***** has pulled me up a few times in the past. He has his own mind. You probably think he just agrees with me because in this topic, well, we seem to agree. You tend to make sweeping truisms based on a couple of anecdotal observations. I think we are not the only ones grated by this.
Dan suggested a more enlightening filter of the stats I presented. I agree with his suggestion but unfortunately lack the statsguru skills to filter for it. When I can be bothered I will output the list of 500 batsmen and work the weighted average out to show top 8. (but the lazy half of me keeps hoping one of the stat nerds here will beat me to it
Yes, I used stats guru. At it's simplest, I did this from the overall/aggregate tab ...
Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo You can then click return to query menu - choose advanced and start restricting bowlers or filter other stuff if you want. Unless you can show I've made a mistake (it's possible) or find a more informative filter that reverses the result (as per Dan's suggestion) I kind of think my stats do make what you have said wrong. You have just made statements. I have shown the results of those statements are not in accord. Nothing more.
Which bowling attack is better? McGrath, Warne, Ponting Gilchrist or Flintoff, Harmison, Hoggard and Jones? You need to consider not just the form of the upper level bowlers, but also the bottom level bowlers. It may very well be that while all those bowlers you mentioned are not in career best form as they are near the end, that the middle and bottom tier of bowlers are. That is my best guess at why the stats showed up the way they did on my simple search. Others might have better reasons to explain them, such as, once again, Dan's suggestion.
The bold is probably the key question. If I can use media links and get in touch to cricinfo stat guru man S Rajesh who is an expert at filtering the stats guru I will run it by him.
However I looked at it properly, it seems ok on face value - I didn't see a way I could filter it different. So just to recap from start, the initial question you asked was:
"since this period, that bowlers became better and pitches got better. So I am asking how do you explain that the average for the period of terrible bowlers has a batting average nearly 1 and a half runs less than the period filled with better bowlers?"
Bottom level or declining great bowlers from 2000-2005 vs bottom level bowlers from 2005-2010.
Looking back at S Rajeh's article on noughties from 5 years ago - he did hint at that point also -
Why 55 is the new 50 | Decade Review 2009 | ESPN Cricinfo
"
The average runs per dismissal in the last decade was 38.37, but in the last three years - 2007 to 2009 - it went up to 39.97, which suggests that the early part of the 2010s will see more of the same.
However it wasn't more of the same.
IMO its not logical to say the bottom level/crap bowlers of the 2005-2010 were in career best form. They were just bad, just as the ones present before from 2000-2005.
I would agree there were times bowlers who ended up being crap in both era's maybe have started off hype or had one good series for example:
WI attacks of Dillon/Cuffy/Sanford/Collins managing to overcame the India big 4 in 2002
Ifran Pathan & Mohammad Sami starting hot before 2005
RP Singh & Sreenath bowling as well as any top seamer could when IND beat ENG in 07
Ishant Shant having his great moments despite being a generally average test bowler - this can be said of all IND bowlers who emergence since 2000 besides Zaheer
Is it even possible to do a stats guru to filter out the limited good efforts of these crap/low level bowlers in the overall stat breakdown?
Which keeps bringing back to my point regarding Gilchrist, those bottom level bowlers/declining great bowlers who he faced from PAK 99 - NZ 2005, simply were not a good as fast-bowling like ENG Ashes 05 attack & none of them ever developed a tactical plan to get him out the way ENG did in 05. So again in either case, these stats don't negate this point.
The only thing I can think of, which would be hard to differentiate in any stats breakdown that is making it looking so for the 2005-2010 period is generalizing the stats for the entire period for bowlers (along with low level bowlers mentioned above) like Anderson, Broad, Khan, Ntini, Johnson for example that you did before - when in reality those guys peaks and career form dips happened well after 2005.
Anderson for example was in his crap bowler mode in 2005, his horrible bowling in the Jo'Burg test vs SA late 2004 I immediately recall.
Then from like IND 2007 - PAK 2010, he was universally viewed as a English conditions bowler. Anderson peak started with his 2010 Ashes performance, so stats guru of his efforts before 2010 wouldn't be right.
Zahher Khan peak started also from that 2007 IND win in England.
Johnson had such a fluctuating career its hard to group his stats accurately. He had those two impressive series vs SA 08/09 - then was very hot & cold in between until Ashes 2010/SA 2010/11.
Ntini was fairly average after his 2005-2008 peak coming into his final year in 2009. If you recall the very political situation during the ENG tour to SA in 09 when government influences was forcing SA selectors to keep picking despite him being in obvious decline just because they wanted him to play his 100 test as SA first black cricketer.
You can make same argument for some of great 90s bowlers from the 2000-2005 period who were in decline.
In the 2000s only Ambrose and Walsh were always good despite old age - they just lost pace. Donald last series as his "white Lightning self was in India 2000" he was still bowling high 80s close to 90mph, but afterwards he lost it. Pollock was still ok up to about 2001 until he ran into AUS in those unofficial world champs series matches.
Gough & Caddick were not the same after Ashes 01.
Thus one has to filter out the best periods from those bowlers in those respective time spans & I think that will get a more accurate representation of well known fact that better fast bowlers have emerged since 2005 & obviously batsmen were tested more.
A next possible reasons is are batsman since 2005 especially with the introduction of T20 and general more aggressive stroke-play more clinical at dominating poor attacks/bottom level bowlers/flat ptiches compared to the 2000-2005 period?
Overall in the midst of all the other madness going on around this thread, you have certainly raised a very real point - because if the stats trend remain the same i'm sure when cricinfo reviews the 2010-2019 period it will be a very global discussion point.
