Test Averages Inflated in the 70s and 80s?

[Pratters]

The UAE tests make me think regarding the decades when test cricket had a lot of draws. I was seeing India's triumph in Gavaskar's debut series in the Windies. Of the 5 tests played, 4 were draws. Should we do a revision of sorts of test averages in these times?

Is a test average of 50 in the 90s more valuable than 50 in the 80s or an average of 45 of a batsman in England as good as a 50 of a batsman in India, say.

What about the bowlers conversely? How would Marshall's average compare with Donald's?

 

[grecian]

The UAE tests make me think regarding the decades when test cricket had a lot of draws. I was seeing India's triumph in Gavaskar's debut series in the Windies. Of the 5 tests played, 4 were draws. Should we do a revision of sorts of test averages in these times?

Is a test average of 50 in the 90s more valuable than 50 in the 80s or an average of 45 of a batsman in England as good as a 50 of a batsman in India, say.

What about the bowlers conversely? How would Marshall's average compare with Donald's?

This makes little sense, there were draws a plenty, but on low, slow wickets you didn't get the 300-odd against Zim or bangas, which really inflate your average.

Watch the Test Matches in England, or New Zealand or West Indies in the period, the pitches were ten-times harder to bat on, in general, than in the 90s.

The fact is it seemed less averaged in the 50's in the 80s than the 90s, so you could easily arguevit the other way round. Can't talk about the 70s much, but again some fairly "sporting" pitches about, and of course uncovered wickets.

 

[Pratters]

In Asia, the pitches were mostly batting paradises though. Batting wickets mean more runs.

I would be interested in comparative average runs/wicket of batsmen/bowlers in 70s, 80s, 90s in Asia v outside Asia for instance.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Why not just say what you mean. Gavaskar wasn't all that.

 

[Athlai]

Making a comparative average is just silly though. Professionalism and athleticism has improved the standards of the game to such a high extent that you can't just say a player from the 70's would have an equivalent average of X today. It just doesn't work that way.

Historical players should always be judged for their performances against their peers and in their era.

 

[The_Bunny]

Suspect that increased strike rates have more to do with it,
Not much with statsguru but suspect that balls faced per innings will have dropped but increased agression and shorter boundaries means averages have stayed the same or risen.

Got to be good for the game overall