- Joined
- Jun 19, 2006
- Posts
- 13,338
- Reaction score
- 29,148
- AFL Club
- Geelong
In the lead up to the first test I was looking through Joe Burns' test record. Currently he's played 21 matches scoring 1376 at an average of 38.3. Digging a little deeper I found some interesting stats.
A couple of points that are opinions of mine:
1) If your team scores 500+ either the pitch was easy, the bowling was poor or both. It doesn't mean runs in these innings aren't worth anything but I'd say they shouldn't be weighted as highly as when conditions are difficult.
2) If you're opening the batting in the 3rd innings of the match and your team leads by 190+ runs on the first innings, the game is close to over (at best the opposition is playing for a draw). Again I'd weight those runs far less useful than others.
What is Joe Burns average in the first innings when Australia scores 500+?
What is Joe Burns average in the first innings when Australia doesn't score 500+ and what's his highest score?
What is Joe Burns average in the second innings when he's come to the crease with Australia leading by 190+?
What is Joe Burns average in all other second innings?
I was surprised by a few things.
1) We've often scored massive runs on the first innings when he's played (passed 500 11 times in 21 matches). That can be seen as a good thing or be a sign that he's batting in easy conditions. Probably a bit of both.
2) He's massively cashed in when the going has been good (1140 runs at 60 when we've either scored 500+ or been way in front on the first innings).
3) His record when things aren't easy or the game been over as a contest has been appalling (239 runs at 14).
Opinions? Solid player who's happened to perform best when the rest of the team does? Massive flat track bully? Something else?
EDIT: This isn't meant to sound like getting runs when the team scores 500+ is meaningless. We were 3/28 when he scored his 180 vs Sri Lanka and we were 2/67 chasing 370 when he scored 170 in New Zealand. Those are good knocks. Just that it probably means batting became easy and him massively cashing in on those innings really helps his average.
A couple of points that are opinions of mine:
1) If your team scores 500+ either the pitch was easy, the bowling was poor or both. It doesn't mean runs in these innings aren't worth anything but I'd say they shouldn't be weighted as highly as when conditions are difficult.
2) If you're opening the batting in the 3rd innings of the match and your team leads by 190+ runs on the first innings, the game is close to over (at best the opposition is playing for a draw). Again I'd weight those runs far less useful than others.
What is Joe Burns average in the first innings when Australia scores 500+?
794 runs at an average of 72
What is Joe Burns average in the first innings when Australia doesn't score 500+ and what's his highest score?
He's scored 90 runs at an average of 9 with a highest score of 26.
The 26 was in the 2016 Sydney test Vs the West Indies where we didn't bat until day 5 because of rain so the game was already over as a contest (we ended at 2/176 in our first innings for a draw). Get rid of that and he's averaging 7 with a highest score of 18.
The 26 was in the 2016 Sydney test Vs the West Indies where we didn't bat until day 5 because of rain so the game was already over as a contest (we ended at 2/176 in our first innings for a draw). Get rid of that and he's averaging 7 with a highest score of 18.
What is Joe Burns average in the second innings when he's come to the crease with Australia leading by 190+?
346 runs at an average of 43
What is Joe Burns average in all other second innings?
149 runs at an average of 21
I was surprised by a few things.
1) We've often scored massive runs on the first innings when he's played (passed 500 11 times in 21 matches). That can be seen as a good thing or be a sign that he's batting in easy conditions. Probably a bit of both.
2) He's massively cashed in when the going has been good (1140 runs at 60 when we've either scored 500+ or been way in front on the first innings).
3) His record when things aren't easy or the game been over as a contest has been appalling (239 runs at 14).
Opinions? Solid player who's happened to perform best when the rest of the team does? Massive flat track bully? Something else?
EDIT: This isn't meant to sound like getting runs when the team scores 500+ is meaningless. We were 3/28 when he scored his 180 vs Sri Lanka and we were 2/67 chasing 370 when he scored 170 in New Zealand. Those are good knocks. Just that it probably means batting became easy and him massively cashing in on those innings really helps his average.
