I’ve been following the debate around the concepts of inflated averages and meaningless runs, which has been a pretty hot topic in recent weeks on The Roar.
In the 50-odd years I’ve enjoyed the game, this is the first time I’ve come across the concepts, so I have to thank those who raised these topics, for contributing to my cricketing education.
I wanted to explore these issues by looking at three innings, which represent many of the tens of thousands of Test innings played since 1877. I’m sure cricket supporters from all round the world would be able to come up with similar examples from their own favourite players or Test countries.
Australia played a Test series in Pakistan in 1998. The numbers for the second Test of that series read Australia 4-599 dec, Pakistan 9-580 dec, and Australia 5-289.
On the surface of it, this was a boring draw: 1468 runs, 18 wickets lost and four scores over a hundred, suggests this was easy pickings for batsmen.
In that Test, Mark Taylor made 334 not out. Here’s his take on that innings from his book Time to Declare.
“For six sessions, two full days, on a beautifully tailored wicket at the Arbab Niaz Stadium, I had batted and battled on – in draining 30-degree heat partnered by soaking humidity. Rarely before in my cricket life had I been in what Greg Norman has called the ‘zone’. For one of the few times in the long seasons spent trying to master the art of batting, I was in total, absolute control, sure there was no way they could ever stop me.”
I vividly remember the debate that swirled around the decision that Taylor would have to make on the morning of Day 3: declare on the overnight total or bat on, make another run to pass Bradman then declare.
These are Taylor’s thoughts:
“During my years in the Test team, we had lived by the 600-run philosophy – simply, that if we could make 600 runs in a game, we were going to win a hell of a lot more games than we lost… I knew then, there was only one choice, to declare and set about winning the match. On the one hand, cricket is all about individual achievement and goals. But much more than that, it is a team game – and in my time as Australia’s captain, I had always tried to put the team first.”
Is this an example of a batsman cashing in and inflating their average? Absolutely. Is this score an example of meaningless runs? Yes – in hindsight because the match petered out to a tame draw. But as always with cricket there are far more issues at play.
Taylor was coming to the end of his career and he knew it. His form had not be the best, making 189 runs against India in the previous Australian summer and averaging only 37.80, which was massively helped by one innings of 102 not out.
(Credit: Mike Hewitt /Allsport/Getty Images)
In the previous Test in Pakistan, Taylor’s contribution to a total of 513 was three runs, so it’s safe to say the skipper was under some pressure to perform.
He was also batting to orders. The team had a goal of scoring 600 every time they played and he had a part to play in that. If he didn’t make a triple century, he’d have expected other batsmen to get the score close to that total.
Taylor was also in the zone and as he said, he was batting at the peak of his powers.
Has anyone been in the zone Taylor talks about? I have been but only briefly. The feeling of euphoria is really hard to describe and that was over 40 years ago! I can only imagine the feelings Taylor must have enjoyed if he was in the zone for the best part of two full days.
Then there’s the issues Taylor mentioned about batting in stifling heat and humidity. I’ve played a lot of cricket in the tropics and what he’s describing is commonplace. That doesn’t make it easy to bat, far from it.
Mark Taylor thought the runs mattered. He devoted plenty of words in his autobiography to just that one innings.
The public in Australia thought they mattered because many like me, were so proud and amazed at the achievement.
The media thought they mattered because they devoted so many articles to one decision – should Mark Taylor have declared or should he have batted on? These runs still matter because people still debate this same issue.
The next innings I want to discuss came during the 2006-07 Ashes series and came from the bat of Adam Gilchrist. Once again, on paper, this is an example of inflating averages and meaningless runs.
When Gilchrist came into bat, Australia were 5-374 and had a lead of 403 runs. This was clearly enough runs to comfortably win this match and so it proved, with England only making 350. On paper, if he didn’t bat at all, Australia would have won this game by 53 runs.
Once again, there’s more to this innings than just numbers.
Gilchrist had scores on zero, 64 and another duck in the first innings of this Test, so his form was indifferent at best. He was determined to make runs in front of his home crowd.
This was also a series where Australia didn’t want to beat England, they wanted to really crush them. All players and supporters would remember what happened in the 2005 Ashes and from ball one in this series, the Australian team wanted to dominate.
There was also a psychological factor. Sourav Ganguly once said something like ‘you think you’ve done well to get out Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Michael Hussey and Damien Martyn, then in walks Adam Gilchrist’.
His appearance at the crease must have been disheartening to the English attack. The final factor that makes these runs meaningful was how they were made and the pleasure they gave to so many.
The 110,000 people at the WACA that day (that’s the 20,000 who were actually there as well as the 90,000 who claimed they were there) were treated to one of the finest examples of pure hitting ever seen in Test cricket.
This innings is still enjoyed now. When I started to write this piece, I noted that 1,000,007,629 people had watched the YouTube video. Only a few hours later, that number has increased by another 52 views – all for an innings that was played 15 years ago.
The final innings I want to mention came from a favourite of mine and one of the game’s great batsmen – Glenn McGrath, ably supported by Jason Gillespie. The Test was against New Zealand in Brisbane in 2004.
(Photo by Amal KS/Hindustan Times via Getty Images)
When McGrath came to the wicket, Australia already had 471 on the board and a handy lead of nearly 120. Once again, hindsight tells us that this was more than enough for the Aussies to secure victory because the Black Caps were bowled out for 76 in the fourth innings.
This raises a number of questions. Why didn’t Ponting declare before McGrath had come out to bat? It was late in the afternoon and a great time to bowl against tired New Zealand openers, who had been in the field in the Brisbane heat for more than three sessions?
Why did Ponting allow the partnership to continue the next day? The team had more than enough runs on the board?
If you watch the video link, the answers to these questions are clear.
Ponting and his teammates wanted McGrath to do well and were absolutely delighted when he scored his first Test 50. There was also no way Ponting was going to declare when ‘Dizzy’ was in sight of his first Test half-century, which he duly scored the next day.
There’s no doubt these innings padded averages, especially McGrath’s and in the context of this game, were completely meaningless in terms of the scoreline, but to the batsmen who made the scores and their teammates who watched them struggle then prosper, these were two innings for the ages. As Ponting said, McGrath’s 61 was one of the miracles he’s witnessed on a Test ground.
I mention one final point, which came from an ex-Test player. They said they batted in each innings as though it was going to be their last.
In the case of Taylor and Gilchrist, these were the last time each passed three figures. In the case of McGrath it was the first and last time he passed 50. At the least, these runs had special meaning to these players, which has likely only increased since their retirements.
Cricket is a numbers game and if that’s all it was, these three innings would be perfect examples of meaningless runs that helped pad averages.
The wonderful thing about the game is there’s so much more to it than that.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No no no Rowdy, you are wrong Rowdy … SOME runs are only meaningless in hindsight, OTHERS already at the time. A new example I shall examine, just for you my good friend, is Allan Border’s 98 not out and 100 not out. Let’s begin at the end: one over left in the match, Australia 82 ahead, and Viv Richards, captain in Lloyd’s absence threw the ball to Gus Logie, and said to Border, who was on 96 and on strike: “C’mon Mon – let’s get your hundred so we can get outa here!” Logie deliberately served up a pie, Border obediently hit it for 4 and they walked off the ground. So, do you think those 4 runs had any meaning towards the result of that match? Let’s briefly recap most of the first four days: a fair bit of rain, but not enough to stop the West Indies having Australia by the balls around tea time on day 4: Australia 255, West Indies 468. So, trailing by 213, Australia had to survive the best part of four sessions in order to salvage a draw. Now at this stage, every single run scored by both teams has immense value. This is not a bore fest mundane draw that sees 13 wickets fall over 5 full days for 1600 runs – there are only two outcomes from here: a win to the West Indies, most likely a formality, or a very unlikely draw if Australia can hold on, this not being a dead rubber, but unfortunately for Australia, the rains have moved on. So, lets fast forward to just before that meaningless 4 Border was deliberately gifted by Logie … 82 ahead, 1 wicket in hand, technically one over to go in the match – how many results are possible? Now rewind two overs prior to that, 10 minutes left in the match … the wicket falls at that point, what will the West Indies have to chase? Nothing, because with a 10-minute change of innings, they will not bat at all because time has run out. Border and Alderman’s 61 partnership occupied about 30 overs so that is 2 runs per over. So let’s assume 4 runs were scored off the two overs prior to Logie starting that final one. So, with the West Indies no chance to bat again, Australia are 78 ahead, and in the following 13 deliveries, score 8 runs? Do those 8 runs have any meaning in terms of impacting the match result? Rewind now to when no 11 Alderman joined Border, 25 ahead, but still 30 overs left in the match. Over the following 27 overs they increased that buffer to 78 runs, at which point the West Indies would not bat again, after which they scored 4 runs off 2 overs then that token boundary to give Border a ton. Now Rowdy, at what point between Alderman joining Border, 25 ahead, and when 10 minutes remained in the match, 78 ahead, could we comfortably say that Australia were safe from defeat and therefore the match had been saved? 76 ahead, 4 overs remaining, 10 minute change of innings if 10th wicket falls at precisely this point, West Indies need to score 77 off 1 over? 74 ahead, 5 overs remaining, 10 minute change of innings, Windies need 75 off 2 overs? 72 ahead, 6 overs remaining, 10 minute change of innings, Windies need 73 off 3 overs? 70 ahead, 7 overs remaining in the game, 10 minute change of innings, West Indies need 71 off 4 overs? 68 ahead, 8 overs remaining, 10 minute change of innings, Windies need 69 off 5 overs? 66 ahead, 9 overs remaining, 10 minute change of innings, Windies need 67 off 6 overs? If you concede that Australia are safe at least at that last aforementioned point, then that means 20 meaningless runs (extending lead from 66 to 86) were scored, but in this case that is only 6.69% of Australia’s 2nd innings total of 299, only 3.6% of Australia’s 554 runs in the match, only 1.96% of all runs scored in the match, and 0% of the runs the West Indies scored in the match, who were narrowly denied a comprehensive victory. This particular example is not hindsight, I always count down when watching a test in such a 3rd innings final day scenario. I remember watching the 2005 Oval test on scrambled TV and when the 7th Pommy wicket fell on final day, with Pietersen batting the way he was, 205 ahead and 52 overs left after change of innings, at that very point I said to myself in frustration: we are not far away from needing a hattrick to have any chance left at all to save the Ashes. Think about it: a team in 3rd innings on final day are 180 ahead, 6 down, 23 overs left minus 3 for change of innings, can we say they are safe from defeat at that point? So what meaning do any runs scored (or wickets taken) from that point have in terms of influencing the match result. Remember too, to take four wickets will need a few overs, so even if they go quickly, that is another five overs out of the match, roughly, plus maybe another 10 or more added to the target so that becomes about 190 off 15. When watching a final day 3rd innigns scenario play out like this, I calculate it down every over, and always reach a point where I know a draw has already been assured.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
No runs are meaningless at the time. Hindsight is not afforded the batter at the time. -------- I think you are a deep thinker of the game but on this topic your thought processes are errant.
matth
Roar Guru
I agree with you that the 149 was better. That's a specific instance. The author is saying (and I disagree) that we should add or take away importance to an innings with the benefit of hindsight. I do not fully agree with that proposition.
Ace
Roar Rookie
Why is everyone being so childish and aggro. I look at posts to enjoy reading about cricket, not rants
Micko
Roar Rookie
The author is wrong. Gilly’s innings was awesome, but clearly didn’t affect the outcome of the match. And with the pressure off and a demoralised and tired England, it clearly became a moot point if Gilly made a hundred or got out for 23 going the tonk. What was better Matt: *Gilly’s innings here? OR *Gilly’s Hobart heroics with 149* with JL to win the game from an unlikely position in just his second test?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I am thinking you are probably being tongue in cheek? If Paul is right in me only being right 50% of the time, this doesn’t really tell us much on its own. We would need to analyse the stats more deeply and see who I am wrong against a higher percentage of the time and on what specific topics. I mean it could simply be that I am mostly right against everyone else, but always being wrong against Paul drives my average down and gives a distorted figure … Seriously though, this is one thing Paul is totally not correct about: “ … If both are genuine concepts perhaps you could write an article outlining what are the rules or guidelines that allow you and others to decide whether runs are meaningless or not? I’d be interested in knowing at what point you decide the runs being scored in any game become meaningless? I’d also like to know exactly who they are meaningless to? Obviously they’re meaningless to you, but are they meaningless to anyone else and if so why is that? If you did that, it would give myself and others some common ground to debate this topic. As it stands, I get the feeling the goal posts keep changing – “it’s not always an exact science, and sometimes there is a retrospective element also … “ That middle paragraph was simply extraordinary. In the three links below, I highlighted perhaps a dozen different situations across 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th innings where runs can be meaningless, and I cited Arthur Morris 196, Kevin Pietersen 158, Ricky Ponting 196, Brian Lara 277, and Joe Root’s most recent ton as examples, among others, where a certain portion of the runs were very meaningful and match defining before reaching an approximate point depending on the match situation when the runs began to diminish in, and then lose value altogether. I even dedicated an entire article to explore deeply two test matches than ran similar courses. For him then to claim in that 3rd paragraph above that it has not been done and no debate has occurred when those three links attracted a total of 626 comments showing extremely rigorous debate, a debate that Paul himself declined to take part in. Quite a few were convinced in the concept, others not, and at least one described it as ‘confronting’ in a positive way. Also, I have not shifted goal posts once. To then go on to make this claim: “ …. That article doesn’t come close to describing what I asked in my post. You’ve come up with some half baked idea that you change every time someone come up with a reasonable example to disagree with you … “ I have not shifted my stance even once, and the only examples I dismiss are blue moon exceptions to rules rather than the run of the mill rules themselves. You see Mitcher, Paul has completely boycotted my last 11 articles, not one comment from him among the 1457 in total. So, you or anyone else can agree with him on whatever percentage of the time I am wrong, and I don’t lose a single wink of sleep over Paul’s petty boycott towards me, but I do have a massive problem with him pompously challenging me to do something I have already done most satisfactorily. You or anyone else is also naturally free to agree with him on the idea of some runs having less meaning than others to be a half-baked theory. https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/08/31/test-cricket-how-much-is-a-run-worth-really/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/09/11/filling-pockets-and-padding-averages-a-tale-of-two-batsmen/ https://www.theroar.com.au/2021/09/14/how-much-is-a-run-really-worth-a-tale-of-two-test-matches/
matth
Roar Guru
I agree with you but that's not the position of the author. They judge runs meaning in hindsight
Paul
Roar Guru
I agree Camo. I've no idea how a score of 150 that helped win a game can be classed as meaningless runs, but I'm happy to defer to "experts" who believe they know more about Test cricket than I do.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Do you really think that 5 for 115 stopped England’s charge in 3rd innings in any way? ____ off 19 overs for goodness sake?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Red herring.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I can't take it the wrong way, as I don't know what it means.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yeaahhhhessss .... but the example i remention is the same whether real test cricket, backyard test cricket or any level in between. Don't take this the wrong way, but what you just said is a crimson cod.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Still have to be good enough to take a Test wicket, no matter the circumstances.
Gibbo
Roar Pro
Paul, your article has clearly hit a chord with so many. For me, I've always thought that the whole concept of "meaningless runs" is a bit, well, meaningless. "Meaningless, meaningless! Everything is meaningless." I remember recently someone criticising Wade and Warner for only scoring runs in the 4th innings of Tests. By and large, that criticism, particularly about Warner, is true. Runs are runs, no matter when they come. Last season, I averaged 3.87 with the bat and was shunted up and down the order from 1 to 11, never really settling on a spot (that was part of the issue). However, I was prouder of the 10 that I made in the final game of the season (which was my highest score for the year) than I was of all the other 23 runs that had come previously to that. I was prouder of that because I'd finally conquered some mental demons that I'd been battling all season. I think in Gilchrist's and Taylor's cases, there's a value in the runs piling on the pressure. If the Poms had won in Perth and had potentially made the 403 (scenes of South Africa just a few series later), they could've potentially won in Melbourne and Sydney also stealing the series and the retirements of a few Aussie greats. However, Gilly's innings pushed the lead to a mere 500+. A batsman takes a very different approach when chasing 500 than he does when chasing 400, even if it's unlikely that the team will get there. Also, for the record, McGrath's 61 will still be one of my favourite innings of all time simply for the sheer entertainment value.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I only just thought of this Jeff even though I have mentioned it elsewhere: one Ooh Aah 5 for that I consider pretty much meaningless is his 3rd innings 5 for 115 at OT in 2005. Just because he is Ooh Aah doesn't mean he has no meaningless wickets among his 563, just like Bradman has meaningless run. I don't think there'd be too many bowlers at all who've never taken any meaningless wickets.
Micko
Roar Rookie
That also comes back to the previous hypothesis of the superior importance of first innings runs. Astle got out for 10 in the first innings, NZ gave England an 80+ first innings lead, and England piled on the runs to give NZ 500+ runs to chase to win the match. Astle goes out and scores a world record 222 in the second innings...what was more important in the context of the match Dave, Astle out for 10 in the first, or having a self indulgent smashathon in the second when an NZ win was highly unlikely?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I didn't say Ponting was under any pressure. Only that Taylor making less would have meant he could make more.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Still, it was 76. Fortunately, Tubby had well and truly laid the foundation (and more) for the team objective of 600 in the 1st innings. Must be golden, coming in with the guy at the other end on 250. Talk about easing the pressure!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Ponting was greatly disadvantaged. Even though Slater and the Waughs made only 45 between them he only had time to get to 76.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Maybe. Maybe not, on the day.