Quote:
Originally Posted by silentstriker
14,13,18,2,60,9,16,0,6,0,0,11,11,12,123,17,5,2,87, 24,8
And I still have a problem rating people from this era as similar to people in the 90s. Sorry, I don't buy that its just luck we have so many people averaging 50+, when in the 90s, we had only a handful.
|
There is a similar run in Tendulkar's record, I'm sure.
It's so weird how people have a problem rating people from this era as similar to people in the 90s (just one decade ago) whereas they have no problem declaring people like Hobbs, Hutton, Barrington etc from way before the Packer era to be demi-gods and better than Tendulkar, Lara, etc. So many more people averaged in the high-50s then - isn't it possible that scoring was far easier than it is now?
I guess there's no explaining looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses. That is why I think putting Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting next only to Bradman feels deeply satisfying, and I genuinely believe they're three of the best the world has seen, far better than any of the pre-Packers when cricket was a much slower and less demanding game.
Look at this, for example:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/...s;type=batting
A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period, in spite of the fact that test cricket was played far less frequently than it is now, and there were far fewer international players around. So is this proof that during Hutton's and Weekes's era, batting was considerably easier?