PDA

View Full Version : The unluckiest batsman!


Mahir
March 22, 2005, 05:51 PM
Any guesses ?

Mohammad Ashraful, the unluckiest batsman of Bangladesh. Actually, the world's unluckiest batsman he is, according to recent stats. Bashar stands as the third unluckiest of all.

Details on the list of batsmen with/without luck, along with the related data-collection process is described here (http://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2005/MAR/208906_COL-STATS_18MAR2005.html), in The Numbers Game section of CricInfo.

pagol-chagol
March 22, 2005, 06:09 PM
Thank you so much.

THE MOST interesting cricket article I have read in a long time.

Whats most surprising is Ashraful's IN-Control % is higher than all those great players except Sangakkara. Even greater than Dravid, Kallis, Inzamam, Jayasuriya, Tendulkar and a whole lot of great ones.

The Australia effect is pretty cool too. I had that feeling as well.

You guys got to read this.

Edited on, March 22, 2005, 11:21 PM GMT, by pagol-chagol.

Rubu
March 22, 2005, 06:16 PM
i'm impressed. not by the unlucky thing but by the percentage of number of balls a batsman was in control. Ashraful stand only 2nd to sangakkara.

assuming that the stats there are true and complete:
that means, he controls the ball more often than all the batsman in australia or india. only one srilankan is ahead of him.

couger
March 22, 2005, 06:19 PM
Very interesting.

Sham
March 22, 2005, 06:28 PM
And people on here ask why we like Ashraful so much! Anyone who has seen this guy bat knows that he stands a head and a shoulder ahead of any other BD batsman. He has so much time to play his shots, its not even fair! He practically waits for the ball, while the rest of our batsmen are usually late onto their shots. This kid is amazing. He just needs to get more consistent and I guess he needs to get a bit of luck on his side as well.

I wish Rana had a 1000 Test runs. He would have been luckiest for sure. In control - 10% of the time, Out when not in control - Never!

Rubu
March 22, 2005, 06:45 PM
Sham, leave this guy alone!

RazabQ
March 22, 2005, 06:59 PM
I'll say something my abbajaan once may have mentioned: "It's better to be lucky than to be good". So as long as Rana keeps not getting out, and occupying the crease - as a Test player, he may yet serve a purpose :) I, for one, would like to see Rana become our Hussain or Richardson - fmr spinners who have become gritty batters.

As for the article, it is indeed a fascinating one, which further illustrates the need for us to have our own statistics repository (so we can track these things). Indeed Ashraful is pretty unlucky. It also seems (to me) that he has been out to an inordinate amound of great catches. Even Bashar admits that Ashraful is our best batsmen - and hence he comes in at #4.

In general, the article also sort of confirms my suspicion that the (Michael) Jordan rule of officiating applies in Tests as well - i.e. if you are a big name player from a big cricket power, you are going to get the calls go your way and it sux if you aren't :)

Sham
March 22, 2005, 07:01 PM
Don't worry, he can take care of himself. Plus, everytime I have a go at him, he scores a hundred or takes 4 wickets, so he is doing okay!!

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2005, 07:04 PM
again rana. who cares whether he's in control or not when he has the records...besides, why bring rana into the discussion out of nowhere?:lol:

anyways, interesting article...looks like ashraful is the most in-control batsman in the world! lol...

another factor that could have been considered is the number of unlucky decisions that each batsman got since 2001 - that, along with these stats, would have made the research more accurate.

good to see a couple of bangladeshi batsmen out there - shows we have people who have scored 1000 runs and average above 25 in tests (yes, yesi knew that but it's still good to see)

Sham
March 22, 2005, 07:45 PM
My friend, a thread about a scholarly article on CricInfo has no chance on this message board. But now that I have introduced my boy Rana into the thread, you'll see how well this thread does!

Edited on, March 23, 2005, 12:52 AM GMT, by Sham.

RazabQ
March 22, 2005, 08:17 PM
ha ha! Sham remember my diatribe on why an thread on swing/seam bowling got only a handful or responses and moderate viewing while another on Boycott criticisms got tremendous responses? I was labeled a smart-bottom after that one :)

Mahir
March 22, 2005, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by Sham
My friend, a thread about a scholarly article on CricInfo has no chance on this message board. But now that I have introduced my boy Rana into the thread, you'll see how well this thread does!

Edited on, March 23, 2005, 12:52 AM GMT, by Sham.

So you are basically changing the "purpose" of this thread ? And I dont understand why an interesting discovery on Cricinfo would be so neglected to dismiss it as incapable of having a spot in this forum ?

Sham
March 22, 2005, 09:16 PM
Take it easy, I was just kidding. Trust me, you won't find a bigger advocate of more quality threads on this forum than me. Just ask the other mods about how much I bug them about it on the mods forum!

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2005, 09:24 PM
one on <a href = "http://www.the-rathouse.com/BW_Superstition.html"> "unlucky" </a>scores by barry williams. interesting, superstitious and full of bull dung :)


Edited on, March 23, 2005, 3:16 AM GMT, by AsifTheManRahman.
Reason: lol...my bad...should be williams and not richards :)

deshibhai
March 22, 2005, 09:32 PM
I cannot say that I am terribly impressed with these stats. My guess is that there are subtle differences between the NIC deliveries across batsmen. In other words, what is classified as a NIC delivery faced by Dravid is actually just marginally-not-in-control: even though Dravid might not have completely middled it, he at least played it in a fashion that would ensure that he would not be dismissed. This would explain the low percentage of NICs resulting in dismissals for Dravid.

..my alternate hypothesis :)

RazabQ
March 22, 2005, 09:36 PM
MasterBlaster, I think he's bewailing the fact that your thread will NOT get the patronage it deserves:)

Mahir
March 22, 2005, 09:58 PM
oo!! hahaha... sorry I misunderstood the tone of Sham's post. Anyways...

Sham
March 22, 2005, 10:10 PM
Asif, thanks, I really enjoyed that! By the way, its by Barry Williams, not Richards! :)

Sami
March 22, 2005, 10:14 PM
what surprises me is the fact that the articles says amader Bashar bhai is mostly in control of his shots... anyone who has seen him bat know Bashar is almost always edgy... when he gets down to bat shobai allah allah koray jatay he doesnt go after the wide ball and edge it or miscue his 'womderful' pull and get caught... hmmmm so I am not getting it how Bashar gets a total in control % of 83.17...

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2005, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by radicalsami
what surprises me is the fact that the articles says amader Bashar bhai is mostly in control of his shots... anyone who has seen him bat know Bashar is almost always edgy... when he gets down to bat shobai allah allah koray jatay he doesnt go after the wide ball and edge it or miscue his 'womderful' pull and get caught... hmmmm so I am not getting it how Bashar gets a total in control % of 83.17...

true but the stats are based on the number of balls that you middled though, as it says that "not-in-controls" are counted in when the batsmen play and miss, edge, or get hit on the pads. looks like bashar is good at middling and leaving the ball, and very seldom gets hit on the pads or edges one.

Sham
March 22, 2005, 10:24 PM
Also, Bashar's problem is mainly at the start of his innings. Once he gets going, het looks a lot more fluent. I think if you looked at his NIC percentage after he has score 15, it will be very low. But his NIC percentage in the first few overs he faces are quite high. Overall, I am slightly surprised as well by such a high in control figure for Bashar, but maybe he is more solid than we give him credit for.

AsifTheManRahman
March 22, 2005, 10:29 PM
well it may be that his pretty ordinary batting style and technique is what causes us to undersetimate him.

bit off topic - i read in the news papers a year or two ago that he usually likes to get set with a couple of boundaires against the quickies. i found that pretty interesting - he doesn't prefer spinners to start off with. i also remember him getting out playing a rash shot on several occassions and then telling the press that he wanted to get rid of the bowler by hitting him out of the attack since he was causing problems. well, the attitude is ok, but the way he carries out his business and then turns out losing his wicket is pathetic.

Beamer
March 22, 2005, 10:40 PM
Sham, you stole my thunder ! I was going to introduce Rana mia into the foray soon as I saw the lucky/unlucky stats! I guess we have to wait till he scores 1000 runs.

shaoun
March 22, 2005, 10:47 PM
technically ashraful is the best batsman in bangladesh. his 158* against india was one of the best innins i ever saw. the way he was playing i thought he would score first 200 runs for our country. he has the talent no doubt about it. but his biggest problem is consistancy. he tries to play all shots which maybe why he gets out. but on his day he cannot be stopped. he is our tendukar but needs more time. i m confident that ashraful will soon be a world class player.

Beamer
March 22, 2005, 10:52 PM
No doubt about Ashraful. Anyone that has seen him bat knows that no one in Bangladesh can play like him. He has all the shots, good technique and a great pair of eyes. His problem is in his head. I would rate Aftab right after Ashraful in terms of ability.

Spitfire_x86
March 23, 2005, 01:21 AM
Rana is the luckiest, because he shouldn't have played for national team.

Shehwar
March 23, 2005, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Spitfire_x86
Rana is the luckiest, because he shouldn't have played for national team.

Thats a bit too harsh on poor Rana....

Hasib
March 23, 2005, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Spitfire_x86
Rana is the luckiest, because he shouldn't have played for national team.

yeah and Zimbabwe should have one the ODI series

anyway...the thing that caught my eye was the post-aus affect... now who said playing Australia doesnt do us any good?

cricket_pagla
March 23, 2005, 08:59 AM
Ashraful one of the best BD batsman ryt now!.. but is he unlucky or just care-less???:-/:-/

Orpheus
March 23, 2005, 09:42 AM
The data here is flawed. Too many variables....

a line from the article:
It's also interesting to note that the batsmen who've generally had less luck have also had a higher in-control percentage.


NO shlt!!! If you are "LUCKY" - meaning you are mostly out in your NIC balls - you are facing less balls. Hence your NIC will decrease because you are playing less balls. Therefore, your total incontrol percentage increases.

Dravid % of IC is less because he is always there... playing more balls... Ash and bashar is more like hit or out... I wouldn't judge anything with those TIC %.

Just from the names, I bet India played more games during that time period.

all the statistics major, go easy on me!!! Please :D If you don't, I am just gonna give you the explanation why some part of your body is so small.

fwullah
March 23, 2005, 11:51 AM
Thats a bit too harsh on poor Rana....


Well, if Rana is the luckiest, then what about Foisal Hossain? I guess on the rank of the top luckiest players, Sanwar Hossain and Ehsanul Haque also fall in the top 5 or top 10 (am I being too harsh on Sanwar and Ehsanul?). Now among all these players, Rana is the only player who gets into the team for his bowling, and then he got the chance to improve on his batting.

In addition, among all these players, Rana is the most successful batsman - on batting average alone, even if you exclude the recent series vs ZImbabwe citing reasons that this recent Zimbabwe side did not have enough experienced players in the side.

Rubu
March 23, 2005, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Spitfire_x86
Rana is the luckiest, because he shouldn't have played for national team.

interesting to see how easily people forget.

just give it a try and try to find out how many time he spared you (and bangladesh) of blushes.

pagol-chagol
March 23, 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Originally posted by Spitfire_x86
Rana is the luckiest, because he shouldn't have played for national team.

interesting to see how easily people forget.

just give it a try and try to find out how many time he spared you (and bangladesh) of blushes.

It should be like:

You are lucky that -

Rana is a Bangladeshi.

AsifTheManRahman
March 23, 2005, 01:40 PM
spitfire created a trap, and all of you just stepped into it, giving the guy exactly what he wanted ;)

Fazal
March 23, 2005, 01:42 PM
Alok unluckiest batsman. With so much talent and so little to show for.... the coach had faith in him, the slectors had faith in him... the supporters still have faith in him for soo long.... he must be the most unluckiest batsman.

Mahir
March 23, 2005, 03:25 PM
amidst all these names in this thread so far, I am rather surprised not to see Aftab's name not mentioned yet. Regardless of the question of luck, Aftab, to me, is the best batsman in Bangladesh in terms of technique. He can play almost all the shots in the book, and has a terrific balance. Ashraful should be the next one. And I even dare to say, Aftab might as well be the only Bangladeshi batsman to match Dravid or Laxman's strokeplay.

Edited on, March 23, 2005, 8:27 PM GMT, by MasterBlaster.

Yameen
March 23, 2005, 03:46 PM
Unluckiest batsman in the world: Tatenda Taibu....

Tintin
March 23, 2005, 04:39 PM
http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html has a list of most 'tenacious' batsmen - ie, the average number of balls that a batsman faced between dismissals. Bradman is on top as usual - his average innings was 164 balls long. At second with 163 is Herbert Sutcliffe. Among current players only Dravid 137, Kallis 130 and Samaraweera 125 last more than 120 balls.

A similar calculation for BD is interesting. On top is Nafis Iqbal. A typical innings of his lasts for 81 balls (shall we say Nafis is half a Bradman ? hmmm. bad joke ). But he was considerably helped by his long innings against Zimbabwe. The second in the list is Rajin Saleh. His batting average is 28.65 but his low SR means that he stays for 77 balls on average. The third, surprisingly, is Tareq Aziz at 73. He scored only 22 runs for twice out, but he consumed 147 balls while doing so.

The next few are :

Rana 69 balls
Omar 65
Bulbul 60.81
Ash 60.11
Bashar 59.69 and
Pilot 57.62

They are the only ones whose innings last more than 48 balls.

At the other end are Nazmul and Anwar Hosain who have faced only 9 balls for their one dismissal. Sujon lasts for 20.6 balls and scores 12 runs in that time. Rafique has the highest strike rate among the leading run scorers (61),but he stays only for 38 balls.

The team that played in the last test against Zim was Omar, Nafis, Bashar, Ash, Rajin, Aftab, Pilot, Raf, Mashrafe, Tapash and Enam. Going by this calculation, a standard innings by this team lasts for about 87 overs

PS : To calculate average length of the innings just do (average / strike rate)*100


Edited on, March 23, 2005, 10:57 PM GMT, by Tintin.

RazabQ
March 23, 2005, 05:52 PM
Good nugget there Tintin. Give snowy a bone :)

bourny3
March 28, 2005, 04:41 AM
Interesting.

Ahmed_B
March 28, 2005, 05:16 AM
Interesting stats by Tintin

Nafis: Even though Nafis is on top of the list... he still has long way to go and it will be great if he still is on top.

Rajin: this is probably the most important find of the stat: It really shows how important his role in BD Test team is already. He has played lot of innings already.. and in Tests, playing longer innings is as much important as scoring runs. Rajins is Superb in that way.

Bashar: He got the highest Test Average... yet not the highest innings length. This will be explained by his high strike rate... which is his natural way of playing.


Edited on, March 28, 2005, 10:20 AM GMT, by crickethorizon.