Martin`s place at the bottom
In a lovely testimonial to the batting exploits of Chris Martin, Old Batsman noted the high percentage of total runs Martin's highest score took up. Somewhat curious, I thought I'd have a look at it.
The biggest problem, obviously, is that it gets progressively harder to make your highest score dominated your total runs scored, and any straight query returns nothing but one test wonders who scored all their runs in their only knock. Martin, in that sense isn't close.
As a more realistic measure, we can multiply the percentage by the number of innings, to rate longevity higher. This is equivalent, however, to dividing the high score by the average (ignoring not outs). Martin hasn't played his career out yet, but even so, he loses out on percentage and on the index to the undisputed king of innings out of the blue: Jason Gillespie.
This index however, is a little too biased towards longevity, and doesn't really capture the essence of Martin's great inability to score runs. To do this, I tried an alternative index, that calculates the square of innings played, divided by career runs. Some very good batsmen can rate well on this list too, by dint of extended careers, but the top of it represents the true greats of dismal batsmanship.
One shouldn't actually read anything into this list, because the number is mostly meaningless. But the size of Martin's lead over acknowledged bunnies in Chandrasekhar and Walsh is impressive.
19th March, 2009 22:02:15