at close he is 176 not out and is averaging a hair over 100 now

would need another 96 runs tomorrow to keep his average above 100 if he gets out

australia 280 ahead in the game with 3 full days left so doubt we will see them declare any time soon

You can't run out two batsman on one delivery

Well he does average 556 against West indies.
Voges stats isn't actually that great when you consider a lot of them were scored against West indies and at home.
Although saying that he is a decent player and is capable of averaging around 40s and bring experience to the side basically another Rogers.

Question for Australian selectors is if he can do ok in Sri lanka next summer.
Can't really see him touring India or England again which kind of makes you think why they didn't pick joe burns.
Rogers was understandable since they did tour India, Double Ashes, SA in a 18 month period so did need the experience but with Voges they mostly playing WI and no real challenging tour compared to what Rogers encountered. it would be awkward if Voges fails when Australia finally faces SA, Eng and India again.

It's embarassing that Voges is averaging 100 and I'm not even an Aussie. It completely devaules test cricket.

The West Indies have been worse than England at their worst in the 90s.

Perhaps they should bring in some sort of 'handicapping'? If you score lots of runs against a crap team, there's some sort of Mathematical formula to decrease it.

Voges scored runs in a losing cause at Trent Bridge and on a flat pitch at the Oval. He was lucky not be dropped last summer.

at no point did i suggest he would sustain those sort of numbers over an extended period and i think how he did in the ashes is probably a better reflection of his actual ability , but the numbers themselves are impressive

I did say he was a decent player.

Poor cricket from pant.

I'm not one into meaningless cricket stats, especially those types "highest 7th wicket partnership on this ground versus this opposition on a tuesday" rubbish. But i do like those straightforward quite perceptive ones, like how a bowler goes at home vs away.

Which leads me to my frustration of a couple of stats that don't even exist in 2016, stats that would change how i might view certain individual incidents in a game. These being:
- Percentage of catches held (both overall, by fielding position and by individual player)
- Percentage of stumping chances converted
- Percentage success of throws at stumps (run out attempts)

At present we have no idea how good/bad certain wicketkeepers and fielders are, compared to an overall baseline and say compared to some of the alleged greats.

I was reading a cricket website that said when chatting to an ex Eng test analyst (part of backroom staff) in Test cricket 70% of slip catches are held. Yet when watching live coverage 95%+ of chances are counted as a miss and the fielders named constantly if the batsman goes on to make a score. Yet in effect its impossible for humans to catch the lot

And regard stumpings i'd be surprised if the success rate is any higher than slip fielders. Adam Gilchrist took 20 stumpings off Warne, and 37 in total for his whole Test career. He played from 1999-2008, of which Warne (when not banned or injured) played 1993-2007, so there must be a fair few stumpings missed in that 8 year (70+ tests?) overlap. Yet Gilchrist seemed a competent keeper to me. So who knows how much stick we should be giving an inexperienced test wicketkeeper when he misses a stumping chance?

Are you sure the 70% figure is correct, thought the figure was close to being 55-60%.
Remember reading the top slip fielders have around 70% but the average was lower than that.

I have to admit this was based on Star Sports figures during the india vs England series in 2014 when India and england both had a brand new slip team.
During that series no one had a better catching record than 50% but they did compare the record to the best slip catchers and they did have records close to 65-70% but I doubt that is the norm, the average should be around 55-60%.

Cricket is so far behind in Cricket stats, which is annoying since Broadcasters and people have been collecting all the stats for at least 5-10 years.

The ex england cricket stat guy is now running Cricprof which is an interesting software but it does lack one thing it doesn't allow you to choose the stats and doesn't even explain how it got the data but if you read the blog or the tweets it does generally have stats like that.

For a sport that is very number based it is in the stone ages when it comes to presenting data in stats.
the fact they still use Averages says something.

It's been raining and the covers have just come off so it may be a bowl first day

Morgan loses the toss and AB invites us to bat

England unchanged

One change for South Africa with Rousseau replacing Duminy

No cricket for Bairstow or Taylor

Spreads calling England runs at 285 - 295

Seems a bit high listening to the pundits, the dodgy weather and the scoring history at the ground

No involvement from me as I fancy going lower but also want to cheer on England!

Hales going for his 5th successive ODI 50 and trying to emulate, amongst others, G Boycott

Tahir on to bowl the 5th over under seamer friendly conditions.....

...and he gets a wicket

Roy plays back to a quicker one and is LBW to complete a disappointing series

Well thats a mad 10 minutes

A wicket followed by 23 runs off the next 8 deliveries

What a drop by Amla

Amla drops a sitter to give Root a life

He missed that by miles

What an awful decision from the umpire

Successful review for Hales

That was a shocking "decision" by the umpire. Are they just giving them out to be safe and leaving the reviews to sort of the difficult decisions?

didn't realise this was an early start today

and yet another poor decision

that was extremely plumb

Once again - why wasn't that given out straight away?

Looked out before the hawkeye.

Another awful decision

That looked plum