365notout wrote:Bit of an odd one but....
Do Indian players get more incongruously high individual high scores than any other nationality of batsmen?
Over the last two months we have seen two Cricketers who are not exactly consummate batsmen, Karun Nair and Wriddhiman Saha, come out of nowhere and get massive scores in the long form of the game. This appears to be more regular with Indian batsmen or is that me being bias?
I'm not sure how you define 'incongruous', but the approach I took to attempting to answer the question was to look at the high scores of batsmen with a low overall career average (less than 40, which is generally considered the benchmark for being a test-level top 6 batsman) since 2000:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=battingThis shows that since 2000, the number of players with a career average of less than 40 that had a high score of more than 200 are:
NZ: Four
West Indies: Three
England, Pakistan, South Africa, India: Two
Sri Lanka, Australia, Bangladesh: One
Note that Nair and Saha do not appear in the list above. Calling Nair a less than consummate batsmen is perhaps a little unfair? He has a FC average of 55. Saha has a high score of 117, which isn't exactly incongruously high (IMHO) for a player who averages over 30.
If you change the thresholds to a career average of 45 and a score of 250 plus:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=battingWest Indies: Three
NZ: Two
England, SL: One each.
So I conclude that actually New Zealand and West Indies are the leaders in the 'batsmen having incongrously high scores compared to their overall career performance' metric.