“Yeah, but he’s made most of those runs against the West Indies.” So many times I’ve seen a sour response along these lines when Adam Voges’ extraordinary Test record is brought up, even after his average passed 100 yesterday.
Apparently, in the minds of many cricket followers, the fact Voges failed in the first three Tests in the Ashes invalidates the astonishing run plundering which went before and since.
Surely, if it is so elementary to hoard gigantic mounds of runs against the West Indies, every Test batsman would do it?
If the West Indies attack is so puny and feeble then why could England not beat them in their three-Test series in the Caribbean last year?
Why did England batsmen Ben Stokes, Ian Bell and Jonathan Trott collectively average just 25 with the bat in that series, which ended 1-1?
More:
» Australia vs New Zealand cricket Test: Day 1 live scores and highlights
» Full scoreboard
» Aussies have a lot to do to claim No.1 ranking
» Hazlewood the key for Australia
» Brendon McCullum, you disappoint me
Surely that English trio just should have activated the Voges-Windies Cheat Code which has allowed the West Australian to make 542 runs for one dismissal against the men from the Caribbean.
The Windies, apparently, are so bad that runs made against them should be stricken from the record books.
Even if you erase his performances against the West Indies, guess what? Voges’ Test record still is astoundingly good – 662 runs at 60.
In the lead-up to this Test, Cricinfo’s commentary stream described New Zealand’s Trent Boult and Tim Southee as arguably the best new-ball pair in the world.
That should add some weight then to Voges’ achievements in four Tests against that highly touted duo – he has made 461 runs at an average of 115.
He is now the single batsman in history who’s scored more than 1000 Test runs, to have a career average of 100. The 36-year-old also has churned out 551 runs since his last dismissal, smashing Sachin Tendulkar’s record of 497.
Voges’ phenomenal Test record looks even less fluky when you consider that, right before he earned his belated Test debut, he had hammered 1358 runs at an average of 104 in the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield season, with six tons from 11 matches.
We are not watching the kind of brief ‘purple patch’ most gifted batsman experience at some point in their careers. This is now 18 months of utter dominance in first-class cricket by Voges.
In that time, across 29 first-class matches, Voges has slammed 2701 runs at an average of 90. Few players in the history of the game have produced such astounding figures over an 18-month period.
Voges was called up to the Australian Test team in June last year at the age of 35. The Australian selectors would have been hoping he could add experience and steel to the middle order and be a solid contributor for 12 to 18 months.
Among Australian cricket followers, there never was an expectation Voges would be a match winner, rather that he could be a grafter who other more dynamic players could bat around.
He put paid to that in his first Test, at Roseau. Australia were in dire trouble in their first innings at 6-126 with Windies leg-spinner Devendra Bishoo running amok on a turning track.
Voges proceeded to peel off a calm and elegant 130 not out, guiding Australia from a perilous position to a commanding one.
In the current first Test at Wellington, he again has hauled Australia into a position from which they surely should win. An umpiring error aside, it has been another giant knock constructed with an ease which makes the opposition appear impotent.
They are not – this is a talented New Zealand attack which combined have 437 Test wickets to their names. It’s just that, right now, Voges is that good.
The Bush
Guest
agreed james
Jack
Guest
Hey Eddy. I really like your comments. They make a lot of sense to me and I am really impressed by Voges's current run. I like your idea of just looking at a no-ball when somebody gets out. But one thing would need to be monitored.If more no-balls were allowed to be bowled this might make it easier for bowlers to intimidate batsmen. They could overstep consistently, meaning the ball gets to the batsman faster. So you could have a lot of "bowling at the body" to intimidate the batsman and it would be an unfair advantage. That being said it might even things up in an age where batsman have bats bigger than outhouses
No eye deer
Guest
Yep, in a contest for most pointless comment amongst pointless armchair critics that was a win, well done cam.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
"this is such a silly and pointless exercise" And here I thought our discussions on Roar will have an effect on world peace.
Bearfax
Guest
I dont know that my figures are all over the shop Ronan if they are accurate. Hmmm. But your point is valid about 'not outs'. But I am also assuming Voges only plays for 2 years more when he could conceivably play for another 4, which would reduce the averages futher. There is also the disparity in Voges not out scores in such a short tenure as No 5 batsman. 6 not outs in 19 innings is 31.6%, which is a highly disproportionate figure for any batsman. Hussey for example who played at No 6 had an 11.7% not out proportion, Warner has 4.3%. Even the perennial 11th man McGrath had 36%. So Voges present not out percentage is an aberration, that will no doubt reduce significantly as he plays more tests. By the way 5 of those not out scores have been against West Indies and new Zealand.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Bearfax to be fair your sums are all over the shop here Firstly...You haven't factored in "not outs". Your calculation is based on Voges never having a "not out" again in his career. You've said, "if he averaged 45 in his next 45 innings that will leave him averaging 56.8". That is actually correct...if...but only if....in his next 45 innings Voges never once finishes not out...which is never going to happen....so the calculation is flawed. Secondly...you've miscalculated how many innings Voges likely would play in those hypothetical further 28 Tests you have predicted he will play. Currently, Voges has played 1.36 innings per Test in his career...so based on that rate he will have only 38 more innings, not the 45 that you put forward. Both of these errors drastically affected your calculations.
Don Freo
Guest
Bear, everyone knows how averages work and we all know how not outs factor in. If that was really your purpose, your post is redundant. Your line of argument can only be read as a criticism and the repetition of it only serves as an attempt to diminish Voges' achievements.
Don Freo
Guest
That would be because Rogers got to bat a whole innings every innings. That's not a hard one to work out.
Smocks Folder
Guest
Speaking of Rogersesque performance across his first 7 tests Chris scored 402 runs while Voges only amassed a paltry 368...a full 34 runs less... I think sometimes its easy to rewrite history in our memory and confuse it for what it actually was. Rogers also copped plenty of criticism from punters during his first few tests for not scoring heavily enough. Regardless of the age when a player makes his test debut there is an inevitable (with few exceptions - the Don oddly enough is one of these if you overlook his first one) settling in period and if you or anyone else was expecting Voges to peel off a thousand runs in the Ashes, you were setting the bar too high.
EddyJ
Guest
Like I said, this is a non-issue, much ado about nothing. So, every fan has said "where were you in Ashes?". That's funny, I've not heard that. "That’s all there is to this argument." And as I've said, this is such a silly and pointless exercise, and a waste of everyone's time. I've got work to do, see you later.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
Eddy, you can't question Voges's skills as batsman. It would be silly, we all know what he is done and how much he averages. The only feeling/question is (as I've stated in above comment), every time he smashes the Kiwis/West Indies, Australian fans appreciate it and love it (can't be a fan if you don't), but the feeling stays "where were you in Ashes!!" It's almost like he has become a victim of his own success. It's only human nature to question/say "Mate, we could have used one third of that double hundred on morning of Trent Bridge"! That's all there is to this argument.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
Don, I'm not blaming Voges in particular. The entire batting unit failed in Ashes. I wrote something similar when Warner started to smash kiwis as home and would celebrate his hundred with big jumps. I've never said he is unimpressive, Test hundreds are always impressive. I do admire him, skills and his humble demeanor. I am disappointed as we could have used half of what he is doing/done against Kiwis and West Indies. Hence, I'm not getting carried away with his or Warner's successes. I appreciate them, but with a little sense of "Where was this during Ashes" feeling.
Bearfax
Guest
Don. Try dealing with the intent, not what your convoluted mind twists the argument to mean. I wasnt diminishing Voges performances. I was merely pointing out that have 6 not out scores boosts the average. This is why some bowlers have great averages. What it does to Voges averages is it adds to the next score. So 51 not out becomes 127, 130 not out to 177, 83 not out to 125 and 269 and 106 becomes 614. Now he may have scored close to some of those scores but certainly not to the larger ones, which each effectively represent one innings each.
Don Freo
Guest
You will always have low numbers to point to if you take out the good numbers. Stats work like that...and get used (misused) in perspectives like yours. You know, they would have won the series 3-2 if Warner and Rogers hadn't failed at Trent Bridge. Why blame it all on Voges? That's what selective blaming looks like, Tana. You are on a losing argument if you are trying to prove that Voges' performances are unimpressive. Cricket followers can see they are impressive. I would have thought you would appreciate such performances.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
Someone forgot to tell the Australian team. How long has it been since we won a Ashes in England now?!
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
51 not out when the match was utterly lost, should I see that? Or the 75, coming at 3/200, in NOT a very challenging situation? Mate, whichever way you look at it, he failed in Ashes...... but then denial is the most basic of human responses.
EddyJ
Guest
Too much time has been wasted discussing this huge non-issue. Just goes to show there's a lot of negative people out there that find fault with everything and anything... this is getting a bit like the Adam Goodes saga from last year. Voges should be put in stocks and humilated in a public square until his average comes down to, say 49. Maybe that will make people happy. By the way, wasn't that Don Bradman guy useless... only averaged 56 in the Bodyline series. Didn't stand up when it mattered. How useless! Made a first ball duck in his final innings WHEN IT REALLY MATTERED! Made lots of cheap runs against South Africa when they were easybeats! Only played his tests in Australia and England. If he played in India and West Indies, his average would have dropped down to 39.94! Useless useless useless!!!! Yeah/narr, he wasn't as good as his average suggests...
Don Freo
Guest
England is tradionally a weak opponent, not a yardstick.
Don Freo
Guest
Not getting out is actually a good thing, not a sign that he is a lesser batsman. You must think that Bradman never had a not out.
Don Freo
Guest
3 clear failures...unless you are counting DNB as one to suit your condemnation. 16, 25 and 31 are not the scores of someone that hs "completely disappeared". 51no and 76 are actually good scores. In a poor series, a 28 average is not terrible. I agree with you when you say, "I fail to see."