Last edited by silentstriker; 07-05-2009 at 05:11 PM.
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.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 07-05-2009 at 08:50 PM.
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.
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:
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?
Last edited by Evermind; 08-05-2009 at 01:57 AM.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)
Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net
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.
Yeah, only averaged 57
Taking a period with roughly similar amount of Tests...
Streak, Key, Kirsten, Gibbs all averaging 60+.
A follower of the schools of Machiavelli, Bentham, Locke, Hobbes, Sutcliffe, Bradman, Lindwall, Miller, Hassett and Benaud
Member of ESAS, JMAS, DMAS, FRAS and RTDAS
when you're winning, you have friends
scores and dozens, real friends
when you're winning, never lonely
when you keep winning
However this will be beneficial for the batsmen with NO SR available. It should have not been criteria.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.
Member of the Sanga fan club. (Ugh! it took me so long to become a real fan of his)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)