its because he averages 100. So a score of 50-80 would hurt him.


Like i said, he really is the statistical term 'outlier'. He ruins analysis'.


People would probably start crying, when they see Bradman near the bottom.

His SD is 86, his average 100. He'd end up at about 1.16 ratio.

[ShaunMarshRules]

It doesn't work like that.

That average is less then 40. Ofcourse he's more consistent.

The Newzealander, Martin averaging 3 probably has the best SD.


You need average atleast 50, to have a fair comparison.

His not-out included average is about 42. I get why you didn't put him and bradman out there, it's not possible to compare them farly to batmen averaging 50-60; i just thought it might be fun info. No quibbling from me :).

[Blitz]

His SD is 86, his not-out average 87. He'd end up at about 1.01 ratio.

Yea. People would be quite angry he's not not top.


Also, I didn't use the not out average. I used their real averages. Made it more appropriate.


The not-out averages were just bonus :).

[RWAC]

Wait. So your data says that 1 SD for border is +/- 40.56 from his mean score?

[violet_may]

^
That's what I was wondering...Blitz, how about you incorporate standard error of mean in there? :13:

I get the feeling that a lot of those values won't be statistically significant once we can see the overlap between the values for each player....

[Blitz]

^
That's what I was wondering...Blitz, how about you incorporate standard error of mean in there? :13:

Thats doing way too much :))


To be honest, it wouldn't change much. All of players errors are around the same.


I was actually thinking of using Eviews and doing regressions. But whats the point if people don't accept an analysis unless Sachin is top :yk

[Black Zero]

Yep, I'm back with another analysis.

This time, I thought of doing something different. Something a lot more technical.

I've always rated someone like Inzi over Moyo, because of consistency, so I decided to do a proper consistency analysis.

Standard Deviation will be the method. I can't really be bothered to explain it, because it took me like years to learn! :P

Basic fact, the higher your SD (Standard Deviation), the worst it is.

Heres an example:

Would you perfer player A or B over 5 innings.

A ( 0, 0, 0, 0, 200) B ( 40, 35, 50, 40, 35).

Both average 40 with the bat, but everyone would chose B right?

So that will be the analysis on here. It will obviously not be in favour of someone like Lara, and I think that is right.

400 in one innings which lead to a draw, or 8 consecutive 50s?


Qualification:

1. 7000 runs. Why? I wanted 8000, but that would skip out on Sehwag and Moyo. *Backlash*. And yes, no Bradman. Tierd of that bloody outlier!

2. Average of 50. There is one technical excemption. Inzi averages 50 for Pakistan, but his 1 ICC world team pulled him down. i still included him, because I don't care about that match, and you have to know your audience. Pakpassion :)


I will also add that elusive 'Average without not outs'. My analysis had that in it, so I thought I may as well add it. Very interesting reading !

BTW, I found out some guy on cricinfo did this in 2006. Quite different but that was a good read to. Not as updated, or thorough, or including a few other things I do.

Anyway, heres the initial SD tests:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4492/iww1.png

I think the bottom of the list was quite expected. Interestingly Border is top. A guy no one ever talks about! Averaging 50+. 10,000+ runs

While this shows consistency, it alone is quite a weak analysis. Someone scoring 0 for all his life would be better.

We need a relation with average. Basic statistical example, use the main variable.

Simply put, Average/ Standard Deviation.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/4492/iww1.png


The real table, and theres not much change.

Kallis has made a big change, and even though he is JUST 2nd, he is without a doubt the most consistent player cricketing history, at a high average.

Tendulker coming up at number 4 shows, that he is very consistent himself. Quite a way back from Kallis though, so begin those arguments again :)

Sehwag and Lara near the bottom I guess shows how flashy they have always been. Risky players, but when it comes of, awesome.


Border is probably the most underrated player in history. I mean come on, no one has ever mentioned him any great batsmen talks.


This was, by no means, an analysis showing who is the best and worst players.

Lara near the bottom just means he was inconsistent, but when he was on song, he was possibly the greatest of our time.


BTW, heres the bonus, no 'not outs' included analysis:


http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/4492/iww1.png

Whats interesting is, guys near the top of the consistency model, are near the bottom of this, barring one player. KALLIS!

I've been trying to be neutral in this whole analysis, but come on....Kallis can easily lay claim to being 2nd only to Bradman, on statistics alone.


Read what you will into this stuff. I'm guessing these figures will come in use in MANY MANY arguments we have daily on Pakpassion about consistency :)

I actually got a lot more data analysis figures. Like standard error, variance, kurtosis and skewness. Just not sure if I can get a decent analysis, or what else.


I might do this for bowlers, but its harder. And probably very biased towards the spinners, Warne/Murali/Kumble, because they bowl a lot.

Did for Pakistani players last year:


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2736427&postcount=586

[RWAC]

^
That's what I was wondering...Blitz, how about you incorporate standard error of mean in there? :13:

I get the feeling that a lot of those values won't be statistically significant once we can see the overlap between the values for each player....

Wouldn't that be redundant? Since in this case, we actually have the whole population data (and hence the true means) rather than sample means.

What I'm thinking is to take it a step further and try to compute the "best among equals". Calculate the population mean using each player's mean average, and then standardize. Then find the z-score for each individual and see how far or close they land to the population mean (i.e. 0 after standardization). The closer they land, the better they are among equals.

Or if you are using some software, try using ANOVA and going with the null hypothesis that none of the batsmen are any different from each other. Keep a 99% confidence level and maybe we can finally settle the debate. :D

[Black Zero]

Check this out:
http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2010/06/achieving_the_right_consistenc.php

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/245575.html

http://www.deepbs.com/2010/06/achieving-right-consistency-i.html#Table1

[MVP26]

Fantastic work I enjoy your posts keep it up :19:

[Ruri]

Very nice analysis.

I just don't see the point of Average/SD though for consistency. Having an Average/SD value below one indicates that the deviation is greater than the average. And since Avg - SD if SD > Avg is < 0, it indicates that the SD value being as high as it is means you are more likely to have really huge scores (a positive deviation) skewing the sample to the right. So SD while showing consistency, what exactly does Average/SD show of importance?

Basically my point is, Avg/SD isn't really a bad thing. Whereas one deviation away for Border you might be making 10 or 90, one deviation away, it means that Sehwag is making 0 (since you can't go below 0) or 116 +, since in reality positive deviation accounts for the majority of the SD if SD > Average. Now, I've made my dislike for Sehwag known, but doesn't it also mean that he's more likely to make Daddy hundreds, as you said, once he gets going? I'm tired and could be analyzing this wrong, I'm applied math not statistical math, but I feel like my mind is going in circles trying to rationalize that bit.

I mean once again, hate Sehwag, but you see that he's more likely to make a century, thereby you can claim that he is more consistent in scoring big, if you use century for "big" marker.

Say 22 centuries in 88 matches, 1 every 4.

As opposed to Border's
27 in 156? Roughly 1 in 6 matches.

Which is very much seen if you try to rationalize Avg/SD values below 1.

[violet_may]

Wouldn't that be redundant? Since in this case, we actually have the whole population data (and hence the true means) rather than sample means.

What I'm thinking is to take it a step further and try to compute the "best among equals". Calculate the population mean using each player's mean average, and then standardize. Then find the z-score for each individual and see how far or close they land to the population mean (i.e. 0 after standardization). The closer they land, the better they are among equals.

Or if you are using some software, try using ANOVA and going with the null hypothesis that none of the batsmen are any different from each other. Keep a 99% confidence level and maybe we can finally settle the debate. :D

LOL

Well, I was thinking because the values are so close together, once Blitz did the SEM, he would find that maybe the values were not significantly different from one batsmen to another, in terms of consistency....

But yeah, you are right. Blitz didn't use sample means as I thought :40:. Dang Blitz! How long did this take you?

What you mentioned would be the proper way to do the analysis. However, dude, we are not doing a research study here. I guess I agree with Blitz after all :))

Maybe you should do that analysis you mentioned above...eh? :yk

[Justcrazy]

A very good post. Really never rated Border that highly, now I know that i was wrong.

I have always rated kallis highly, just his batting makes him great.

[freelance_cricketer]

And Tendulkar is more consistent than Dravid

Did we ever know that? :23:

[AlizeeFan]

Probably that's why hear comments like it's better to get batsman X out early when he is little bit tentative. Once he settles down, he gets big scores.

[Blitz]

Very nice analysis.

I just don't see the point of Average/SD though for consistency. Having an Average/SD value below one indicates that the deviation is greater than the average. And since Avg - SD if SD > Avg is < 0, it indicates that the SD value being as high as it is means you are more likely to have really huge scores (a positive deviation) skewing the sample to the right. So SD while showing consistency, what exactly does Average/SD show of importance?

Basically my point is, Avg/SD isn't really a bad thing. Whereas one deviation away for Border you might be making 10 or 90, one deviation away, it means that Sehwag is making 0 (since you can't go below 0) or 116 +, since in reality positive deviation accounts for the majority of the SD if SD > Average. Now, I've made my dislike for Sehwag known, but doesn't it also mean that he's more likely to make Daddy hundreds, as you said, once he gets going? I'm tired and could be analyzing this wrong, I'm applied math not statistical math, but I feel like my mind is going in circles trying to rationalize that bit.

I mean once again, hate Sehwag, but you see that he's more likely to make a century, thereby you can claim that he is more consistent in scoring big, if you use century for "big" marker.

Say 22 centuries in 88 matches, 1 every 4.

As opposed to Border's
27 in 156? Roughly 1 in 6 matches.

Which is very much seen if you try to rationalize Avg/SD values below 1.

I think you are thinking too much :yk


The Standard Deviation just says someone is consistent. That person could be making 10 runs every innings.


Dividing by their real average gave a better link, because its simple maths: Higher Average/Lower Sd equals a better ratio.

This way we got someone who is the best of both worlds.

Rather then one who has a higher average, or one who has a higher Sd.

[W63L35]

Ultimate Batting Consistency Analysis!
Blitz... I am sorry to say.... what a pathetic OP!! I mean..does not make sense.... incorrect calculations..... undeserving players... did you dream up you stats!


Did for Pakistani players last year:


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2736427&postcount=586

Aaaah.... Blitz.... now your thread is complete with the mention of Shoaib "Bradman" Malik....! How the hell, you could ignore this attention seeking child.... I mean this great player? ;-)

[TJChat]

No I'd choose the guy who got 200.

Thirty or fourties won't win matches, 200s will.

This wierd stats deviation thing is what Anwaar prove Younis Khan to be overrated and Shoaib Malik to better than Bradman

Consistency matters to a score that will win you a match. seventies, eighties, hundreds will win you matches. Hence I'd prefer a guy who scores that to a guy who scores five hundred in one match out of five.

That's why there's so much emphasis placed on centuries. A hundred is the sort of score that really wins you matches. So in my opinion a measure of a batsman's worth is more to do with the consistency at which he pushes on to get that hundred.

One of the reasons why tendulkar is clearly the best batsman of his era.

Very good point:akhtar

[RWAC]

LOL

Well, I was thinking because the values are so close together, once Blitz did the SEM, he would find that maybe the values were not significantly different from one batsmen to another, in terms of consistency....

But yeah, you are right. Blitz didn't use sample means as I thought :40:. Dang Blitz! How long did this take you?

What you mentioned would be the proper way to do the analysis. However, dude, we are not doing a research study here. I guess I agree with Blitz after all :))

Maybe you should do that analysis you mentioned above...eh? :yk

Why waste my time when I know the results beforehand...eh? :sachin :P

[Random Aussie]

Border is very underrated.

And add to that he played in the 80's and 90's, played a lot of Tests against the great WI sides when he was our only good batsman.

Best Aussie player of all types of bowling I have seen.

[Buffet]

^

I don't think Border is underrated. He is highly regarded in most places due to playing well against the best and also making runs in different conditions. He transformed the team.

[farsiddiqui]

Interesting analysis Blitz. However, don't you think this unfairly treats the 'big scoring' batsmen?

Miandad has 6 double centuries mostly high 200s.
Sehwag has 2 triple centuries, plus a handful high 200s
Same with Sobers and Lara.

So obviously, the batsmen that have a tendency to score big will have a higher SD, eventhough they were still fairly consistent. Maybe the average/SD rectifies this a bit, but I'm not so sure. :13:

[RWAC]

Interesting analysis Blitz. However, don't you think this unfairly treats the 'big scoring' batsmen?

Miandad has 6 double centuries mostly high 200s.
Sehwag has 2 triple centuries, plus a handful high 200s
Same with Sobers and Lara.

So obviously, the batsmen that have a tendency to score big will have a higher SD, eventhough they were still fairly consistent. Maybe the average/SD rectifies this a bit, but I'm not so sure. :13:

The key word is consistency here. If they were highly consistent and made bigger scores compared to other batsmen, then their averages would have been way way higher than other batsman, which I don't think is the case for his sample.

If a batsman scores big hundreds and has almost the same average as another batsman who doesn't score big hundreds, then the latter is more consistent.

A - 10,0,200,40,180 = 66
B - 40, 80, 70, 90, 50 = 66

Batsman B is clearly more consistent, despite two bigger scores by A.

You can't be fairly consistent and score bigger hundreds while having ~average as other batsmen. Mutually exclusive.

[Feroz Rawther]

The most consistant for me is the one who has the nearest avg: in each country(both home & abroad) to his over all avg: .For eg: take Ricky Ponting. He has an avg: of more than 52. But his avg: in India is only 26. So too for Kallis with 29 avg: in England. Similarly Lara has only 33 in India . And Dravid has 33 avg: only in SAF & SL . Sanga & Mahela too has similar figures, i feel in some countries. So for me it is none other than Sachin who has over 40 avg: in all countries who is the most consistent of the current batsmen

[farsiddiqui]

The key word is consistency here. If they were highly consistent and made bigger scores compared to other batsmen, then their averages would have been way way higher than other batsman, which I don't think is the case for his sample.

If a batsman scores big hundreds and has almost the same average as another batsman who doesn't score big hundreds, then the latter is more consistent.

A - 10,0,200,40,180 = 66
B - 40, 80, 70, 90, 50 = 66

Batsman B is clearly more consistent, despite two bigger scores by A.

You can't be fairly consistent and score bigger hundreds while having ~average as other batsmen. Mutually exclusive.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying that I may actually prefer batsman "A"; consistency in this context is being over-rated.

Batsman A is actually converting his starts into big scores, while B is getting solid starts without getting there. In the long run, the big scorer will win you more games. IMHO.

[RWAC]

Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying that I may actually prefer batsman "A"; consistency in this context is being over-rated.

Batsman A is actually converting his starts into big scores, while B is getting solid starts without getting there. In the long run, the big scorer will win you more games. IMHO.

Ah I get what you mean now. Sorry, you mentioned big scores and a batsman being consistent in the same line so I wanted to clarify that.

Well, then yeah you could always argue consistency vs match-winning innings. Match-winning innings are definitely more important than just being a consistent batsman IMO, but at the same time, I would think these two factors would overlap a lot. A person can't win his team a lot of watches if he's really inconsistent, unless the team is full of 11 match winners.

[emclub]

Blitz bro, Your OP went over my head, make it simple plz!

[Blitz]

Blitz bro, Your OP went over my head, make it simple plz!

:yk


Sorry. Next post I'll go back to a lot of colours and graphs :ibutt

[Wiji]

If you are including Inzi, then you should also include Chanderpaul. I suspect he will be very high on that list.

[Black Zero]

Blitz bro, Your OP went over my head, make it simple plz!

nothing new..
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=4101005&postcount=26

[MR__KHAN__JI]

Yep, I'm back with another analysis.

This time, I thought of doing something different. Something a lot more technical.

Border is probably the most underrated player in history. I mean come on, no one has ever mentioned him any great batsmen talks.



According to my analysis..... Border rates quite highly....

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?t=128773

He did well against attacks containing some legendary bowlers....

Garner, Hadlee, Marshall, Khan, Willis, Botham

[W63L35]

:yk


Sorry. Next post I'll go back to a lot of colours and graphs :ibutt

Also, for some attention seeking kids.... I mean fans, mention Malik also.... and put him on the top of the list... after all he has been consistently failing for the last 28 international innings... like nobody else.