mr_mister
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's late at night and I don't feel like explaining this properly, but as a kid in the late 90s all I cared about was a Batsman's high score and a Bowler's best figures. I was so annoyed when Steve Waugh got out for 199 against the WI in '99 as I wanted his score of 200 to be broken. I felt he deserved a higher 'high score' to justify his quality as a batsman. This also tricked me into thinking Mark Taylor was the best player around due to the 334* on his resume. I still have every Ashes player from the 98/99 series memorised off by heart. I considered Stewart to be slighty better than Athers based on his high score being 5 runs more.
Eventually I started caring heaps about overall runs and wickets, matches and catches. Watching Taylor beat Borders record for catches, then Mark Waugh beat that soon after, it was cool. Quantity over quality type stuff.
Now I'm all about averages, like so many people here. For so long a batting average meant nothing to me, now I view it as the one true measure of a batsman's skill. I think reading about Bradman(I used to scoff at his 56 matches and 7000 runs when I was 10) and realising what an average of 100 actually meant dawned on me around age 13 or so.
Despite strikerates meaning a lot, I've never cared about them beyond the novelty of seeing how high someone's batting strikerate can get in an individual innings.
I assume most people's statistical preference followed a similar path?
Eventually I started caring heaps about overall runs and wickets, matches and catches. Watching Taylor beat Borders record for catches, then Mark Waugh beat that soon after, it was cool. Quantity over quality type stuff.
Now I'm all about averages, like so many people here. For so long a batting average meant nothing to me, now I view it as the one true measure of a batsman's skill. I think reading about Bradman(I used to scoff at his 56 matches and 7000 runs when I was 10) and realising what an average of 100 actually meant dawned on me around age 13 or so.
Despite strikerates meaning a lot, I've never cared about them beyond the novelty of seeing how high someone's batting strikerate can get in an individual innings.
I assume most people's statistical preference followed a similar path?
Last edited: