Who faced easiest bowling attacks and conditions?

[weldone]

Yeah. Smaller the sample, smaller the absolute standardized z-score for same amount of deviation from the mean is what you are saying.

...having sqrt(n-1) as the deominator in the formula for sample standard deviation solves this problem to an extent...

But what he was saying was different if I understand it correctly. He was saying that even considering the same distribution, the 99% positive tail (or so) will have more number of observations as we increase the sample size. The answer to that would be it doesn't matter, as z-score for the 99% point remains almost the same.

In simple words, if we measure how much the batsman was better than the second-best of his era that would be a wrong measure. But if we are comparing him with the 'average' batsman of his era, that should be fine to an extent. [Because as number of good cricketers increase with increasing number of cricketers, number of bad cricketers should increase as well.]

 

[The Sean]

For what it's worth, test match batting averages by decade -

1870s 18.71
1880s 19.38
1890s 25.25
1900s 25.08
1910s 27.55
1920s 33.42
1930s 32.69
1940s 35.77
1950s 28.60
1960s 32.27
1970s 32.80
1980s 32.64
1990s 31.64
2000s 34.17
2010s 35.39

Mean of all test cricket - 32.04

That's really interesting, the '30s are lower than I would have thought, almost identical to the '70s and '80s, and (relatively) well below the past 10-12 years. Makes you wonder again what Bradman (and Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe et al) might average today.

 

[Himannv]

Probably Bradman I suppose. Hobbs faced the most difficult conditions (specially in the early part of his career) and Viv probably faced the best bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Disagree. Tendulkar clearly faced the better attacks out of all of them.

 

[centurymaker]

Disagree. Tendulkar clearly faced the better attacks out of all of them.

taking the piss

 

[weldone]

Disagree. Tendulkar clearly faced the better attacks out of all of them.

Yeah, when you consider West Indians pacers were in Viv's team and that Tendulkar has had to face two ATG spinners besides all the great fast bowlers we can safely say that Tendulkar faced the better attacks ut of all of them.

And Sobers will be a close second in that aspect. The English attack he faced was legendary. The Aussie attacks were great, too. So were the South African attacks of Sobers' time, which are very underrated.

 

[Daemon]

Don't forget batting conditions though.

 

[The Sean]

Tendulkar probably has faced the strongest attacks of the batsmen listed, particularly in the '90s. It's probably fair to say that he's cashed in on more weak attacks than someone like Viv too though, as There was only one real minnow in Viv's time and he never played a Test against them.

 

[centurymaker]

Tendulkar probably has faced the strongest attacks of the batsmen listed, particularly in the '90s. It's probably fair to say that he's cashed in on more weak attacks than someone like Viv too though, as There was only one real minnow in Viv's time and he never played a Test against them.

so it somewhat evens out for him.

 

[Ikki]

taking the piss

Er? No. One can argue his relative success against them but he clearly faced the strongest attacks of these batsmen IMO.

 

[centurymaker]

Random post-

If an ATG bowler avgs 25
and an ATG batsman avgs 50

then avg'ing 37.5 head-to-head is par (even stevens)

 

[weldone]

Random post-

If an ATG bowler avgs 25
and an ATG batsman avgs 50

then avg'ing 37.5 head-to-head is par (even stevens)

Nah should be 35.36...

 

[Manee]

In the time I have spent away from these sort of debates on CC, I fear I may have fallen behind the accepted truths which develop constantly on CW. However, if we are to be debating which of the batsmen faced easiest bowling attacks and conditions, numbers are surely insufficient, as the general level of batting ability has risen in recent times in the top teams' top orders, such as India (pre-England tour), England, Australia and South Africa; and in the lower orders of all teams.

The fact that Bradman was a standout in his generation is valid and it could be said that he was the most 'special' or 'talented' batsman. However, I think a point could be made that if Jonathan Trott, with all of his modern coaching - had been placed into the Bradman-era, he could have achieved similar numbers. I'm not here to argue that Larwood wasn't a great bowler or anything like that, but just as lower order batting has improved, non-strike bowling has improved too. I think we can say that Mitchell Johnson is a far more threatening bowler than the majority of first change bowlers in the Bradman era.

The argument could be made that the hypothetical Jonathon Trott - the modern coached batsman, has been coached to play in the modern era of flat pitches and a constant battery of quick bowlers who perhaps move the ball less (in terms of centimeters) than previous generations. However, I do not think this holds too much weight.

I do fear that this post is some sort of CW blasphemy, as it would appear that such a view is often laughed away and heck, I may read this post and laugh too in a few days, but just something that popped into my head.

 

[Cevno]

Have the number of stronger teams faced and variations in lot of different conditions and bowlers been mentioned yet?

 

[Cevno]

Probably Bradman I suppose. Hobbs faced the most difficult conditions (specially in the early part of his career) and Viv probably faced the best bowlers.

Who?

 

[The Sean]

Who?

Not sure I agree but I imagine he's referring to Lillee, Thommo, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Willis, Botham, Underwood, Kapil, Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Sarfraz, Qadir and the like.

 

[The Sean]

The argument could be made that the hypothetical Jonathon Trott - the modern coached batsman, has been coached to play in the modern era of flat pitches and a constant battery of quick bowlers who perhaps move the ball less (in terms of centimeters) than previous generations. However, I do not think this holds too much weight.

Why not?

 

[Cevno]

Not sure I agree but I imagine he's referring to Lillee, Thommo, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Willis, Botham, Underwood, Kapil, Chandrasekhar, Bedi, Sarfraz, Qadir and the like.

Yeah, but wouldn't say those are better combined or individually than those Sachin faced at all.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, but wouldn't say those are better combined or individually than those Sachin faced at all.

Neither would I, though I don't think there's a great deal in it.

 

[Cevno]

Interesting there have been no votes for Sobers.

Didn't really have the toughest collection of bowlers to face during that period.