Request Your Custom Title Now!
He has scored centuries in all Test-playing nations bar NZ, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Face it, seam-friendly conditions aren't all that common these days, and he is a product of his times. He's certainly no worse than Hayden in seam-friendly conditions anyway.Average more then 20 in seam-friendly conditions.
He is worse then Hayden in seaming conditions, not by a massive amount, but still by a noticable and considerate amount. Notice how before he had this fabulous run, he wasn't making runs outside the subcontient but as soon as he went back to the subcontient he was the king and conquered of all. Most believed that until that run, Gambhir was already a better Opener then Sehwag, even Sehwag himself said it.He has scored centuries in all Test-playing nations bar NZ, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Face it, seam-friendly conditions aren't all that common these days, and he is a product of his times. He's certainly no worse than Hayden in seam-friendly conditions anyway.
Yeah, Aussies should score higher, Asians should ne lower. Great logic. Doesn't need that much of typing if you put it that wat.Matthew Hayden - Should be slightly higher (53-54 instead of 50)
Kevin Pietersen - Should be allot higher (55-56 instead of 48-49)
Mahela Jayawardene - Should be allot lower (low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Mark Waugh - Should be higher (mid-high 40's instead of low 40's)
Mohammad Yousuf - Should be allot lower (mid-low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Virender Sehwag - Should be slightly lower (mid 40's, not 50+)
Michael Slater - Should be slightly higher (atleast in the mid 40's)
Michael Clarke - Should be slightly lower (not a 50+ average batsman imo)
AB de Villiers - Should be allot higher (Good enough to average 50+)
Dean Jones - Should be higher (On footage, his one of the best bats out of the 80s era .. deserves to average 50+)
The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:It's less a case of pre-WW1, and more of pre-1900, as I understand it. There was a big change in pitch-preparation capability in, in fact, the very turn-of-the-century year (the upping in scoring 1899-1900 was greater even than the change which took place in a two-year spurt from 2000 to 2002). There was no particularly significant difference in scoring, as I understand it, in, say, 1909 and 1924 - in fact, the Golden Age (1900-1913) was famous for the free-flowing amateur batsmanship which would simply not have been possible under conditions which had prevailed in the 19th-century.
It was 1930 when, once more, decks experienced a flattening-out. The cessation caused by WW2 then seemed to perk things up and when cricket resumed in the 1940s it was more recogniseable for what it had been in the '00s and '20s (and what little of the '10s survived the War).
Hence, I'm quite open to the suggestion that Lohmann's excellence is incomparable with excellence of modern bowlers - we honestly do not, to my mind, have a clue how good he might have been, IMO. He could've been in the Marshall-Imran-Donald-Lillee-Hadlee class; he could've been less than Dominic Cork or Alan Connolly. We just don't know. Barnes, however, is an entirely different matter - I've always maintained that there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball, though it is almost certainly my greatest regret that he was never handled in such a way that would have allowed him to show such unequivocally.
Crowe's case simply shows that a career average is a pretty meaningless thing. He was picked far too early and was ruined by injuries to his knees at a far younger age than most are. IIRR, he averaged about 54 for what still made-up the bulk of his career, which seems to do far more justice to what most seem to reckon was his capability.
Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..Well, strictly speaking it's called an arithmatic mean, but either way... a career average in itself tells you nothing much about a player whose career has lasted very long in 99 cases out of 100 if not more.
Being a quick big-spinner is about the ultimate method for a bowler. There has never been another like Barnes who bowled in such a manner. You somewhat under-exaggerate the amount that is known for certain about Barnes - his hands, there has been much reliable testimony, were unusually large and strong; this is a considerable piece of knowledge, and makes it more likely that he could spin the ball more, at greater pace, than any other bowler has ever managed.The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:
a. he played for money or not at all; and
b. he was a medium pacer *** quick spinner
Bottom line is that whilst (a) may not have done him too much harm today, (b) almost certainly would've done so there is NO WAYthat anyone can say that he would've achieved much success let alone being "pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball".
That is a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassive stretch
As I said - most people, when using this term, mean "he underperformed" or "he looked better than he was". A career record is a reflection of exactly what happened over a player's career - its fault is that it treats every innings as equal, which, well, plainly and simply is not the case.Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..