Best batsman against mediocre bowling

[honestbharani]

What a dodge. Ok then, how does that matter in the context of the match? In that game they averaged near 100.

The fact that they were good during the series but were conquered during the game is the entire ****ing point. And they had no chance of winning the game at any point after Lara himself dropped Freddie, not before that, so there is that as far as context of the innings goes.

 

[the big bambino]

CW meme: You can't tell how good old timey players were.

Really - how come?

Not enough tests to rate them dude.

Oh - ok then ...

HOw does that matter in the context of that series? It was a very good attack during that series.

... except when it suits eh?

 

[Bijed]

Batty was terrible. And a massive **** to boot.

How tf he ever got that random recall for Bangladesh I will never know. Bloke deserves to be remembered for the hackfraud that he is

Nah, his recall was great just for WTF? value. I remember constantly refreshing the BBC article detailing the squad announcement, waiting for them to correct the obvious mistake. But it never happened...

Tbf I think he actually did ok in his 1 test in Bangladesh, but was poor when he played in India afterwards.

As an aside, I took my dad on the tour of The Oval ast year, and when we looked down the sort of honours board of Surrey players to have played for England, including the dates of their England careers, Batty's entry was left open-ended at '2002 - '. I guess it's just because he hadn't officially retired from internationals, but we found it amusingly optimistic

 

[honestbharani]

... except when it suits eh?

Yep, I believe how good an attack was during a series matters when discussing about that series, shocking as it may seem....

 

[trundler]

You can't really back stats up to make a point about just 1 innings. They could've just bowled crap that day. Sometimes Michael Clarke takes 6/4 and sometimes McGrath goes wicketless for a 100. Gotta have watched it imo.

 

[honestbharani]

That goes for any innings ever played and any spell ever bowled though. So why discuss or analyze any of it?

 

[Jack1]

Lara

 

[the big bambino]

Yep, I believe how good an attack was during a series matters when discussing about that series, shocking as it may seem....

Its cherry picking plain and simple. They were a 30+ attack and that's a fact no matter how you dress it up. Or how good they looked against a sub standard West Indian team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The fact that they were good during the series but were conquered during the game is the entire ****ing point. And they had no chance of winning the game at any point after Lara himself dropped Freddie, not before that, so there is that as far as context of the innings goes.

You can see both sides right? Maybe the bowlers were just as good as they have been and the difference was purely Lara's batting. Maybe Lara was great but the bowlers were also nowhere near as good as they have been. It's probably a bit of both.

I tend to agree with Bambino's analysis of the attack. They weren't a top tier Test bowling line-up despite a couple of them having some better than average form around that time.

 

[honestbharani]

Its cherry picking plain and simple. They were a 30+ attack and that's a fact no matter how you dress it up. Or how good they looked against a sub standard West Indian team.

Nah, it does matter coz they were facing a sub-standard West Indian team, coz believe it or not, the quality of a bowling attack Vs a batsman is always relative to how they fare against the other batsmen of that side, coz you know, it is a Vs game and all that. The game is not played in isolation by one batsman.

You can see both sides right? Maybe the bowlers were just as good as they have been and the difference was purely Lara's batting. Maybe Lara was great but the bowlers were also nowhere near as good as they have been. It's probably a bit of both.

I tend to agree with Bambino's analysis of the attack. They weren't a top tier Test bowling line-up despite a couple of them having some better than average form around that time.

Again, context is what matters. Couple of bowlers in peak form of an average bowling attack can still present a challenge greater than an ATG attack who are all past it or having a shocking run. And I never really said they were a top tier attack, just that they were not an "ordinary" attack in that series. Stop responding to points nobody made.

 

[the big bambino]

Nah, it does matter coz they were facing a sub-standard West Indian team, coz believe it or not, the quality of a bowling attack Vs a batsman is always relative to how they fare against the other batsmen of that side, coz you know, it is a Vs game and all that. The game is not played in isolation by one batsman.






Again, context is what matters. Couple of bowlers in peak form of an average bowling attack can still present a challenge greater than an ATG attack who are all past it or having a shocking run. And I never really said they were a top tier attack, just that they were not an "ordinary" attack in that series. Stop responding to points nobody made.

Well yeah that’s the point. They looked and performed better because they were up against a side everyone at the time owned. It’s not that Lara was up against a pretty good attack but just as true that a 30+ attack was up against a below par side. Now you could argue that an old time side who played exclusively against England or Aus were possibly better than their record because they couldn’t ameliorate their averages against weaker sides. But you don’t need to argue any such allowance for a modern player because their records generally do include games against weaker sides.

Their record shows them to be 30+ bowlers. Equivalent to a batsman averaging high 30s, maybe low 40s tops. Good, workman like but let’s not exaggerate for them eh?

 

[honestbharani]

I did not, did I? There is "ordinary" and then there is "decent". I think that attack in that series were swinging more towards "decent to good" and therefore, I don't consider it to be an example of what this thread is about. Simple as.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Again, context is what matters. Couple of bowlers in peak form of an average bowling attack can still present a challenge greater than an ATG attack who are all past it or having a shocking run. And I never really said they were a top tier attack, just that they were not an "ordinary" attack in that series. Stop responding to points nobody made.

Not everything is about you m8. I don't care what your original point was, but I get that you're fixated on that.

 

[honestbharani]

Not everything is about you m8. I don't care what your original point was, but I get that you're fixated on that.

: