OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
So, the average total comes out to 326. Dunno if I've actually done it right.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
So, the average total comes out to 326. Dunno if I've actually done it right.
watson
Banned
In that context I would have to agree.
But what of Inzamam and Fazal Mahmood from Pakistan for example? Making a decision between their averages of 50 and 25 is now more tricky because Fazal is unquestionably 'great'. That is, do we assume that if Fazal is 'great' then an average of 25 may also be 'great'?
As I said before, numbers can be quite rubbery depending on the context.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
Sorry to be a pedant. But Indy averaged under 50 and Fazal averaged under 25. That has definitely added to the perception we have towards their legacy. They are the wrong names to take.
By and large my rule holds good Watson. Keep Compton, Border and Richards on one side and Snow, Willis and Roberts on the other. You will see the clear division between the legendary and the very good.
Sobers was a great batsman in away tests. Imran was a very good bowler outside Pakistan.
If you consider the eras they played in, there is just no argument.
watson
Banned
Inzamam averaged a tad under 50, and Bradman averaged a shade under 100. So what? That level of numerical accuracy has no bearing on the actual skill level or greatness of either batsman. All it means is that some Umpire had a row with his wife during a Test match and consequently gave them out lbw when he shouldn't because he was in a foul mood.
In other words, averages and numbers are merely a dim reflection of reality. Not reality itself.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
Sure I hear you. But I am certain the umpire missed an outside edge sometime and let the batsman go on to score a big hundred when he should be cooling his heals back in the pavilion, thus bloating up his average.
We know numbers just reflect reality. This is what I see in the reflection.
Fazal averaged under 25 with the ball
Inzy averaged under 50 with the bat
The reality is this.
Fazal was a great bowler.
Inzy was a very good, almost great, batter.
The reflection is consistent with the reality.
If we are discussing numbers, let us stick to the numbers.
I don't look at numbers to decide anyone's quality. But stats ultimately divide players quite well.
As a pattern the general perception is shaped like this:
50+ batting avg means great (harvey, trumper and hill prove that one could be great and average under 50. But can't think of a non-great with a 50+ avg. am glad mahela didn't mess with this grouping by the end of his career)
25+ bowling avg for a fast bowler is very good (walsh, pollock, bedser and waqar show that one can miss ATG greatness by a whisker on certain fronts and still end up with an under 25 avg. But can't think of any all time gold standard pacer with a 25+ avg)
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
Forgetting the batsmen for a bit, none of the other top tier bowlers averaged near that away from home. Added to that home was probably back then one of the two least helpful countries for fast bowling, yet you can average 19 at home but comparatively struggle in more helpful conditions where others in the era flourished. It doesn't make sense.
He was top tier at home but, in an ATG context and in comparison with his contemporaries almost average away.
Ankitj has made a stellar argument to me why Hadlee deserves to be seen in the highest regard and is deservedly in the group of truly elite fast bowlers, Imran for me, while definitely ATG, falls short of that benchmark. Someone who averages 19 in Pakistan should have ridiculous numbers in England, Australia etc and better numbers in India.
He was top tier at home but, in an ATG context and in comparison with his contemporaries almost average away.
Ankitj has made a stellar argument to me why Hadlee deserves to be seen in the highest regard and is deservedly in the group of truly elite fast bowlers, Imran for me, while definitely ATG, falls short of that benchmark. Someone who averages 19 in Pakistan should have ridiculous numbers in England, Australia etc and better numbers in India.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
akilana
International 12th Man
It doesn't matter to me. I rate Kallis far ahead of those three and Botham.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I'm with Harsh on this one. In fact, in my opinion, all 6 prominent West Indian fast bowlers from 70s onwards can be called great by some and a very thin line separates them in any case. I know CW generally likes it the following way
Marshall > Ambrose > Holding > Garner > Roberts > Walsh
but that can't be taken as gospel.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Wes Hall is a handy candidate for the 'very good' category.
Andy Roberts was the first West Indian pacer in the 'great' category IMO. He carried the attack on his powerful shoulders for a decent amount of time, and was instrumental in West Indies becoming a dominant force in world cricket. He took his first 102 wickets in 19 test matches @ 21.42. That was in a time before Garner and Marshall had their debuts, and Holding didn't mature as a bowler.
Andy Roberts was the first West Indian pacer in the 'great' category IMO. He carried the attack on his powerful shoulders for a decent amount of time, and was instrumental in West Indies becoming a dominant force in world cricket. He took his first 102 wickets in 19 test matches @ 21.42. That was in a time before Garner and Marshall had their debuts, and Holding didn't mature as a bowler.
Last edited:
Agent Nationaux
International Coach
Imran mastered reverse swing, which is a big factor on the dry Pak pitches. Hence he averaged 19 at home.
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Eddie Paynter, George Tyldesley, Charlie Davis, Vinod Kambli, Angelo Matthews, Faf du Plessis, Jack Ryder, Joe Root.
Also eh equating 25- with 50+ doesn't seem right to me, considering the disparity in the number of players who achieved either number.
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Batsmen play well beyond their prime. Take Viv or Ponting as samples. Stratospheric averages at certain points of their careers, then they levelled back to 50ish as they still contributed but in a diminished way. They might contribute for a number of year averaging only 35 or 40, but still be worth a spot.
Whereas when a pace bowler is ****ed, he's generally dropped within 1 or 2 series of poor returns. Which somewhat protects his avg
Whereas when a pace bowler is ****ed, he's generally dropped within 1 or 2 series of poor returns. Which somewhat protects his avg
Red
The normal awards that everyone else has
Thought of Dizzy actually. I'd imagine his average blew out a bit in the last 2 years he played. Was shot in the 2005 Ashes but kept getting picked. Could sense his frustration with not being able to do what he did previously. But they did end it at least until they bought him back as a specialist #3.
Averages can be misleading. There were quotes from when Gillespie was in his prime from batsmen saying they'd rather face Warne or McGrath than Dizzy.
watson
Banned
Since Bagapath has both Andy Flower and AB De Villiers in his latest draft team I was wondering who is the better batsman, and who is the better keeper-batsman?
I've always assumed that Flower is the better batsman, but ABdV the better keeper-batsman. What's the gossip on that?
(Since ABdV and I both have Huguenot family names we probably/possibly share a common ancester from about the 16-17th centuries. But that's got nothing to do with anything.)
I've always assumed that Flower is the better batsman, but ABdV the better keeper-batsman. What's the gossip on that?
(Since ABdV and I both have Huguenot family names we probably/possibly share a common ancester from about the 16-17th centuries. But that's got nothing to do with anything.)
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
Tough to split them as batsmen, if you really think about it. Both are all round batsmen with no huge weakness. Great stroke makers and, at the same time, solid in defense.
AB attacks fast bowling like a hungry dog goes after a bone. Flower is among the top five batsmen against spin in the history of test cricket. They played well against everyone, everywhere. Quite impressive resumes overall. I can't choose between them.
AB attacks fast bowling like a hungry dog goes after a bone. Flower is among the top five batsmen against spin in the history of test cricket. They played well against everyone, everywhere. Quite impressive resumes overall. I can't choose between them.