Best Top 7 ever?

[SJS]

Australia versus India 4th test Jan 1948 - first innings batting order.

1. Barnes (63.1)
2. Morris (46.5)
3. Bradman (99.9)
4. Hassett (46.6)
5. Miller (37.0)
6. Harvey (48.4)
7. McCool (35.3)

or against England in the 5th test of the 1948 series.

1. Barnes (63.1)
2. Morris (46.5)
3. Bradman (99.9)
4. Hassett (46.6)
5. Miller (37.0)
6. Harvey (48.4)
7. Loxton (36.9)

 

[SJS]

England in batting order - 1st test Nov 1928,

1. Hobbs (57.0)
2. Sutcliffe (60.7)
3. Mead (49.4)
4. Hammond (58.5)
5. Jardine (48.0)
6. Hendren (47.6)
7. Chapman (28.9)

WOW !

 

[Engle]

ROW XI 70's

E.Barlow 45.74
B.Richards 72.57
R.Kanhai 47.53
G.Pollock 60.97
C.Lloyd 46.67
G.Sobers 57.78
F.Engineer 31.08

Combined average of 51.76

 

[Ikki]

No, he wasn't - he was better.

 

[aussie tragic]

Incidentally, since aussie t hasn't done it, I'll do it for him.
MA Taylor 17 Tests, 1263 runs at 48.57
MJ Slater 15 Tests, 1157 runs at 48.20
DC Boon 18 Tests, 1375 runs at 55.00
ME Waugh 17 Tests, 1139 runs at 49.52
AR Border 18 Tests, 1101 runs at 45.87
SR Waugh 16 Tests, 1170 runs at 78.00
IA Healy 18 Tests, 709 runs at 39.38

So that's 364.54 runs for the top 7 over a 2-year period

The latest (or previous) Aussie top 7 adds up to 438.04

Hayden - 10 tests, 916 runs @ 57.25
Jaques - 6 tests, 561 runs @ 56.10
Ponting - 11 tests, 984 runs @ 61.50
Hussey - 11 tests, 1049 runs @ 80.69
Clarke - 11 tests, 921 runs @ 70.84
Symonds - 9 tests, 745 runs @ 74.50
Gilchrist - 11 tests, 446 runs @ 37.16

As an aside, interesting how few tests Australia has played over the last 2 years

 

[Richard]

Batting has been far easier in the last 2 years than it was in 1992/93-1993/94.

Which some people might not know about.

 

[Ikki]

Batting has been far easier in the last 2 years than it was in 1992/93-1993/94.

Which some people might not know about.

By what? 1-1.5 runs on average per batsman? Doesn't explain the massive gap.

 

[Richard]

Averages per batsmen or per such-and-such are pretty much irrelevant. They assume that all batsmen are the same.

 

[Ikki]

Averages per batsmen or per such-and-such are pretty much irrelevant. They assume that all batsmen are the same.

It's one of the most relevant stats you can use in the comparison. You are presenting a standard. Averages are no more than mere numbers that will be at the mercy of these standards. The difference in averages show not that much difference in average runs accumulated by the average batsman for it to be the only reason why the recent line-up is more superior to the one in the 90s. Which in result means whilst the standard may be said to have been easier, it is not that different.

 

[Ikki]

Would this be the best performing top 7 ever?

Hayden - 10 tests, 916 runs @ 57.25, 4 centuries, 1 fifty
Jaques - 6 tests, 561 runs @ 56.10, 2 centuries, 4 fifties
Ponting - 11 tests, 984 runs @ 61.50, 3 centuries, 5 fifty
Hussey - 11 tests, 1049 runs @ 80.69, 4 centuries, 4 fifties
Clarke - 11 tests, 921 runs @ 70.84, 4 centuries, 4 fifties
Symonds - 9 tests, 745 runs @ 74.50, 2 centuries, 4 fifties
Gilchrist - 11 tests, 446 runs @ 37.16, 1 century, 4 fifties

Note: Above are the records over the last 2-years

Best I can think of.

 

[Richard]

It's one of the most relevant stats you can use in the comparison. You are presenting a standard. Averages are no more than mere numbers that will be at the mercy of these standards. The difference in averages show not that much difference in average runs accumulated by the average batsman for it to be the only reason why the recent line-up is more superior to the one in the 90s. Which in result means whilst the standard may be said to have been easier, it is not that different.

Yeah, it is.

But I've no interest discussing the matter with you.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, it is.

But I've no interest discussing the matter with you.

Don't worry about discussing it with me. Try and prove the very notion you base half of your arguments on when denigrating some of the players of today. It will provide nice discussion, is relevant to the thread and it may be interesting if you do provide something cogent and fair.

 

[archie mac]

England in batting order - 1st test Nov 1928,

1. Hobbs (57.0)
2. Sutcliffe (60.7)
3. Mead (49.4)
4. Hammond (58.5)
5. Jardine (48.0)
6. Hendren (47.6)
7. Chapman (28.9)

WOW !

I think it the best ever; they left Woolley at home, and Leyland did not make it into the side until the 5th Test, he replaced Chapman

 

[aussie]

Thing which lets that down is the fact Bill Edrich wasn't an opener. If there'd been another proper opener in there that line-up would've been impregnable, as it was there was a single weak-link.

You sure about that son?

 

[aussie]

seconded, Richard you need to admit that your reasons for underming Hayden's ability is total crap and given the fact that you & many others have been proven wrong about how you view him, continues to prove your obvious blinded bias againts the man.

 

[Richard]

I don't "need to admit that my reasons for underming Hayden's ability is total crap" - given that they're not, else I wouldn't continually state them; and "I & many others" have not "been proven wrong about how we view him", else we'd have changed our views; and I don't have "blinded bias againts" anyone.

 

[Richard]

You sure about that son?

Absolutely certain. Edrich was a number-three batsman, and his record opening in Test cricket is very poor; his record in his favoured position is excellent.

You've never heard of Edrich and Compton's famous partnerships in 1947? They came from three and four. For England, this was after Hutton and Washbrook opened. For Middlesex, after Jack Robertson and Sydney Brown opened.

 

[PhoenixFire]

England in batting order - 1st test Nov 1928,

1. Hobbs (57.0)
2. Sutcliffe (60.7)
3. Mead (49.4)
4. Hammond (58.5)
5. Jardine (48.0)
6. Hendren (47.6)
7. Chapman (28.9)

WOW !

5 out of the 7 scored 100 FC 100s

 

[aussie]

I don't "need to admit that my reasons for underming Hayden's ability is total crap" - given that they're not, else I wouldn't continually state them; and "I & many others" have not "been proven wrong about how we view him", else we'd have changed our views; and I don't have "blinded bias againts" anyone.

Well if thats the case all of yall needs your heads examined.

As i told you before you were right about Hayden pre 05 Ashes but your views about him still are subjected to his performances pre 05 Ashes based on the reasons you gave to me about why you don't rate Hayden a few months back, which also tells me that you and the others (as you claim, just don't pull anyone into your bandwagon) have totally disreguarded his progess post 05 Ashes.

I'll be very interested to hear your views about Hayden especially if he last until the next years Ashes as predicted given that he has potentialy a potent English attack to contend with next year & a very strong SA attack in conditions that based on your theory Lawrence should be a walking wicket.

 

[PhoenixFire]

IIRC, Richard has never actually called Hayden 'total crap'.