Posted by 
Some of you may have both noticed and cared that David Warner was apparently having a relatively mediocre year before this Test. His 2016 one-day record is exceptional, but his long format returns had been little more than ‘all right’.
Against Pakistan Warner edged a load and also became what feels like the 85th person to be bowled off a Wahab Riaz no-ball before eventually reaching three figures.
One day of jousiness and Warner’s Test year now reads 748 runs at 41.55 with two hundreds (plus a 97).
So perfectly normal then.
Strikes us that if mediocrity can so easily be negated, it was probably no such thing in the first place.
They should probably start including an asterisk next to Australian batsmen’s annual records, indicating “was obliged to face Herath“. As far as this Warner story goes, that pretty much explains everything.
batsmen who dare to play with their luck, usually luck plays a major share on their returns.
“Strikes us that if mediocrity can so easily be negated, it was probably no such thing in the first place.”
Quite so. Should averages come with error bars?
Gosh it is quiet around here today. Perhaps we should not read statistical significance into tiny samples, such as Warner’s few innings in 2016 or Mike’s solitary plea the other day for test analysis only.
So just in case there are KC readers out there craving some “blast from the past anthropomorphic” match reporting, my Ogblog trawl through the summer of 2008 has uncovered an especially bizarre piece by Hippity from MTWD.
In many ways it is contra-KC. Not least, rather than being written months after the event and then published months after that, by the looks of it I published Hippity’s T20 match report before the match had actually finished:
http://ianlouisharris.com/2008/06/11/were-on-our-way-to-delhi-hampshire-v-middlesex-t20-mtwd-match-report-11-june-2008/
Can you believe people were calling for Pakistan to declare on day two when they had 310/6.
Yes.