If it has, to what extent? The 90s stand out for it's bowling in comparison to the 2000s but the 80s, 70s do not. Yet you don't hear someone saying Gavaskar or Chappell would average 9-10 runs less, would you?
Lillee
2-3 runs being the average difference does not mean all batsmen will have their averages affected to the same degree by the same thing.
here come the staaaaats dunnunuh nununuh nununuh nunununuh uh uh
My bad. Yep, he had a reasonably good avg against SA. 44.
If he was not test class, why he played? Denotes that he played mostly because others around him were crap. So he was test player by elimination than being first and only choice. There is no way 2001 can be irrelevant, because we are talking test matches and you just can't discount terrible performances by saying he's past his peak. Everyone has a peak, however the judgement of a player should never be made just on the basis of that.
When since averages of 35 became "more than acceptable"? He was crap always against Australia and was owned by McG so many times that it ceased to be funny. The only series he had something to tell about him was in 1993 and probably 94-95. The other 5 series, he was very very mediocre.
If he was not fully fit, he shouldnt have played. That is bloody criminal. And no way to be discounted.
Exactly my point. Atherton played because so poor was English cricket as regards to batting at that point in time. That is why I say he was English cricket personified.
Plenty??
And I did say his knocks at Oval was masterly. But 2 masterly knocks doesnt make a career.
Not at all. There is absolutely nothing in his batsmanship that suggest he'd have averaged more than 50 had he played in the 90s. And Gibbs was an attacking player whereas Athers was purely a defensive player who always lacked the 3rd and 4th gear. Rather in these days when aggressive openers set the tone for the innings, he'd been a colossal misfit and against stronger teams, his defensive play would be almost suicidal.
Yeah he was as I said important to England because he was consistent in his glueing approach which made him look like the solid batsman which he was but never the value-adding one. If he had another attacking batsman at the other end, like Sehwag, then it would have been a different story. But Athers alone was mediocre. A truer comparison would be with Akash Chopra of India, who had a impeccable defenseive technique but seldom went above 2nd gear.
Not at all, he's played so many tests and yet failed to give us anything but a glimpse of what he could have been. He's mediocre like Atherton, although he added value to the Windies team in ODIs.
I hate to repeat myself, but Athers was in mainly for lack of another good opener, and rather stood out because the others around him were crap. Athers was like the proverb, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed is the king". In these days of aggressive cricket, he'd struggle to get into any International quality team.
Summed up really. I think Athers' average would have gone up by say 1 or 2 points at the maximum had he played in the 2000s.
I can list a whole lot of tripe from that era too. Point being, as attacks, the bowling was as bad, or probably even worse than what it is in the 2000s when you look at country by country. One bowler surrounded by mediocrity is not really an attack to trouble all-time batsmen..
Yes, I think the best batsmen would fluctuate even less. In fact, the averages of all specialist batsmen is just that, 2-3 runs difference when you compare eras. To say someone like Atherton would be averaging in the 50s had he been batting now is rubbish.
Athers was in the team because he was England's best batsman for long periods, and certainly England's best opener (at least after the end of Gooch's glory years).
There was tripe on offer in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s. There is tripe on offer today. In general my view is that the standard of all disciplines in cricket tends to increase as time goes by. However I believe that the 70s and 80s saw better quality bowling attacks than both the 90s and 2000s. And to try to write off the list of greats from the 70s and 80s in the way that you have is, with respect, wishful thinking.
Better than the 90s? With all due respect, now you're wishfully thinking. If you wish to make an exercise of it, list the attacks of both eras. Even statistically your argument is flawed.
.
He would be, considering Tresco's loss and Strauss's loss of form. His defensive play would not be exactly the best option for England these days, and since Cook is reasonably solid at the other end, England could do with an opener who plays his shots.
Uhh, fast bowling certainly, i don't think there was an equivalent of Warne or Murali though. Also the standard of fast bowling is a lot worse today than it was even five years ago, and i blame flat pitches to an extent. While bowlers like Marshall and co. could've clearly coped anyway, it's pretty soul-crushing for international quicks to run in full-blooded all day and see every ball bobble gently through to the wicket keeper.
Harmison was the World number 1 ranked bowler 4 1/2 years ago.
Yes, better than the 90s in my opinion.
I don't have the time or the inclination - if you can be arsed to do it, please be my guest.
I'm not getting involved in trying to guess how much batting averages might hypothetically have been affected. That seems a pretty sterile debate to me, which I'll leave to you and Richard / Manee (or whoever you're having it with - I haven't read the whole thread I'm afraid).My contention is that comparatively, the bowlers, haven't changed that much. Certainly not to the extent where batting averages can change between 9-10 points