Should Jennings’ expected average be reduced after the Bridgetown Test?

There has recently been interest in Keaton Jennings’ average against pace. Two failures in Barbados have stoked this discussion. His average (26) in 16 Tests is below his expected average (33) based on County performances over the last three years. Generally, I would choose the big sample size (County Cricket) over the smaller sample size (Tests), and so rate his expected average at 33, not 26.

But – can we learn anything about technical flaws from Jennings’ Test performances to change that view? Specifically his average against pace:

Keaton Jenningsaverage against pace (16.90) is the lowest of any opener to have played more than 15 Tests, for games in which ball-by-ball data is available.

Wisden (Jan 26th 2019, via Twitter)

I’ve had a look at his performances over the last 3 years on the county circuit. The hypothesis is that there are some very good pace bowlers in County Cricket, and as an opener Jennings will face them (a middle order batsman might be able to make hay without facing much of the best bowlers).

The data supports this hypothesis – 68% of the time he faces at least one opening bowler with Test experience.

Keaton Jennings has played two of the last three seasons in Division 1, scoring 11 hundreds, and making runs in a variety of conditions (including April and September- when the deck is stacked in the bowler’s favour). His three year average isn’t amazing, but the key point is that one can’t look at the above data and conclude that Jennings has a problem against pace bowling.

As an aside, this piece is a reminder that I need to build a way to combine the Test performances to the First Class performances to ensure I’m using every available data point in appraising batsmen.

Conclusion: There is no reason to model Jennings’ expected Test average as anything other than 33. Plenty of people will disagree with that!