Who are the most consistent high-scorers in SL cricket today?

Some blog posts contain unedited fan-submitted content — Create an account to start your own blog

© AP PHOTO
© AP PHOTO

An interesting point to ponder: WHO are the most consistent High Scorers in SL Cricket today?

During the past 22 months (since July 2013) the most startling deficiency seen in SL batting was, lack of batters with consistency in putting up big scores (50+) & build productive partnerships to reduce the burden continuously shouldered by the Three Veterans. Their tireless super-heroic massive efforts were behind all the successes achieved by SL. 

During that period, apart from Mathews, sadly none of the youngsters, who were regularly offered with ample opportunities (to play more than 10 ODI s) were able to make any significant impact, with consistent performances.    

Look at the performance levels of youngsters who were given the opportunities to play more than 10 ODIs,  during the period from starting from July 2013 to April 2015 WC-QF:

Number of innings utilized to produce a solitary 50+ score:

Chandimal - 26 in – 0 x 100 – 4 x 50 – (26 / 4) =    6.50 ins per 50+
Thirimanne - 37 in – 3 x 100 – 6 x 50 – (37 / 9) =   4.11 ins per 50+
Kusal          - 29 in – 1 x 100 – 3 x 50  - (29 / 4) =   7.25 ins per 50+
Dimuth        - 11 in – 0 x 100 – 0 x 50 = (11 / 0 ) =   Not a single 50+
 
*** Collectively 103 innings yielded just 17 x Fifty-plus scores =  6.05 ins per 50+ score .

This means, overall 6 innings were utilized to produce a SOLITARY 50+ contribution by one of these youngsters during the past 22 months (since July 2013). The despairing reality is, they all consistently failed to contribute any big scores, despite having the Massive Benefit of NEW field restriction rules in place (which was utilized by all capable batters around the globe to enhance their high scoring frequency & Strike Rates, significantly)..!

Look at how our Veterans massively IMPROVED their career frequency of high scoring, utilizing the benefit of New Field Restriction rules existed during past 22 months.  

Sanga -      49 in  -   9 x 100 -  14 x 50 - (49/23)  =  2.13   (career frequency 3.22 ins per 50+)
Dilly -          46 in -     5 x 100 - 13 x 50 - (46/ 18)  = 2.55   (career frequency 4.43 ins per 50+)
Mathews -   46 in -    1x 100  - 11 x 50 - (46/20)    = 2.30   (career frequency 4.81 ins per 50+)
Mahela -      40 in -    3 x 100 -  7 x 50 - (40/10)    = 4.00    (career frequency 4.35 ins per 50+)

Overall Consistency is; achieving most in least number of efforts (a dynamic overall measure for frequency). Batting average is, runs scored per inning (overall static measure) and it is the average measure of Accumulation Productivity & not an indicator of Occurring Rapidity or Frequency.

Therefore, Scoring most number of runs in least number of innings (a measure of rapidity) is considered as the absolute measure of overall batting consistency of a player in Cricket. Average cannot be used as a consistency measure in anyway, because the average boosts up significantly, with number of unbeaten innings.(Example: if someone scores an unbeaten 90* in one inning and then 3 x ducks in a row & another couple of unbeaten 2 x 15* = 120 / 3 = his Average is 40.00 despite getting 3 Ducks from 6 innings (50% of his innings ended up in total failure), isn't it.? that is why you cannot factor this in anyway to consider scoring consistency.

It is hard to imagine the immediate future of SL Cricket, without the services of big three to pull the load & build any inning, in chasing or setting targets. Long partnerships are desperately needed to achieve that. Everyone is talking about the dire need of consistent batters to do the job done by outgoing veterans. There is only one option available in cold storage, without due recognition or deserved place in this island nation, full of "JUSTICE" & wise Officials /Fans selectively bent on various "meritorious" deeds according to their mindset filled with vacuity. 

Overall Career ranking - High Scoring Frequency Ratios of SL players (as of April 2015): Number of Innings needed to score a 50+ runs (including 100+ scores)

Played Number of Innings / number of all above 50 scores including 100+ scores:

1) Sanga -      3.22 ins (380 / 118)
2) Tharanga - 4.12 ins (169 / 41)  - Note*** achieved without having the luxury of New Field Restriction Benefits enjoyed by others.
3) Mahela -     4.35 ins (418 / 96)
4) Dilly -          4.43 ins ( 288 / 65)
5)Thirimanne- 4.68 ins ( 75 / 16)
6) Mathews -   4.81 ins (130 / 27)
7) Chandimal -5.66 ins ( 85 / 15 )

UT has maintained a career frequency of 4.1 innings per each above-50 score & his high scoring frequency is only 2nd to Sanga's (better than the rest despite NOT having the benefit to improve it with currently existing New rules enjoyed by all others, because his career was on hold since 2013).

The Batting Consistency Record of "Nonexistent" SL Opener Upul Tharang  (Nonexistent in the eyes of empty headed Former Selectors & some Tunnel-Visioned Fans):

- Topping 1,000 runs from just 28 innings (fastest 1,000 runs scorer in SL history)

- Topping 5,000 runs from just 157 innings (2nd fastest 5,000 runs scorer in SL history).

Yes, the Consistency that matters & this guy holds the best overall batting consistency record in SL.! Thirimanne & Chandimal certainly have the potential to fill part of the vacuum left by retiring seniors (in the long run), yet SL would never be able to find a capable Number One Opener for many years to come to fill the void created by Sanath (removing SL regular Number One for Seven Years - UT) in 2013, as clearly seen during "Sana's-Circus" in past 22 months.

It is up to the new selectors to recognize the deserved, purely on merit /achievements/productivity & treat them fairly. Utilizing their valuable services without any petty personal prejudices would certainly lift the overall standard of cricket in SL.

Comments

Anonymous's picture

I am really fedup with this kind of paid advertisements to promote UT

HumbleBee's picture
Member since:
9 March 2011
Last activity:
3 weeks 1 day

@ Anonymous:

Then don't read.!

Advertisements are bloated hype, stats are solid facts.. blogs are meant for views & opinions..and they are open to contradiction with counter arguments with logical facts/stats, if anyone can disprove those views. If having a hard time digesting it, avoid reading is a better remedy than Anonymously throwing up hollow-words.

(Last edited by HumbleBee on April 17, 2015 - 14:59)
podi-panda's picture

Amazing to see the wonders done for the benefit of capable batsmen by this new field restriction rules. For example Sanga had managed just 16 Hundreds playing for 13 years up to July 2013 according to the stats. But since then, within 22 months he had scored another 9 Hundreds (more than 50% he managed playing in previous 13 years).

interesting article with useful insight.

delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 hour 18 min

Interesting article. Just a couple of points:

Before the successful batsmen in the last 2 years are accused of cashing in on field restrictions, maybe stats for these batsmen should be put up in other formats too, especially Test cricket. Then you can see who is cashing in on field restrictions and who is actually down to skill, ability and hard work!

It says UT didn't have benefit of field restrictions. For most of his career he has been playing as opening batsmen, and for most of these times the field restriction was in the first 15 overs where he had full use and benefit.
There was then a period where both fielding and batting team had PP options in the addition to the 1st 10 overs.
The biggest factor in the last 2 years in terms of restrictions has been in the last 10 overs, and you are assuming he would still be there for the last 10 overs in all his innings!

Stats can be manipulated to make what ever argument you want. They don't always tell you the complete picture.

Personally I think UT has been unlucky and hard done by in terms of insufficient or consistent opportunities upon recall.
However i'm not sure he has rectified some of the issues and problems that led to him being dropped in the first instance.

When he was out of form he was either a walking wicket or if he hung around his strike rate was extremely poor that it hindered the innings. In his early days he was an exciting dashing, opener but things went wrong.
Now all players go through lean patches but Tharanga's modes of dismissal often similar especially with issues around or outside off stump.

Overall his record in ODI is poor in modern times. An average of 33 and SR of 73 ain't great!
Before you point to the likes of Sanath or Gilchrist and their averages, he stopped playing in their dashing risk taking mould a long time ago, and both these players had better SRs and could be considered all-rounders not just solely batsmen!

Just to show how stats can be manipulated if we take UT's 13 centuries how many were scored against good ODI sides at the time? 1 against Australia but at home, 2 against India (one in india).
The rest includes 3 against Bangladesh, 2 against Zimbabwe, 1 at home against the windies. ANd NZ and England were much weaker ODI teams when he made 1 and 3 against them respectively.
Now the NZ and first 2 Eng centuries were made away despite the opposition being weak.

The stats you show don't always give opposition, conditions, team circumstances.

At 30 UT is still young and get back into the side. I hope he works hard to fix technical issues and puts consistent runs on the board with decent intent to make the selectors sit up and notice.

UppercuT's picture
Member since:
19 October 2011
Last activity:
2 years 5 weeks

If only the average/consistency/stats meant everything in cricket.... :

Just in case

Just in case

thank god there were no numbnuts who r obsessed with stats around when these guys started their careers... :D))))))

(Last edited by UppercuT on April 18, 2015 - 04:38)
UppercuT's picture
Member since:
19 October 2011
Last activity:
2 years 5 weeks

@Delan, this guy is an expert of maniplulating the stats to pump up his favorite..

one time he put out an argument as such that all the dismissals off pacemen in 1st 10 overs shows the "CAUGHT BEHIND"s of a batsman :D))))))

HumbleBee's picture
Member since:
9 March 2011
Last activity:
3 weeks 1 day

@Delan82:

I respect your view in this regard. But, would like to point out a few things to clear any misconceptions. First of all I must insist that none of my stats were any "Manipulations" to alter reality with bogus figures, as anyone can check on those stats @ Cricinfo database & disprove if they are wrong. Without doing so NONE can say, stats had been "manipulated" to prove a point. If the given stats are right, on what basis can you say the points stressed on that are not right ? by counting 100s made against whom & where? UT had made 13 Tons against every country in the world except SA (BTW he missed a Test Ton Vs SA by just 14 runs in 2014) & made 28 x 50+ scores against EVERY Nation playing in EVERY CORNER of the world facing world's BEST in the trade of fast bowling since 2005.!

Can you deny this fact or are you trying to tell me for the past 8 yrs up to 2013 all the opposition Test playing nations that he had faced in 169 ODIs to score those 41 x 50+ scores had weak bowling attacks ? My article was based on those stats. Is this what you call a manipulation ? ( BTW, did you count every other SL player's Tons against whom & where they were scored ? because, to me they all played the same ODIs as UT, during that 8 year period ) This is a typical example of perception obscured by selective vision, according to the individual mindset.

Don't forget, Stats are purely based on hard-earned overall performances & not something that anyone can acheive as they wish or alter to boost images as you think. That is why stats are accepted worldwide as hard facts to visualize overall performances, even in planing of every Nation's development strategies.

to be continued...

(Last edited by HumbleBee on April 18, 2015 - 09:10)
delan82's picture
Member since:
18 October 2009
Last activity:
1 hour 18 min

@humblebee
In relation to UT's centuries being made against world class bowlers and all around the world I think you should go through each century and see which teams were world class at the time and what the conditions were for batting!
Australia, has been constantly strong in those years you said, but was everybody else? South Africa there abouts, India from in las 5 years or so especially at home, what about the rest?
Are you suggesting Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, England, West Indies, NZ were world class top consistently top performing teams in that time period?
This years WC and or indeed the previous 12 months! Take a closer look at those teams! We are talking about ODIs here only not Tests or T20. Have any of those teams been dominating and winning strongly especially outside of home in that period?

I'm not trying to take anything away from UT's centuries, but playing the devil's advocate to the stats your constantly plucking out to sell him on here.
You can't give a selected few stats claiming others were benefitted by rules like field restrictions and then go all defensive when asked about the quality of opposition in knocks where UT scored. Which way do you want it.

Just to make things clear here is a list of all UT's ODIs http://tinyurl.com/l7c9flp

Now from those centuries point out the world class fast bowlers you were talking about. Again we are talking about ODIs only NOT tests so don't throw me a name like Harmison. And don't give me names of bowlers who were at the end of their careers or very early on because they are unlikely to be at the peak of their powers.

From what I can see I'll give Shane Bond in his 100 against NZ, Vettori was also in that line up.
And I already mentioned his knock against Australia as being good. It was at home but against Lee, Bollinger and Johnson (not the same Johnson of the last 2-3 years).
The others are okay bowlers from time to time eg Rampaul, Roche, but are they world class great pacemen?

That mediocre average of 33 is boosted because he averages 45 against Bangladesh, 57 against England, 45 against Netherlands and 54 against Zimbabwe.

Now you said he is good in all conditions he averages around 33 in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Only 25 in Oceania (22 in Aus). His Europe ave is high thanks to England (69) and the Netherlands (45).

Btw he also doesn't have a century against Pakistan!

You can dig up what ever other stats you want but it ain't go to change his overall batting average being a poor 33. I'm calling this poor because he is an opener and has the opportunity to bat all innings and make a big score.
The players in the middle-order and lower down don't always get such opportunities and if they do usually some sort of collapse has happened, otherwise they have to come in a go for it from the start. Yes I know Mahela has same average, but most of this was in the middle order. The times he opened he was averaging in the 40s

Your final paragraph in your response to me above, although a bit confusing, sums up everything, which actually I (and appears the likes of Uppercut agree) which is for all his work and effort, and average of 33 and SR of 73 for an opening batsmen in todays modern ODI cricket is simply just not good enough and for the talent/ability we have seen it's fair to say he has underachieved at the international level. Simple as that!

He has played in era where rules, conditions, equipment etc are favouring the batsmen more and more, and that started well before the last 2 years. Those stats would be acceptable in ODIs in the 1980s or 90s for an opener but not today. And like I said he is purely a frontline batsmen with no other role in the team to contribute.

Now I don't have anything personal against UT, (before you start accusing me) if I did I would be even more picky and say he was detrimental to SL 2007 WC campaign or something like that but given he was young at time I don't hold that personally against him.

I actually thought he was definitely a leadership candidate at one stage, but its a shame his form and cricket dropped off.
I have already said I think the selectors were unkind on him with his numerous recalls in not giving him sufficient chances in the one position to reclaim his spot. And also mentioned he can still play a part in the future, so I am definitely not writing him off.

But for him to be recalled I want to consistent big scores under his belt in domestic cricket, and hopefully addressing some technical flaws before that. Players should not just waltz back into the side without performances to justify their recalls. What runs he scored 5, 10 years ago is now irrelevant! It's the present that matters, and onus is on him to do something about it with his bat!

HumbleBee's picture
Member since:
9 March 2011
Last activity:
3 weeks 1 day

@Delan82:

You said;
“It says UT didn't have benefit of field restrictions. For most of his career he has been playing as opening batsmen, and for most of these times the field restriction was in the first 15 overs where he had full use and benefit”.

This is completely wrong. UT’s career started in 2005 & FYI, In July 2005, the International Cricket Council (ICC) announced changes to the way ODI cricket is played. Before that time, for the first 15 overs, nine fielders, including the bowler and the wicket-keeper, had to be inside a 30-yard (27.5m) circle when the ball was bowled. ONLY 3 fielders were allowed in first 15 overs. That is how SJ & Kalu were benefited during their time as openers including SL’s WC Crown with initial dashing concept.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/...

After 2005, the new rules introduced called Powerplays, the fielding restrictions were replaced by three blocks totalling 20 overs. During the first 10 overs, now known as Powerplay 1, only two fielders were allowed outside the fielding circle and at least two must be in catching positions. Powerplay 2 and Powerplay 3 are five-over spells in which only three fielders may be outside the fielding circle, but there are no requirements about close catchers. They must be taken within the 50-over inning.
From 2005 to 2013, between power plays (30 Overs), 5 fielders were allowed outside the ring (This is what Upul encountered in his career). THAT WAS THE MAIN THING CHANGED in 2013 with New Rules. Now according to new rule, mandatory power-play (between first 10 overs) will remain as it is. After this power-play, there will be only one power-play of 5 overs, which should be completed before 40th over of innings and that can be called by batting side.

Now BETWEEN Power Plays (25 Overs, including last 10 overs) the batsmen are allowed a MASSIVE BENEFIT with ONLY 4 Fielders allowed outside the ring, inverting the whole concept of dashing in those in-between 25 overs targeting part timers & lesser penetrative bowlers, dashing towards the last 15 including PP2. This is the ADVANTAGE all front-order, CAPABLE batmen around the globe (including Sanga, as pointed out with stats) utilized to phase their innings accordingly & maximise their productivity & Strike Rates to a level never seen before 2013..!!! This what Tharanga MISSED.

Whether you like it or not this the naked truth admitted by the whole World. It was ENDORSED by recent WC Performance RECORDS.!

Did you know in history of WC, registering a massive 38 Tons, 34 ABOVE 100 Strike Rates (ranging from 100 to 188) & 25 x above 50 Batting Av in a single WC tournament were never seen before ? This is the BENEFIT I was talking about in my article & what Tharanga missed as an opening batsman since 2013.! Can you deny that fact ?

http://blogcricketlovers.blogspot.ca/201...

First learn about the new rules properly, before making incongruous comments please...

HumbleBee's picture
Member since:
9 March 2011
Last activity:
3 weeks 1 day

@ Delan 82:

Just to make things clear here is the complete list of all UT's ODIs (Why are you quoting a filtered link with partial data is too obvious, instead of the straight forward link given below).

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...

Trying to demean all opposition sides he faced during 8 years up to 2013 in 160+ ODIs is hilarious to any sensible person & simply you haven't given a single valid reason to defend your partial vision.

This is Sanga's career stats before 2013 new rules - 38.56 Av & SR 75.60
see how he had improved it to 42 Av & 78.86 SR within last couple of years. If you check this is the story with every front line batsmen world-over.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...

You said he had more opportunity as opener. This is UT's stats playing as Number One opener: 151 innings - 34.27 Av - SR 74.01

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/...

No any valid point you have submitted to discuss any further in this regard. You may go on with another 1000 words of such rubbish. But at the end, all you have done so far was beating around the bush missing the point & reality, proved beyond any ambiguity as anyone can see from the this thread.

(Last edited by HumbleBee on April 18, 2015 - 12:00)

Post new comment

Note
All anonymous comments are moderated.
  • Avoid abusive remarks and personal attacks.
  • Avoid posting unrelated links.
  • Avoid vulgar or obscene language.
Already a member? Log-in now. Not a member? Sign up for a new account.
CAPTCHA
This step helps us prevent automated submissions from spammers.
3 + 9 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.