The biggest illustration of the unreliability of stats from the recent Sri Lanka vs India Test

[Proactive_]

Quite often when players are compared, one the most obvious statistics that come into play are the Averages and the Innings in which the runs are scored. In the subcontinent, much more preference is given to performances in the III and IV Innings than to the I and II innings owing to the significant deterioration of the pitch. In the recently concluded Test though, things couldn't have been any more to the contrary.

Let's have a look at the performances of the Indian players who scored centuries in this test, namely Pujara, Kohli and Dhawan and their respective scores in this Test based on these parameters.



Dhawan:

Ist Innings: 190 (168)
IInd Innings: 14 (14)

Average: 102

Pujara:

Ist Innings: 153 (265)
IInd Innings: 15 (35)

Average: 84

Kohli:

Ist Innings: 3(8)
IInd Innings: 103* (136)

Average: 106

Now, for anyone who has seen the Test match, these is a pretty obvious disparity in the quality of runs between these three players. Common sense might suggest that V. Kohli stepped up to the plate when the pitch was at it's hardest and scored a ton while the other two failed. Years down the line, discussing the overall statistics would show Kohli to have scored a match winning hundred in the IIIrd innings while Pujara and Dhawan's hundreds would seem like relatively much easier owing to easier subcontinental conditions during Day I and II. But it couldn't be any further away from the truth as would anybody to have watched the match would tell you that Pujara and Dhawan not only steadied the ship after the fall of a early wicket and took India to the point of prominence, Kohli filled in his boots when the lead was 300+ with ample time left in the test match and delayed declaration just so he can get to his hundred.

It's fascinating how different the game is when you actually analyse the game in depth rather in being a stats nerd. Another instance of the stats concealing much much more more than actually portraying!

 

[Sachin136]

Only people who don't know how to read scorecards would think that.

 

[Proactive_]

Only people who don't know how to read scorecards would think that.

I know, but this is for those StatsGuru people who compare averages without delving even a bit into what actually transpired in the matches. Just goes on to show how unreliable averages can be while judging players.

 

[JaDed]

I'm glad some Indian poster has taken this bias against Kohli,the way he crumbled in ICC finals unless he scores in Aus,Eng,Saf or finals of ICC 2019 WC criticism against him should time and again be used,gets all the facilities in the world,money,also gets to decide who will play or not,even the management and if still doesn't win outside Asia should be chucked out.

 

[thehub]

Somebody was mocking Shewag as his second innings average is poor. This match clearly shows sometimes first innings score is lot more important than second innings.

 

[CricketCartoons]

The quality of runs in cricket depends on the context, which the limited stats in cricket cannot capture. However, for the lack of context, you trust stats over a large sample, as other factors even out.

Cricket doesn't have sabermetrics.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

Scoring in 2nd innings is tough.

I am sure you would have reversed your argument if Kohli had scored in first innings.

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

I'm glad some Indian poster has taken this bias against Kohli,the way he crumbled in ICC finals unless he scores in Aus,Eng,Saf or finals of ICC 2019 WC criticism against him should time and again be used,gets all the facilities in the world,money,also gets to decide who will play or not,even the management and if still doesn't win outside Asia should be chucked out.

I don't think he is Indian.

 

[Adil_94]

anyone who reads the scorecards will realise that Kohlis hundred in this game wasnt pivotal to the match result.
India already had a 350 run plus run lead when he came in to bat. his century was just the cherry on the indian victory cake



and with the scores India piled up its clear this wasnr a rank turner but a fairly flat track but with two teams who arent evenly matched playing each other.

so i dont think anyone not even hardcore Kohli supporters and fans will rate his knock as a match turning knock or a hundred for the ages. He just filled his boots.

 

[Adil_94]

averages can be very misleading at times. for example someone can fail in the whole series but then hit one big hundred and it will give them a respectable or even great average in that country. Even though they have failed in 80% of their innings. Though someone who scores match winning hundreds but has low scores now n then. is better than someone who consistently churns out 50s but cant convert them into match winning knocks in Tests thats the case.

 

[Hasan123]

Kohli's century was only influential in terms of him returning to form. Pujara and Dhawan played the key innings in this game. People who watched the game will understand this.

 

[Sachin136]

Kohli's century was only influential in terms of him returning to form. Pujara and Dhawan played the key innings in this game. People who watched the game will understand this.

Even people who didn't watch the match know that. OP is just trying to get some shots at Kohli through a disguised thread.

 

[Buffet]

Kohli's century was only influential in terms of him returning to form. Pujara and Dhawan played the key innings in this game. People who watched the game will understand this.

I don't think you need to watch the match because Indians scored 600 batting first and then had a big lead while batting second. You can see all this in scorecard.

 

[kingusama92]

Numbers can be manipulated to make anyone look bad (even Don Bradman!) and that's nothing new.

If someone is digging into 1st and 2nd innings scores, I'd assume they'd take the time to contextualize their research too.

Otherwise, the average Joe isn't going to dig that far into such stats anyway.

In many cases, these numbers do even out. A person who keeps scoring in 2nd innings is likely to have scored a chunk of his runs in difficult situations.

 

[Cuts_and_cuts_hard]

Somebody was mocking Shewag as his second innings average is poor. This match clearly shows sometimes first innings score is lot more important than second innings.

In the vast majority of situations, first innings runs are far far more important. They set up wins. Te myth that second innings runs are always more "clutch" or important is baffling.

 

[Hasan123]

Even people who didn't watch the match know that. OP is just trying to get some shots at Kohli through a disguised thread.

OP seems very against Kohli for some reason.