Lance Gibbs vs Anil Kumble

[capt_Luffy]

Sikes!!! A whole 1.4% Worse than 80s!!!! I had no idea how horrible the 60s were compared the Golden 80s.

 

[ma1978]

Sikes!!! A whole 1.4% Worse than 80s!!!! I had no idea how horrible they were compared the Golden 80s.

Still the worst decade for cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

Still the worst decade for cricket

Well, atleast then you agree the 80s were the practically interchangeable 2nd worst, very closely followed by the 70s; and 2020s is the decade Cricket peaked.

 

[Xix2565]

2020s is the decade Cricket peaked.

Unironically true tbh.

 

[Johan]

nope - 60s were the worst.


Decade-wise result percentages since the 1950s

Decade	Mat	W/L	Result %	Ovrs/result
2010s	336	264	78.6	326
2000s	464	350	75.4	317
1990s	347	223	64.3	331
1980s	266	143	54.1	315
1970s	198	114	57.6	359
1960s	186	97	52.7	386
1950s	164	113	68.9	370

No, you dubbed the 1970s and 1980s "The Golden Era" and they have identical draw or win rate to the 1960s.

Decade	Matches	Draws	Draw %
1980s	266	122	45.8%
1970s	198	84	42.4%
1960s	186	88	47.3%

Identical, Cricket actually peaked in the 1950s and the 2020s.

 

[Coronis]

Sikes!!! A whole 1.4% Worse than 80s!!!! I had no idea how horrible the 60s were compared the Golden 80s.

Can’t wait to hear the excuse for this lol

 

[trundler]

Rabid nationalism running riot here. Sad.

 

[DrWolverine]

1950s gave more results than 60s, 70s, 80s & 90s.

 

[Johan]

spicy pitch era

 

[DrWolverine]

Decade	Mat	W/L	Result %	Ovrs/result
2010s	336	264	78.6	326
2000s	464	350	75.4	317
1990s	347	223	64.3	331
1980s	266	143	54.1	315
1970s	198	114	57.6	359
1960s	186	97	52.7	386
1950s	164	113	68.9	370

Is the surprisingly higher percentage of results in 1960s a result of almost 50% of teams(Ind, Pak & NZ) being very weak compared to the rest?

 

[ataraxia]

In Tests, runs matter more for batters than balls faced and batting SR, so I don't have them as a major factor unless it really stands out in the context. For bowlers, wicket taking and economy are both important, but when the averages are close relatively, I'd rather have the bowler who doesn't take forever to get batters out over a better economy. Otherwise you run the risk of not winning if you can't take 20 wickets with the time available.

My point is: given you think that for bowlers strike rate is more important than economy, wouldn't you say the same applies for batters – that balls faced (which is the same thing as bowling SR) is more important than batting SR (which is inversely proportional to economy)?

 

[DrWolverine]

No, you dubbed the 1970s and 1980s "The Golden Era" and they have identical draw or win rate to the 1960s.

Decade	Matches	Draws	Draw %
1980s	266	122	45.8%
1970s	198	84	42.4%
1960s	186	88	47.3%

1970s and 1980s is The Golden Era?

 

[Johan]

1970s and 1980s is The Golden Era?

Ma1978 dubbed them the golden era.

 

[DrWolverine]

My point is: given you think that for bowlers strike rate is more important than economy, wouldn't you say the same applies for batters – that balls faced (which is the same thing as bowling SR) is more important than batting SR (which is inversely proportional to economy)?

Interesting

If your team does not have the bowling firepower to take 20 wickets, a good defensive batsman will give a higher chance for a draw which is better than losing.

 

[Johan]

I get where Ma gets his disdain for 1960s Cricket from, most of the Ashes tests of the decade drew and I don't think Ma cares about Cricket outside of the Ashes, doesn't matter if the 1980s West Indies drew more frequently than 1960s West Indies.

 

[DrWolverine]

Ma1978 dubbed them the golden era.

I don’t agree though I think it may be due to the following reasons :

1. Introduction of one day cricket and Kerry Packer which made the game(not necessarily test) more popular

2. The 1970s had the debut of more superstars or popular names than the previous 3-4 decades in cricket.

3. India became a stronger team and since we make up 90% of the fans, many of our journalists feel that way as well.

 

[Johan]

I don’t agree though I think it may be due to the following reasons :

1. Introduction of one day cricket and Kerry Packer which made the game(not necessarily test) more popular

2. The 1970s had the debut of more superstars or popular names than the previous 3-4 decades in cricket.

3. India became a stronger team and since we make up 90% of the teams, many of our journalists feel that way as well.

He is just the average Sachin fan.

 

[ma1978]

I don’t agree though I think it may be due to the following reasons :

1. Introduction of one day cricket and Kerry Packer which made the game(not necessarily test) more popular

2. The 1970s had the debut of more superstars or popular names than the previous 3-4 decades in cricket.

3. India became a stronger team and since we make up 90% of the fans, many of our journalists feel that way as well.

balance of teams

four great all rounders

Viv Richards and the West Indies team

Sachin and Lara

Wasim and Waqar

 

[Johan]

just blabbering atp

 

[Xix2565]

My point is: given you think that for bowlers strike rate is more important than economy, wouldn't you say the same applies for batters – that balls faced (which is the same thing as bowling SR) is more important than batting SR (which is inversely proportional to economy)?

I think that when the bowling averages are close to each other. It's not something applicable overall for every bowler around. For batters, runs are their primary currency, not balls faced, since Tests are determined by having more runs than the opposition when one side is bowled out completely. So I don't look at that when it comes to evaluating batters.