Great images in cricket.

Remove this Banner Ad

Rabish Binney said:
Yep...and??

Had a test average of 32.

Its the Wisden all time test world XI, not the best first class team of the century. Otherwise you'd have a batsman like Mark Ramprakash in contention.

There's no way WG should have been picked before Sunil Gavaskar.
Click to expand...
Averages going back that far are a completely different kettle of fish considering he was in the sticky wicket era of uncovered wickets iirc. Also in his time test cricket literally didn't exist from memory, the status was retroactively applied to series which were (somewhat arbitrarily) defined as being of a higher standard with Test matches being few and often years between.

For pre war cricketers fc stats are far more worthy of consideration than just looking at test stats in isolation, with county and shield cricket arguably being of a comparable standard, for example look at absolute spuds like Walter Giffen getting tests despite probably not being the times equivalent to first grade standard (although even then I feel pre war cricket is almost an entirely different sport, so it's really impossible to compare across eras so mythos is as valid a criteria as any for backing a player into a honorary xi).

My post is kind of moot though as really he's there to pay homage to that era of cricket moreso than a merit based reasoning.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Richard Pryor said:
Averages going back that far are a completely different kettle of fish considering he was in the sticky wicket era of uncovered wickets iirc. Also in his time test cricket literally didn't exist from memory, the status was retroactively applied to series which were (somewhat arbitrarily) defined as being of a higher standard with Test matches being few and often years between.

For pre war cricketers fc stats are far more worthy of consideration than just looking at test stats in isolation, with county and shield cricket arguably being of a comparable standard, for example look at absolute spuds like Walter Giffen getting tests despite probably not being the times equivalent to first grade standard (although even then I feel pre war cricket is almost an entirely different sport, so it's really impossible to compare across eras so mythos is as valid a criteria as any for backing a player into a honorary xi).

My post is kind of moot though as really he's there to pay homage to that era of cricket moreso than a merit based reasoning.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

It is interesting when the topic of uncovered wickets comes up.

When it's mentioned, one automatically thinks that the wickets must have been absolutely shite, that there's no way any batsman can make runs and sides get bowled out for 50 more often than not.

Those batsmen of yesteryear who made runs on 'uncovered wickets' are lauded.

But if these uncovered wickets were so bad, and the batsmen were able to make runs on them, then is that a reflection on the (poor) standard of the bowers at the time?
 
Rabish Binney said:
Fair enough.

It is interesting when the topic of uncovered wickets comes up.

When it's mentioned, one automatically thinks that the wickets must have been absolutely shite, that there's no way any batsman can make runs and sides get bowled out for 50 more often than not.

Those batsmen of yesteryear who made runs on 'uncovered wickets' are lauded.

But if these uncovered wickets were so bad, and the batsmen were able to make runs on them, then is that a reflection on the (poor) standard of the bowers at the time?
Click to expand...
I think yes, for the most part bowlers of the time period are not particularly highly regarded in cricketing circles despite some having insane statistics. George Lohmann has a Bradmanesque Test bowling record but is never really mentioned in all time great discussions, and seems at least to me far more consigned to history than contemporary batsmen.

With that being said uncovered wickets only lead to issues in specific circumstances, I'm sure there were easy wickets to bat on and hard wickets to bowl on as well. Overall I think the takeaway is more that a pack of professionalism by modern standards across the board, from fitness levels, training programs, to things like groundskeeping and equipment manufacturing, all lead to the circumstances of each match potentially differing to the extent that any averages are skewed by statistical noise from factors unrelated to player skill given the small amount of tests in a career.
 
Richard Pryor said:
I think yes, for the most part bowlers of the time period are not particularly highly regarded in cricketing circles despite some having insane statistics. George Lohmann has a Bradmanesque Test bowling record but is never really mentioned in all time great discussions, and seems at least to me far more consigned to history than contemporary batsmen.

With that being said uncovered wickets only lead to issues in specific circumstances, I'm sure there were easy wickets to bat on and hard wickets to bowl on as well. Overall I think the takeaway is more that a pack of professionalism by modern standards across the board, from fitness levels, training programs, to things like groundskeeping and equipment manufacturing, all lead to the circumstances of each match potentially differing to the extent that any averages are skewed by statistical noise from factors unrelated to player skill given the small amount of tests in a career.
Click to expand...
The battle between bat and ball has been remarkably consistent over time

A batter averaging 40 is very good, 50 or above is elite. In pretty much any era.

A bowler averaging under 30 is good, closer to mid-low 20s is elite. Again, pretty much in any era

The best performing players have been around that mark.

Bradman aside.

Plus the odd outlier who played only a handful of games for whatever reason.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
The battle between bat and ball has been remarkably consistent over time

A batter averaging 40 is very good, 50 or above is elite. In pretty much any era.

A bowler averaging under 30 is good, closer to mid-low 20s is elite. Again, pretty much in any era

The best performing players have been around that mark.

Bradman aside.

Plus the odd outlier who played only a handful of games for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
Think for 1870's to 1890's a great batting average was over 30, if you look at the batsman who are highly regarded in that period it's guys like Alec Bannerman who only averaged 23, Percy McDonnell at 28, Billy Murdoch who averaged 31, Arthur Shrewsbury at 35, and WG Grace at 32. I think in order to get a sense for how batsmen were regarded in their contemporary in relation to the present you wouldn't be far off if you just added 10 to the batting average of a pre WWI player.

Once covered pitches became the standard I agree it flattened out to an even contest.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
View attachment 1614232
Click to expand...

Hah... I remember that match. England, for a change, had their noses in front. Australia had a strong batting lineup and Atherton wanted plenty of time to bowl at them. Hick had played really well, and then shut up shop as he got close to his 100. Everyone knew the declaration was coming. But Hick had become more interested in keeping his wicket then scoring runs quickly.

I think it was subsequently revealed that Hick thought he had another over.

Taylor and Slater batted for the rest of the day without loss and Australia and at one point, looked like they might be a chance to win the match. Gus Fraser took some quick wickets and had Australia in trouble, before they basically shut up shop and played out a draw.

Given the end result, it looked like Atherton was mean spirited to declare with Hic on 98... but at the same time, had Hick continued playing aggressively, England could have probably declared 20-30 minutes earlier and maybe won the match.
 
Tyberious Funk said:
Hah... I remember that match. England, for a change, had their noses in front. Australia had a strong batting lineup and Atherton wanted plenty of time to bowl at them. Hick had played really well, and then shut up shop as he got close to his 100. Everyone knew the declaration was coming. But Hick had become more interested in keeping his wicket then scoring runs quickly.

I think it was subsequently revealed that Hick thought he had another over.

Taylor and Slater batted for the rest of the day without loss and Australia and at one point, looked like they might be a chance to win the match. Gus Fraser took some quick wickets and had Australia in trouble, before they basically shut up shop and played out a draw.

Given the end result, it looked like Atherton was mean spirited to declare with Hic on 98... but at the same time, had Hick continued play aggresively, England could have probably declared 20-30 minutes earlier and maybe won the match.
Click to expand...
We actually looked at getting flights to Sydney for the last day but they were hideously expensive. Glad we didn't waste our money with hindsight.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rabish Binney said:
Ponting won the toss and bowled first in that test?
Click to expand...
As had the captains in 12 of the previous 13 Edgbaston tests.

We lost that match by two runs - there are probably a thousand instances in five days that would have changed the result. It's unfair to pin it all on the toss.
 
images

Right in the sweet spot :D:D:D:D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Great images in cricket.

Similar threads

2
All Time Great State Cricket Teams
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
2 eazy
2
cats2rise
  • Sticky
Sweet Cricket Assoc. Sweet Cricket Association - New simulated cricket league
Replies
1
Views
1K
cats2rise
cats2rise
Drunkcat
  • Locked
Why is there so much women's cricket
Replies
8
Views
460
Gough
Gough
A
Lack of Australian Test Cricket
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
cricketnut14
C
Purple7x08_24
Test Cricket Draft 1970-2024
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
855
Views
15K
Purple7x08_24
Purple7x08_24
whatwhatsaywhat
Test $15m global fund to 'save' test cricket to be established
Replies
2
Views
427
Cleavy
Cleavy
T
Research on the game day experiences of cricket fans
Replies
4
Views
567
theacademic
T

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top