Mouth-watering analysis this

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

People averaging 50+ during the 1990s (20 Test minimum): Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara, Gooch.

People averaging 50+ during the 2000s (20 Test minimum): Flower, Yousuf, Ponting, Kallis, Imzamam, Hussey, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Tilakaratne, Gambhir, Lara, Chanderpaul, Dravid, Thorpe, Waugh, Hayden, Tendulkar, Younis, Samarweera, Pietersen, Graeme Smigh, Virender Sehwag.

People can decide for themselves, and I've been given a few reasons for this. Sorry, I don't buy any of them so far. To me, it has been patently easier to score runs. 4 people vs. 22 people. Sorry, personally, I can't rate those runs the same way.

Obviously, people have their own ideas, and they are welcome to them. Not for me though.

Ponting is a standout amonst them however.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Ponting is a standout amonst them however.

He is, and he made it into CW top fifteen for that reason (I would have had him around #18-20 but minor quibble that). Not enough though to reach top ten or whatever though, for mine.

[Slifer]

Originally Posted by Matt79

That's like the third time you've posted that article. It doesn't make any sense. It jumps from telling us who Lindwall is, to starting a new para telling us what Bodyline is, without directly linked the two. The suggestion that Weekes was targeted using Bodyline tactics is implied but not stated. But what Lindwall bowled was not Bodyline - that field was illegal by then, and the pitches were a hell of a lot flatter.

What Lindwall bowled was no worse than plenty of other bowlers have bowled. Colin Croft and Andy Roberts come to mind. He was, however one of the first bowlers to commonly employ the bouncer at speed since the Bodyline series and people knee jerked in a predicable fashion. He and Miller targeted Hutton for plenty of short stuff as well, believing he didn't like it. And they were booed around England for it. And there were no shortage of scribes keen to raise the spectre of Bodyline to sell papers - it's the same kind of hysteria we see today for any suggestion of ball tampering etc.

The injury to his leg is a different matter, but all that article suggests is that he had a weakness against high quality fast bowling.

It points out that on top of being injured when he faced these two teams away, he also was hampered in Australia by short pitched leg-theory tactics employed against him. Nothing like the bumpers sent down by the Windies later

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

People averaging 50+ during the 1990s (20 Test minimum): Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara, Gooch.

People averaging 50+ during the 2000s (20 Test minimum): Flower, Yousuf, Ponting, Kallis, Imzamam, Hussey, Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Tilakaratne, Gambhir, Lara, Chanderpaul, Dravid, Thorpe, Waugh, Hayden, Tendulkar, Younis, Samarweera, Pietersen, Graeme Smigh, Virender Sehwag.

People can decide for themselves, and I've been given a few reasons for this. Sorry, I don't buy any of them so far. To me, it has been patently easier to score runs. 4 people vs. 22 people. Sorry, personally, I can't rate those runs the same way.

Obviously, people have their own ideas, and they are welcome to them. Not for me though.

That's pretty specious although I think the conclusion, essentially, is right. For one, a few of those guys averaging less than 50 at the turn of the century were still right up there average-wise but the confound is that they were starting to hit their peaks as batsmen at the same time (getting into late-20's, knowing their games, etc.). Couple that with roped-in boundaries, bat tech, changes in batting techniques at the elite level (batters work on developing all-round game rather than playing to their strengths and waiting for the right ball to come along) and a greater preponderance of flat decks and it's no surprise averages will be a few points higher.

I know you didn't say this but I absolutely dispute that bowlers are any worse than they were in the 90's. The flat pitches haven't done much to nullify the top-shelf few, sure, but guys who aren't quite there regularly get smashed. Batters can throw their hands at the ball or play confidently through the line because there won't be any nasty movement to catch them unawares or a top edge will sail over the fine leg fence. Can imagine that a bowler like Lee would have been averaging a few points lower in the 90's.

My point, though, is that I don't think this should be held against the guys doing it now because it's all, in my view, stuff outside their control.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

I know you didn't say this but I absolutely dispute that bowlers are any worse than they were in the 90's. The flat pitches haven't done much to nullify the top-shelf few, sure, but guys who aren't quite there regularly get smashed. Batters can throw their hands at the ball or play confidently through the line because there won't be any nasty movement to catch them unawares or a top edge will sail over the fine leg fence. Can imagine that a bowler like Lee would have been averaging a few points lower in the 90's.

My point, though, is that I don't think this should be held against the guys doing it now because it's all, in my view, stuff outside their control.

Well, it's not their fault, but they would need to score more - probably a lot more - to be considered the same level of quality, as far as I am concerned.

The whole point is rating people against their peers - averaging 55 when 20 other people are averaging 50+ is a lot less impressive than averaging 55 when only three other people are. There is obviously some ups and downs depending on who just happens to be around, but not four vs. twenty-two.

[andyc]

Originally Posted by zinzan12

The highest adjusted average is that of Bradman, whose average of 99.96 has been adjusted down to 96.75. He gets 19.35 points and is followed by Hobbs (61.68) with 12.34 points and Weekes (61.06) with 12.21 points.

[Evermind]

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?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Evermind

A ridiculous number of no-namers averaged over 60 during this period

*chokes*

Seperate to the point, there was a small interuption in cricket during the 40s called WWII

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Slifer

It points out that on top of being injured when he faced these two teams away, he also was hampered in Australia by short pitched leg-theory tactics employed against him. Nothing like the bumpers sent down by the Windies later

The tactics the Aussies used were not Bodyline, in that the field settings that made Bodyline so hard to combat weren't used. And the conditions were generally more benign. Was it intimidatory bowling using a nasty barrage of dangerous short bowling? Probably. So exactly like what plenty of other bowlers have used, inc. the Windies all pace attacks, Lillee and Thompson, etc etc.

I explained why calling that Bodyline is misleading.

Him carrying an injury is a more valid excuse. But succeeding against nasty fast bowling in adverse conditions is the ultimate test for a batsman, you can't cite the fact they bowled short at him as an excuse.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Matt79

But succeeding against nasty fast bowling in adverse conditions is the ultimate test for a batsman, you can't cite the fact they bowled short at him as an excuse.

that screws Bradman then

[Matt79]

Yeah, only averaged 57

[Evermind]

Originally Posted by Goughy

*chokes*

Seperate to the point, there was a small interuption in cricket during the 40s called WWII

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Evermind

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

They played 15 tests between them in that period. That is no sample size and pointless to comment on.

And if you dont know who they are then that is your issue. Stollmeyer was a fine player and Loxton was one of the 1948 Invincibles

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Evermind

WWII is pretty irrelevant.

And really, Stollmeyer? Loxton? FB Smith? Who?

In 6 Tests.

Taking a period with roughly similar amount of Tests...

Streak, Key, Kirsten, Gibbs all averaging 60+.

[Migara]

5. The batsman's career strike rate has become an important measure. This should be recognized, if available. For those batsmen whose strike rate information is not available, this parameter will not be included. If the strike rate is available for part of the batsman's career, it will be considered for that part only. This is explained in detail later. There is a case for the innings strike rate to be incorporated in the Match Performance calculations. However this revised methodology necessarily requires the strike rate to be a career-based calculation rather than match innings based.

However this will be beneficial for the batsmen with NO SR available. It should have not been criteria.