Talk:John Warr

worst bowling average?

I removed this "He has the worst Test bowling average of anyone to have played for England." per WP:LIVING.

To be fair, I googled it and found one potentially reliable reference (Steven Lynch. "The worst bowling average, and mystery injuries", Cricinfo, 2004-01-19) for him having the worst of all time for an unspecified period of years following his single Test wicket in the 1950-51 Ashes, which cost him 281 runs.

However, bowling average says "Career records for bowling average are usually subject to a qualification of a minimum number of balls bowled or wickets taken, to avoid including artificially high or low averages resulting from a career spanning only a few matches. Under the usual qualification of at least 2,000 balls bowled[...]" He has well over that for First-class but only 584 for Test, and only the single wicket in the Test, as mentioned in the Cricinfo article.

Bowling average also says "In terms of assessing the effectiveness of a bowler, the average gives a useful but not a complete picture." which to someone who doesn't know cricket, highlights that I don't understand this, am not able to put this into perspective, and am able to phrase it in an NPOV way.

Brief context, multiple reliable sources and NPOV phrasing would be required to reinsert this into the article. TransUtopian 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've mentioned this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#John Warr worst bowling average?. TransUtopian 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it up. I think it's fair to mention it in the article (it can be referenced through List of English Test cricketers), and really, it's NPOV to say that his average is the worst bowling average. It doesn't necessarily imply that he is the worst bowler, it's just stating a fact (though a better phrasing might be "highest", although that's not necessarily easily understood by a non-cricketer). It is also balanced out by mentioning his performances for Middlesex.

The comparison of 2,000 balls bowled is usually used the "other way", i.e. for comparing those with the best bowling averages. Those with the worst tend to be forgotten, except for the ones topping the list, such as Rawl Lewis. Sam Vimes | Address me 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you *very* much for expanding and referencing this article and the full explanation here, Sam Vimes and Stephen Turner! I gathered from my limited research that highest average equals worst performance, as it is in bowling, but I knew that just sticking in a cite wouldn't do him credit as I didn't grasp the specifics. Btw, should all cricket-related articles have Template:WikiProject Cricket on their talk page, or it doesn't really matter? TransUtopian 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose they should, but no one has bothered to do them all yet. We'll get round to them some day. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. If come across some in my travels then, I'll add it. I might learn more about cricket too. All I know is from Doctor Who, though for awhile I thought punting had something to do with it. TransUtopian 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)