As a sport, cricket lends itself particularly well to statistical analysis.
Such analysis is often riddled with oversights – insufficient sample size, spurious correlations, and inappropriate statistical tools for a given question.
When done properly, however, it can give powerful insights into commonly debated questions.
One that tickled my curiosity is the importance of investing in promising young batters by selecting them in the Test team.
This has been common practice over recent decades – think back to 2016 when Matt Renshaw, Peter Handscomb and Nic Maddinson, all in their early-to-mid 20s, were brought into the Test team.
This was arguably more as an investment in the future than to reward their performances to date.
But is this a worthwhile practice?
I decided on the following process in an attempt to answer this question. I identified every Australian Test batter who debuted within the last 30 years and has now (beyond reasonable doubt) completed their Test career.
I then divided these players into two groups – those who played at least ten Test innings before their 28th birthday (who I will refer to as early starters) and those that debuted after their 28th birthday (the late starters).
Ultimately, there were 12 batters in the early starters group and 19 in the late starters group.
I then looked at their later career Test run-scoring, defined as the period after their 28th birthday.
Michael Hussey (Photo by Tom Shaw/Getty Images)
So, how do the numbers look?
First, I took the total Test runs for each group over their collective later career (the period after each player’s 28th birthday).
This totalled 49,261 runs at 46.34 for early starters and 29,364 runs at 40.56 for late starters – 5.78 runs per innings more for those that had early exposure to the Test team.
The main confounder here, however, is that better players will generally debut earlier, meaning the early starter group will be of a higher quality.
While there is no perfect method to correct for this, I would suggest first-class batting average as the best measure of the quality of a player over their professional career.
This is 47.92 for the early starters compared to 43.97 for the late starters a difference of 3.95.
Therefore, if we correct later career Test performance relative to first-class average, the benefit of early Test exposure reduces to about two runs per innings.
There’s another way to run the numbers, however. The above analysis was based on aggregate runs, thereby weighting heavily towards a handful of particularly prolific players.
To gauge how a particular individual will fare, it is better to weight the performances of each player equally by simply taking the mean of their Test averages.
(Photo by Robert Cianflone/Getty Images)
By doing this, the mean Test batting average in the later career of early starters is 42.26 compared to 41.87 for late starters a difference of just 0.39 runs per innings.
Additionally, if you were to standardise this to the mean first-class batting averages of each group (as I did before), early exposure actually confers a loss of about two runs per innings.
So, what to make of this?
Statistically, the benefit of giving batters early exposure to the Test team seems limited – somewhere between a loss of two runs to a gain of five runs per innings over their later career, depending on how the analysis is conducted.
I suspect the true figure lies somewhere in the middle – a benefit of a couple of runs or so.
Additionally, gaining this benefit is predicated on early exposure to the Test team, which historically has not been a productive period.
In this analysis, the early starters demonstrated a mean average of 35.05 by their 28th birthday. Many, including the likes of Matthew Hayden, Damien Martyn and Justin Langer, averaged below 30.
(Photo by Hamish Blair/Getty Images)
Therefore, whatever small benefit is ultimately obtained from early exposure needs to be offset against the (often relatively limited) immediate fruits of that period.
The direct application of this analysis is whether to give young players an opportunity in the Test team as a form of investment in their future output.
A current example would be exciting young openers Bryce Street and Henry Hunt, who have produced respectable if not spectacular output at domestic level.
While I share in this excitement, the statistics suggest giving them Test exposure for the sake of experience would only make a fairly minor difference in their later career.
While not strictly within the scope of this analysis, I wonder whether this concept could be applied to players of all ages and levels of experience.
In other words, whether Test exposure at any age makes a significant difference to future output.
Consider the current situation with Marcus Harris and Usman Khawaja.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Most pundits would agree Khawaja is currently the superior red-ball player, however Harris was initially selected due to his younger age and longer future in the game.
This analysis, however, lends weight to selecting Khawaja given he is the superior current player, with little opportunity cost in not selecting Harris in terms of his future run-scoring.
I appreciate readers may be incredulous at this point. Those that watch, play and/or appreciate the game would assert that Test cricket is an entirely different beast to first-class and other domestic cricket, giving players an entirely different environment to advance their game.
I am sympathetic to this view – it is simply that the numbers don’t bear this out.
There is one concession, however: a population-level analysis such as this cannot necessarily be applied to individuals.
While early Test exposure gives little benefit on average, there will be variability between individual players.
Some may have benefited enormously, others less so, and for some it may even have been detrimental (such as due to a loss of confidence or increased pressure on returning to the team).
(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
Perhaps identifying which players will benefit from early exposure is the key.
Having a national selector like George Bailey, who is younger and knows the current players more personally, may be beneficial in this respect.
I suspect he sees Marcus Harris as an individual for whom current Test exposure is necessary to increase his future Test output, particularly given his longstanding dominance of domestic cricket and gradual improvement over the most recent Ashes series.
Generally, however, it would appear the best approach is to select the best players regardless of age.
While antithetical to the future-orientated views of Greg Chappell and others, the careers of players including Michael Hussey, Adam Gilchrist, Brad Hodge and Adam Voges demonstrate immediate success at Test level is possible for those at a later stage of their career.
In a way, this is unsurprising – these players had had years to fine-tune their technique through domestic cricket and, in the twilight years of their career, had a more mature temperament and worldly perspective.
So long as selecting these players doesn’t come at the cost of developing younger talent, which this analysis suggests is not the case, we can simply pick the best XI at the time, even if it leaves us with something of a Dad’s Army.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I’ve answered the best l can below to Clint. I’m still hopeful of my own place which would be a real treat after 4.5 years of couch surfing, sleeping in my van then Clugger.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
So, this might not get past, but here goes. Some foundation (in analogy) Planets are Actors Signs are Scripts Houses are Settings ---------- Sun is your core identity (your's is Scorpio) Moon is your emotional front. Mercury intelligence / communication Venus is desire Mars is how you go after your desire Other planets have meaning too but suffice is this so far. These are placed, according to the sky, according to the timing of their orbit around the Sun. Astrology is Geo-centric. The Earth is the centre (hang with me). Yes it can look like a spirograph. So planets can be anywhere on the chart. Mercury can only be one sign before your Sun sign, your Sun sign or the one after. Venus two before, your Sun sign and the two after. All other planets can be any of the 12 signs. -------- Whilst not exhaustively studied there are German, French and Indian astrologers working on this issue. -------- From what l can glean the first born assumes the dominant character. This chart is split 180° between the two. And probably 120° with triplets and so on. The planets, in their signs and houses, gives rise to their character, script and context. With twins, one section of the chart is ascribed as fit. -------- With Steve l think Mars (aggressive, demanding) would more likely be in his half of the chart and Venus (beauty, grace) in Mark's -------- It's not an area l know well but given a more beneficial and conducive living situation I may give this a more serious rip. Astrology is a very intricate and complex study
JamesH
Roar Guru
No, your numbers are just not as pertinent as you think they are. Rather than being a smart ar5e, how about you go back and look at the point I'm actually making: low numbers of wickets falling does not equate to ease of scoring runs. Just because wickets weren't tumbling, doesn't mean it was easy for batters to pile up big scores. It's entirely possible for a pitch to lack penetration but be hard to cash in on. The fact that set batsmen kept getting out before turning starts into big scores suggests that while surviving wasn't hard, turning a start into a big knock was. Look at it this way: If Hodge had scored say, 40 runs (somewhere around the average of the other top 7 Australian batters), and McGrath had contributed say, 10 runs (a bit generous by his standards) Australia probably would have been bowled out with a lead of somewhere around 300-330. Given that SA were 5/287 - only 43 runs away from the upper end of that deficit, thanks largely to Rudolph's hand - I think it's entirely fair to say that Hodge's knock (and Rudolph's) had a big influence on the match. Your focus on wickets also doesn't factor in the time left in the game. Because the third innings commenced on day 2, it didn't necessarily matter that wickets were hard to come by over the next few days. Without Hodge's effort, there is still a result, potentially in South Africa's favour.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
All of those extremely pertinent numbers I provided appear to have gone completely over your head. Try focussing on this one: across three successive complete days of play, wickets fell at an average of 4 per day.
JamesH
Roar Guru
It does not matter what modes of dismissal accounted for the meagre amount of (12) wickets over the last three playing days, both sides found regular wicket taking impossible on that pitch, while both sides’ batsmen found it easy to get in. Of course it matters. These weren’t players throwing their wickets away in the pursuit of quick runs, they were set batters being genuinely beaten. Easy to get in =/= easy to dominate. Clearly this was not a pitch that provided much assistance to the bowlers. Just as clearly, it was not an easy pitch to score freely on. Nothing you have said alters the fact that no other Australian or South African in three full days of play was able to reach 60. Each team had some absolute world-beaters in their lineup and Hodge out-performed them all by a big margin. Whichever way it is sliced, neither Hodge’s nor Rudolph’s innings exerted any genuine impact Australia were in a shaky position when Hodge came to the crease. When he left, they were in an utterly dominant one. SA were miles behind when Rudolph came to the crease (more than 400 runs in arrears and in excess of 100 overs to bat) and then in an even deeper hole when he was joined by Kemp (4/138 with their four best bats gone and more than 60 overs to navigate). Both of their innings completely altered the trajectory of the match. Test-quality careers or not, you are doing each of them a massive disservice by downplaying those knocks.
Micko
Roar Rookie
How come kiwis never complained when Shane Warne was "out" caught of a huge Vettori no ball for 99? (in what would've been his first test century).
The Bush
Roar Guru
The WTC does throw up an interesting thought on how this all works into the future. After an ODI World Cup, most teams look around and think - who'll be hear in four years? But test teams don't generally do that. However Australia has this exact conundrum - Warner and Khawaja will be 36, turning 37, in the middle of next year - can we really risk carrying both into a WTC Final (assuming we make it)? Teams may have to start thinking more long term after each final, even if it is only a two year period.
bobbo7
Guest
And lets not forget Voges' top score against NZ, he was bowled off what was incorrectly called a no ball. I have no idea how the umpire managed to call a no ball that didn't happen. The luck of Marnus.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I forgot to add the bit about strike rates: both bowling attacks combined took a wicket every 130 balls across days 3-5. That is at least twice as high as a maximum strike rate needed to win a test match. In reality, a strike rate of no higher than a wicket every 60 balls is needed. If you take out the 332 balls Hodge faced, then the bowlers across both teams still bowled 103 balls for every wicket taken. If you also take out the balls Rudolph faced, then the bowlers across both teams still bowled 79 balls for every wicket taken, which is still far too high for winning a test match. If you take out the 283 balls Rudolph faced, Australia’s bowlers on days 4 and 5 still bowled 95 balls for every wicket taken, way too high to hope to win a test match. If you take out Hodge’s 332 balls then South Africa’s bowlers on days 3 and 4 still bowled nearly 70 balls for every wicket taken, again, still too high to realistically hope to win a test match. Whichever way it is sliced, neither Hodge’s nor Rudolph’s innings exerted any genuine impact, and neither innings represents legitimate evidence that either particularly belonged at test level.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Take care Rowdy, I hope your health holds up.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Ofc Mark is too. Reading Twins charts is done by splitting the chart in half. I'm not sure of the criteria. So one half the describes one twin, the other half does the other twin. -------- When l got into Astrology it was a question l wanted to know about twins. I'll look it up over the next few days. But don't expect something comprehensive. My health is my #1 pursuit atm. --------- I hold Steve in much higher esteem than Mark. Sorry Clint, just the way l see it. Tho not twins l feel much the same way about Ian and Greg. Give me Ian any day of the week. Greg, meh.
Micko
Roar Rookie
Heh, that's what I asked him once too! :happy:
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
What star sign is Mark Waugh?
Paul
Roar Guru
He didn't get a lot of help against India two summers ago, either.
Micko
Roar Rookie
To be fair, his early test numbers weren't helped by woeful keeping from Wade, and average keeping from Haddin.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
In fact, only 12 wickets fell across days 3-5, not 13, as Brett Lee went in as a night watchman at the end of day 2. Look at the partnerships from the fall of that first Australian second innings: 49, 43, 55, 132, 61, 67, 7 and 77 unbroken. That’s five out of eight of more than 50, whereas in our previous series, in England earlier that same year, we could only manage 9 +50 partnerships over the entire 5-test series. There was no failure until the number 9, Shane Warne, and only Andrew Symonds, 25, was dismissed for less than 40 among the batsmen, with Ponting and Hussey making 53 and 58 respectively, Langer and Gilchrist 47 and 44. In South Africa’s second innings, the partnerships were 35, 20, 54, 29, 112 and 37 unbroken, with only two of the seven batsmen used dismissed for less than 30. So, on days 3-5, both high class attacks found it pretty impossible to stop batsmen getting in and partnership building was not difficult, with 7 out of 14 partnerships of both sides being more than 50, and only two less than 35, while counting Hodge and Rudolf, five of the 14 batsmen across both sides passed 50, another two reaching 40, with only one among the 14 dismissed for single figures and only two for less than 25. It does not matter what modes of dismissal accounted for the meagre amount of (12) wickets over the last three playing days, both sides found regular wicket taking impossible on that pitch, while both sides’ batsmen found it easy to get in.
JamesH
Roar Guru
It's an imperfect world full of imperfect examples! You've made an impressive fist of giving them some semblance of order, though.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Clearly flat as a tack on days 3-5, yet no one but Hodge and Rudolph was able to reach 60? Only 13 wickets fell because two classy innings held each side together. Look through the list of dismissals. Of those 13, 11 were caught off the edge, LBW or bowled. Most of those were batsmen who got starts but were still beaten by a moving delivery. The pitch might have slowed up but it obviously wasn't a batting paradise either. When Hodge came to the crease, Australia were three wickets down (one of those admittedly being Brett Lee) with a lead of just 91. When he walked off the ground they were a further 399 runs ahead, of which he scored more than half. Play it down if you want, but there was nothing unimpressive about that knock.
AJ73
Roar Rookie
I'm with you, I would also consider that the batter with a strike rate of 30 and holding up an end/keeping his wicket allows the other batters to play their natural game more often as they are confident in the other guy hanging around. They can also push the singles to change the strike at times to get the quicker scorers on strike. This can lead to the batter with the low strike rate increasing their scoring as the bowling side can try too hard to dismiss the batter with the low strike rate because they have no answer to the other batter.
Paul
Roar Guru
Spot on Rosie. So much about sport in general, but cricket in particular, is based on what a selector thinks is the right thing to do at the time. In the case of selections, it's very often a tonne of runs or, in the case of Scott Boland, a swag of wickets, that gets a player into a side. What I find intriguing is what keeps them there. Case in point, Nathan Lyon. His numbers in Shield cricket didn't justify his selection in the first place, IMO and his early Test numbers didn't justify keeping him there. Clearly the selectors saw that "something" that they thought could make him a quality spin option and they were pretty right. As you say, it's completely wrong to set criteria for players to meet and the only way to go is examine all aspects of each player and make a decision.