The speed at which a fielding team gets through the innings is overrated.
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.
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.
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.
You know it makes sense.
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
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.
You can analyse all you want. At the end of the day, all you're doing is guessing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)