Batting Average Explained: Cricket's Primary Measure of Batting Quality
The batting average formula (runs scored divided by innings in which the batsman was dismissed), why 'not out' innings are excluded from the denominator, what constitutes an excellent average in Tests vs limited-overs, the historical benchmark of Bradman's 99.94, era adjustment factors, and why batting average — while central to cricket statistics — has meaningful limitations as a solo performance measure.
The Formula and Not-Out Innings
Batting average = total runs scored ÷ number of innings in which the batsman was dismissed. Not-out innings (where the batsman did not lose their wicket — either the innings was declared, the match ended, or their side achieved the target without the batsman being out) are excluded from the denominator. This is why a not-out score of 100* increases the average by the same runs but adds nothing to the denominator — a not-out century adds 100 runs but 0 innings to the calculation. For most established batsmen, not-out innings represent a small percentage of their total innings and the adjustment is minor. For tail-enders who frequently bat not out (finishing the innings without scoring much, never being dismissed), the average can be inflated significantly by the not-out exclusion.
Benchmarks: What Is a Good Average
In Test cricket, the benchmarks: an average of 40 or above is considered good for a top-order batsman (meaning a 'good' batsman costs their team 40 runs per dismissal). An average of 50+ is excellent — the threshold for a 'great' Test career. An average of 60+ is exceptional — fewer than 15 batsmen in Test cricket history have averaged 60+ with 20+ innings played. An average of 99.94 (Bradman) is the all-time record and more than 20 runs per dismissal better than the second-highest averages — a statistical outlier of remarkable magnitude. For ODI cricket, averages above 40 are very good; 50+ is elite. For T20I cricket, the not-out distortion is more significant (T20 tail-enders and not-out finishers inflate averages), and strike rate is considered a more informative measure than batting average.
Limitations of Batting Average
Batting average, while the primary statistical measure of batting quality, has several meaningful limitations. It does not account for match context — a century when the team is 400 ahead is worth less to the team than a century that saves a match. It does not capture scoring rate — a player averaging 40 at 45 runs per 100 balls is far more valuable in limited-overs cricket than a player averaging 40 at 30 runs per 100 balls. It is inflated by not-out innings in a way that can mislead (particularly for lower-order batsmen who frequently bat as not-out tailenders). And it varies with era (run-scoring averages have changed across cricket history), opposition strength, home/away split, and pitch conditions — none of which are normalised in the raw average figure.
Frequently asked questions
Why don't cricket statistics use median instead of mean for batting averages?
Cricket batting average is technically a ratio (total runs / total dismissals) rather than a mean of individual innings scores — the distinction matters when innings scores are not normally distributed (which they aren't: innings scores are right-skewed, with many low scores and occasional very high scores). In practice, a batsman's median innings score is typically much lower than their average — because the distribution is right-skewed (zeros and single-digit scores are common; huge centuries pull the mean up). Some analysts argue median innings scores are a better measure of 'what you typically get' from a batsman, while the traditional average reflects total contribution. Both measures are used in advanced cricket analytics, but the traditional average (the ratio, not the mean) remains the headline statistic.
How does home vs away split affect batting average?
Home-away split is one of the most significant sources of batting average variation. Most batsmen average significantly higher at home than away — home pitches are familiar, conditions suit local players, and there is psychological comfort in home surroundings. For some batsmen the split is modest (truly great batsmen often perform consistently in all conditions); for others the split is stark (an average 20-30 runs higher at home than away). When evaluating batting averages, the home/away split is an important context — a batsman who averages 45 with most runs scored at home against weaker conditions is different from one who averages 45 equally split between home and away in all conditions.
Does the batting position affect batting average expectations?
Yes significantly. Opening batsmen face the new ball and have fewer scoring opportunities against a fresh bowler (lower expected scoring rate, higher risk of early dismissal against the new ball's movement) — yet they must bat in the highest-pressure phase of the innings. Number 3 is considered the 'best' batting position (the batsman comes in after the openers have either built a platform or with wickets down, in either case able to set the tone for the middle order). Lower-order batsmen (6-8) typically average less than top-order batsmen because they have fewer balls faced and less ability to build a long innings. Expectations for batting average must be calibrated against position: a number 8 averaging 35 is exceptional; a number 3 averaging 35 is moderate.