Batting SR in test cricket

[Ruckus]

I would do if I knew more about cricket from those times; sadly I don't. I've argued in the past that William Lillywhite and Alfred Mynn should be considered as all-time greats of the game and if I knew more about some of the other pre-Test players I might include them in my All-Time World XI.

This just highlights the absolute absurdity of this argument. Why not just extend the argument further and say because so-and-so dominated in lawn bowls they should be classified an ATG cricket player. Mynn and Lillywhite were both part of the roundarm bowling era - it wasn't even the same game then. Please tell me I've got this all wrong and you would be thinking about including them in an ATG XI because of reasons like their influence on the development of the game, as opposed than making a judgement on their skills...

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

This debate is absurdity. Why anyone should try and force people's wholly subjective opinions to be the same as theirs is mind boggling in itself. There is no right and wrong here for crying out loud. If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.

 

[Ruckus]

This debate is absurdity. Why anyone should try and force people's wholly subjective opinions to be the same as theirs is mind boggling in itself. There is no right and wrong here for crying out loud. If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.

There's a right or wrong to this debate as much as there is to any other cricket argument. You can say Garnham is the best, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest your wrong.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

There's a right or wrong to this debate as much as there is to any other cricket argument. You can say Garnham is the best, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest your wrong.

Indeed. "Evidence to suggest" not "Evidence to prove". This is not a digital debate. Which is not the same as every other cricket argument.

 

[Ruckus]

Not getting a debate on semantics here. The argument you raised about Garnham is indeed of a different kind to the debate in this thread (not sure why it was brought up). The argument I've been making is essentially saying that there is a lack of good evidence to make a judgement about the skills of players from eras with different standards. I'm not saying someone like prince ews is wrong for suggesting Mynn etc. is an ATG, I'm saying he is wrong for assuming he can even make that call in the first place. There isn't substantial enough evidence to make that judgement. Just like there isn't enough good evidence for me to make a judgement about a top club cricketer being a top test cricketer.

 

[Jarquis]

There's definitely a point to be made in the fact that throughout the history of the game, the greats have always averaged a similar amount - unless we're suggesting that batting and bowling have improved at an almost identical rate. I mean, while a lot of batsmen have overlapping careers, so to do a lot of bowlers and it's not exactly as though everybody always fared better against the greats of the 'previous generation' than they did of their own.

There's a point in here somewhere but I'm too tired to coherently make it.

Jack Hobbs	1908	1930	56.94
Wally Hammond	1927	1947	58.45
Don Bradman	1928	1948	99.94
Len Hutton	1937	1955	56.67
Everton Weekes	1948	1958	58.61
Garry Sobers	1954	1974	57.78
Graeme Pollock	1963	1970	60.97
Greg Chappell	1970	1984	53.86
Allan Border	1978	1994	50.56
SR Tendulkar	1989	2013	53.78
Jacques Kallis	1995	2013	55.37
Michael Claarke	2004	-	51.82
Che Pujara	2010	-	58.92

 

[Ruckus]

There's definitely a point to be made in the fact that throughout the history of the game, the greats have always averaged a similar amount - unless we're suggesting that batting and bowling have improved at an almost identical rate. I mean, while a lot of batsmen have overlapping careers, so to do a lot of bowlers and it's not exactly as though everybody always fared better against the greats of the 'previous generation' than they did of their own.

There's a point in here somewhere but I'm too tired to coherently make it.

Yep, that's my argument. And for a game that progresses from one set of standards to another, it's what you would expect. Bowling and batting are two separate facets of the game in cricket, why couldn't they develop at roughly similar rates? It's not like the set of skills are improved in isolation either. E.g. bowlers start exploiting a general weakness against short balls, and the batsmen respond by developing their horizontal bat shots etc. It's a to-and-fro that would maintain the level of competition between bat and ball.

 

[Dan]

If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.

What a ridiculous suggestion. Everybody knows Peter Such is the best.

Best at what, I don't know. But he's the best.

 

[Muloghonto]

Indeed. "Evidence to suggest" not "Evidence to prove". This is not a digital debate. Which is not the same as every other cricket argument.

This debate is absurdity. Why anyone should try and force people's wholly subjective opinions to be the same as theirs is mind boggling in itself. There is no right and wrong here for crying out loud. If I want to rate Mike Garnham as the best, then damn the lot of you.

Not all opinions are created equal either.

Sorry to take a dig at you, but this is too much. First, commercial interests and interests of the majority fans should bow to your traditionalist stance ( you declared you don't give a whit about market principles and basic consumer dynamics), now, every opinion is created equal. I've never come across such conceit or delusions of self-grandeur in my life.

Your thought pattern leads directly to the God-complex delusional conclusion of 'I know i exist, but i don't know for sure if you all exist or are just a fantasy created by my dream in an alternate plane of existence'.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Not all opinions are created equal either.

Sorry to take a dig at you, but this is too much. First, commercial interests and interests of the majority fans should bow to your traditionalist stance ( you declared you don't give a whit about market principles and basic consumer dynamics), now, every opinion is created equal. I've never come across such conceit or delusions of self-grandeur in my life.

Your thought pattern leads directly to the God-complex delusional conclusion of 'I know i exist, but i don't know for sure if you all exist or are just a fantasy created by my dream in an alternate plane of existence'.

A prime case of extrapolation ad absurdum.

Show me anything where I've said what you've said above. You're simply a bully who wants to force others to believe their own subjective views. That's what this all boils down to. I don't believe one member has the right to batter others on here with fatuous ideology and I don't believe that someone should be verbally attacked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

As for my examples above, I thought it was clear that I'd gone to an extreme in terms of taking Ruckus' example about Lawn Bowls as being the equivalent to a comparison with someone with an involvement of the game we're debating. Absurdity begat absurdity, so to speak.

 

[Muloghonto]

A prime case of extrapolation ad absurdum.

Show me anything where I've said what you've said above. You're simply a bully who wants to force others to believe their own subjective views. That's what this all boils down to. I don't believe one member has the right to batter others on here with fatuous ideology and I don't believe that someone should be verbally attacked for expressing an opinion that you disagree with.

As for my examples above, I thought it was clear that I'd gone to an extreme in terms of taking Ruckus' example about Lawn Bowls as being the equivalent to a comparison with someone with an involvement of the game we're debating. Absurdity begat absurdity, so to speak.

You've categorically stated on the thread about BCCI and cricket's takeover that you don't give a damn about market principles. I made it clear that it is not subjective viewpoint but objective evidence that test cricket does not sell as well as shorter formats do and you did respond to that as 'market principles be damned'.
I can dig up that thread if you wish.

In anycase, apologies for failing to see your satirical comment for what it was, perhaps an indication of lack of utter seriousness, as conveyed by some emoticons would help out the evil capitalists like me !

 

[Dan]

Play the post, not the poster. The BCCI, market principles and whether or not Heef likes capitalism have nothing to do with the discussion being had. We want debate here, not attacks in which the political ideology of a poster somehow discredits their opinion on Mike Garnham.

So yeah, that's enough of that. 8 points for the next poster to mention political ideology in this thread.

 

[ohnoitsyou]

I tend not to rate batsmen, however great they may seem in first class cricket if they have no experience in Test cricket, due to the 'Graeme Hick/Mark Ramprakash' factor.
These guys looked like Lara/Sachin in FC cricket against the likes of Ambrose, Walsh and other ATGs only to crap the bed badly in the Test arena. Barry Richards, sadly, is a case of unproven callibre to me.

Barry Richards proved his greatness in the Packer circuit, in SA, in England, in Australia, performing at the highest level against all types and qualities of bowlers. Kind of absurd to group him in with the ones you mentioned.

 

[Riggins]

I voted twice in the last election.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

You've categorically stated on the thread about BCCI and cricket's takeover that you don't give a damn about market principles. I made it clear that it is not subjective viewpoint but objective evidence that test cricket does not sell as well as shorter formats do and you did respond to that as 'market principles be damned'.
I can dig up that thread if you wish.

In anycase, apologies for failing to see your satirical comment for what it was, perhaps an indication of lack of utter seriousness, as conveyed by some emoticons would help out the evil capitalists like me !

Yes, I don't doubt I said that regarding market principles, but just because you disagree with my point of view doesn't make you "correct" in absolute terms. Plenty of businesses and products survive and even thrive as niche products without necessarily pandering to mass market appeal. But anyway, we've had that debate previously so no need to restage it.

 

[Maximas]

So, batting strike rate in tests eh?

 

[Ruckus]

Who the **** cares about batting SR. I wanna hear more about market economics.

 

[Muloghonto]

So, batting strike rate in tests eh?

Speaking of which, I just had a half-baked idea.

If we grant that higher strike rate for identical run production is inherently more result-oriented, then it leads to the following hypothesis:

If batsmen are of lower callibre (such as the lower order batsmen!), would the corrollary hold true ? As in, now, we'd prefer a lower order batsman with a lower strike rate for identical average ? The logic to this is, well, the lower order batsmen suck to begin with. If they took a more defensive approach and just ate up balls, would it not give more time (in general) to the top order batsmen to play out their optimal innings ? Ie, if you were the 'slowpoke' batting at #9 that allowed Brian Lara to score 165 instead of get stranded at 119*, isn't that more optimal for the team ?

 

[Riggins]

Probably, if they were always batting with a better batsmen.

 

[Muloghonto]

Barry Richards proved his greatness in the Packer circuit, in SA, in England, in Australia, -at the highest level against all types and qualities of bowlers. Kind of absurd to group him in with the ones you mentioned.

He proved that he was a real talent, yes. Thats all he proved. I tend not to make exceptions to overlook test record when talking about test batsmen. To demonstrate what i mean, he cannot overtake the experience of playing against true pace and spin on subcontinental wickets of that era ( Imran + quality spin or Indian spin quartet), he did not play in Kiwiland, that tends to be batting graveyard for many a great visiting batsman and most importantly, he did not face England either, who did not exactly have a weak attack either. (I'd easily take the attack of Snow-Underwood-Greig-Willis than any 'modern' one of England)
So no, i don't really short-list him for the job.

To put it in perspective, if performances in Australia, vs West Indies ( who Richards also faced in the packer era) , Pakistan (same) and in England were all it took to forge a reputation, in the same era, we have Gavaskar ending all statistical debate to 'who's the best opener ever' by being posting ridiculously huge 'greater than contemporary' figures as 7540 runs @ 55+ average ( that would be a staggering 15% better than his next most successful direct contemporary, ie, another contemporary opener). To put that into context, a 15% gap over your next best rival today, would be the equivalent of Sangakkara ending with a ridiculous 66+ average to move 15% clear of his next best rival, statistically in the average department- Kallis, at the end of their careers.


So to stop rambling, yes, barry had a good case to be considered a very good batsman, one of the finest. But not qualified enough to be in an ATG discussion or 'dream team' of sorts for the test arena, atleast, not for me.

He is a better bat than the hyperboles i used, but that was just to get the point across a bit more, elementally.