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 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 91 to 101 of 101

Thread: When 50= Greatness

  1. #91
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    No you don't. You have an idea of how Bradman MIGHT have gone if he was around in the 70s and 80s.

    I actually agree with you based on Bradman's Bodyline average, but it is complete guesswork. An educated guess based on what we know of Bradman's career, but it's still a complete and utter guess.
    Good thats basically what i'm doing with Hayden drawing a comparison based on what he did in his career to suggest he wouldn't have averaged 50 in the 90s. Of course no absolutely certainly will be there, but i dont mind putting my head on a block for an "educated guess" like that.

    Look at this other example. A lot of people at times have suggested McGrath is the best fast-bowler of all-time given compared to Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose. Due to the fact that McGrath had to bowl in a era of less bowler freindly decks, but rather on alot of roads, where boundaries have been shortened, more aggressive minded batsmen etc..

    Now do you think the effectiveness of of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose would decrease or their averages would have been higher if they played in the 2000s era of flat decks?.

    My position on that matter has always been, a great fast-bowler of any era who had the unique skills to dismiss batsmen in all conditions would have been just as effective as McGrath was this era.

  2. #92
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,036
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Hmmm thats a big call sir. Before i say i disagree what was this "high-risk" strategy that Bradman took?. Since of all the video clips i've seen of that series - what i've read - plus hear pundits talk about that series. I must say i've always been of the impression Jardine tactically found a way to keep "The Don" quiet a bit like what Mark Taylor/McGrath did with Lara in battles in the 90s..

    With some trepidation as to what may follow Aussie I will do you the courtesy of responding

    Jardinian leg theory was devised as a defensive tactic which is what the leg theory others had practiced before was all about - if you stop a batsman hitting the ball on the off then you can pack your legside field and restrict his scoring there too.

    So Jardine offered batsmen the choice of leaving the ball alone and letting it sail by to the keeper or taking his chances and hooking the ball knowing there were two leg fielders in the deep and, of course, the risk of getting hit.

    In the event leaving the ball alone turned out to be a risky call because the pitches had uneven bounce so if the ball pitched just short of a length the batsman couldn't be sure if the ball would sail harmlessly by or actually hit the stumps - Ponsford for one countered this by just letting taking the ball on the body.

    Bradman, because of the exceptional speed of his reflexes and his hand/eye coordination had an extra choice which was to back away and try and cut the ball through the huge vacant areas on the off side - that carried a huge risk of dismissal for obvious reasons but no risk of getting hit and that was the tactic Bradman adopted.

    He wasn't going to go leg side (like McCabe famously did in the first Test) because of the injury risk and he wasn't going to keep out of the way because Bradman not getting out but not scoring runs was no good to Australia

    So that, briefly, is why I made the comment you highlighted

  3. #93
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post

    With some trepidation as to what may follow Aussie I will do you the courtesy of responding

    Jardinian leg theory was devised as a defensive tactic which is what the leg theory others had practiced before was all about - if you stop a batsman hitting the ball on the off then you can pack your legside field and restrict his scoring there too.

    So Jardine offered batsmen the choice of leaving the ball alone and letting it sail by to the keeper or taking his chances and hooking the ball knowing there were two leg fielders in the deep and, of course, the risk of getting hit.

    In the event leaving the ball alone turned out to be a risky call because the pitches had uneven bounce so if the ball pitched just short of a length the batsman couldn't be sure if the ball would sail harmlessly by or actually hit the stumps - Ponsford for one countered this by just letting taking the ball on the body.

    Bradman, because of the exceptional speed of his reflexes and his hand/eye coordination had an extra choice which was to back away and try and cut the ball through the huge vacant areas on the off side - that carried a huge risk of dismissal for obvious reasons but no risk of getting hit and that was the tactic Bradman adopted.

    He wasn't going to go leg side (like McCabe famously did in the first Test) because of the injury risk and he wasn't going to keep out of the way because Bradman not getting out but not scoring runs was no good to Australia

    So that, briefly, is why I made the comment you highlighted
    Well yes sir, i'd say i probably was well aware of pretty much all of this based on what i read & clips i saw of bodyline myself.

    Its just that when you said... had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series

    The maintaining his 99+ average i question. Since lets say Larwood did play for ENG again after bodyline & he tested Bradman with a consistent diet bodyline bowling - but without the ridiculous leg-theory tactic (a bit like what the Windies 4-prong used to do to people). Can we sure Bradman would won round 2 & averaged 99?. I've always felt no..

  4. #94
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,036
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Well yes sir, i'd say i probably was well aware of pretty much all of this based on what i read & clips i saw of bodyline myself.

    Its just that when you said... had he decided just to keep out of the way of the leg theory and play for his average then he'd probably not have been dismissed at all in the whole series

    The maintaining his 99+ average i question. Since lets say Larwood did play for ENG again after bodyline & he tested Bradman with a consistent diet bodyline bowling - but without the ridiculous leg-theory tactic (a bit like what the Windies 4-prong used to do to people). Can we sure Bradman would won round 2 & averaged 99?. I've always felt no..
    Bradman's admirers will always point to Larwood's figure for the 1930 series on that one where he took just 4 wickets at 73 apiece - I believe that due to injuries/illness Larwood wasn't the same bowler in 1930 he was in 32/33 but I think there can be no doubt that had Larwood played in 1934 shorn of leg theory and two or three yards of pace that the outcome would have been more 1930 than 32/33

    .... and I have to say that I don't think leg theory was ridiculous at all - but that's a different argument altogether


  5. #95
    U19 Debutant MrIncredible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Good thats basically what i'm doing with Hayden drawing a comparison based on what he did in his career to suggest he wouldn't have averaged 50 in the 90s. Of course no absolutely certainly will be there, but i dont mind putting my head on a block for an "educated guess" like that.

    Look at this other example. A lot of people at times have suggested McGrath is the best fast-bowler of all-time given compared to Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose. Due to the fact that McGrath had to bowl in a era of less bowler freindly decks, but rather on alot of roads, where boundaries have been shortened, more aggressive minded batsmen etc..

    Now do you think the effectiveness of of Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Donald, Ambrose would decrease or their averages would have been higher if they played in the 2000s era of flat decks?.

    My position on that matter has always been, a great fast-bowler of any era who had the unique skills to dismiss batsmen in all conditions would have been just as effective as McGrath was this era.
    Agree with u here Aussie. In the 90s Mcgraths stats were very similar to Ambrose, Akram, Donald etc, they retired and he continued his 90s excellence. If Ambrose etc had been playing in the same Oz team (post 2000) I dont see them doing much worse than Mcgrath. Note i said playing in the Oz team. Playing in ne other team id expect the stats of the great 90s bowlers (mcgrath included) to be worse.

  6. #96
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    Bradman's admirers will always point to Larwood's figure for the 1930 series on that one where he took just 4 wickets at 73 apiece - I believe that due to injuries/illness Larwood wasn't the same bowler in 1930 he was in 32/33 but I think there can be no doubt that had Larwood played in 1934 shorn of leg theory and two or three yards of pace that the outcome would have been more 1930 than 32/33
    Can't agree totally. Even if leg-theory wasn't there in the the return 1934 series, Larwood could still have tested him consistently with bowling at the ribs, like what the windies pacers on the 70s & 80s used to do.

    Bradman may have done better i'd agree, but i maintaing the 99 average i dont believe he would have.

    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    .... and I have to say that I don't think leg theory was ridiculous at all - but that's a different argument altogether
    It was ridiculous i'd say because the it basically brought the game to an hault, unless the batsmen wanted to take a risk to play a shot.

    Its just as bad as spinner bowling outside leg-stump to right-hand batsmen in a effort to stop him from scoring.

  7. #97
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,036
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Can't agree totally. Even if leg-theory wasn't there in the the return 1934 series, Larwood could still have tested him consistently with bowling at the ribs, like what the windies pacers on the 70s & 80s used to do.

    Bradman may have done better i'd agree, but i maintaing the 99 average i dont believe he would have.

    I'd agree if it weren't for Larwood's pace being restricted after 32/33

    It was ridiculous i'd say because the it basically brought the game to an hault, unless the batsmen wanted to take a risk to play a shot.

    Its just as bad as spinner bowling outside leg-stump to right-hand batsmen in a effort to stop him from scoring.
    The game evolves - as I said both McCabe and Bradman found ways to deal with it

  8. #98
    Hall of Fame Member NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
    Posts
    19,500
    Sami has just fallen out of greatness
    President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
    The NZTailender Supporting XI:
    H Rutherford, T Latham, N Broom, M Bracewell, D Brownlie, BJ Watling, D de Boorder+, M Henry, B Wheeler, H Bennett, A Milne
    Go Tigers!
    R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

  9. #99
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cricket
    Posts
    16,845
    Quote Originally Posted by fredfertang View Post
    I'd agree if it weren't for Larwood's pace being restricted after 32/33
    It was?. Well if that was the case that potential rematch wouldn't have been Bradman at his best vs Larwood at his best...

    The game evolves - as I said both McCabe and Bradman found ways to deal with it[/QUOTE]

    They did & so have batsmen when spinners try bowling outside leg-stump to try to dry up the runs. But overall they where still ridiculous tactics...

  10. #100
    Cricket Web Staff Member fredfertang's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    It is a far far better place ............ etc etc
    Posts
    12,036
    Yes, the foot injury that forced him to leave the field in the final test in 32/33 was the cause - still a fine bowler, he topped the first class averages again in 1936, but the express pace was gone

  11. #101
    International Captain bagapath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    5,031
    Quote Originally Posted by NZTailender View Post
    Sami has just fallen out of greatness
    worry not. he is back where he belongs at stumps on 3rd day.

    34 84 5/36 50.45

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567


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
  •