Tag Archives: michael bevan

The Problem with Michael Hussey’s Statistics

Posted on by

Mahek has a post “Michael Hussey and the Myth of Padding Averages” where he uses Hussey’s average statistics to demonstrate how good he is at different forms of the game and suggests that Hussey’s not outs are not a problem.

The argument used against most batsmen who bat in the lower middle order is that they pad their averages by virtue of remaining not out. It is one of the most cliched excuses given against batsmen who time and again show the skill and composure to score quickly at the end of an innings and yet remain unbeaten. Historically, as well as since Hussey’s debut, batsmen in the top 4 have averaged more than those batting from 5 to 7.

The simple riposte to this argument is to look at No. 1 and No. 3 in the all-time ODI batting averages. They are Michael Bevan and M S Dhoni, both of whom have typically batted down the order. Dhoni’s case is a little blurred by the fact that he has better averages up the order, but it needs to be noted that he has often (somewhat controversially) promoted himself up the order when the openers or top order had set up a good foundation. But Michael Bevan is the key example. Compare their stats:

What you note is the very similar percentage of not outs, the similar highest scores, the averages. Even though Bevan has a lower strike rate, remember the era in which he played when ODI scores were typically lower and they had fewer Powerplays. Importantly, Hussey succeeded Bevan in the same team. He managed to fit the exact mold for Australia and contribute in the same vein. Take a quick glance at the cumulative statistics after each game for Hussey and run through the average column. You will find that Hussey did not even have an average until his 7th match and he had 12 not outs in his first 16 innings. Whether it is his skill or he trying to stay not out, difficult to say without seeing those matches individually. At any rate, he had an average of 229 once which is now down to 50.53.

Take a look at all of Hussey’s stats (career summary and cumulative averages). He had a spectacular couple of years at the beginning of his career followed by a big slump. Since then, he has been average, some good scores, some poor ones, but enough to keep him in the team. The last two Test series has been awesome stuff from him, though.

Finally, if you compare Hussey with players with other teams, keep in mind that they did not have to play against the Australian bowlers (Warne, McGrath) during the same time period. The opposition also counts. Which is why a person like Samaraweera who has a better average than Hussey during the same time period is now out of the Sri Lankan team.

The Not Out Man

Posted on by

Michael Bevan was one of the best ODI batsmen ever. During his career, he repeatedly pulled Australia out of the fire, sometimes playing with the tailenders, and dragging them over the finish line. Bevan ended up with almost 7000 runs from 232 matches with a phenomenal average of 53.58. One of the reasons for his high average was that it was really difficult to get him out – he was unbeaten 67 times in the 196 innings that he played. That is 34% of the time. Even a solid middle-order batsman like Steve Waugh has been not out only 20% of the time.

It is illuminating to look at the two players who have similar averages as Bevan. Mike Hussey’s current stats are very similar to Bevan. Hussey has an average of 53.85 (just above Bevan) and has been not out 28 times out of 75 innings (37% of the time). Both Hussey and Bevan have done well at No. 4 (56.87 vs. 59.60); This position was Bevan’s best position and Hussey’s 2nd best, Hussey having an enormous average of 117.66 at No. 7. Kevin Pietersen with an average of 48.36 has been not out 19% of the time. He has actually performed better down the order than at No. 3 and No. 4. Although Hussey and Pietersen have played similar number of innings, Kevin has more runs (3047 vs. 2531) and more consequential innings (27 vs. 18 innings over 50).

Is it useful to have a batsman who remains unbeaten? In Tests, it may be useful when such a batsman is paired with a more free-flowing batsman. Bowlers would be demoralized by a stonewall on one end and punishment on the other. If the anchoring batsman can rotate the strike, then you can have huge innings totals. Such a batsman is also invaluable in a 4th innings chase, or a batting collapse when you just want to shut out the opposition bowlers for some time. However, Bevan was never able to replicate his ODI success in Tests (a poor average of 29.07). Perhaps someone like Chanderpaul (in his recent form) would be more appropriate for a debate on the subject.

But we are talking about ODI’s, so is this useful? Bevan was able to anchor Australia to many victories, but they definitely were the ascendant team during those times. Bevan’s batting strike rate is a poor 74 runs per 100 balls. So in many cases, Australia could have made a larger score when batting first, or succeeded in the chase because their bowlers had limited the target that they had to chase. Most of Bevan’s big scores were not quick scoring innings. It can be debated whether a more aggressive batsman could have ended the match sooner during the chase.

The batting team’s Powerplay may mean that an anchoring batsman like Bevan finds no place in an ODI team. The batting team has to make tons of runs at the end, because larger targets are becoming easier to chase down. Having a batsman who is more interested in playing safe shots to preserve his wicket is less useful than someone with the more risky and unorthodox shots that has the potential to fetch 20 runs in an over.

The “unbeatable” batsman also has the danger of be hyped up over his average. This may cause two problems. One is that they keep trying to maintain their average by playing safer instead of taking calculated risks – this will have a heavy tax on the team when they are batting first in an ODI. Second is that the pressure of inflated expectations could weigh on them, so when they are in a slump, they try to hit large scores to get back into form, instead of slowing working themselves back into form. Hussey seems to suffer from that, Pietersen less so.

Weaker or improving teams have typically relied on such a batsman, because they need someone who can be there till the end. Essentially, what that means is other batsmen are not capable or ready to take responsibility for the team’s failures. For a long time, Tendulkar played this role for India, so that when he was out, the Indian batting order collapsed if the remaining task was too steep. When that changed, India started winning more.