View Poll Results: Why are there so many averaging 50 now?

Voters
43. You may not vote on this poll
  • Blame the pitches

    16 37.21%
  • Blame technology (better bats, trainging for batsman)

    5 11.63%
  • Natural cycle of cricket, bowlers will rise again

    7 16.28%
  • Watson is a *****

    15 34.88%
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101

Thread: When 50= Greatness

  1. #31
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Are you not following?. I am saying in 2007 the year Sehwag was dropped. IND didn't have any quality back-up opener to replace him since Jaffer's partners where Karthik in ENG & SA & Dravid in AUS.






    . So Vijay & this Mankud fellow are better back-ups than Hughes, Jaques & Rogers. Yo son dont let nobody hear you..
    Unless Hughes really starts to rip international bowlers apart, he will always be comparable to other up and coming opening batsmen from other countries. They all have one thing in common: inexperience.

  2. #32
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Jose CA
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    My last point on this as well here, before i go back to my other sehwag bashing thread

    As you should remember Hayden had to make adjustments in his technique againts the pace after his Ashes 05 failures from "bully mode" or else his career would have been finished.

    IND dont have much quality depth in opening like AUS, so after they dropped Sehwag for the entire 2007 there wasn't a any other opener in IND who could have kept him out forever.
    That isnt how it went. In end 2007 Chopra, a classical opener if there ever was one in the last 10 years, had been doing fine in domestic and county cricket, as was Gambhir. They were the obvious backups to Jaffer+Karthik who had had a good run averaging over 50 for the opening partnership. Chopra in particular has a right to feel hard done by, for not getting a chance. Gambhir of course has also came back in full strength since around then. { Chopra+Gambhir are the regular Delhi openers - Sehwag plays #3 and the alternative opener for Delhi was & is Shikhar Dhawan who was also in good nick then. M Vijay did blossom later.} I recall the "logical" pecking order right before that Aus series was thought to be:
    Jaffer+Karthik = incumbents
    Chopra= based on performance
    Gambhir= based on performance
    Sehwag= based on past international experience, had an inconsistent domestic run.

    Sehwag got a call-up to the squad, a bit surprisingly, upon the insistence of Anil Kumble and ahead of Chopra. (Sehwag wasnt even shortlisted initially). It was one of the few unconventional moves by Kumble. The rest, as they say, is history. What Sehwag did with the chance was quite up to him, and based on it will walk into any current team (except perhaps the fantasy teams of aussie & some others) that cap put a couple of decent conventional batsmen around him. [ Since his return, in 20 tests he averages 60 at an SR of 92 and this includes a series in NZ, bugaboo country for him. At least 4 match-impacting knocks and that does not include his triple.]

    From that list of 5 above - Gambhir is doing extremely well too. The other 3 would also be fine in some of the other test teams, fair to say. (Chopra in particular would be a solid anchor and could pair up well with almost any one but Cook). So India not having opening depth in 2007 is not a good assesment. Might have been true of several years prior to that.

    p.s. At the time, I myself was aghast at his selection (over Chopra). And in retrospect, as mistaken as mistaken can be.

  3. #33
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,106
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Thats a presumption. Its not like he hasn't had the oppurtunity to make adjustment to his technique in this era after failures. Since his retun in Adelaide 08 after being dropped due to those failures - no adjustments have been made.
    LOL, what exactly would you call it every time you declare that X batsman would have averaged Y in the 90s?
    "It was an easy decision to sign. I could have gone elsewhere, I had calls, but it never entered my mind it's not about the money."
    Jason Koumas

    SWA

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  4. #34
    International Coach Shri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    11,178
    Assumption.


  5. #35
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Jason Koumas is having a party
    Posts
    48,106
    fair

  6. #36
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    Few reasons for the 50+ averages that are so common:

    - Flat pitches obviously

    - The lack of quality bowlers, particularly pace bowlers, and the breakdown of the few remaining quality ones due to packed schedules

    - The introduction of Bangladesh giving two minnow options whereas in the 90s there was only Zimbabwe and before that there were none
    Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

    One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.
    Last edited by Ikki; 29-12-2009 at 02:52 AM.
    I think there'll sooner be another Bradman than another Warne. - Gidgeon Haigh

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler ever produced in this entire world - Muttiah Muralidaran

    [Warne is] the greatest bowler of all time - Glenn McGrath


    In my opinion Shane Warne is the greatest cricketer who's ever lived - Ian Botham

    Warne is the greatest cricketer to pick up a ball ever.
    And is the greatest bowler I have ever laid eyes on. - Brian Lara

  7. #37
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

    One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.
    It should be noted that Barrington had a great average against Aust
    You know it makes sense.

  8. #38
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    1,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

    One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.
    That's the key point. Bangladesh for much of the decade were clearly not fit to be considered test class, unlike the ones you mentioned. At least they were capable of sporadic test victories, whereas Bangladesh were not, aside from a victory against a third-string WI side.

    My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.

  9. #39
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    That's the key point. Bangladesh for much of the decade were clearly not fit to be considered test class, unlike the ones you mentioned. At least they were capable of sporadic test victories, whereas Bangladesh were not, aside from a victory against a third-string WI side.

    My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.
    Remove Bangladesh and there are still lots of batsmen who average above 50. I don't think Bangladesh is that much of a factor. Also Zimbabwe hasn't played cricket for most of this decade, so their influence is limited also. And in fact, at the turn of the millennium they weren't a minnow at all.

  10. #40
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    It should be noted that Barrington had a great average against Aust
    I know, but his average against the Windies and S.Africa? Point is, when 3 of 6 of the teams you face are quite inferior then that will affect your career average much more than if it's 1-2 teams in 10.

    Another thing to note is that there are far less draws this decade. So you could say past batsmen had the advantage in that their era adopted a less aggressive batting style and created situations where more runs could have been made.
    Last edited by Ikki; 29-12-2009 at 03:45 AM.

  11. #41
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,287
    It is a combination of better pitches,better batsmen and a decline in the quality of the bowlers.I am sure that someone like Martin Crowe would have averaged well over 50 against the bowling around these days.

    In the 80's when i first started watching cricket everybody seemed to have 2 top quality bowlers in their sides where as today you struggle to find a handful worldwide.No disrespect to the likes of Paul Harris and Mitchell Johnson but they are very poor in comparison to some of the bowlers from years ago.

    Take the currentEngland team (i know they don't average over 50 but the point still applies),are Cook,Collingwood and Strauss that much better than the likes of Lamb,Gatting and Atherton who all averaged in the 30's when there were better bowlers around.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post

    Another thing to note is that there are far less draws this decade. So you could say past batsmen had the advantage in that their era adopted a less aggressive batting style and created situations where more runs could have been made.

    Well shouldn't that mean that they should have averaged more in years gone by? Does that not make it even more of a case to say it is to easy now?

  13. #43
    International Coach Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion! Jackpot Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Death Queen Island
    Posts
    12,482
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    Well shouldn't that mean that they should have averaged more in years gone by? Does that not make it even more of a case to say it is to easy now?
    Or it could mean they actually benefitted more than enough and to denigrate players of this era by claiming that it is easier to bat nowadays is somewhat fallacious.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,473
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac View Post
    It should be noted that Barrington had a great average against Aust
    It's also worth noting how little respect he gets for it- he's rather like the Mohammed Yousuf of his era in that no one thinks he's much use despite his phenomenal average- in Barrington's case it doesn't add up at all. I put him around 23 or 24 in my top 25 as a kind of token vote- I was the only one who placed him at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  15. #45
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Jose CA
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    That's the key point. Bangladesh for much of the decade were clearly not fit to be considered test class, unlike the ones you mentioned. At least they were capable of sporadic test victories, whereas Bangladesh were not, aside from a victory against a third-string WI side.

    My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.
    Well you can scratch this off as a factor as far as Sehwag is concerned. He averages 11.5 vs BD (2 innings) and in 4 more innings against Zim his top score is 74. In all less than 200 runs out of 6200 at < 40.

    Quality bowlers in themselves too do not restrain Sehwag on his day (which is often enough for us). Practically every one of the good ones of this decade has seen the business end of atleast one 150+ score from him and Warne, Murali in particular have been plundered with no respect.

    Flat pitches obviously help him, since every time he scores, it is discovered that there was one. So just 1/3 of the mitigating factors applies to him.The criterion of 4000 more runs with the same ingredients as the first 6000 seems fair. If Sehwag gets the rest the same way he has gotten the last 2000, even aussie will have the hardest time making reasons up. (Not outs are also a non-factor in Sehwag's average compared to almost any one else.)

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Ten Best Cricketers Of All Time
    By Francis in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: 01-06-2011, 09:40 AM
  2. Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time
    By bagapath in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 485
    Last Post: 26-09-2009, 12:47 AM
  3. Letter to The Wisden Cricketer
    By PhoenixFire in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 02-01-2007, 06:32 AM
  4. *Congratulations* Brian Lara 10,000 Test Runs!
    By lord_of_darkness in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 387
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 02:50 PM
  5. Brett Lee...shades of greatness...
    By Rik in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 13-04-2003, 05:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •