Best performed cricketers across all conditions and vs any opponent

[Agent Nationaux]

He should. His lowest average is 74!!!!

You would expect him to repeat his successes across the board.

 

[karan316]

He should. His lowest average is 74!!!!

You would expect him to repeat his successes across the board.

We are talking about "a variety of conditions" here, people who are capable of playing well in all conditions. So I would like to know how many different grounds/countries did he play in. And in fact, he was not particularly impressive on sticky wickets, the only difficulty for the batsmen in those times, so yes, I would doubt if he fits in the criteria given.

 

[Coronis]

The only difficulty, really? This **** is gold.

 

[kyear2]

If we use 40 as the cut off for batsman, which I agree with one first have to determine what is the bowling equivalent of a batting average of 40 (which is probably the cut off to be seen as a great batsman). There are no great bowlers with a bowling average of 30 and outside of Larwood with his truncated career none above 28. A better cut off would be 26 which for me is a more fitting equivalent of 40.

Regarding Marshall in N.Z., he played 3 matches and was injured in two of them including not bowling in the last innings of the final Test.

Top Tier
Tendulkar, Marshall, Davidson,. Chappell, Kanhai

Will look for more.

 

[smash84]

Imran averages less than 30 in every country that he bowled in (small sample size or not)

 

[kyear2]

And for me a better bench mark is 40 for batsmen and 26 or bowlers and I explained in my previous post.

 

[G.I.Joe]

There is no way that 26 is the bowlers equivalent of 40.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I agree with Joe. 26 is near ATG, whereas 40 is isn't even close to ATG status.

 

[Red]

We are talking about "a variety of conditions" here, people who are capable of playing well in all conditions. So I would like to know how many different grounds/countries did he play in. And in fact, he was not particularly impressive on sticky wickets, the only difficulty for the batsmen in those times, so yes, I would doubt if he fits in the criteria given.

Start another thread, seriously.

 

[Red]

I agree with Joe. 26 is near ATG, whereas 40 is isn't even close to ATG status.

I think it is as a cut off point for this exercise. As in a batsmans lowest avg somewhere

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I understand that.

What I am trying to say is that 26 doesn't seem like a good cut off point because it's near ATG status. If we were to go with a batting cut off point at that level, I would say a 48 would be something similar.

But what we are going with is a cut off point that says that the player had a good strong lowest average either against a team or in a country to be considered as having a flawless record. This to me would be either a 40 or a 28 - these scores to me are neither ATG level or mediocre, but rather good, strong scores.

It sounds like from kyear's post that he accepts a good score of 40 for the batsmen, but an excellent, near ATG score of 26 for a bowler. I think that is unfair for the bowlers.

 

[kyear2]

I agree with Joe. 26 is near ATG, whereas 40 is isn't even close to ATG status.

I respectfully disagree. A bowler with an average of 30 is just average similar to me for a batsman with an average of 35. A batsman with an average of about 40 is a great (or even ATG) batsman. Morris, Richardson, Gooch, Greenidge all averaged below 45. Bowlers with averages at or below 26 who are great (but not ATG) Willis, Bishop, Gillespie.

Honestly to average 30 with the ball is more like averaging 35 with the bat.

For the record and for mine, ATG with the bat around 50 and for a bowler around 23.

 

[Victor Ian]

If we can discount Bradman because he did not play at any non existent (in his time) test countries, then can we discount Tendulkar for having not played on a sticky wicket , "the only difficulty for the batsmen". Further, Tendulkar has not played in the UAE so out of the places he could have played he has conveniently skipped one.

Just curious, does anyone have the stat for how poor Bradman was on a sticky wicket? Average 60, 50, 20?

Nice thread. I'm surprise at how few players have tremendous records all around, everywhere.

 

[hendrix]

If we can discount Bradman because he did not play at any non existent (in his time) test countries, then can we discount Tendulkar for having not played on a sticky wicket , "the only difficulty for the batsmen". Further, Tendulkar has not played in the UAE so out of the places he could have played he has conveniently skipped one.

Just curious, does anyone have the stat for how poor Bradman was on a sticky wicket? Average 60, 50, 20?

Nice thread. I'm surprise at how few players have tremendous records all around, everywhere.

I think the point is not that Bradman would not have succeeded (of course he would have, he's the best batsman to ever have played the game), but that he didn't actually play everywhere and everyone like modern players do.

Also, IMO plenty of ATG batsmen averaged barely over 40.

 

[hendrix]

As for bowlers, I find it hard to say that someone like James Anderson hasn't performed everywhere; IMO, he has, even if the numbers don't quite show it.

 

[the big bambino]

The only difficulty, really? This **** is gold.

For him it was probably the only difficulty. Yet in spite of what Karan thinks every other batsmen ran into plenty of others.

As for the benchmarking batting and bowling averages I'd favour a 40 batting ave equalling a 30 bowling average.

 

[Victor Ian]

Yeah, I get the point, I just don't like it. People often denigrate modern players for cashing in against weak opposition. In Bradman's time it was customary to sit out against the weaklings and send over a second 11 for these tours. He rarely played against anything but the strongest teams of his time. Somehow this now counts against him (and others of his time). Imagine if Tendulkar had played 77% of his games against Australia and bypassed Zimbos, Bangas Nz and Windies. People would be calling him God's God, rather than questioning his record.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh I agree with you. Fact is if he played against his opponents in much the same proportion as a moder player is average would rise not fall.

 

[Red]

Yeah, I get the point, I just don't like it. People often denigrate modern players for cashing in against weak opposition. In Bradman's time it was customary to sit out against the weaklings and send over a second 11 for these tours. He rarely played against anything but the strongest teams of his time. Somehow this now counts against him (and others of his time). Imagine if Tendulkar had played 77% of his games against Australia and bypassed Zimbos, Bangas Nz and Windies. People would be calling him God's God, rather than questioning his record.

This is true. Bradman sitting out of this test is an example…

Only Test: New Zealand v Australia at Wellington, Mar 29-30, 1946 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[the big bambino]

Probably just as well on that occasion though Monk. It was a low scoring game and Cowie looked to have a hot hand.