Poor wicketkeeping the source of Lyon's early woes

Agreed Ed. Stats short term are always far more variable as is luck. The shorter the career, the more variable chance applies. I wouldnt say though that Ed Cowan's test career was about luck. I think, like Hughes, it was about a flaw in his batting, excellent defensive technique, but didnt seem to have the necessities for an attacking posture when he was settled. Mind you like Hughes, I think Cowan learned his lesson and is a far better batsman now that he was when he was playing tests and could handle test cricket I think far more effectively if promoted now.

Yep, I mostly agree with that. I'd add that when the luck happens can change the length of the career - over long careers near 50/50 is likely but it's more variable in shorter careers. Examples from England players: Cook's luck initially as an international player helped him forge a successful career. Bad luck at the start could have left him in an Ed Cowan position (i.e. dropped). Strauss almost had his international career ended by wrong decisions in the 2006/7 Ashes in Oz. Hussain's breakthrough hundred was after he was given not out nicking behind and he went on to be England captain. Ed Smith wrote a good book about Luck - it's worth a read for those that haven't already.

I would suggest Ed that the longer a player is in the game, the more luck, bad decisions, good decisions etc even out. That's not to say that some players may have slightly better luck, but lets be honest about chance...ever played the pokies consistently and come out a winner. It would be very rare. A lot of perceived luck is primarily just that, perceived. Sometimes in the short term one player seems to get all the luck, but too often we overlook the times it works the other way. I remember watching a spate of occasions when Steve Waugh was determined out, when it was shown the umpires had been mistaken. I remember thinking he has to be the unluckiest player about. But then scattered over a longer period I saw him given not out when he should have been adjudged out. It balanced out but you had to watch carefully to see it. You watch some players and they seem to come close to but consistently dont nick the ball for catches. But its usually a perception bias because you end up looking for it. Because suddenly other times they cant seem to not nick the ball. Of course one has to also take into consideration, the skill of the player. Hughes for example nicked the ball consistently for a while, because of a flaw, but that's not chance. I've no doubt there are some players who over the longer run have been slightly more lucky than others, just like if I spin a coin over a long period of time, heads or tails will probably end up a few ahead. But very little variation will occur except in the rarest of occasions. Chance surely always favours a 50/50 result.

Here's one for you Bearfax. An "adjusted average" that takes into account luck to an extent. Before DRS, luck played a big part in the success of players, and it plays a lesser part now. Several years back I actually bothered to work out what I called "real averages" for England players which took into account wrong umpiring and dropped catches. Cook was the luckiest of England's players at the start of his career: http://cricketburble.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/england-test-real-averages-since-summer.html I think many of the debates about players skill and the appropriateness of averages comes from the fact that averages include luck and, to some extent, that can be eradicated by assuming that giving a chance is out.

Don how a player is going is all about averages. Get real. I have yet to hear one sensible suggestion and I certainly dont mean personal impressions (aka bias) that is a better assessment of a player than their averages over a long period. You present a cogent option and I will take note. But up until now all I am reading is personal bias and fairy floss.

We all know how averages work. Averages are just not thst important. How a player is going is the most important aspect to a team. Averages are impirtant for some spectators only.

Every batsman hits the wall Don or havent you noticed. Or perhaps I'm being a little too obtuse. What I am saying is that there will be times when batsmen score almost at will and then other times they will struggle to compile more than say 100-150 runs in 6 innings. That's what will bring their averages back down to their average.

I think there is doubt that Ussie, Joe and Vogesy will hit the wall. They have done their teething.

It seems Matth that everyone likes interpreting outcomes their own way to justify a position. Don Freo would say you should only look at the last 2 years, and that before that is virtually redundant. Then there's the selectiveness of who you play against, that we dont add stats that might work against a player. Stats over extended periods deal with how players are performing as an average. Sometimes gamesand conditions favour them, sometimes they dont. But averaging them out gives you the closest idea of the performance of a player. Manipulating figures just demonstrates bias in favour or against. No doubt for example Burns, Khawaja and Voges will hit the wall at some stage and their impressive averages caused by this series will be tempered by matches, possibly against India or South Africa. As far as Lyon is concerned should we in ignoring those expensive matches also ignore the gimme matches he's just had against the Windies averaging 25.5. Or perhaps the match in 2014 in Adelaide against India when he took 12 wickets at 23. In this game you take the good with the bad and stats give a sense of how you are progressing. Ignore them and you may as well refer to tarot cards, tea leaves or chicken entrails.

Perceptions are coloured because Haddin probably played a series too long and his keeping did fall away towards the end. But in his prime he was a very good keeper

Even a 2 years sample is not definitve, because it depends who and where he played in that time. UAE against Pakistan certainly destroyed him in 2014, but by the same token this year he got to bowl to the West Indies twice

And I think you'll find that since his 26th birthday, Lyon has averaged 35.76, unless my maths are way off.

I think I've covered that to an extent Ronan in other comments I've made in this section..or have you been naughty and not read them. I've pointed out he may be a top spin option in his 30s, I've said he is improving but noted in past two years a huge variation in his returns...of course that has a lot to do with who he is playing. And of course you didnt mention Warne debuted at 22 and Benaud at 21. Nor did you mention that Swann averaged 29.4 in his debut season and Shah 24.55, both about Lyon's present age, where he had his best season in 2015 averaging 29.14, but the previous year averaging 43.3

Bearfax when we compare Lyon's career stats against other current or past spinners I think it's important to note their ages and the fact that Lyon debuted way, way earlier than most of them when he was just a complete rookie, developing spinner. Most Test spinners debut when they have been playing FC cricket at least 6-7 years and have 70+ FC games under their belt. When Lyon debuted in Tests he was an utter novice, having played only 7-8 first-class games from memory. He was chucked in at the deep end amid a mass churning-through of spinners after Warne. In a bygone era he wouldn't have got a look in at Test level until he was probably about the age he is now - 28yo. Of the guys you compared Lyon's career record to...Miller didn't debut until he was 34yo, Yardley until 31yo, Higgs until 28yo, and MacGill until 27yo, Now compare Lyon to some of the most prolific spinners of the current generation - Ajmal debuted in Tests at 32yo, Swann at 29yo, Yasir Shah at 28yo, while Rangana Herath was 31yo before he got regular Tests for Sri Lanka. So I would argue that Lyon's Test figures after the age of 26yo - during which time his average is about 29 - are much more reflective of his quality than his career figures.

Glad many of us were/are agreed!

Pom in Oz, Don has always been the joker in the pack...even when he doesnt mean to be.

HaHa! Give you that one, Don ;)

Credit where credit is due. Lyon had a poor 2014 year, where he averaged in test bowling 43.3. But he did improve markedly in 2015 averaging 29.14. Overall for the two years 34.77

You weren't the only saying Wade almost cost Lyon his career. Plenty of us said as much in the comments on here at the time and from memory some had it in their articles.

Yeah The Bush. You're right and I did mention he seems to be improving. By his thirties he may well be in the top echelon. But perceptions can be deceiving and maybe some note needs to be taken of the figures. It should be noted that since the beginning of 2014, he has played 44 test innings costing 2886 runs and snaring 83 wickets. That's an average of only 34.77, which is close to his overall first class record and worse than his overall test average. Being a nice guy tends to colour our impressions a little.