There is a fascinating article/analysis on the cricinfo website which looks at those players who've managed to impose themselves on the first test of a series and those who haven't.
The results are really interesting. The qualification is that you must have played 20 'first' tests.
From an Australian perspective Greg Chappell has the highest average of 63.67, followed by Mark Taylor on 60.72 (yep, I was surprised too), Ponting on 58.03, Gilchrist 57.65 and Slater on 54.48
Each of these batsmen average well above their career average in the first test of a series, other than Ponting who is only one above his test career average. I should note Ian Healy as well who averages 45 in the first test of a series against a career average in the high 20's.
At the other end of the spectrum are those batsmen who 'underperform' in the first test of a series. There are three notable Australians lead, surprisingly, by Alan Border, who averages just 39.4, followed by Steve Waugh, 43.31 and Mark Waugh at just 34.54
The first two average just over 50 in test cricket overall, while Mark's career average was just under 42.
I guess the question then is, is this statistic important? I'd say yes it's relevant, certainly to the extent that comebacks from teams to win or even draw tests series after falling behind remains a rarity in test history. If your aim is win the series emphatically from day one, then Greg Chappell, Taylor, Ponting, Gilchrist and Slater appear to be your men.
Must admit, I was a bit surprised about Border.
The results are really interesting. The qualification is that you must have played 20 'first' tests.
From an Australian perspective Greg Chappell has the highest average of 63.67, followed by Mark Taylor on 60.72 (yep, I was surprised too), Ponting on 58.03, Gilchrist 57.65 and Slater on 54.48
Each of these batsmen average well above their career average in the first test of a series, other than Ponting who is only one above his test career average. I should note Ian Healy as well who averages 45 in the first test of a series against a career average in the high 20's.
At the other end of the spectrum are those batsmen who 'underperform' in the first test of a series. There are three notable Australians lead, surprisingly, by Alan Border, who averages just 39.4, followed by Steve Waugh, 43.31 and Mark Waugh at just 34.54
The first two average just over 50 in test cricket overall, while Mark's career average was just under 42.
I guess the question then is, is this statistic important? I'd say yes it's relevant, certainly to the extent that comebacks from teams to win or even draw tests series after falling behind remains a rarity in test history. If your aim is win the series emphatically from day one, then Greg Chappell, Taylor, Ponting, Gilchrist and Slater appear to be your men.
Must admit, I was a bit surprised about Border.
