Of course, the failures are not by McGrath alone and McGrath himself didn't play full series. But when he did play him, overall, Tendulkar didn't do well. It's very fine breaking it up into series where Tendulkar may score 160+ runs in 1 match and then fizzle out in the others. You can then break it up even further by looking at it overall and seeing how well he did per innings, which is 36.77.
Yeah career averages and what other batsmen did against oppostion matter more than innings which saved the teams arse.
Ikki, don't you think you are oversimplifying things by just looking at the number of Test wins Bangladesh has had? It's possible that they bowled well and still lost. I don't know how to look up the stats for your 2nd point, but that is not relevant to the point I am making, which is that in the specific situation that Sachin, Gilly, Ponting, Inzy or whoever found themselves in, scoring runs was tough and extremely crucial.
Thanks Shankar.
they played two full series against each other. sachin averaged 50 and 46. that is good enough.
This.
Also, great to see this thread active again after a sad hiatus of one month
For the reason you are bringing, no, it doesn't. You're suggesting the 90s were harder. They were; but for 1 reason: there were many great bowling attacks. Guess what, Ponting did well against those bowling attacks. You aren't saying the 90s were tougher because of the likes of NZ, SRI and ENG, are you? Those are the teams that Ponting failed against. Not the best ones.
Not sure what you're talking about here. Rephrase, thanks.
Runs are scored more nowadays without the implication of superiority. That's just how it is.
Not if he failed in the others. And during that time, let's recall, Warne was in ****house form. Hardly the great attack people are making it out to be. It's against Warne where Tendulkar scored a lot of his runs.
Yeah agreed but don't understand how that should take away anything from a batsman trying to save his team out of a possibly embarrasing situation?The problem is though, that history has shown that even if your team doesn't make many runs against Bangladesh; they'll make even less. Without fail.
May be their W/L ratio is not great due to poor batting .Then bowling average against them should be excluded. Not batting average.
doesnt matter. i can always say sachin was in **** house form in the other series and any bowler could get him out. all that is irrelevant even though it is true that sachin fell 4 out of 6 times in those bad tests to bowlers not named mcgrath.
You're comparing 90s and early 00s averages to 2003 and beyond where averages have spiked. You can't talk about them as if one being higher than the other is more important.
Admit Ikki you got pwned there.
Why bring win/loss records when all that matters is bowling average?? That Zimbabwe's batsmen were crap is of no relevance when Ponting or Tendulkar makes runs against them.
TBF, if you strongly make the argument that run-scoring is so much easier in this decade, then you also have to normalize Ponting's numbers as he has scored the vast majority of his runs in the '00s. That would likely bring him down quite a bit in comparison to Tendulkar. Personally, I think the relative ease of run-scoring in this decade compared to the '90s is a bit overstated.
So the explanation for the increase in averages against all teams by all teams is that all the batsmen around the world suddenly improved. That's quite an improbable theory. A much better explanation is the flattening of pitches as a standard around the world which does have quite a bit of support.
The question is whether runs vs Zim 90-02 should be removed from the stats. If the answer is yes logic dictates that runs vs WI,Pak,NZ,Ind post 2003 should also be removed as they were equally easy.
Wrong. From the figures I posted run-scoring against all-sides increases not just the ones with the great attacks.
That isn't saying that Ponting would have averaged 0 had he played them more but those are the kind of arguments that he is putting forward, maybe even worse.