Ravindra Jadeja: India's best-ever test all-rounder

[SaniaFan]

I find it hard to compare a Sobers, a batting allrounder with bowling all-rounders.

One criteria could be net average, i.e., batting average - bowling average. Of course this does not include fielding and it would be difficult to judge that as catches alone(only statistics available from the past) would not give real picture. I think Sobers would be ahead of others(including Kallis). I have heard that he was a very good fielder. Also, he could bowl both spin as well as medium pace which would give great flexibility to captain.

[prasen9]

Yes, I know about the net average. While it works pretty well, is it good enough?

In general, if I have to choose between an allrounder (A) who scores 30 runs/innings and has a bowling average of 20 runs/wicket versus one (B) who averages 35 runs/innings and has a bowling average of say 25 runs/wicket. That is because top bowlers take about say 3.5 wickets/match whereas a batsman may bat only 1.75 innings per match. So, the impact of having allrounder A is much more. He saves you 15 runs and gives up 10 runs.

On the margins, bowling should be appreciated a bit more. A simplistic measure could be: batting average - 2 * bowling average.

Using this measure, A has a score of -10. B has a score of -15. A wins. In essence, I may give a bit more weight to Hadlee than Sobers numbers obtained by the simplistic measure. Hadlee should be valued a bit more.

The weight for the bowling average needs to be tuned using data.

Having said that, I am fully aware that what formula should be used is based on what you want to measure. So, let us turn the question around: who is a good allrounder? What is the best feature of an allrounder? How much value should we give to batting vs bowling?

If you define an allrounder as someone who has as high a batting average as possible and as low a bowling average (with some minimum qualifications to keep out the batsmen who took one wicket at 5 runs in 100 tests, etc.) then the simple formula works. If you want to see who is the most valuable allrounder to a team, then perhaps bowling should be weighted a bit more.

Comments? Thoughts? Counter-arguments?

[Atithee]

Somehow introducing % of total runs scored and wickets taken on a consistent basis in an innings/match might be useful. Or, the position they usually bat could be factored in. None is easy and simple. Ideally someone who is an opening bat and opening bowler or somewhat close would be a good candidate. An all rounder could also be a wicket keeper. Gilchrist was so good in rescuing Aussies when top order collapsed.

[prasen9]

Somehow introducing % of total runs scored and wickets taken on a consistent basis in an innings/match might be useful. Or, the position they usually bat could be factored in. None is easy and simple. Ideally someone who is an opening bat and opening bowler or somewhat close would be a good candidate. An all rounder could also be a wicket keeper. Gilchrist was so good in rescuing Aussies when top order collapsed.

All very valid points. At the end of the day, we need a statistic like WAR (wins above replacement) in baseball. Is there a simple stat that is pretty good? Also, for historical data, we may not have all that in an easily aggregate-able form.

Talking about Gilchrist, he was superb. I can only think of two keepers who were better than him with the bat. The peerless AB De Villiers and Andy Flower. De Villiers kept wickets for about 25 tests, Flower for about 55, Gilly for about 100.

In the next rung would be Chandimal and Sangakarra. Sanga was a great bat but not at Gilly-ABD-Flower range when keeping. Throw in Prior, Pant, De Qock, Watling, Dhoni, Bairstow, Liton, Mushfiqur.

We have had a lot of keepers who can bat these days. Among the oldies, I can really only think of Ames, who was fantastic with the bat. Alan Knott was more Paine level than any of the ones above.

[Kumar]

Percentage of the batting score is a very good comparison.

Jadeja average is 33.8 and average for India in the matches he played was 37.90
Kapil average is 31 and team’s average was 33.33


As to bowling, kapiil dev 29.6, India average is 35.6
Jadeja average is 24.9 and India average is 26.40

Bowling strike rate when Kapil played was 79.6, with Jadeja it was 56.9
Kapil strike rate is 63.1 , while jadeja’s is 61.8

At least on numbers, Kapil dev is definitely better than jadeja.



https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... pe=bowling

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... pe=batting

[prasen9]

Percentage of the batting score is a very good comparison.

Jadeja average is 33.8 and average for India in the matches he played was 37.90
Kapil average is 31 and team’s average was 33.33


As to bowling, kapiil dev 29.6, India average is 35.6
Jadeja average is 24.9 and India average is 26.40

Bowling strike rate when Kapil played was 79.6, with Jadeja it was 56.9
Kapil strike rate is 63.1 , while jadeja’s is 61.8

At least on numbers, Kapil dev is definitely better than jadeja.



https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... pe=bowling

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engin ... pe=batting

Sorry, this is a pretty bad measure of how good a player is. What this is measuring is how good a player is vis-a-vis your team. So, if you are in a pretty crappy team but really top dog, i.e., the gap between you and the second player is large, you will do very well by this metric. I would not be surprised if some guy from Namibia or Italy comes out to be an all-time great using this metric.

If you really want to normalize, normalize with the averages of all-nations or top-k nations during that time. Not just their own team. That way the guy from Italy who is a big dada against USA and Nepal but absolute failure in the 1-2 games he gets against the top nations will not be crowned a great allrounder.

Strike rate is largely useless. I mean it may be useful in avoiding some draws. But, less than 10% of the matches are draws these days.

All this shows is that Jadeja is playing in arguably a much better batting side than what Kapil played in. And, Jadeja is playing in a much better bowling side. I would expect Kapil to get a whole lot of wickets and Jadeja not so many on a per test basis. Now you may say that because he had to bowl more and did not have as much support, Kapil's average slipped. Maybe. Don't know. Possible.

But, this metric is completely useless as is to determine who is a better allrounder. It is very good at finding how "valuable" a player was in their team and how dependent a team was on this player.

[rajitghosh]

Let's make things simple. If Kapil Dev had not been there the present generation would not have been there. He inspired young boys to take up cricket. His impact on Indian cricket is far bigger than what one can get at through facts and figures. The batting and bowling in those days were average. West Indies and Pakistan were at the peak of their powers and yet he inspired India to such great wins. The catch of Viv in the '83 final, his innings at Tunbridge Wells changed the history of a nation. Then in 85 he played that magnificent innings against New Zealand and bowled that devastating spell against Pakistan in the final. Then came the victory over England in England. End of the day Kapil Dev da jawab nahin. Period.

[prasen9]

Let's make things simple. If Kapil Dev had not been there the present generation would not have been there. He inspired young boys to take up cricket. His impact on Indian cricket is far bigger than what one can get at through facts and figures. The batting and bowling in those days were average. West Indies and Pakistan were at the peak of their powers and yet he inspired India to such great wins. The catch of Viv in the '83 final, his innings at Tunbridge Wells changed the history of a nation. Then in 85 he played that magnificent innings against New Zealand and bowled that devastating spell against Pakistan in the final. Then came the victory over England in England. End of the day Kapil Dev da jawab nahin. Period.

Agree fully.

[Omkara]

Ha ha ha. So agree to you Rajit. Impact of Kapil is way higher....

[SaniaFan]

+1

[PKBasu]

Half of Rajit's post is about ODIs -- Tunbridge Wells 175*, Viv's catch in the '83 final, bowling in the 1985 WCC. My post on Jadeja is about TEST cricket. In tests, Kapil had several match-winning performances, but Jadeja has had them consistently over a long period. The numbers don't lie. In TESTS, Jadeja is a better all-rounder than Kapil -- he is a better batsman and bowler on a consistent basis. In ODIs, I need no numbers to say that Kapil Dev da jawab nahi. T20Is are Jadeja's weakest as a batsman. In all 3 formats, Jadeja has been the world's best fielder for about a decade. Kapil was a superb fielder, but never really the best in the world.

[rajitghosh]

Tests- plenty of instances- Melbourne 81, century in the Hirwani test, some of the wins in his early days at home against Pakistan, Australia and West Indies, his incredible innings in England in 82 and South Africa in 92.

[SaniaFan]

Jadeja has a way to go overall. Whereas Kapil is a legend. I don't think it is right to compare that at this time.
In my opinion Kapil is the most valuable cricketer for india ever overall.

[Atithee]

Aren’t Kapil’s proponents including intangibles in calling him the greatest? Is he better based on numbers alone?

[rajitghosh]

Let Jadeja reach 5000 runs and 400 wickets in tests, 3000 runs a d 250 wickets in ODIs and win 2 World Cups. Worth discussing after that