‘The Don’ here. Just thought I’d pop down and give my 99.96’s worth on Adam Voges
I note he’s sitting second to me on Cricinfos’s highest career batting averages, and as you can well imagine, that sits as well with me as a Bill O’Reilly sledge.
Of course, I didn’t mind when Graham Pollock sat under me, because, boy, that Springbok could bat. I was even OK with Michael Hussey overstaying his welcome, because water was always going to find its own level with that 80 average of his, and so it proved.
But this Voges is now a washed up Test player and that 61 average is as good as engraved.
Indeed, it’s now sitting in the all time batting averages like an empty sardine can defiling an idyllic shore!
Something has to be done.
So what’s say all you stats lovin’ nuts lobby Cricinfo to have the minimum number of innings raised? Voges has 31 innings, so let’s bombard them with emails ranting that it now be 32.
Better still Bradman fans, let’s lobby to downgrade Voges’s Tests against the Windies to exhibition matches. If you take out his numbers against players representing countries who only got a game because the best players for that country were in the Big Bash, you have an average that takes a big bash!
I mean, use your imaginations.
You could push them to have a chart that reads ‘Highest career batting averages … but only for players who weren’t ordinary Shield cricketers.’
Or
‘Highest career batting averages .. but only for players who weren’t hacks (or frauds!)’
The possibilities are endless.
And if not for me, do it for your children. Do you want them poring over batting charts where Voges is in company with the greats? It’d be like letting a history teacher tutor fourth graders that ‘dude’ is used 161 times in The Big Lebowski.
We don’t our kids’ fragile little minds cluttered with trivial quirks like that, let alone Voges’. We want them learning about the Romans and Captain Cook and topping a batting chart after a resounding 80 innings.
So if not for me, do it for them. And if not for them, well … at least for parity. For while Voges pollutes batting charts with his devaluing 61 average, parity is the real loser. And parity being a loser can’t be good for anyone.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
I am merely allowing his figures to speak for themselves If he had been chosen for Australia sooner, he would have played against a woeful England here. No-one in that 5-0 whitewash should be allowed to keep their scores then You can't have it both ways.Either the cricketers who played against weak teams have the right to have their record respected, or every high score or bowling triumph should be asterisked When Lara scored 400 at Antigua, should that be marked down because of the size of the ground? Where would you place that score in the context of high Test hundreds?
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Dr RC, do you rate Adam Voges in the top 100 batsmen to have played Test cricket? And if so, at what number to you place him?
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Do you rate Adam Voges in the top 100 batsmen to have played Test cricket? And if so, at what number to you place him>
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
The trouble about high horses is that they're pretty hard to come down from Voges was picked because of a mountain of first-class runs,both here and in England He deserved to be picked and he deserves his place Was Trumper no good because his career was so short? "We who care about parity"...pshaw to that Did Greg Chappell's seven ducks in a row entitle him to parity?Do Murali's chucks entitle him to parity with Warne?When you are selective about Voges,those who disagree with you can rightfully assume a bitterness. I think you'll find that when you acknowledge people's achievements, instead of evaluating them against an arbitrary and personal standard, you'll have less time for negativity
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Don, if I sounded angry anywhere in this thread, it's because I refute that this piece was bitter. The piece was just a bit of junk a put together in a lunchbreak. It wasn't motivated by anger; it was fueled by concern. To quote David St Hubbin, "I think we're stuck with a pretty dismal looking album cover" if we have a minimum of 20 innings to make an all time batting average table. If we've learnt anything about substance over this Voges' business, it's that 31 innings doesn't deliver it. Anyway, I think Paul D seems a to have a good handle on you .. you don't let facts and evidence get in the way of your agenda. And just out of interest, would you say Voges makes the top 100 batsmen to have played Test cricket? I'll venture 99 out of a 100 people would argue he doesn't.
Paul D
Roar Guru
Hey Don, perhaps it is remembered because it was so out of character with the mountainous amounts of runs he scored in most of the 79 innings before that? It is precisely because it was so unexpected that it is remembered. Also the small matter of needing 4 runs for a century average. And his finishing average as a result of 99.94. Which, you know, is about 40 runs clear of anyone else who has ever played the game for more than a single test. But like I said, don't let all the facts and evidence get in the way of your agenda. You usually don't.
Don Freo
Guest
Peter, your responses...so angry...give the lie to any attempt at satire. Paul D...ever the literalist...you're only as good as your last innings. No one (apart from pedants) remember his second last innings. Everyone remembers his last.
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Don, Voges made a mountain of runs within a Himalayan range of run making. He only ever made runs when everyone made runs. When the going got tough, we got nothing out of him. Steve Smith and Dave Warner showed spine in these periods. That's fair analysis of his time in the baggy green ... it's not cherry picking to suit my argument. I have nothing against Voges. This is just an argument about calibrations. While Cricinfo run their all time averages with a criteria of 20 innings, the less credentialed are in the mix. Voges 31 innings illustrates that even a mediocre can end a career with an elite average should the circumstances be favorable. And that needs to be factored into the config of any table presenting all time stats otherwise the tables are worthless. But no biggie ... indeed I was only ever aiming for satire in this throwaway piece. Guess I screwed up my calibrations as much as Cricinfo
Paul D
Roar Guru
Good thing he retired after that match if he was pathetic and washed up, admittedly he'd just hit 173* in the previous match in what was for a long time the greatest ever 4th innings chase in test history, but don't let facts get in the way of a good one-eyed rant Don.
Don Freo
Guest
Here's some more perspective. Bradman's last innings...his parting gift...was a duck. Dismissed by one of Test cricket's worst ever bowlers. Pathetic and washed up? Hmmm. Anyone can pick out failures to suit an argument. There was no perspective at all in your last comment.
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Here's a little bit of perspective on Voges: In 18 innings against England, South Africa and Sri Lanka at home where their bowlers are formidable, he averages 20.52. TWENTY POINT FIVE TWO! That is the record of a tailender. A handy tailender I grant you, but a tailender nonetheless. So we have someone sitting under Bradman who is a essentially a tailender when playing against the world's best teams. Further, look at the series averages against New Zealand and the West Indies last year. You'll find just about every batsmen in Australia's top order averaged Bradmanesque numbers over the 8 tests. So when the going is easy, Voges can bat as well as Dizzy Gillespie on a Chittagong autobahn, but when the going is tough, he's a mug. That is deserving of number 2 on the all time batting charts? Dr Rotcod and Don Freo, you're entitled to your opinions, but the thing is, they've come at the expense of your logic. The numbers don't lie. Vopes was a mediocre and the only thing he really achieved in Test cricket was to be the most voracious pig at the trough in last summer's run glut. Logic screams that needs to be calibrated into any equation about who sits under Bradman.
Don Freo
Guest
The article and each of your comebacks certainly have that tone. You would deny Voges the right to a record of his achievement...because you don't think he is that good. Peter, he has done this over 20 Tests...5 or 6 series. It's actually what he DID achieve. Your article tries...unsuccessfully...to argue that away. After that, you just get grumpy. It's not clear why but the good Doctor's explanation might be close to the mark.
Peter Zitterschlager
Roar Guru
Wow. Bitter? Care to substantiate that? I expect you'll bring forward examples where I've put a blowtorch on bullsh*t. Enjoy your delusion that Voges' deserves his place on a list with the all time greats. We who care about parity don't enjoy his numbers loitering near Bradman's. They only do because they've made the qualification too low. That is deserving of criticism.
Don Freo
Guest
No, I haven't read that story.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Bitter Peter Zittersclager :.No-one to slag off at over on the Almanac? I think it would be appropriate to exclude all records set before the advent of neutral umpires.That would keep the averages of such luminaries as Miandad, Boycott and ,Gavaskar down to the low 30s. For example, Miandad used to joke about never being afraid of LBWs at home. Boycott kept a tally of times that he knew he was out and survived and balanced that against unfair dismissals and reckoned that he was well ahead at the end of his career. Voges deserves his place.Who denies Hayden's high score against Zimbabwe didn't inflate his career runs and average? Are you slagging him for that? You take what you get as a batsman and only the bitter care where the runs come from
Don Freo
Guest
Not wondering that at all. If McKenzie wasn't dropped for succeeding, he would have been remembered as the legend Benaud is. You can't guild the Bradman lily. He was an unpleasant man and you will struggle to find a quote from any of his peers that say otherwise.
Paul D
Roar Guru
.
Paul D
Roar Guru
He was dropped against India but you’re frightfully confused about the timing – he took 10 for 151 against India in 1967/68 in Melbourne and was dropped because the selectors were apparently concerned the series was a bit one sided and wanted to give India more of a chance – bear in mind test cricket was undergoing an existential crisis in the late 1960’s, with ODI cricket just starting out in England and there was a big push to have entertaining series. Boycott found himself dropped for making a boring 246 against New Zealand around the same time. Plus at that time McKenzie was on 173 wickets and nowhere near Benaud’s record. If you’re wondering why he was dropped when Australia went to South Africa it was because he was dangerously ill after the tour of India that had preceded it and was woefully ineffective, 1-333 off 110 overs over 3 tests before the selectors put him out of his misery. But he came back, played the first 3 tests against England in 1970-71 before he was dropped for good. But I don’t see how you can claim Benaud related bastardry for his demise, there was a big cleanout of the side during that series as I’m sure Bill Lawry will tell you.
Don Freo
Guest
I've already explained what I think. Poor bowling and pathetic fielding. I don't need to strengthen the argument with repetition. The opinion stands strongly. It's ok for you to disagree.
Don Freo
Guest
2 wickets short of Benaud's record. Takes 6/48 agsinst India...and dropped.