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 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 101

Thread: When 50= Greatness

  1. #46
    Cricketer Of The Year Manee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    8,433
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by subshakerz View Post
    - 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    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?
    The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.

  2. #47
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by metallics2006 View Post
    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.

  3. #48
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    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..

  4. #49
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero View Post
    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 by aussie; 29-12-2009 at 09:29 AM.


  5. #50
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Definately an assumption. But it isn't based on guessing.

  6. #51
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,252
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    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.

  7. #52
    International Debutant Cruxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,448
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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

  8. #53
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    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.

  9. #54
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,252
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    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.

  10. #55
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    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
    You know it makes sense.

  11. #56
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,230
    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

  12. #57
    Cricket Web Staff Member archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,727
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    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 verbatim

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

  13. #58
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    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.

  14. #59
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,252
    You can analyse all you want. At the end of the day, all you're doing is guessing.

  15. #60
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •