Batting Average Explained: Why 50 Is Elite, What Not Outs Do to Averages, and Historical Context
Cricket batting average — how it is calculated (runs divided by dismissals, not innings), why not-outs inflate averages, why Bradman's 99.94 is impossible to contextualise, how modern T20 cricket created strike rate as a parallel metric, the difference between Test average and ODI average, and what constitutes an elite career average.
Batting average is cricket's primary measure of batting quality: the number of runs scored divided by the number of times a batsman was dismissed. The formula is: runs / dismissals (not innings — if a batsman scores 100 runs in 3 innings and is dismissed twice, their average is 100/2 = 50, not 100/3 = 33.33). The distinction — dividing by dismissals rather than innings — is the key feature that makes batting average different from most other sports' productivity metrics and creates the 'not out' effect.
What Constitutes an Elite Career Average
Benchmarks for Test batting averages: (1) Average above 50: elite. In Test history, approximately 20 batsmen with 3,000+ Test runs have averaged above 50. The list includes Bradman (99.94), Graeme Pollock (60.97), George Headley (60.83), Herbert Sutcliffe (60.73), Adam Voges (61.87 — a controversial inclusion due to late-career Test debut against weak opposition), Eddie Paynter (59.23), Ken Barrington (58.67), Everton Weekes (58.61), Wally Hammond (58.45); (2) Average 45-50: very good. Tendulkar (53.78), Dravid (52.31), Lara (52.89), Kohli (~47.5 final average — retired from Tests May 2025), AB de Villiers (50.66); (3) Average 35-45: solid international standard. Many Test players who have 3,000+ runs fall in this range; (4) Average below 35: borderline at Test level for specialist batsmen — though tail-end batsmen (numbers 8-11) average much lower and this is expected.
The Not-Out Problem: How Not-Outs Inflate Averages
The not-out effect: because batting average divides by dismissals (not innings), batsmen who finish innings not out do not have that innings counted in their denominator — the runs are added to the numerator but the innings is not added to the denominator. This creates specific distortions: (1) Number 11 batsmen (last batsman in): they are frequently not out when the team is bowled out (because they run out of partners rather than being dismissed themselves). A number 11 who scores 5* in a match where the team was bowled out for 120 counts 5 runs but 0 dismissals — artificially inflating their average; (2) MS Dhoni effect: Dhoni finished not out in a higher-than-average proportion of his ODI innings (because he batted late in the order and frequently finished matches not out). His ODI average (50.57) is significantly inflated by not-outs — his average per innings (including not-outs) would be notably lower. This created the 'average vs performance' debate around Dhoni's ODI statistics; (3) Adam Voges (61.87 Test average): Voges batted for Australia against weak Test opposition at an advanced age (debut at 35) and had an unusual proportion of not-outs — critics suggest his average overstates his Test quality relative to those who played more Tests against stronger opposition.
T20 Cricket and the Strike Rate Shift
T20 cricket created a parallel batting metric that can conflict with average: strike rate (runs per 100 balls). In T20 cricket, a batsman who scores 30 from 15 balls (strike rate 200) is often more valuable than one who scores 30 from 30 balls (strike rate 100) — even if the second batsman's average is the same. The two metrics can conflict: a conservative batsman who never gets out scores a high average but slow strike rate; an aggressive batsman who hits boundaries freely scores a high strike rate but may have a lower average due to more frequent dismissals. In T20 cricket, strike rate typically takes priority over average for top-order batsmen; average matters more for anchor-style middle-order batsmen (those expected to bat through difficult periods). The ideal T20 batsman has both: strike rate above 150 and average above 30 — rare, but Suryakumar Yadav (India) achieved this in T20Is, making him one of the most valuable T20 batsmen in the world in 2022-2023.
Frequently asked questions
How is batting average calculated in cricket?
Batting average = total runs scored / number of times dismissed. Not-out innings (innings where the batsman was not dismissed) are included in the runs total but NOT in the dismissals count. Example: if a batsman scores 500 runs in 12 innings and is dismissed 10 times (with 2 not-outs), their average = 500/10 = 50. This differs from dividing by innings (500/12 = 41.67). The not-out convention inflates averages — particularly for lower-order batsmen who frequently end innings not out when the team is dismissed.
What is considered a good batting average in Test cricket?
In Test cricket: average above 50 is elite (approximately 20 batsmen with significant careers have achieved this); average 45-50 is very good (characteristic of most top-10 Test batsmen in a given era); average 35-45 is solid international standard (most established Test batsmen); average below 35 is marginal for a specialist Test batsman, though acceptable for all-rounders and lower-order batsmen who contribute primarily as bowlers. Don Bradman's 99.94 is the all-time record; the second-highest among batsmen with 3,000+ runs is approximately 61 (Herbert Sutcliffe/Adam Voges/Graeme Pollock, depending on qualification criteria).
Why is Bradman's average 99.94 and not 100?
Bradman's Test batting average is 99.94 because his final Test innings (The Oval, 1948) produced a duck (0) — he was dismissed for 0 by Eric Hollies (a googly) in his final Test innings. Had Bradman scored just 4 runs in that innings, his career average would have been exactly 100. The duck reduced his career average from what would have been exactly 100 to 99.94. The story of Bradman's final innings — the emotional crowd standing ovation as he walked out knowing one of history's greatest careers was ending, and then the dismissal for 0 — is one of cricket's most famous anecdotes. Bradman later said he may have had tears in his eyes and could not see the ball clearly.