They were either of test standard or not of test standard. As I said earlier to TC, its irrelevant whether a side is mid-table or low-table or whatever, simply because walking down that path results in making judgements by and large impossible, or just unsound.
Either test standard or not test standard? Are you serious? If anything that kind of judgement is flawed and ignores facts. That certain teams are better than others and performance against these teams is of more value than performance against weaker teams must always be underlined. That's what these comparisons are about...making judgments. To ignore this is giving the same value to all wickets regardless how they are obtained.
In this case you simply have no grounds to judge by how much a sides test strength 'inflates' their record or otherwise. It becomes purely subjective, and quoting figures becomes not only selective, but interpretation of those figures also becomes selective. In other words, intellgible cricketing conversation becomes impossible.
If anything it is objective. It is not a personal feeling that I wish to make one team look worse by using selective criteria. All the criteria that is relevant was selected and the fact is that S.Africa were a very weak side. If O'Reilly's record is translated into the 90s, it's akin to him playing S.Africa (England) 19 times, Zimbabwe (S.Africa) 7 times and Bangladesh (New Zealand) once. That's almost 1/3rd of his record against a weak team or a very weak team. That's like averaging 40 against good test sides but then averaging 50 overall because of the many games played against minnows. Then you compare that player with someone who averages 50 overall but didn't play any minnows. To say they are equal then is unfair.
For instance, NZ was a test class side in the 60s and 70s (but did not then and does not now have truly outstanding performers - the only possible exception in the 70s being Turner who averaged 44 iirc). Do we suddenly discount all runs and wickets scored against NZ?
You appear to have a problem with the discounting of figures. Don't discount them if you wish, but note there is a large difference between two players like the ones I exemplified in the previous paragraph. They are not equals.
If you are comparing two players of that era, then one who took more wickets against Australia (a very good team at the time) is in actuality superior to a player who took most of their wickets against NZ. This is just obvious.
But then what of runs scored and wickets taken by them, are they suddenly exponentially magnified? Its not a problem left to the so-called also rans of world cricket either. Even powerful and established sides go through peaks and troughs, for example Australia in the mid 80s, and England in the late 90's.
But that's the point. No one is exponentially increasing or decreasing anything. O'Reilly played against 3 teams in his life. One strong, one of them weak, the other very weak. They make up about a third of his Test matches. The only good test side of his day was England, apart from his own. His record against England tells more about him as a bowler than his record against minnows. Warne played very very few games against minnows. Proportionately, they don't impact his figures near to the amount O'Reilly's do to his. To ignore this and to assume O'Reilly would have the same overall stats regardless who he played is a fallacy. You cannot judge like that.
England for example had few batsmen of note in the 90's after the retirement of Gooch in what? 92/93? After that you had Thorpe with an average in the mid 40's and Steward in the high 30's (iirc) and really no-one else. Are wickets taken against this England team suddenly worth less? Of course not, and in any case, there is no grounds to make such a judgement in the first place without being awfully biased. The same problem repeats itself if we look at India in the 60's and 70's and Pakistan in the 70's (or even, for that matter, New Zealand at the present time). Finally and consistently test class, but nothing to rave about. But we would not realistically discount performances against them, or magnifiy performances by them. Not only would that be bad cricketing judgement, it would be lacking in integrity even in qualitative terms.Were they, or are they, a test standard team? That is all that counts.
We're not talking about a peak or a trough of a single season. We are talking about the
decade 1930. If said team is much weaker in this period then yes, compared to a stronger side such wickets ARE worth less.
I find it more than a little ironic, and somewhat amusing, that recently, on numerous occassions having decried the overall worth and/or validity of statistical judgement you continue to pull it out with some really wonky extrapolation and justification. I really dont understand it, tbph.
It seems that unless something is statistically stated here on this forum no one will believe it. Hence, I am using using their own tool for deciphering.
BTW, I have not made one wonky extrapolation, if I have, I'd like for you to point it out. I don't wish to mislead.
O'Reilly's wickets against NZ can arguably be left out. But South Africa? Not really, not with any validity or integrity, and certainly not if you want to have an intellgible discussion on cricket. Finally, apologies again if my post is a little scattered. University this year is hectic, and I have little or not time to get into and participate in forum discussions. Although reading is sometimes a welcome diversion.
TBH, your reasoning was poor and your logic inconsistent. You simply cannot judge every opponent the same way. If you wish to compare two players and make a judgment then this is the only fair assessment. Intelligible discussion and it's validity hinges on it's accuracy and fairness. To ignore what I am arguing is closing your eyes to the obvious. Since you talked generally and didn't really disprove anything I argued I can't really agree with anything you just said.
