Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 150
Like Tree59Likes

Thread: Career Averages that dont do justice

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91 View Post
    You mean like how Ponting averages 50+ in Sri Lanka?
    He means like how Ponting averages 21 in India or how the great Pietersen conquerer of mcgrath averages 25 in SL and 30 something in Asia
    Fred Tetanus likes this.

  2. #32
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    It's less a case of pre-WW1, and more of pre-1900, as I understand it. There was a big change in pitch-preparation capability in, in fact, the very turn-of-the-century year (the upping in scoring 1899-1900 was greater even than the change which took place in a two-year spurt from 2000 to 2002). There was no particularly significant difference in scoring, as I understand it, in, say, 1909 and 1924 - in fact, the Golden Age (1900-1913) was famous for the free-flowing amateur batsmanship which would simply not have been possible under conditions which had prevailed in the 19th-century.

    It was 1930 when, once more, decks experienced a flattening-out. The cessation caused by WW2 then seemed to perk things up and when cricket resumed in the 1940s it was more recogniseable for what it had been in the '00s and '20s (and what little of the '10s survived the War).

    Hence, I'm quite open to the suggestion that Lohmann's excellence is incomparable with excellence of modern bowlers - we honestly do not, to my mind, have a clue how good he might have been, IMO. He could've been in the Marshall-Imran-Donald-Lillee-Hadlee class; he could've been less than Dominic Cork or Alan Connolly. We just don't know. Barnes, however, is an entirely different matter - I've always maintained that there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball, though it is almost certainly my greatest regret that he was never handled in such a way that would have allowed him to show such unequivocally.

    Crowe's case simply shows that a career average is a pretty meaningless thing. He was picked far too early and was ruined by injuries to his knees at a far younger age than most are. IIRR, he averaged about 54 for what still made-up the bulk of his career, which seems to do far more justice to what most seem to reckon was his capability.
    The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:

    a. he played for money or not at all; and

    b. he was a medium pacer cum quick spinner

    Bottom line is that whilst (a) may not have done him too much harm today, (b) almost certainly would've done so there is NO WAYthat anyone can say that he would've achieved much success let alone being "pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball".

    That is a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassive stretch

  3. #33
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by andyc View Post
    That's why it's called an average though.
    Well, strictly speaking it's called an arithmatic mean, but either way... a career average in itself tells you nothing much about a player whose career has lasted very long in 99 cases out of 100 if not more.
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  4. #34
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    24,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    Well, strictly speaking it's called an arithmatic mean, but either way... a career average in itself tells you nothing much about a player whose career has lasted very long in 99 cases out of 100 if not more.
    Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..


  5. #35
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:

    a. he played for money or not at all; and

    b. he was a medium pacer cum quick spinner

    Bottom line is that whilst (a) may not have done him too much harm today, (b) almost certainly would've done so there is NO WAYthat anyone can say that he would've achieved much success let alone being "pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball".

    That is a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassive stretch
    Being a quick big-spinner is about the ultimate method for a bowler. There has never been another like Barnes who bowled in such a manner. You somewhat under-exaggerate the amount that is known for certain about Barnes - his hands, there has been much reliable testimony, were unusually large and strong; this is a considerable piece of knowledge, and makes it more likely that he could spin the ball more, at greater pace, than any other bowler has ever managed.

    As I say - we'll never really know for certain that Barnes was pre-eminent over any other bowler to have picked-up a ball. If he'd played First-Class (rather than "Second-Class" as it was known in those days) cricket for 20-odd years, taken 50,000 wickets at 14, and played 50 Tests and taken 600 wickets at 16-17, as he could conceivably have done, then there'd be as little doubt about his supremacy over all-comers as there is about Bradman's. And because both occurred in the days of B&W film, some people doubt the supremacy of even the latter.
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.

  6. #36
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..
    As I said - most people, when using this term, mean "he underperformed" or "he looked better than he was". A career record is a reflection of exactly what happened over a player's career - its fault is that it treats every innings as equal, which, well, plainly and simply is not the case.

    Judging a cricketer by his career average is about as foolhardy a task as can be undertaken, IMO.
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator Teja.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NDTV Propaganda Office
    Posts
    8,260
    I've always assumed Barned to a huge turner of the ball bowling at about 125 kph which is a deadly combo, not the Shahid Afridi kind but rather the very-very fast version of a Mcgill or a Mushtaq, there has been clearly none-a-better bowler than him.

  8. #38
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jaffna, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    6,945
    Quote Originally Posted by Avada Kedavra View Post
    He means like how Ponting averages 21 in India or how the great Pietersen conquerer of mcgrath averages 25 in SL and 30 something in Asia
    And still considered better than Flower and Sangakkara
    Supporting players: Dinesh Chandimal, Roshen Silva, Kusal Janith, Nuwan Pradeep, Kasun Rajitha, Lahiru Kumara, Akila Dhananjaya, Dhananjaya de Silva

  9. #39
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Migara View Post
    And still considered better than Flower and Sangakkara
    Because I don't bury players, write them off and completely forget what they've acchieved when they're out of form.

  10. #40
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jaffna, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    6,945
    My picture about Barnes is that he bowled rollers, that were rolled out of the hand as wrist spinner or a finger spinner or as a medium pacer. The standards of wickets he bowled I think is dire.

    Once as a Div II player in SL, I came across a pitch which was gripping so much because of wet mud underneath. I could not hold the ball for a leggie because it was so slippery. Then I decided to roll it back of my hand as a medium pacer. (It slants in as an inswinger and breaks away as a small leg break. An ideal pitch middle hit middle ball) I have tried that few times in nets, but it does not spin much because of better quality pitch (but still was eniugh to beat the bat). Thent I could disguise a medium pacer very effectuvely with it without much change of action. With little bit of practice "off roller" was also not that difficult to bowl. On this mud soaked matting these spun quite an amount. And I bowling possibly around 90 - 95k with this particluar ball and 105 - 110k with my medium pacer.

    Now what Barnes played on may not be bad as the above one, but cannot be closer to what test cricket is played on today. Because he was a very strong person he might have bolwled 130 - 135k medium pacer and 100 - 110k "roller" that would have turned appreciably (but not more than from a spin bowler). If that was what he was doing, he had been mighty difficult to play on bad wickets. And above type of bowling is more effective when done with a new ball, because "rollers" that bounce are the ones that gets batsmen thinking. But he would be easy to play on better wickets. SF barnes IMO was not an idiot. On better batting wickers when the "roller" is ineffective he would have operated with fast medium speeds by swinging and seaming the bal, with odd "roller" thrown here and there.

  11. #41
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Teja. View Post
    I've always assumed Barned to a huge turner of the ball bowling at about 125 kph which is a deadly combo, not the Shahid Afridi kind but rather the very-very fast version of a Mcgill or a Mushtaq, there has been clearly none-a-better bowler than him.
    And then you see the "protective" equipment used in those days and realise that the "fastest" bowlers (which did not include Barnes) could not possibly have bowled at 125 ks or else the injury toll would've been just horrendous

    The safest bet is to assume he was a Kumble-style bowler competing against rank amateurs on largely very poor wickets

  12. #42
    International Captain Migara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jaffna, Sri Lanka
    Posts
    6,945
    Quote Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91 View Post
    Because I don't bury players, write them off and completely forget what they've achieved when they're out of form.
    Only if they are non Asian. Piss poor TBH.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    And then you see the "protective" equipment used in those days and realise that the "fastest" bowlers (which did not include Barnes) could not possibly have bowled at 125 ks or else the injury toll would've been just horrendous
    What about those who played in the 1970s when protective equipment was hardly The Ritz? Was the injury toll horrendous then? No. People found a way to avert the danger then, as they did in the 1900s and other decades.

    There is no plausible reason to suggest that the fastest bowling which is possible now was not the fastest possible 100-110 years ago. Requirements have not changed, and the requirements are not technology-reliant.
    The safest bet is to assume he was a Kumble-style bowler competing against rank amateurs on largely very poor wickets
    He played against a hell of a lot of professionals, very good professionals at that, and amateurs who had to be damn good else they'd not have got a game amongst such professionals.
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.

  14. #44
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,767
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    What about those who played in the 1970s when protective equipment was hardly The Ritz? Was the injury toll horrendous then? No. People found a way to avert the danger then, as they did in the 1900s and other decades.

    There is no plausible reason to suggest that the fastest bowling which is possible now was not the fastest possible 100-110 years ago. Requirements have not changed, and the requirements are not technology-reliant.

    He played against a hell of a lot of professionals, very good professionals at that, and amateurs who had to be damn good else they'd not have got a game amongst such professionals.
    Jesse Owens (and the athletes that he competed against) was also damned good "for the time" but the problem is that he'd have finished 10-15 metres behind Usain Bolt and he had the benefit of another 30 years of technical development when compared to Barnes

    As I said before, to say that "there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball" (your words, not mine) is simply a massive stretch
    Last edited by social; 21-03-2010 at 11:25 AM.

  15. #45
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Not as much of a stretch as comparing cricket to athletics. As I said, the requirements for spinning the ball, swinging it, bowling it quickly, seeing it to hit it, having the technique to play shots, etc. - none of that has changed in 100+ years. That's why people are so wide of the mark when they say "such-and-such sport has evolved, so therefore cricket must have gotten such-and-such in the same time".
    Fred Tetanus and Likes Given like this.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The CW50 - No.20-11
    By The Sean in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 13-12-2009, 01:49 AM
  2. The stats do not do him justice!
    By rivera213 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 739
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 10:02 AM
  3. ICC 2005 Records
    By darko21 in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 756
    Last Post: 02-06-2007, 03:20 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
  •