Cricket's most over rated players

[Nintendo]

For what it's worth;

Average Batting average in the 1910s: 23.87
Average Batting average in the 2010s: 32.37

Percentage of increase of batting average: 35.61%

Adjusted opening average of Victor Trumper: 44.78

Wouldn't it be better to do this against top 6 or 7 batsmen and not all players?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Wouldn't it be better to do this against top 6 or 7 batsmen and not all players?

Doesn't really changes much. I believe from memory, the batting average of Top 6 in the 2010s was 35ish and around 26-27 in the 1910s.

Now, I could of course take the batting average of Australian top 6 by decades, or the top team of the eras; but it's too much of a hassle to go through.

 

[trundler]

An average of 44 in the 2010s is about Azhar Ali level.

 

[capt_Luffy]

An average of 44 in the 2010s is about Azhar Ali level.

Or Gordon Greenidge.

 

[Line and Length]

Even adjusting Trumper's average as an opener to 44.78 (and I don't agree with these adjustments) he is still well behind the truly great openers (Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe) and overshadowed by many others.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Even adjusting Trumper's average as an opener to 44.78 (and I don't agree with these adjustments) he is still well behind the truly great openers (Hobbs, Hutton, Gavaskar, Sutcliffe) and overshadowed by many others.

No doubt there. As an opener only, he isn't really close to Gavaskar Or Hutton.

 

[trundler]

Or Gordon Greenidge.

As far as I'm aware, Gordon Greenidge didn't play in the 2010s.

 

[capt_Luffy]

As far as I'm aware, Gordon Greenidge didn't play in the 2010s.

But he did in the 1970s and 80s; his batting average adjusted would be 47 in the 2010s.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But he did in the 1970s and 80s; his batting average adjusted would be 47 in the 2010s.

So you're saying it wouldn't be 44...

 

[trundler]

But he did in the 1970s and 80s; his batting average adjusted would be 47 in the 2010s.

1) he had a considerably long career which hides how good he was for most of his career by nerfing his overall average, unlike Trumper.
2) you purposefully chose the easiest batting era to inflate Trumper's average by the biggest margin. Azhar Ali is a representative example of a 44 averaging opener from the 2010s. He was very good but not ATG.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

I don't know why so many people think of Azhar Ali as an opener when he only opened in 10 tests with 77 tests at no 3 and another 9 further down the order.

 

[capt_Luffy]

1) he had a considerably long career which hides how good he was for most of his career by nerfing his overall average, unlike Trumper.
2) you purposefully chose the easiest batting era to inflate Trumper's average by the biggest margin. Azhar Ali is a representative example of a 44 averaging opener from the 2010s. He was very good but not ATG.

1) Victor Trumper's averaged is relatively nerved by opening. In the middle order, His output is off the charts. Trumper was the second highest scorer of his time, his career was perfectly long.
2) I just pointed out the most recent batting era to show what his average would had been. Azhar Ali batted most of his career in the middle order. Trumper is easily an ATG in my book, with very little between him, Border, Waugh and Ponting; Harvey and Hill would be at the bottom of that tier.

 

[capt_Luffy]

So you're saying it wouldn't be 44...

Greenidge? No. It would definitely be higher.

 

[Coronis]

1) Victor Trumper's averaged is relatively nerved by opening. In the middle order, His output is off the charts. Trumper was the second highest scorer of his time, his career was perfectly long.
2) I just pointed out the most recent batting era to show what his average would had been. Azhar Ali batted most of his career in the middle order. Trumper is easily an ATG in my book, with very little between him, Border, Waugh and Ponting; Harvey and Hill would be at the bottom of that tier.

Its extremely inflated thanks to performances against a weak SA team but sure, off the charts

 

[capt_Luffy]

Its extremely inflated thanks to performances against a weak SA team but sure, off the charts

Weak SA means the one with Vogler, Schwarz and Faulkner?? The one with the googly bowlers, who were considered mysterious back then and completely dominated English batsmen prior??

 

[Coronis]

Weak SA means the one with Vogler, Schwarz and Faulkner?? The one with the googly bowlers, who were considered mysterious back then?

Considering they were mainly effective on the matting wickets at home (Trumper only played those bowlers in Australia), lets also not forget he was a home track bully) and considering Australia dominated them in that 1911 series where Trumper feasted yes.

Vogler averaged 44 in that series. Faulkner averaged 51. Schwarz did pretty decently, but he was not a leggie lol. He was the only SA bowler to average below 39.9 in that series lol. The Australians piled on the runs. But yeah, good attack

 

[capt_Luffy]

Considering they were mainly effective on the matting wickets at home (Trumper only played those bowlers in Australia), lets also not forget he was a home track bully) and considering Australia dominated them in that 1911 series where Trumper feasted yes.

Vogler averaged 44 in that series. Faulkner averaged 51. Schwarz did pretty decently, but he was not a leggie lol. He was the only SA bowler to average below 39.9 in that series lol. The Australians piled on the runs. But yeah, good attack

Not totally true. Vogler and Faulkner both had great record in England as well; and with Schwarz, Sinclair and Llewellyn; you are pushing it a tad bit too far imo to call them a weak attack for their time. Vogler was well regarded as the best bowler back then; not to mention that saying English attack is better is a stretch. As for the average in England; that is surprisingly true for his contemporary Clem Hill and Warwick Armstrong as well.

 

[AndrewB]

Trumper averaged 48 in the middle order..... That's insane for the time. Jackson had one good series,

That's a bit unfair - his series averages were 66, 22, 43, 44, 70. Admittedly he only played 2 matches in the first series, but he was top of the averages and runs scored (across both teams) in both the last two series.

Curious fact I noticed about Jackson while looking up his figures: his batting average in the first innings of a match was 85, the third highest of anyone across 10+ innings (behind Bradman and Voges).

 

[capt_Luffy]

That's a bit unfair - his series averages were 66, 22, 43, 44, 70. Admittedly he only played 2 matches in the first series, but he was top of the averages and runs scored (across both teams) in both the last two series.

Curious fact I noticed about Jackson while looking up his figures: his batting average in the first innings of a match was 85, the third highest of anyone across 10+ innings (behind Bradman and Voges).

I think the fact that Jackson's FC average is much lackluster in comparison definitely plays a role in how I rate him, as I honestly rate Pre WWI players on Test stats primarily; but give FC stats and peer ratings much much more weightage than Post War players, as the game was vastly different then.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Adrian Barath was regarded high, very high…as the next Brian Lara for our cricket. A debut test century against Australia in Australia…and then the nosedive.

He’s now a pastor somewhere in Barbados.