Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[Ikki]

http://archive.blackcaps.co.nz/Scorecards/38/38618.html

It says it was a 4 day match there.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but why? Can it be because the bowling nowadays is a lot poorer that taking such an approach is less riskier, as we suggest? Or were the test batsmen of the 80s and 90s simply hard in the head that it never occured to them that all they need to do is score faster?

Again, you seem to imply that the the big change in the 2000s was on the part of the batsmen, which is manifestly untrue. As if quality bowling was somehow made more oridnary by the batting onslaught. The reality is that test cricket is dictated more by its bowling dimension than by the batting side rather than vice versa.

Because the game evolves? Because they found out certain strokes actually carry less risk and would get more reward than previously thought? These are pretty simple things and lots of changes have been made in all sports. The idea that most sports have progressed tactically and on a physical level; yet Cricket has apparently regressed is a bit silly to me.

Your 2nd para doesn't make sense. SL is now a Test class team, one of the the best. SA actually plays cricket now whereas it didn't in the 80s. Aus has had an all-time great side during this period. The same with India. The Pakistanis haven't been shabby either. If you actually take a look at the line-ups it is pretty clear to see that the batting has improved. How much is that to skill and how much to pitches? I don't know. One thing is clear: the bowlers are having much more trouble. The problem is you want to have your cake and eat it too - the batsmen were poor AND the bowlers weren't as good. So somehow shouldn't that negate each other out?

The bowlers have struggled because IMO of the pitches moreso than their quality decreasing. The idea that this happened overnight, across the world, is a stretch. What we do know has happened and is likely to have caused these surges in bowling averages is in fact the pitches.

And the thing is, you are making such a blanket statement that there are glaring and obvious examples to counter it. Tendulkar averaged 58 in the 90s and in the low 50s in the 00s. If the bowlers were that much better in the 90s and the batting got that much easier in the 00s, his average should be astronomical. Lara averaged I think low 50s in the 90s and something like 53-54 in the 00s - it didn't change much. Waugh averaged the same in the 00s as he did in the 90s. These are the 3 best batsmen of just the previous decade. Yet you want to say that the bowling was so dramatically worse that the likes of Ponting, Kallis et al improved some 10 points because of it...yet you wouldn't be able to explain how these other greats improved so little because such a drop in standards would demand that Lara, Tendulkar and Waugh would improve beyond sight.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and I kind of touched on this before. Whilst the 80s may have had more "great" bowlers, they didn't actually have very good bowling line-ups. Apart from the WIndies all were pretty much equal or much better in the 00s.

 

[centurymaker]

Because the game evolves? Because they found out certain strokes actually carry less risk and would get more reward than previously thought? These are pretty simple things and lots of changes have been made in all sports. The idea that most sports have progressed tactically and on a physical level; yet Cricket has apparently regressed is a bit silly to me.

Your 2nd para doesn't make sense. SL is now a Test class team, one of the the best. SA actually plays cricket now whereas it didn't in the 80s. Aus has had an all-time great side during this period. The same with India. The Pakistanis haven't been shabby either. If you actually take a look at the line-ups it is pretty clear to see that the batting has improved. How much is that to skill and how much to pitches? I don't know. One thing is clear: the bowlers are having much more trouble. The problem is you want to have your cake and eat it too - the batsmen were poor AND the bowlers weren't as good. So somehow shouldn't that negate each other out?

The bowlers have struggled because IMO of the pitches moreso than their quality decreasing. The idea that this happened overnight, across the world, is a stretch. What we do know has happened and is likely to have caused these surges in bowling averages is in fact the pitches.

And the thing is, you are making such a blanket statement that there are glaring and obvious examples to counter it. Tendulkar averaged 58 in the 90s and in the low 50s in the 00s. If the bowlers were that much better in the 90s and the batting got that much easier in the 00s, his average should be astronomical. Lara averaged I think low 50s in the 90s and something like 53-54 in the 00s - it didn't change much. Waugh averaged the same in the 00s as he did in the 90s. These are the 3 best batsmen of just the previous decade. Yet you want to say that the bowling was so dramatically worse than the likes of Ponting, Kallis et al improved some 10 points because of it...yet you wouldn't be able to explain how these other greats improved so little.

The truth is somewhere in the middle and I kind of touched on this before. Whilst the 80s may have had more "great" bowlers, they didn't actually have very good bowling line-ups. Apart from the WIndies all were pretty much equal or much better.

the great bowlers were still around in 2000 and 2001 so probably best to look it from 2002/ 2003 onwards.

10 is a exaggeration but those batsmen benefited by 3 to 5

tendulkar had a slump. thats why he went down (has never been the same batsmen since). waugh aged. lara scored half his 100s between 2003 and 2006. avg'd like 60+ i think

 

[smash84]

You need to actually read my posts.


It really doesn't matter what you consider a good technique or a poor one, merely what is scoring runs. I touched on this earlier in the thread; batsmen these days take more calculated risks and score more runs at the crease. That is why batting SRs have risen as well as averages. It also explains how bowling averages and ERs have been hurt whilst their SRs have improved. This shows that batsmen are making more runs at the crease, but they are not staying there as long.

.

Batsmen are taking more calculated risks and succeeding? It might as well tell me more about the fact that bowlers are unable to do anything about them and they aren't as good. Just looking at numbers it would be naive to conclude that. I think that batsmen have it easier because most of the bowlers are trundlers and are unable to do much about the batsmen. I think subs has a good point that whenever the batsmen face bowlers like Steyn they get their knickers in a twist because there just aren't too many around. There has been a real dearth of good fast bowlers since the 00s which is probably the biggest reason that you see a rise in batting averages rather than batting quality going up or the pitches going down. Actually the more I think about this scenario the more it seems plausible. Batting average is not only a function of batsmen being better but also the bowling being weaker (which was the case in 00s)

 

[Magrat Garlick]

http://archive.blackcaps.co.nz/Scorecards/38/38618.html

Tail starts at 3...

 

[Ikki]

the great bowlers were still around in 2000 and 2001 so probably best to look it from 2002/ 2003 onwards.

10 is a exaggeration but those batsmen benefited by 3 to 5

tendulkar had a slump. thats why he went down (has never been the same batsmen since). waugh aged. lara scored half his 100s between 2003 and 2006. avg'd like 60+ i think

That's funny because every time you mention Hayden or anyone scoring against Wasim and Donald in that period they were crap and the matches shouldn't count.

But let's for the sake of argument say you're right. Guess what? Ponting averages 58 in the 00s, Kallis 59, Sangakkara 55, Dravid 55, Jayawardene 55, Inzamam 56 and Yousuf 59. Even if you were to make the full harsh 5 point reduction...they are still 50+ ATG batsmen.

And your remark about Tendulkar doesn't matter. He was in a slump for what, 2-3 years? What about the rest of the decade? If all there existed were pie-chucking attacks he should have averaged in the 60s, considering he almost averaging 60 in the era of tougher bowlers and pitches. I am not making this comment to denigrate Tendulkar, but if scoring runs were so much easier than Lara, Tendulkar and Waugh should have been scoring runs with their eyes closed.

Batsmen are taking more calculated risks and succeeding? It might as well tell me more about the fact that bowlers are unable to do anything about them and they aren't as good. Just looking at numbers it would be naive to conclude that. I think that batsmen have it easier because most of the bowlers are trundlers and are unable to do much about the batsmen. I think subs has a good point that whenever the batsmen face bowlers like Steyn they get their knickers in a twist because there just aren't too many around. There has been a real dearth of good fast bowlers since the 00s which is probably the biggest reason that you see a rise in batting averages rather than batting quality going up or the pitches going down. Actually the more I think about this scenario the more it seems plausible. Batting average is not only a function of batsmen being better but also the bowling being weaker (which was the case in 00s)

Or that the bowlers are stuck with a generation of batsmen that are clearly of a higher standard and depth than previous generations. What you're saying can also be put on it's head: the batsmen of the 80s were generally crap because they couldn't figure a way to score more runs against average attacks. There had been a great dearth of great batsmen in the 80s too.

 

[subshakerz]

Cricinfo did a pretty good analysis of this discussion on the 2000s. I'll leave it for you to judge...

The decade of the batsmen | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo
A decade of toil for bowlers | Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[centurymaker]

That's funny because every time you mention Hayden or anyone scoring against Wasim and Donald in that period they were crap and the matches shouldn't count.

But let's for the sake of argument say you're right. Guess what? Ponting averages 58 in the 00s, Kallis 59, Sangakkara 55, Dravid 55, Jayawardene 55, Inzamam 56 and Yousuf 59. Even if you were to make the full harsh 5 point reduction...they are still 50+ ATG batsmen.

And your remark about Tendulkar doesn't matter. He was in a slump for what, 2-3 years? What about the rest of the decade? If all there existed pie-chucking attacks he should have averaged in the 60s, considering he almost averaging 60 in the era of tougher bowlers and pitches. I am not making this comment to denigrate Tendulkar, but if scoring runs were so much easier than Lara, Tendulkar and Waugh should have been scoring runs with their eyes closed.

by 3 - 5 i mean their career average not their avg in 00s.

waugh retired at the start of 2004 so probably best to leave him out. lara did score with his eyes closed.

tendulkar before the main slump (but includes the mini slump of 2003- after which he changed his batting style)-
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tendulkar after main slump-
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

given that he hasn;'t been the same batsmen since the mid 00s, thats pretty much what you expect from him

 

[smash84]

the great bowlers were still around in the first couple of years of this century.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

batting avg - 31.53

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

batting avg- 34.91 (using 2003 gives a higher figure - 35.26)


3.5 to 4 run increase in batting avg. (10% + increase)

pretty significant.

You raise an interesting point centurymaker

 

[The Sean]

The 'match' where Lillee took the 12 wasn't a supertest (obviously), it was a 3 day match at Ericsson Stadium (Mount Smart back then). Not sure if it should be counted.

Yeah some sources don't count it, though whenever I tend to read about Lillee's WSC stats they talk about him taking 79 wickets, meaning those 12 wickets are being counted. The whole thing was unofficial, so I guess we can make our own choices!

 

[Ikki]

by 3 - 5 i mean their career average not their avg in 00s.

That doesn't make sense. You don't remove 3-5 from their career average when a certain part of their career comes in the 90s where no adjustment needs to be made. In fact, I took the whole of the 00s. If we only take the period you have mentioned then their averages are probably even better.

waugh retired at the start of 2004 so probably best to leave him out. lara did score with his eyes closed.

tendulkar before the main slump (but includes the mini slump of 2003- after which he changed his batting style)-
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

tendulkar after main slump-
All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo In fact, if we consider the period after 2003 that you are suggesting their averages should be even healthier since I took the whole of the 00s.

given that he hasn;'t been the same batsmen since the mid 00s, thats pretty much what you expect from him

Waugh played 44 tests in the 00s, it's pretty safe to count him. Lara scored with his eyes closed...yet not much better than the 90s when he assumedly exerted himself. Based on the 3-5 jump on career average you are suggesting, then no, I expect much better Tendulkar also. You just can't win this one buddy.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Or that the bowlers are stuck with a generation of batsmen that are clearly of a higher standard and depth than previous generations. What you're saying can also be put on it's head: the batsmen of the 80s were generally crap because they couldn't figure a way to score more runs against average attacks. There had been a great dearth of great batsmen in the 80s too.

Bingo!

 

[kyear2]

They were in NZ. I can't find a scorecard but I found an excerpt from a book on Google:

You're really trying my patience as I've stated the answer to these questions at least half a dozen times. I didn't mention "era differences" to say that Marshall would be a clearly different bowler. And I already said I am fine if someone wants to adjust averages for Lillee. It doesn't change my opinion about Lillee because I am not saying x > y because of 2 points on runs in average. If Lillee was not the champion he was in the WSC, his battles against the WIndies and his earlier World XI matches I too would question if the depth and quality of the batsmen he faced could equate with McGrath.

This whole thing started because I said that I have a doubt about the depth and quality of the line-ups that Marshall faced. I even talked about the line-ups on a country by country basis. Yet we had some actually argue that the batsmen of the 80s were just as good and India became a talking point. That is why I brought in the stats; to show that even statistically this is not true on a quantitive basis.

First of all it wasn't a super test which is why it doesnt show up in the official stats, and why it doesnt count.
You say for Lille stats are not important, but started this who era adjustment argument to say that when you do so Mcgrath would would statistically better than Marshall and so better. You said if not for his WSC stats then you would also discredit comp. he faced, but those games dont count for his career record.

 

[Ikki]

First of all it wasn't a super test which is why it doesnt show up in the official stats, and why it doesnt count.
You say for Lille stats are not important, but started this who era adjustment argument to say that when you do so Mcgrath would would statistically better than Marshall and so better. You said if not for his WSC stats then you would also discredit comp. he faced, but those games dont count for his career record.

Who cares if they don't count on his career record? They should. They are competitive matches played where the standard was even higher than most Tests ever played. The whole point of bringing up the WSC for me was to show that Lillee faced great line-ups and was a success. The World XI Tests he played early in his career don't count either, but **** me if I am going to ignore 8/29 (12 for 93 all up) against a lineup of Gavaskar, Kanhai, Abbas, Lloyd, Greig and Sobers. In the 3rd Test there was also Graeme Pollock in there (he averaged 20 and struck at 29 for the series).

First I thought we merely had a difference in opinion, but it seems you're just deliberately obtuse.

 

[smash84]

Or that the bowlers are stuck with a generation of batsmen that are clearly of a higher standard and depth than previous generations. What you're saying can also be put on it's head: the batsmen of the 80s were generally crap because they couldn't figure a way to score more runs against average attacks. There had been a great dearth of great batsmen in the 80s too.

EXACTLY. So while you are willing to accept the batsmen of the 00s as really good batsmen you are not willing to look at the bowling side of the equation. That there were plenty of mediocre bowlers going around. You always talk of the higher batting averages and SR and seem to miss out on the bowling part of the equation. What I just did was to point out one side of the equation, something that you have been doing all along

 

[Ikki]

EXACTLY. So while you are willing to accept the batsmen of the 00s as really good batsmen you are not willing to look at the bowling side of the equation. That there were plenty of mediocre bowlers going around. You always talk of the higher batting averages and SR and seem to miss out on the bowling part of the equation. What I just did was to point out one side of the equation, something that you have been doing all along

Huh? You made a generalisation and I showed I could make the same exact generalisation back, conversely, using the same points. What you said was merely one of perception and I came back with one that is opposite to yours. So it means that your point is no more logical than mine on that basis.

You seem to have the mistaken belief that the batsmen and bowlers both could not be good? Just because the batsmen may have more inflated averages due to the pitches, doesn't mean they aren't better than their 80s counterparts, regardless.

And just because the bowlers who are consequently conceding more are averaging higher, doesn't mean they are inferior to the bowlers of the 80s. And in that, I am referring to attacks (as i a group of bowlers), not ATG bowlers strictly as I'd agree that they 80s had more...although they were concentrated in one team.

I won't even refer to statistics because it brings up a chicken and the egg scenario - in that are they scoring more because the bowlers are poor or are the the bowlers poor because the batsmen are good. I'll just list the batsmen that I think played a part during the 00s era for their teams and reflects the strength of batting in the era:

Aus: Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist, Waugh, Ponting, Martyn
Ind: Sehwag, Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman
Pak: Inzamam, Yousuf, Younis
SL: Sangakkara, Jayawardene, Samaraweera
NZ: Fleming, Richardson, Astle
WI: Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul
SA: Amla, Kallis, Devillers, Smith, Kirsten
Eng: Pietersen, Trescothick, Thorpe, Strauss.
Zim: Goodwin, Flower
Ban: Bashar

And I haven't even put in guys like Clarke, Hussey, Lehmann, Dhoni, Gambhir, Ganguly, Cullinan, Prince, Hooper, Gayle, Collingwood, Vaughan, Dilshan, Tillakaratne and probably others that haven't come to me as of yet.

Now the 80s:

Aus: Border, Chappell, Jones, Boon
Ind: Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhurradin, Amarnath
Pak: Miandad, Abbas, Malik, Imran, Shoaib Mohammad
SL: Ranatunga, Dias, De Silva
NZ: Crowe, Coney, Wright
WI: Lloyd, Richards, Richardson, Greenidge, Haynes
Eng: Gower, Gatting, Gooch

And that's pretty much it for anyone that played any real role in the 80s. Not only are there more "great" batsmen there is more depth in the batting to boot. Many of the names that didn't make the list in the 00s are better than the ones that did in the 80s.

If the difference isn't clear to you now then we should just walk away from this one and agree to disagree.

 

[centurymaker]

That doesn't make sense. You don't remove 3-5 from their career average when a certain part of their career comes in the 90s where no adjustment needs to be made. In fact, I took the whole of the 00s. If we only take the period you have mentioned then their averages are probably even better.

3 to 5 depending on how much they played in 90s and 00s.

 

[centurymaker]

so you could say about 5-6 points should be removed from their average in 00s (from 2002/ 2003)

 

[centurymaker]

in the 1990s they were 5 batsmen who avg'd 50+
in the 2000s that figure went up to 21

in the 90s a total of 33 bowlers averaged below 30, while in 00s the corresponding fell to 15 (excluding waqar, walsh..)

 

[Sanz]

Now the 80s:


Ind: Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Azhurradin, Amarnath
Pak: Miandad, Abbas, Malik, Imran, Shoaib Mohammad
NZ: Crowe, Coney, Wright
Eng: Gower, Gatting, Gooch

These teams had world class allrounders that made their batting stronger and gave the batting depth. The Individual stats wont tell you that.