Good list besides Ponting being a bit higher than I'd place him for reasons previously mentioned.
I think there should be some consideration for what position in the order you batted. I would have thought it harder to score run as an opener then at 4 or 5.
The whole point is that averages were a lot higher back then. Which means batting was easier. Which means all the greats "worshipped" back then were possibly not as great as some of the batsmen today. They also played a lot fewer matches and fatigue barely came into the picture.
Frankly I find it absurd that Ponting is ranked lower than 15 in some people's all-time batting lists. I can't think of anything other than prejudice/"old-is-gold" nonsense being responsible for that.
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
Hobbs' heyday was the pre-WWI period; from his debut until World War I he was the only one in all of Test cricket to average above 51. No one (except possibly Brumby) have ranked Barrington above Ponting yet - in any case batting was hardly easy during his period.
Besides the lack of big buck, another reason can be a very prevalent one. It is that a good statistical analysis in this field will almost certainly not get any recognition and be thrashed by cricket purists and enthusiasts alike...
At the end of the day, these quite average level of analyses are ruling the world of cricket statistics which is not good for the field. And more importantly, for these moderate level of analyses from some 'famous' (I don't know how) cricket statisticians, the rare brilliant ones are often ignored by cricket pundits - for which I obviously don't blame the pundits...
Last edited by weldone; 09-05-2009 at 12:28 AM.
"Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
- C.L.R. James
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)