Punter, batting positions and statistics

By sheek / Roar Guru

I haven’t watched much cricket on Channel Nine this summer, but I managed to watch one tea segment that really had me thinking.

Commentator Michael Slater mentioned that former Test captain Ian Chappell had averaged over 50 batting in his favourite number three position, compared to a career average of 42.

In view of Ricky Ponting announcing his retirement from Test cricket, I took the liberty to trawl the careers of various Australian Test batsmen and compare their average in their most played (and/or favourite) position with their career average.

I restricted my published results to only those players where the discrepancy was roughly four batting points or more.

Let’s start with Ponting. Going into his last (and 168th) Test he has batted 285 times for an average of 52.21. His best batting position is no.3, where he has averaged 56.27 in 196 innings.

What about skipper Michael Clarke? In 85 Tests to date Clarke is averaging 52.16 from 141 innings. Contrary to those arguing Clarke should bat at no.4, his most productive position is actually no.5. Here he has averaged a whopping 63.41 from 91 innings.

Simon Katich, the guy who once grabbed Clarke by the throat in the dressing room and pinned him to the wall (and may have helped make Clarke the better person he is today) averaged 45.03 in 56 Tests and 99 innings.

But it is as opener where he excelled, averaging 50.48 from 61 innings.

Justin Langer is one of the gutsiest players to represent Australia, and deserves a mention here. In 105 Tests he averaged 45.27 from 182 innings. Opener, though, was his true position where he averaged 48.23 from 115 innings.

The unconquerable Steve Waugh averaged a very impressive 51.06 in 168 Tests and 260 innings. His best position was no.5, where he averaged a truly impressive 56.28 from 142 innings.

Allan Border the indomitable is worth a mention here despite the fact he was consistent across three middle order positions. Border averaged 50.56 in 156 Tests and 265 innings. He batted 88 innings at no. 4 averaging 50.44. However, he did slightly better in positions five (70 innings) and six (63 innings), averaging 52 for both.

At the top of the post we mentioned that Ian Chappell averaged 50.94 in 91 innings batting at no.3. This is considerably higher than his overall career average of 42.42, acquired in 75 Tests and 136 innings.

Greg Chappell vies with Ponting for the honour of Australia’s second best batsman after Bradman. He averaged 53.86 in 87 Tests and 151 innings. His best position was no.4 where he averaged an imposing 59.12 from 86 innings.

Bobby Simpson was just another reasonably good batsman until he was promoted to opener. In 62 Tests he averaged 46.82 from 111 innings. But it was as an opener that he finally excelled, averaging 55.52 from 70 innings.

I’ve sometimes wondered what all the fuss was with Norm O’Neill. In 42 Tests he averaged 45.56 from 69 innings. Solid stats, but hardly earth-shattering. However, batting at no.4 he averaged an impressive 57.43 from 41 innings.

The great all-rounder Keith Miller played in 55 Tests in which he averaged 36.97 from 87 innings. His favourite position was no.5, where he averaged 41.98 from 52 innings.

Bill Ponsford is often acclaimed as one of our greatest openers, and indeed he was. In 29 Tests he averaged 48.23 from 48 innings. However, he excelled at opener, averaging 54.18 from 31 innings.

Some cricket fans might be surprised at all the fuss made over Charlie Macartney. In 35 Tests he averaged 41.78 from 55 innings. Solid, but not spectacular stats. However, Macartney excelled at no.3 where he averaged a stupendous 59.35 from 28 innings, mostly post-WW1.

Finally, we look at two of the batting greats of Australian cricket, whose stats provide some contrasting surprises.

The revered Victor Trumper is often acclaimed as our premier opener, despite an overall average of only 39.05 from 48 Tests and 89 innings. Indeed, as an opener he only averaged 33.00 from 52 innings.

Statistically, his best positions were numbers five and six, where he averaged 57.61 from a combined 21 innings. However, keep in mind Trumper batted in the ‘golden age’ from 1899 to 1914 when it was much more difficult batting on pitches than today.

Finally, we come to the great man himself, Sir Donald Bradman. What can I tell you that you don’t already know? A batting average of 99.94 from 80 innings in 52 Tests is standard fare for most cricket fans.

But get this, he did average over 100 batting at no.3. Indeed, Bradman averaged 103.63 from 56 innings. Curiously though, he was a mere mortal batting at no.4, where he averaged “only” 53.89 from 10 innings!

I guess the moral to this post is that there is often much more that meets the eye in the first glance at stats.

The Crowd Says:

2014-08-27T20:52:41+00:00

Sean

Guest


Haha. 40 is solid, 45 is good, 50 is great and anyone over 55 is in the 'high averages' catagory

2014-08-20T05:34:50+00:00

Johne881

Guest


I don't usually comment but I gotta admit thanks for the post on this great one gfebfgcfddde

2012-12-02T14:20:26+00:00

Richard

Guest


1967 to present time would be 45 years unless you posted this in 2002. :) My list is almost identical to yours but I was only born in '64 and didn't see much Bobby Simpson so I would have to choose another opener to pair with Matt Hayden. Probably Langer.

2012-12-01T12:42:26+00:00

dasilva

Guest


I don't know sheek I'm pretty suspicious about Matthew Hayden With someone like Ponting I could accept the argument that he matured in the 00's because even though ponting didn't dominate the 90's he still average in the 40's and did scored runs against world class attack. He also scored a great century in saving the match in the 2005 ashes in swinging condition so he has demonstrated that he can tough it out when the bowling is tough However with Matthew Hayden, my memory of him was that he failed twice in England (in 2001 and 2005) and he look completely at sea when the ball was swinging. This combined with his failures in the 90's makes me believe that Matthew Hayden was a huge beneficiary of declining bowling standards and flat pitches in the 00's. Let just say this before the 2005 tour. I remember hanging around in cricketweb forums and plenty of English cricket supporters thought he was a flat track bully and predicted with absolute confidence that he will fail for the tour and he'll get found out and they were all proven right.

2012-12-01T12:12:49+00:00

Neuen

Roar Rookie


Someone told me once this position stats was a bunch of nonsense. But batting 1 to 3 you are often going to face the new ball compared to 4 and lower down. Some guys just don't like facing the new ball or are not comfortable against it hence you will see a avg drop lower down sometimes. Sometimes also they will be close to end of their careers batting down the order where the averages will be lower. So the scales tips both ways

AUTHOR

2012-11-30T09:36:25+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


ak, You've been well & truly suckered in here. Yes, MW averaged 53.55 batting at no.6. But in only 13 innings out of 209. Consequently, that wouldn't count for much.

2012-11-30T09:18:56+00:00

ak

Roar Guru


Batting at No. 6 Mark Waugh had an average of 53.55.

AUTHOR

2012-11-30T02:26:13+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Sailosi, Solid for 45 is conveyed as a compliment. My rule of thumb for specialist test batsmen. 29 & below average - not up to test standard (19 & below pre-WW1). 30-34 average - ordinary test batsman (20-24 pre-WW1). 35-39 average - reasonable test batsman (25-29 pre-WW1). 40-44 average - good test batsman (30-34 pre-WW1). 45-49 average - very good test batsman (35-39 pre-WW1). 50-54 average - excellent test batsman (40-44 pre-WW1). 55-59 average - exceptional/legendary batsman (45-49 pre-WW1). 60 plus average - in the realm of the Gods. I also have a suspicion batting averages from mid-90s to present are possibly inflated by 5-10%, due to so many advantages to the batsmen - helmet protection, padding protection, bat technology (especially sweet spot), perfectly rolled pitches, perfectly manicured outfields, etc.

AUTHOR

2012-11-30T02:16:13+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Barry, It might too easy to read into why Hayden, Langer and Martyn failed in the 90s but succeeded in the 2000s. Sometimes a player might be elevated too soon & hasn't yet developed the mental techniques to survive & succeed at the highest level. Langer & Martyn were both blooded in 1992/93 without much success. Hayden went to England in 1993 knowing he would be competing with Slater for an opening berth. Hayden was given first opportunity in the one-dayers but failed to grasp the opportunity. Slater was chosen for the opening test & never looked back. At least for the next 4-5 years!

AUTHOR

2012-11-30T02:11:55+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


Bigbaz, As you probably know O'Neill was an extremely nervous starter, which probably affected his final tally. The other odd thing is that his test career appeared to end prematurely. He played his last test in the Caribbean in 1965 aged 28. The following summer 1965/66 he wasn't wanted against England. Nor was he selected for South Africa 1966/67. But he did tour NZ with the Australian B team at the end of the 1966/67 season.

AUTHOR

2012-11-30T02:08:20+00:00

sheek

Roar Guru


redb, It's fair to say that Ricky Ponting is our equal second best batsman ever after Bradman. he shares number two billing with Greg Chappell. We'll have to leave it for another day to separate them. I've been following test cricket for 35 year (1967-present) & picking our best XII in that time is actually quite easy. 1. Bob Simpson 2. Matt Hayden 3. Ricky Ponting 4. Greg Chappell 5. Allan Border (vc) 6. Steve Waugh (c) 7. Adam Gilchrist (wk) 8. Shane Warne 9. Dennis Lillee 10. Jeff Thomson 11. Glenn McGrath 12. Michael Clarke (12th man)

2012-11-30T01:56:33+00:00

The Barry

Roar Guru


+2 Hayden, Langer and Martyn all had chances in the team in the 90s but were kept out of the side for a decade by Slater, Taylor, Boon and M Waugh who all averaged "only" 42-43ish. Suddenly they get their chance post 2000 and they're all averaging 45-52. Nachos - I'd love to see a spicy Perth deck for the bowlers and seeing a test where it's a real challenge for a batsman to get to 50. Those sort of digs often show more about a batsman than getting a ton on flat track. I don't want to see teams getting rolled for 200 all the time but likewise I don't want two first innings scores of 500 in every test.

2012-11-30T01:22:56+00:00

Max

Guest


Is this the real Jason popping in his two cents?!

2012-11-30T01:10:23+00:00

Redb

Roar Guru


Ponting is right up there with one of my favourite batsmen of all time. In fact I have 3 at the very top of the tree : G Chappell, A Border & R. Ponting. Cricket is going to miss you terribly. Congrats Punter.

2012-11-29T23:58:14+00:00

nachos supreme

Guest


+1. I'll never forget watching this bloke with a million runs in the bank at Shield level get well and truly fixed up by Allan Donald and Co. Of course these were the heady days of having a little bit in the deck for the bowler.Not the endless beige we seem to be being served up the past decade or so...

2012-11-29T23:52:55+00:00

nachos supreme

Guest


I somehow remembered Waugh batting 3 a lot more than he actually did, he had only 7 innings at three making 252 with 100 being his best knock and by his standards was a failure averaging 36.00. 5 was his spot for sure 6754 runs over 142 digs at 56.28 makes for some impressive reading! http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerPositions.asp?PlayerID=1873

2012-11-29T23:33:34+00:00

Disco

Roar Guru


Precisely. For example, Matthew Hayden's Test average belies the fact that in the early to mid nineties there were openers that thrived against high-quality bowling and Haydoes wasn't one of them,

2012-11-29T23:31:58+00:00

bigbaz

Guest


I didn't see much of Norm O'neill sheek but I know he was saddled with the weight of being the next Bradman.Like many before and since it got to him and good judges from that period believe Australia never saw the best of him.

2012-11-29T23:06:19+00:00

John Spirov

Guest


I wouldn't say an average of 40 is outstanding at all. Mark Waugh could've been anything, but an average of 42 is pretty sub par. If you ain't averaging at least 46, then you aren't a legend. Border and Steve Waugh showed what can be done AND in a number of positions. And punter hasn't been too shabby himself, lest we remember his hurled abuse at javagal srinath. Absolute classic! Noto to mention, these boys were Cappy. I weep for the future.

2012-11-29T22:40:53+00:00

josh

Guest


I suspect the goal posts will move again especially post 2000 as boundaries changed, bats improved etc... I expect an average of 45 will be the new 40.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar