• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

When 50= Greatness

Why are there so many averaging 50 now?


  • Total voters
    43

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

archie mac

International Coach
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?:unsure:
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
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?:unsure:
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.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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.
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
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.)
 

Manee

Cricketer Of The Year
Its a combination of a lot of things. Sure pitches play a role and certainly bats play a role.

Id add that the last decade we are seeing players that developed their technique as youngsters in helmets. Previously we had players wear helmets that had techniques and mentality based on learning the game in a cap. It makes a big difference.

I would also add that players see more scoring opportunities that previously without a large increase in risk. Does that make them better? I dont know? Can they only do this because of the pitches and bats? I dont know. But there has certainly been a change in what is believed to be possible and prudent at the crease. I dont think we are poorer for it.

Of all the factors the more positive mentality is the biggest difference.
But is this mentality totally due to the better pitches, bats and protection, if so, does it count as a factor on its own? I really do believe, and the numbers back it up, that we have seen a massive shift in pitches from the 1990s to the 2000s. Pitches are on the whole, slower and of less assistance to fast bowlers. Moreover, many of the total dustbowls of the subcontinent have been phased out, if not in the 1990s, then in the 2000s. The bats play a massive role too, some of the shots played these days with success are astounding. I recall one particular attempted checked drive (pretty much a block from Ross Taylor) which went high and long to a long on fielder and just thinking that I would not have dreamt to see that when I first started watching cricket in 1997. I do not think the commentators are overstating themselves when they show disbelief at the technology which has caused bats to become so powerful.


I don't know about other countries but in case of India we have just been lucky to have better batsman in Dravid, Tendulkar and Sehwag and IMO these 3 would average in 50s in any era.
If not 50, then something surely good to great for the era. I'd suspect that someone like Sehwag may have averaged closer to 45 or 40 in the 1990s; he would have gone down as a great batsman for the era though, with an average like that. However, his technical flaws can be quite worrying on seaming tracks. Sometimes I think that Sehwag would have done little to nothing in the 1980s or 1990s, but then I do consider that perhaps he could have gone down as a more great batsman, not devalued for the flat pitches but valued for counterattacking innings that he may have played on lively tracks, something which he gets little opportunity to do these days but which his double century against Sri Lanka showed is in his grasp.

What's KP averaging, 49.8 or something?

He'll be on that list sooner or later, seems to fall in and out of it
Similarly for someone like Kevin Pietersen. These days, he does not fade into the crowd, but his brilliance is dimmied by the prolific run scoring and fans may sometimes be disappointed that he cannot convert starts. In a more bowler friendly era, he may have gone down as a God, rather than one who falls 0.2 runs per innings behind greatness.

Impossible to know IMO. Sehwag bats how he does because it's so successful; his job isn't to bat in such a way as to succeed in every era; just this one. If it wasn't as successful he'd have made changes to it but there's no need.
Yes, not a massive fan of hypothetical situations like this, myself.

- The lack of quality bowlers, particularly pace bowlers, and the breakdown of the few remaining quality ones due to packed schedules
It is a chicken or egg sort of thing though. Would some of the bowlers of this era have gone down far better in the 1980s or 1990s. Someone like James Anderson, who swings the ball both ways (both conventional and reverse), may have just benefitted from slightly quicker pitches, as he sometimes suffers from lacking just a yard, if that, of pace (maybe due to dropping the length a tad short). Similarly, Zaheer Khan works for hours and hours to pry two or three wickets in the subcontinent, viciously working at the ball so that one can beat a batsman who is sitting so comfortably on the backfoot.


Packed schedules is an over rated excuse. Just go through the records of many old timers. The number of FC games they played puts the present lot to shame. If the present players can't cope despite better training/conditioning/travel/accomodation facilities, they're the ones to blame themselves.
Did players give their 100% in these First Class fixtures though? It is hard to say. Without televised footage, many players may have just gone through the motions. Playing consistent Test, ODI and T20 cricket will take its strain on fast bowlers and reduce their quality and quantity. Moreover, do you think more time in the gym, conditioning and perfecting their bodies will help their workload or will it add to it?
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
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.
Of course Hughes is inexperienced. But to date he has already played tests & T20s & has looked the part as an international cricketer to date.

This Mankud fellow if he eventually plays for IND, still has to play & translate his domestic form into international performances especially in tests, which historically is rare for IND openers. So Mankud at least has to play & look like international quality.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Well they are better than Watson anyway.. That's all that matters
HA. Well if you so sure about that, go start a thread right now titled "Vijay & Mankud are better openers than Watson" & see how it goes down with the CWers..
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
LOL, what exactly would you call it every time you declare that X batsman would have averaged Y in the 90s?
Definately an assumption. But it isn't based on total guessing. You can judge whether batsman X of this FTB era would have been able to average Y (whether higher or lower) in the 90s. Based on the few on 90s like scenario's (difficult batting conditions vs top quality pacers) that batsman X would have encountered in this just 2000s era.

If batsman X does well in those 90s like scenario just has well as the amount runs he would smoke of the majority of flat decks & joke attacks that he would have faced in this 2000s. That is very fair guide IMO to how well batsman X would have done average wise in a past difficult batting era.
 
Last edited:

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Definately an assumption. But it isn't based on total guessing. You can judge whether batsman X of this FTB era would have been able to average Y (whether higher or lower) in the 90s. Based on the few on 90s like scenario's (difficult batting conditions vs top quality pacers) that batsman X would have encountered in this just 2000s era.
Bollocks.

Any "judgement" about how FTB X would have gone in the 90s is based entirely on guesswork.
 

Cruxdude

International Debutant
Impossible to know IMO. Sehwag bats how he does because it's so successful; his job isn't to bat in such a way as to succeed in every era; just this one. If it wasn't as successful he'd have made changes to it but there's no need.
Good post
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Bollocks.

Any "judgement" about how FTB X would have gone in the 90s is based entirely on guesswork.
Nope, its not total guesswork. Only way it would have been total guesswork if in this 2000s era we NEVER had a bowler friendly deck in over 10 years & NO quality pace bowling attack (presuming AUS where trash as well) or spin bowling attack NEVER existed. Thus it was a era of total flat decks & crap attacks.

But that wasn't the case AUS where a great attack, ENG had Ashes 05 attack & Gough/Caddick, SA with Steyn/Ntini for a period along with Donald/Pollock for about a year. Murali/Vaas & Kumble/Harbhajan made winnign in those countries very diffciult. Plus the likes of Akhtar, Asif, Khan have done very good lone ranger jobs when they got conditions to their liking

Batsmen where clearly tested ever so often. Many smoked it on roads & failed in those tough conditions (90s like conditions). While only a elite few rose up when conditions where difficult for batting.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Nope, its not total guesswork. Only way it would have been total guesswork if in this 2000s era we NEVER had a bowler friendly deck in over 10 years & NO quality pace bowling attack (presuming AUS where trash as well) or spin bowling attack NEVER existed. Thus it was a era of total flat decks & crap attacks.

But that wasn't the case AUS where a great attack, ENG had Ashes 05 attack & Gough/Caddick, SA with Steyn/Ntini for a period along with Donald/Pollock for about a year. Murali/Vaas & Kumble/Harbhajan made winnign in those countries very diffciult. Plus the likes of Akhtar, Asif, Khan have done very good lone ranger jobs when they got conditions to their liking

Batsmen where clearly tested ever so often. Many smoked it on roads & failed in those tough conditions (90s like conditions). While only a elite few rose up when conditions where difficult for batting.
Of course it's guesswork.

Just because a batsman has failed once in bowler friendly conditions does not mean he will always fail in such conditions.
 

archie mac

International Coach
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.
No, I would think it means just what it suggests, it is much easier batting with helmets, shorter boundaries and covered wickets in all countries, plus back to back Tests, and bats where mistimed strokes go for six:dry:

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.
Well for me, his FC average always means I mark him down, whether this is just or not I can't be sure:wacko:
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Barrington's was a career of two halves - there was Barrington the dasher who had a career average of 33 at the end of 1958 and then Barrington the grafter from 1959 on who averaged 51
 

archie mac

International Coach
Barrington's was a career of two halves - there was Barrington the dasher who had a career average of 33 at the end of 1958 and then Barrington the grafter from 1959 on who averaged 51
A bit like Steve Waugh. I love the description of KB, not that I can remember it verbatim8-)

As he walked out onto the field to bat, you could see the unionjack hanging from the back of his trousers
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Of course it's guesswork.

Just because a batsman has failed once in bowler friendly conditions does not mean he will always fail in such conditions.
Of course they wont always & can improve. As aformentioned you can judge whether batsman X of this FTB era would have been able to average Y (whether higher or lower) in the 90s. Based on the few on 90s like scenario's (difficult batting conditions vs top quality pacers or spinners) that batsman X would have encountered in this just 2000s era.


The example i always give with Matt Hayden. He was a major FTB between IND 01 to NZ 05 (although he had lil drop in form from IND 04 to NZ 05 in between), hardly ever facing a quality pace attack or encountered a pace bowler friendly conditions in those 4 years (except for Ashes 01 where he struggled).

Then when we came up againts a quality pace attack in Ashes 05, he was exposed technically & his career was pretty much dead after the TB 4th test. If Hayden didn't reinvent himself out of the "bully mode" he wouldn't have scored that Oval hundred his test career was done at that point. This improvement also enabled him to scored runs vs the very good SA attack home/away in 05/06.

So based on this that improvement its fairly safe to assume the "reinvented Hayden" would have done well in 90s. Just that i dont believe he would have averaged 50.

Then we have Langer. A joker againts spin in the early 2000s always was far moe efficient againts pace given he was from Western Australia. When AUS toured IND 2001 he was throughly exposed. Later after he reinvented himself into a complete batsman & opener he managed to one of best innings i've ever seen againts spin in the sub-continent againts in SRI 2004.


While on the opposite end of the spectrum we have many other batsmen who have pounded poor/good attacks on roads & when confronted againts very good pace attacks in testing conditions they either have failed miserbaly/very below par againts quality attacks (Sehwag, Jaffer, Gayle, McKenzie, Sarwan, Cook, Bell, Yuvraj).

Or have not been as dynaminc againts the very good attacks as they where againts the joke/poor/average attacks on roads (Mohammad Yousuf, Samaraweera,, Smith, Younis Khan, Gilchrist, Collingwood)

^^ These cats AFAIC would have struggled or wouldn't have averaged as high as they did in this 2000s era if they played in a more bowler friendly era. Based on how they fared overall againts both facets of bowling.

The elite group of batsmen IMO who where equally good on roads as they where in bowler friendly conditions during the 2000s era where just Ponting, Dravid, KP, Kallis, Sangakkara, Lara, Tendulkar (after his tennis-elbow woes eased), Chanderpaul, Laxman, Langer, Martyn, Clarke.

^^ But of this list IMO only Ponting, Dravid, Kallis,, Lara, Tendy, Sanga as the title of thread goes deserve to average 50.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
You can analyse all you want. At the end of the day, all you're doing is guessing.
What i said about Hayden & Langer's career progression is not guessing. Thats what happened. Thus it satisfies the the notion that they succeeded in tough batting conditions enough, that it wouldn't be hard to assume they would go do well in a past difficult batting era.
 

Top