Would Shakib Al Hasan make a team other than Bangladesh?

[Chewie]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

^ ODI statistics against test playing nations excluding Zimbabwe for his whole career. Average of 28.74 with the bat and 36 with the ball. No idea where 41.58 came from

----------

You can't surely believe that Shakib has just stayed at the same level he was at the beginning of his career? His recent performances are what define his current image as a player, and the last 3 years are an accurate representation of this. He has improved dramatically since he first started playing international cricket and this can be seen in the statistics that I am trying to show you

 

[Lassana Dias]

All-round records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

^ ODI statistics against test playing nations excluding Zimbabwe for his whole career. Average of 28.74 with the bat and 36 with the ball. No idea where 41.58 came from

do your mathematics
games bowling ave
Australia 4 30.75
England 8 30.63
India 7 48.57
New Zealand 14 22.25
Pakistan 6 41.42
South Africa 7 44.85
Sri Lanka 10 66.00
West Indies 6 49.00

Total 62

Average = 333.47 / 8 (above teams) = 41.68

Are you satisfied now

Pleaseeeeeeee

 

[Chewie]

Bowling averages don't work like that.

 

[Lassana Dias]

Ok now this is becoming a mathematical explanation

If you want to find out a average of something u take your samples, add the values and divide it among the number if samples


a) 100
b) 100
c) 100
d) 100


Average will be 400/4 = 100

Come on dude

 

[Chewie]

This is ridiculous.
1. You doubt Cricinfo's statistics
2. You don't know how to work out averages and yet you claim to be a FC cricketer

Bowling average is worked out by dividing the number of runs conceded by the number of wickets taken. In this case you get:

Opposition/runs conceded/wickets taken:
Australia/123/4
England/337/11
India/340/7
New Zealand/534/24
Pakistan/290/7
South Africa/314/7
Sri Lanka/330/5
West Indies/147/3

This gives a total of 2415 runs for 68 wickets. This is an average of 35.51

 

[Lassana Dias]

This is ridiculous.
1. You doubt Cricinfo's statistics
2. You don't know how to work out averages and yet you claim to be a FC cricketer

Bowling average is worked out by dividing the number of runs conceded by the number of wickets taken. In this case you get:

Opposition/runs conceded/wickets taken:
Australia/123/4
England/337/11
India/340/7
New Zealand/534/24
Pakistan/290/7
South Africa/314/7
Sri Lanka/330/5
West Indies/147/3

This gives a total of 2415 runs for 68 wickets. This is an average of 35.51

I have given you my source, so fine if you don’t believe…
And fine if you don’t believe who I am even. like I care

Am done talking to you, can’t stand people like you who would back a way to personal attacks when they can’t prove their point

All I am trying to do in this forum is to add cricketers view of what fans say, which I thought most people would appreciate,

Apparently not people like you

So yes my friend shakib is the best all-rounder ever in the game of cricket and he is 7 feet tall, stumps fly when he even looks at the batsman and bowlers retire when the captain asks them to bowl to him….

 

[riz7khan12]

^

 

[angryangy]

It's certainly an average of averages, but it's not runs divided by wickets.

 

[Chewie]

oh man, some people.

Safe to say I win

 

[aussie1st]

Chewie is right the bowling average is runs/wickets. Muttiah Muralitharan | Sri Lanka Cricket | Cricket Players and Officials | ESPN Cricinfo

12326/534 (runs/wickets) = 23.08 aka his bowling average.

 

[Lassana Dias]

Yes, what do I know about cricket and bowling left arm spin

 

[Near]

Yeah....I think he mixed up the batting and bowling averages. And it really sometimes pisses me off when players are under-rated like this...yes Shakib isn't the best player in the world or the best all-rounder and yes Watto is a much better batter( maybe even a better all-rounder) than Shakib...those are good comparisons and make sense but when you compare Shakib's bowling to Suraj Randiv or Xavier Doherty or Jason Krejza and say that these guys are better than him..that doesn't make sense I am not sayin these guys are bad just that Shakib is better than them

 

[Owzat]

The trouble with gauging all-round form is exactly that, how do you compare someone who bats really well and bowls okay with someone who is more all-round? Is it better to be more specialised and have the second skill as a bonus, or is the ability to turn both disciplines on in the same match the acme of the all-rounder?

For me a lot of the players who get classed or ranked as "all-rounders" aren't really. Kallis is a very useful bowler, but batting is his specialism and he's FAR more capable with bat than ball. So a GENUINE all-rounder should be able to contribute as much with bat as ball, yet a lot that have been classed as such do not.

Using 100s vs 5wis :

Ian Botham (102 Tests) : 100 x14, 5wi x27
Imran Khan (88 Tests) : 100 x6, 5wi x23
Richard Hadlee (86 Tests) : 100 x2, 5wi x36
Kapil Dev (131 Tests) : 100 x8, 5wi x23
Andrew Flintoff (79 Tests) : 100 x5, 5wi x3
Chris Cairns (62 Tests) : 100 x5, 5wi x13
Wasim Akram (104 Tests) : 100 x3, 5wi x25
Gary Sobers (93 Tests) : 100 x26, 5wi x6
Jacques Kallis (145 Tests) : 100 x40, 5wi x5
Keith Miller (55 Tests) : 100 x7, 5wi x7

I've used Tests for this example, more data to work with and you get more 100s and X wicket hauls. Most if not all of the above are considered all-rounders.

It may never be a perfect even split, but you can see Hadlee was much more of a bowler who could bat. Flintoff was a lot closer in his split, but both figures are pretty poor - especially his 5wis. Sobers would be carried by his batting with such an immense record. He was undoubtedly a good bowler too, but was he really a GENUINE all-rounder? That comparison shows Kallis is way more of a batsman, even though his bowling average is very respectable.



I think I have come up with the solution to ranking issues of all-rounders. You take all players and compare their attributes, whichever you choose such as average, 5wis, 100s, bowling SR etc and you calculate the standard deviation. Players who are within one standard deviation (SD) of the average for both batting and bowling are then ranked according to batting and bowling and then they can be ranked by lowest combined rank.

Any players say within one SD of the average for batting and two of the average for bowling, or vice versa, are ranked below those within one, then those within two of both and so on.

What that achieves is it puts those whose batting and bowling are evenly matched. So that is to say someone who is say a 7 for batting and bowling ranks above someone who is a 10 for batting but only a 4 for bowling. You'd have to have a "qualifier", that is only include players who have scored 1000 runs and taken say 50 wickets, or something like that. I think you may even need to have some kind of way of making sure they bowled as much as they batted, within reason. It is possible to be a good bowler, like Kallis, and not bowl nearly as much as regular bowlers or all-rounders. If you don't use one discipline as much as the other then surely you are a batsman or bowler...................... although bowlers invariably do have to bat, those that aren't very good at it won't have the figures anyway

 

[War]

I think we have different definitions of bowling all-rounders.

Batting all-rounders - batsmen who bat in the top order, but can bowl when required. Normally the sixth bowler for a team.

Pure all-rounders - people who would be selected for their batting or bowling. Normally bat in the middle order. i.e. Shakib, Bravo

Bowling all-rounders - bowlers who can bat pretty well. Bat at 8 normally, and score can score 50s and occasionally centuries.

Hmm. I just had a thought. If we are to judge these categories of all-rounders based on how established great all-rounders have performed throughout cricket history. Then see how they match up to these definitions.

NOTE: Im categorizing these players at their peaks

Batting all-rounders: Kallis, Trevor Goddard, Eddie Barlow, Asif Iqbal, Tony Greig, John Reid, Watson, Mushtaq Mohammad, Brain McMillan, Frank Wooley, Monty Noble.


Pure all-rounders: Id flesh out your definition to say further that they would selected for their batting or bowling (batting anywhere from 1-7) & could score change a game with a match winning 50/100 or 5 wicket haul fairly consistently.

Sobers (1961-1970), Miller, Imran, Botham (77-84), Vinoo Mankad, Aubrey Faulkner, Procter, Rice, Cairns (98-2001), Flintoff (2004-2006), Dev, Trevor Bailey.

Bowling all-rounders: I think just saying "they are bowlers who can bat is a bit too simple a definition TBF". Since these guys here could contribute fairly consistently with the bat and would average 25-30 range such as:

Hadlee, Klusener (96-2000), S Pollock, Vettori, Akram, Wilfred Rhodes, Jack Gregory, Bruce Taylor, Benaud, Allan Davidson,.

Bowlers who could bat would be like Marshall, Warne, Swann, Harbhajan, Broad (to date), Johnson (to date), Streak, Lindwall, Lee, Vaas, Craig Matthews . Average in the 15-20 range, have a few 50s (maybe even a hundred - but their batting consistency varies alot.

----------

We need batting strength more than bowling atm and Shakib wouldn't be in the top 6 batsmen for Australia.

During the Ashes with Ponting & Clarke in awful form & Hughes, id definitely agree.

But looking forward if Ponting now being relieved of the captaincy can do a Tendulkar in tests. Hughes runs for NSW in the FC season can bring him back to Hughes of 2009 vs SA (that is if you dont keep Katich opening). Plus the captaincy may inspire runs from him. Thus a top 5 of:

Watson
Hughes/Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey

Then such a top 5 would be solid enough to accommodate Shakib @ 6 in that hypothetical scenario in which he is Australian.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Yes, what do I know about cricket and bowling left arm spin

Quite a bit I would guess. But you clearly know nothing of how cricket statistics work.