For Ashes cricket comparisons between the Waughs, peers have to be included because Mark and Steve did not stand out from the pack compared to when playing the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan.
This is more due to the fact that England’s bowlers were not in the same league, rather than the specialness of Ashes cricket.
Because of the humungous amount of capping that needs to be done, I have restricted the comparison to six other players. The players chosen were the seven who performed the best among the ones who played in the largest number of matches plus long serving wicketkeeper Ian Healy.
For players such as Allan Border and Ricky Ponting, only series played between 1986 and 2001 were considered, and for this reason Ponting doesn’t make the cut under the aforementioned criteria.
The parameters are the same as for the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan except that for Ashes cricket I am pretty much completely unconcerned with dead rubbers. There are three main reasons for this.
(Credit: Sean Garnsworthy/Getty Images)
Firstly, Australia lost only one solitary Test across eight series between 1989 and 2003 inclusive when the destiny of the Ashes had not yet been decided and that was the first Test of the 1997 series in the middle of the saga of Mark Taylor’s infamous but somewhat overplayed form slump.
Secondly, for the eight players listed in the table below, there is only one whose statistics suffer even remotely significantly when dead rubbers are taken out of the equation, and no prizes for guessing who that might be.
In fact, in the period under discussion (1986-2001), Ricky Ponting was the only player who ever excelled in dead rubbers after not performing at all in the front end of the series when it really mattered – that was 2001 and his era of dominance with the bat would begin the very next series in 2002-03 when the Waugh era was as good as over.
Thirdly, Australia’s ruthless Ashes dominance actually began with a consolation, morale-boosting dead rubber win after losing the first of the series under discussion, in Sydney in January 1987.
That Sydney win was also a watershed for Australia for two other completely non-Ashes related reasons. One, it marked a turnaround of Australia’s Test fortunes after three consecutive summers of constant trauma and two, it was actually the first Test match win full stop for seven of the 11 who played in that Test.
Four of those players – Steve Waugh, Merv Hughes, Geoff Marsh and Bruce Reid – had all debuted more than a year previously, while a fifth, Dean Jones, had debuted nearly three years earlier.
In fairness to ‘Dead Rubber Deano’, if for four of those five reasons outlined above we simply consider that aforementioned Sydney win as an honorary non-dead rubber, his meaningful average ignoring all other dead rubbers finishes only three and a half runs lower than his meaningful average when including all Ashes Tests while his first-innings average for non-dead rubbers would actually exceed his overall first-innings average by more than 20 per cent at a neat 80.
This does require quite a large grain of salt though, which will be outlined later.
I am going to struggle with the word limit here, so I need to ascertain the omissions and capping that needs to be done.
Days 2-5 of the third Test of the 1986-87 series will be completely ignored. This was a match in which a mere 20 wickets fell across five full days for around 1200 runs. The only relevance is that no collapse occurred on the first day, as in fact it did on the same ground four years later.
Therefore, Dean Jones’ 93 will be treated as 27 not out, Allan Border’s 70 will be treated as 19 not out while David Boon retains his 103.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
There are four lost-cause innings to omit and they are the third innings in Brisbane in 1986-87, the third innings in Melbourne in 1986-87, the fourth innings at the Oval in 1993 and the third innings at Edgbaston in 1997.
There are only two innings where all who batted are to be treated as zero not out, on account of being a fourth innings where the target was not being chased, and they survived for a hard fought, honourable draw when losing was a real possibility, and they are in Perth in 1986-87 and at Trent Bridge in 1993.
So now to the capping, and you will notice that there is none in the first of these series under discussion, that is 1986-87:
• First innings (of match) at Headingley in 1989, Steve Waugh capped at 150.
• Third innings at Headingley in 1989, all batsmen capped at 20.
• Fourth innings at Lord’s in 1989, Mark Taylor and David Boon capped at 25, Steve Waugh capped at 15.
• Third innings at Edgbaston in 1989, completely ignored.
• Fourth innings at Old Trafford in 1989, Mark Taylor capped at ten, David Boon’s runs ignored.
• First innings (of match) Trent Bridge in 1989, Mark Taylor capped at 100, David Boon capped at ten, all other runs ignored.
• Third innings at the Oval in 1989, all batsmen capped at 25.
• Fourth innings in Brisbane in 1990-91, both openers capped at 20.
• Fourth innings in Melbourne in 1990-91, both not-out batsmen capped at 30.
• Third innings in Adelaide in 1990-91, David Boon capped at 100, Allan Border capped at 50.
• Fourth innings in Perth in 1990-91, all three batsmen capped at 12.
• Third innings at Old Trafford in 1993, David Boon and Mark Waugh capped at 50, Steve Waugh capped at 30, Ian Healy capped at 25.
• First innings (of match) at Lord’s 1993, Mark Taylor and Michael Slater capped at 100, David Boon and Mark Waugh at 75, Allan Border at 50, Steve Waugh’s runs completely ignored
• First innings (of match) at Headingley in 1993, David Boon capped at 85, Allan Border and Steve Waugh capped at 75.
• Third innings in Brisbane in 1994-95, Mark Taylor and Michael Slater capped at 30, all other batsmen capped at 15.
• Third innings in Melbourne in 1994-95, David Boon capped at 50, Steve Waugh’s and Ian Healy’s runs completely ignored.
• Fourth innings in Sydney and Adelaide in 1994-95, in both instances, I am counting the scores of all of the one-to-six batsmen, but ignoring Healy’s innings in both instances.
• Third innings at Perth in 1994-95, Mark Taylor and Michael Slater capped at 35, Steve Waugh and Greg Blewett capped at 25.
• Third innings at Old Trafford in 1997, all batsmen capped at 55.
• Third innings at Trent Bridge in 1997, Mark Taylor, Matthew Elliott and Greg Blewett all capped at 30, Ian Healy capped at 20.
• Third innings in Brisbane in 1998-99, Michael Slater and Justin Langer capped at 35, Mark Waugh at ten and Steve Waugh at five.
• Fourth innings in Perth in 1998-99, all batsmen capped at seven.
• Third innings in Adelaide, Michael Slater capped at 50, Mark Waugh at ten.
• Second innings (of match) at Edgbaston in 2001, Steve Waugh capped at 90.
• Fourth innings at Trent Bridge in 2001, Matthew Hayden capped at 25, Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn capped at 20.
• First innings (of match) at the Oval in 2001, both Waughs capped at 100.
Now to the actual table below, after which I will finish by mentioning a few relevant things about each of the eight players listed therein. Tables are so cool!
| Batsman | Meaningful innings | First-innings average | Meaningful average | Strike rate* | 100s | 50s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Waugh | 48 | 56.1 | 47.2 | 59.2 | 6 | 11 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 40 | 52.4 | 45.3 | 59.2 | 4 | 10 |
| Steve Waugh | 54 | 60.3 | 47.6 | 49.1 | 9 | 10 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 45 | 63.5 | 50.1 | 50.2 | 8 | 9 |
| Allan Border | 30 | 54 | 48.2 | 43.7 | 2 | 9 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 24 | 56.2 | 50 | 43.6 | 2 | 8 |
| Dean Jones | 22 | 66.9 | 58.2 | 52.9 | 3 | 6 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 17 | 50.7 | 48.2 | 56 | 1 | 5 |
| Michael Slater | 35 | 47.4 | 39.2 | 53.1 | 7 | 3 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 31 | 53 | 42.9 | 54.5 | 7 | 3 |
| David Boon | 43 | 44.6 | 43.2 | 41.5 | 6 | 6 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 37 | 46.8 | 44.4 | 42.3 | 6 | 5 |
| Mark Taylor | 51 | 48.5 | 35.9 | 40.8 | 5 | 12 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 44 | 42.5 | 32.9 | 39.2 | 4 | 10 |
| Ian Healy | 40 | 25.6 | 26.6 | 55.9 | 2 | 6 |
| Excluding dead rubbers | 34 | 21.3 | 23.6 | 52.6 | 2 | 4 |
*Strike rate (linked directly/entirely to meaningful average)
Allan Border
Border played consistently across all four series he was involved in during the Waugh era. His best achievements would be his 125 in the second Test of the 1986-87 series to give Australia an even chance of avoiding defeat so as to not be down 0-2 after two Tests, as well as his 66 on the first day of the 1989 series.
(Credit: Ben Radford/Allsport via Getty Images)
On that first day in the aforementioned 1989 series, he came in at 2-57 in not overly batting friendly conditions and played aggressively to negate the advantage held by the bowlers.
His strike rate was a dozen or so runs higher than his normal rate of scoring and the way he played left Australia well placed on 3-207 at the end of a significantly shortened first day’s play, also enabling rookie opener Mark Taylor to go to stumps within a boundary of a maiden Test century.
Border was obviously captain for all four of these series he played in, but this article focuses exclusively on batting.
Mark Taylor
Taylor enjoyed more than a few fine moments over six Ashes series without being on the losing side once, including three as captain.
Only days after his second-innings 113 in Sydney in 1994-95, which in a 208-run opening stand with Slater, gave Australia a sniff of a world record 449 fourth-innings chase, Taylor said he rated it among his best innings simply because it was almost mistake free.
Taylor enjoyed a productive series in that same first one as captain, leading from the front with other scores of 90 in Adelaide in reply to England’s first-innings 419 as well as 59 on the opening day of the series.
His second-innings 58 in the third innings of that same first Test contained about 30 runs that were extremely beneficial to the team cause of setting an unreachable target for the opposition while also leaving his bowlers plenty of time to bowl them out a second time.
(Credit: Mike Hewitt /Allsport/Getty Images)
Contrary to popular belief, his 129 in his team’s second innings in the first Test of 1997 did not end his form slump, as it was played with a nothing-to-lose mentality in a completely lost cause, 378 behind on the first dig.
His opening-day 76 in the Ashes- and series-sealing fifth Test and then 45 in the third innings of the match, of which about 30 where relevant to the team cause, was actually where his real return to form began. In between, his form in Tests 2-4 was as woeful as it had been all calendar year.
In his final Ashes series in 1998-99, he made extremely valuable first-innings contributions of 46, 61 and 59 towards Australia once again retaining the Ashes with two Tests to play. His only genuinely poor Ashes series was in 1990-91 where he made an extremely mediocre 99 runs in five first innings.
Michael Slater
Slater played in four Ashes series, two home and two away, and Australia won all of them. He blazed onto the scene like a glorious comet in 1993, and was probably Australia’s best batsman in the 1994-95 series, narrowly shading Mark Waugh and skipper Taylor.
However, official statistics make his 1998-99 series look considerably better than what it actually was, even if his 123 in Sydney in Australia’s final innings of the series was undeniably absolutely priceless.
(Photo by Andy Kearns/Getty Images)
However, his other two second-innings centuries have been legitimately capped at 35 and 50, and his five first innings that series yielded a mere 86 runs with a top score of 34.
Despite bowing out prematurely in 2001 with a paltry 93 runs in the six innings that followed his initial knock in the series of 77, overall, Slater has every right to be extremely proud of his achievements in Ashes cricket.
David Boon
Woeful form in his maiden Ashes series in 1986-87 ended with being dropped for that watershed dead-rubber win in Sydney. However, he enjoyed very prolific series in 1989, 1990-91 and 1993, before signing out with a genuinely mediocre series at home in 1994-95.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
That aforementioned initial Ashes series was the only one he played in where he tasted defeat, and in the following four, Australia as good as never needed him to be the Rock of Gibraltar that he often proved to be against the stronger opponents, such as the West Indies, during this same time period.
Ian Healy
Healy was obviously the old style, pre-Adam Gilchrist type of keeper who possessed enough prowess with the willow to prop up the team’s innings after a top-order collapse when needed, and he rarely let Australia down in this regard in Ashes cricket, just like against other opposition.
His strike rate is the envy of most players ahead of him in the batting order, and, like Taylor, he played in six Ashes series without tasting defeat.
Steve Waugh
A run glutton in most Ashes series he played in, and many of the runs he made were extremely meaningful to the team cause of beating England, a very worthy cause indeed.
As with the West Indies, South Africa and Pakistan, he appears to have an Achilles heal with making meaningful contributions when required in his team’s second innings.
However, bear in mind, first-innings averages on tables are always from uncapped scores, and there are far more such scores capped in comparison to those aforementioned comfortably stronger attacks. Therefore, the gap for Steve in Ashes cricket in this regard is probably not that severe.
(Credit: Ben Radford/Allsport/Getty Images)
The other thing to note, while the second one was capped at 55, there cannot be too many instances in the history of Test cricket of a batsman with a century in each innings being the only tons of the entire match for either side, as was the case at Old Trafford in 1997.
I would love to rave on about Steve’s many meaningful contributions with the bat in Ashes cricket, but I fear I am very close to the word limit imposed by the Roar editors.
The final thing to mention is that Steve tasted Ashes defeat only in 1986-87, and was the one and only player to be a part of all eight successive Ashes series victories against England, with all other batsmen in this article gone by 2002-03. Our first Ashes series defeat in nearly 20 years was the very next one in which neither Waugh played.
Mark Waugh and Dean Jones
They played two Tests together, and since Mark effectively took Deano’s spot thereafter in Ashes battles, I feel a direct comparison between the two is more than valid.
In those aforementioned initial two matches of Mark’s Test career, his 138 on debut on the opening day of the fourth Test effectively sealed a series win for Australia amid the wreckage of a first-day batting collapse, among which Jones scored a third-ball duck.
The remaining two innings they each had at the back end of that 1990-91 Ashes series, Mark scored 26 and 23, while Jones scored eight and 34.
(Credit: Shaun Botterill/Allsport/Getty Images)
At the identical age of 28, Jones and Mark feasted, along with the rest of their batting colleagues, off the carcass of bowling that was barely even club standard in 1989 and 1993 respectively. This cancels each other out.
Jones’ unbeaten 184 in Sydney 1986-87 and Mark’s 121 on the same ground 12 years later also more or less cancel each other out. Jones’ innings paved the way for that watershed win with the Ashes already gone, whereas Mark’s paved the way for sealing the series win after the diabolical loss in the previous Test with the Ashes already in the bag.
Jones’ maiden Ashes series saw two genuinely meaningful contributions while the Ashes were still actually on the line, the final day of the second Test in Perth and the first day of the ultimately series-deciding fourth Test in Melbourne.
With Australia needing to bat out a full day, and losing their first wicket off the opening delivery, Jones absorbed 157 of the remaining 539, 18 more than the next best, and roughly about twice his fair share if measuring what would represent equal contributions in this context.
His 59 in Melbourne in a team total of 141 all out appears like a lone hand, but he was fifth out with the score on only 118. What he needed to do was hang around and bat productively with the tail, something both Waughs proved quite adept at doing on at least a few occasions during their careers.
In comparison, Mark’s statistically mediocre 1997 series actually contained two genuinely meaningful contributions among the three Tests Australia won to come from behind in the series.
(Photo by Daniel Pockett – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images )
His third-innings 55 in the third Test at Old Trafford steered a floundering ship across the raging sea and back onto safe dry land, and I rate this as one of his very best innings in Ashes cricket. I rate it just as highly, for example, as the 140 that was his highest Ashes score.
His 68 on the first day of the deciding fifth Test came among four other top-order scores in the 50-76 range with no centuries in the match for either side.
Jones’ 1990-91 series was mediocre, totalling 155 runs in five first innings, and zero and eight on the two occasions when a second-innings contribution would have been useful for his team. In 1994-95 by comparison, Mark performed outstandingly with first-innings scores of 140, 71 and 88 in the three Tests that Australia won.
Then in 2001, in the twilight of his career, Mark scored a majestic, match-winning 108 in the second Test at Lord’s, and though a dead rubber, his 120 at the Oval represented the highest plain of artistic batsmanship, even if on this rare occasion there might not have been a hell of a lot actually riding on it.
Mark played in five and a half Ashes series without tasting defeat.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yes, in the 1994-95 Melbourne test I am talking about, England were bowled out for 92, chasing 388. 300 was already way more than they had a chance of chasing given the conditions on that particular day. 190 – 240 would have been the range that most would have expected England to total in the 4th dig, probably closer to the lower end of that score range. When batting in the 3rd innings to set a 4th innings run chase, I make the assumption that the team batting in the 3rd innings is comfortably safe from defeat in all instances once the lead is beyond the world record run chase score which stands at 418. However, sometimes it is already known that a team is safe long before that, say 300, for example that same Melbourne test, or Old Trafford 1997. The objective is to separate high impact runs from low and zero impact runs. Removing dead wood gives a better indication as to which players exert more impact than others in winning matches for their team. Therefore, there is no need to consider runs scored when the match is already well and truly lost (or won), whether 17 or 117, such as Matthew Wade in the 4th innings at the Oval in 2019. For example, there is no way in a million years that Joe Root is as big a threat out here as Kevin Pietersen was, and I also regard Michael Vaughan as a superior player, but Root has that miss-leading superficial undissected average of 50. No, second innings runs get analysed first, and then first innings runs.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Thanks PR I appreciate the time you’ve put into these answers. But I’d really appreciate it in a bit simpler form, without assuming that I know the scores or have to look them up. In this example it says “ England replying to Australia’s 279 with 212. Now, England were blown away for 92 batting second, and nobody had quite expected that. However, nobody was the least bit surprised that they were skittled for less than 192 given the conditions of the day. “ I’m not sure exactly what England scored here in the second innings. Was the 92 batting second, or their second innings? Or was it 192? But maybe It would be helpful to go back to basics and say what the principle is - once a team is X number of runs ahead on the second innings runs don’t count? Or is that perhaps adjusted as a percentage depending on the runs scored in the first innings? Or is there a formula for redistributing the runs scored in reaching X? Are all fourth innings runs defined as zero if the target is above a certain amount Y? Or does it depend on match conditions as implied in this sentence: “There would not have been a learned commentator anywhere at the time, on or off air, who would have given England any hope of getting anywhere near 300 in the 4th innings of that particular match.”? Finally what is the objective?: to recalculate every batsman’s average to get a new “meaningful” average? Apart from the flaws that I still see, this would have to be a precise formula you could apply to a full database of Test cricket scores, otherwise you would have to go through every scorecard individually! Two reason I continue to see this approach is flawed in adopting an all or nothing approach to meaningful runs is: 1. you are treating every innings as a pure qualitative expression of the batsman’s skill and not reflective of the considerable elements of luck that influence at what point you get out on a certain day, but tend to even out over multiple innings. 2. As I’ve said repeatedly, scores are a reflection of skill in defending and attacking against bowlers, not just their impact on the result of a game. Neither of the above means there is no point in looking at how you can also judge players in terms of long term performance in pressure situations. The trick is to find a formula that is consistent applied by mathematical formula to a database, is relatively simple, not too narrow (and acceptable to most people if you want to get traction). (I saw not too narrow in the sense that it’s better to err on the side of including some innings so the dataset is bigger when looking at number of innings played).
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Sorry, that should read the team needed 135 from Boon, Bevan, SWaugh, Healy and the tail, so cap Boon at 50, they only needed 85 from Bevan, SWaugh, Healy and the tail, had Boon retired out on that score of 50. ___________________ Again, as with previous examples, if Australia had been bowled out for 195, setting England 263 to win, and then England make 234 for a narrow 28 run victory for us, and in that total of 195 Boonie makes 131, then the whole 131 would be priceless – think Michael Slaters 3rd innings ton in Sydney four years later.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Adelaide 1990-91 Boon capped at 100, Border at 50 Australia scored 6 for 314 declared in its second innings to set England 472 in a full final day’s play. They could have stopped at 300 and had a few overs at them on the 4th evening and the match is still safe. They also had Healy and two tail enders left in reserve completely unused in getting to 300. Taylor, Marsh, Jones, Mark Waugh, Merv Hughes, Allan Border and Greg Matthews, together with extras made 193 all up, so if Boon makes an even hundred there is still the aforementioned Healy and two tail enders to add the remaining 7. In fact, we could easily lower Boonie’s cap to 80 here given that Healy and the two tailenders surely could have contributed 27 in a team total of 300, and then there is also the fact that Australia could have even settled for a slightly smaller lead and still been comfortably safe from defeat. As for Border, when he went in the score was 5 for 130. Only another 170 is needed to get the score to 300 from there, and with all others who batted plus extras totalling 221, then surely Healy and the remaining tail could be good for about 29. This takes the total to 250, and only 50 is actually needed from Border, with England still being set 458 with only a small handful of overs more than a day to get them.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
4th innings Old Trafford 1989 The first thing to note is that Geoff Marsh would also be capped at 10, but since he wasn’t on the table I didn’t bother to mention him. They were chasing 81, so they only need 10 from each of the top 6 and then another 21 from Healy, the tail and extras. Taylor’s unbeaten 37 in an elementary victory chase of 1 for 81 has nowhere near the value of Steve Waugh’s 37, last man out with the team total at 122 at the MCG against the might of Ambrose, Bishop and Walsh in 1996-97. There is zero pressure chasing 81 for victory, and obviously when the first wicket falls at 62, there isn’t suddenly pressure. With a mere 19 still to get when Boon went in, Australia were assured of getting them, one way or another, so there is no need to consider runs made by the number 3 so close to certain victory as somehow being critical to the final result. Boon gets a duck, Australia still win easily.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
In the Lords 4th innings run chase (4 for 119), Mark Taylor, Dean Jones, Allan Border, Geoff Marsh and Extras totalled 40 between them, so another 79 was needed from Boon, Steve Waugh, Healy and the tail. Waugh made 21, and Healy and the tail could surely have been good for 30-35 between them out of the required 119, so that leaves about 25 each needed from Taylor and Boon. Actually 15 is probably a generous cap to Steve because only 52 were needed when he went in, and with Boon making 58 in the end to go with the aforementioned 40, then now only 21 was needed between Steve, Healy and the tail. We can’t label all Steve’s runs easy as there was a slight bit of pressure, but by the time he scored about 10, the team total was past 80 and less than 40 still to get with Healy and the tail still in reserve. If we add the 40 between Marsh, Taylor, Border, Jones and extras with Steve’s 21 we are already at 86 once we add in the first 25 runs of Boon, so this also only leaves another 33 from Healy and the tail. There’s nothing wrong with Boon and SWaugh getting the job done without further loss, but from 4 for 67 when they came together, the pressure was long gone by the time they passed the 100 mark and were within 20 runs of the target still with 6 wickets in hand. Like with the earlier example I gave, if Australia had scrambled home by a mere 1 or 2 wickets with Boon on 58 not out, then those 58 would have been far more valuable than in actual eventual score of 4 for 119. That is the purpose of such analysis.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Sorry Dave, I missed the David Boon part of this one, so I’ll insert it here by replying to myself: Remember, Australia only needed to get to 235 to put the lead beyond 300 which nobody in the know at the time would have argued wasn’t already easily more than enough. Boon went in at 1 for 61, only 174 runs away from that 235 mark. Australia did not need 131 from him, as Taylor scored 19, Slater 44 and Mark Waugh 29 and that already adds up to 92, add in another 8 extras at least for an even 100, which leaves 135 to get from Bevan, Steve Waugh, Healy and the tail. In fact, 50 is possibly even a little generous as a cap on what the team needed from Boon. There was never any question of Australia getting to 235, as they ended up reaching 320 with only 7 wickets down. At this time, Boon was entering the twilight of his career, and losing his edge, and a little over a year later he retired, realising no amount of hard work was going to get his edge back at that stage of his career. Batting on so far beyond 50, with the pressure now off in that particular innings probably represented some sort of personal battle within, as if to desperately try and convince himself that he could still have it for years to come. Full credit to him for realising otherwise. In the rest of that series, Boon’s next highest score was 41.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Actually I’ll do another one Dave, just take your time and get back to me when you can with any further questions … no hurry …. Steve Waugh’s 177 capped at 150 is just the simple matter that there were still three tailenders who could surely under such easy conditions have made those 27 between them. The other main point is those runs between 150 and 177 were neither hard fought nor match defining as they were made entirely in the lead up to 600 when the opposition attack were demoralised, to the point where Merv Hughes made 71. If it wasn’t for the fact that England then scored 430, both Waugh’s runs as well as Taylor’s 136 would be capped even further. If they had dismissed England for 230 and 185, then both would be capped as low as 100. The end victory margin was also a whopping 210 runs and hence Australia’s 2nd innings of 3 for 230 has also been subject to capping on account of firstly, only losing three wickets, and secondly, batting on to score at least 50 more than they needed to in order to realistically feel safe from defeat before putting England back in on the final day.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The Steve Waugh/Ian Healy one is very simple. Batting conditions in the second test in Melbourne in the 1994-95 were considerably more difficult than in the first test in Brisbane, with England replying to Australia’s 279 with 212. In a score of 279 in conditions facilitating an even contest between bat and ball, Steve’s 94 not out and Mark’s 71 were very valuable. Now, England were blown away for 92 batting second, and nobody had quite expected that. However, nobody was the least bit surprised that they were skittled for less than 192 given the conditions of the day. There would not have been a learned commentator anywhere at the time, on or off air, who would have given England any hope of getting anywhere near 300 in the 4th innings of that particular match. So, when Steve goes into bat in the second innings, with his team already 336 in front, we can safely say that the match had well and truly reached its decisive point already. Those 26 not out did not increase their chances of victory at all because it was already a given, all they did was increase the victory margin, as well as give him a bonus 26 runs for his stats without a dismissal recorded just for good measure. That is an example of padding The same goes for Ian Healy who went in after Steve with the fate of the match long since sealed. Healy was dismissed for less than his average, but any meaningful analysis would ignore that score because it had not been needed by the team. Holding it against statistically against Healy that he was dismissed for less than his superficial unadulterated average when the team needed absolutely nothing from him would actually be an example of reverse padding. Let me know when you are right for me to continue with the next of your chosen examples.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
:boxing: No problem Dave …. Actually, the way you worded your question now I kind of understand what you have been on about all this time asking for formulas etc. That had confused, come frustrated me. Yes, a rule of thumb, in matches where the margin is by runs, then I allow a buffer of 100, so, for example if the victory margin is by 166 runs, then the first thing to be gotten rid of in the capping is the 66 runs beyond the 100-run victory margin. Then I look at whether it was a completed innings, i.e. bowled out, or was it a declaration with a small number of wickets down. So, for example if the victory is by 166 runs, and the 3rd innings was 3 for 200 declared, then that 3rd innings gets reduced to 134, and then the runs evenly distributed among the batsman to get a true indication of what was actually needed from the opener who made 100 not out, for example. In that case, the 100 could easily be capped as low 15 because we can roughly estimate they could have gotten 34 from the tail and that leaves 100 from the 1-7 so for simplicity say 10 from the keeper, 15 from the other batsmen. If the three batsmen dismissed made 20, 10 and 0, then now there is 60 runs needed from the other three 1-6 batsman so the cap rises to 20. What we are saying is that there was no pressure whatsoever on that batsman to make 100, the team only needed 134 to guarantee a comfortable 100 run victory and it wouldn’t have mattered if they had lost 9 wickets before declaring at that alternate lower 134 score. If the batsman had made 100 not out in a declared total of 9 for 134 then obviously all 100 runs maintain their full numerical value, and priceless value. Here’s an example of a huge individual score where no capping is required: Dean Jones 184 not out in the 5th test at Sydney 1986-87. All 40 wickets fell and the victory margin was a mere 55 runs, so every run from both teams across both innings was sorely needed. This is not about altering scorebooks post mortem, but about assessing how critically runs were needed beyond a certain numerical figure. I will answer the five you picked out in a separate post each and I will take my time to allow you to digest it all, and if necessary, ask me further questions before I continue. I will start with the Steve Waugh/Ian Healy one as it requires the least analysis and can be answered in a much shorter post.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Ok PR, here are some of the innings in the article, if you’d like to explain capping. What Im interested in understanding is whether there are some general criteria/principles to be applied to any situation. - First innings (of match) at Headingley in 1989, Steve Waugh capped at 150. • Fourth innings at Lord’s in 1989, Mark Taylor and David Boon capped at 25, Steve Waugh capped at 15. • Fourth innings at Old Trafford in 1989, Mark Taylor capped at ten • Third innings in Adelaide in 1990-91, David Boon capped at 100, Allan Border capped at 50. - Third innings in Melbourne in 1994-95, David Boon capped at 50, Steve Waugh’s and Ian Healy’s runs completely ignored.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Series in Sri Lanka in late 1999 I meant, late 1992 can still be classed as relatively weak, in bowling at least.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
India in India is a piece of cake, involving a mere 7 tests, not really a large sample, but fairly even in any case all things considered. Weaker countries and minnows would be painstaking work, as it involves 32 tests together, 4 by Steve before Mark debuted, the 4 against India for Mark when Steve was out of the side, and twice Steve missing a test injured in among those 32 together. Then after Mark retired, Steve played another 8. As well as India in Australia during their era being considered among the weak, I also regard the West Indies in 1999, 2000-01 and 2003 in that category as well, because Ambrose and Walsh were over the hill by 1999, Ambrose retired before the 2000-01 series here, and without Lara 1999 is a 4-0 absolute massacre. Just not sure what to class the Sri Lanka side in our series there as? Can’t be considered weak, as they won the first test, with it becoming a virtual one off test with all the lost playing time in Tests 2 and 3, but nor were they as strong as India in India. Neither Waugh did anything special with the bat that series anyway.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
Good point.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Don't take it personally. I wouldn't do the 'back and forths' with people. Just make your point once and move on. Regarding your last, it's up to you - Probably won't get a big response. Anyway, I've enjoyed your series on junior.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No worries.
Paul D
Roar Guru
No I am done. RE: asking about unadulterated averages think it helps sometimes when you’re trying to present a new concept to contrast it against the existing data - people will find this stuff more accessible if there is a point of reference to what is familiar to everyone, and then it also emphasises what your work is designed to achieve. But you’re right I can easily go look that up on cricinfo statsguru. I like all sorts of comments. Don’t take it personally.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
It makes me so sad though that rather than give me credit for showing that Steve was great against West Indies, South Africa, Pakistan and England, roarers have chosen rather to deride me because they simply cannot handle the fact that Mark was at least as great. Do you think it's even worth bothering with India in India as well as the weaker opponents and minnows or should I simply pull the plug?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The run chase in 2nd test could have been PE all over again, and then it is easy to imagine Steve making hard fought tons in the first innings in test 3 and 4. Then Punter’s second innings epic at OT might have been a match winning chase.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Another good job PR England really were below par in this era and it's hard the believe they only won one live test in eight series. It is interesting to speculate what might have happened if the 2005 series coincided with an Australian side that contained both Waugh's someone near their peak. As you have shown, they were both such great players under pressure. They might have made the difference in such a tight series.