Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[Richard]

And Brett Lee played Test matches outside of the period that you most like to talk about. There's no difference between what Streetwise did and what you did before that.

Lee's Tests of 1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08 are a very small minority of his career, though, that's the point. He played 16 Tests in that time and 54 (against Test-standard sides) at other times. That's well over a 3:1 ratio.

McMillan on the other hand if you only considered away Tests would have over half his career lopped-off and treated as irrelevant. Which, plainly and simply, would be a ridiculous thing to do in order to judge him or anyone else.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and there's no way on Earth that I'd take McMillan over Lee as a pure bowler.

There's no way to offer a particularly fair comparison between the two, as Lee debuted at 23 and McMillan at 29. If both had debuted at similar ages, maybe we could.

Nonetheless, in the time McMillan played, he was still a far, far more regularly good bowler than Lee. The best that Lee produced, on rare occasions, was indeed better than the best McMillan was capable of, but he produced it with considerable rarity.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

To give credit to Lee, he is living proof to all the young seamers out there that pace alone can't cut it.

Watching him and McGrath in the same team was an education. McGrath stock ball about 79mph, Lee about 92mph. McGrath's average in the 00s about 20, Lee's about 30.

 

[Richard]

Lee's average in the bulk of his career was IIRR much closer to 40 than 30. Certainly, from 2001 to to 2005 it was 39. Not sure what it was in combined 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2008/09.

 

[Pothas]

No Chance.

On what basis exactly? (aside from the fact he was not from Australia)

 

[Richard]

Graham Thorpe would have averaged 50+ in tests if he had started 7-8 years later.

He averaged 44 overall and 45 against Australia in his career, playing for an often terrible England side.

He was also England's best player of spin, by some considerable distance, in the 90s.

I'd disagree that Thorpe was either a) playing for an often terrible England side from 1993 to 1999/2000 (was much more like an occasionally terrible and often moderate one - certainly the worst days had passed for England by the time the 1990s rolled around) or b) by a considerable distance the best player of spin in the team. Atherton, Hussain and, when they were going well, Hick and Ramprakash were also fine players of spin on the relatively rare occasion England faced any particularly challenging spin bowling.

It is conceivable that he'd have averaged 50+ if he'd played from 2001/02 onwards, though. You look at the fact that the likes of Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood, all of whom are notably inferior to him (and the Athertons, Stewarts and Hussains), have had no problem averaging a decent bit over 40.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lee's average in the bulk of his career was IIRR much closer to 40 than 30. Certainly, from 2001 to to 2005 it was 39. Not sure what it was in combined 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2008/09.

Not sure if you meant the last season counted here to be 08/09 or 07/08, but if you include everything from 05/06 on, it's a shade under 28. Exclude 08/09 and it's 25.

 

[Richard]

I was more interested in going from '05/06 onwards and excluding '07/08 (in which he bowled notably miles better than at any time previously except possibly '99/00-'00/01). And, obviously, counting only Tests worthy of the title, so no ICC World XIs or Bangladesh.

EDIT: to answer my own question, a surprisingly less-than-dreadful 31.43.

 

[andyc]

I was more interested in going from '05/06 onwards and excluding '07/08 (in which he bowled notably miles better than at any time previously except possibly '99/00-'00/01). And, obviously, counting only Tests worthy of the title, so no ICC World XIs or Bangladesh.

EDIT: to answer my own question, a surprisingly less-than-dreadful 31.43.

Haha why would you exclude the time where he bowled the best? It's doing what that Wally bloke did on that comment about Clarke, excluding all his hundreds and not outs and saying what a terrible average he has.

And FTR, that 31.43 is still better than McMillan's average, all while bowling in an era you acknowledge being much harder for fast bowlers, while McMillan had the benefits of the 90s.

 

[Pothas]

It is conceivable that he'd have averaged 50+ if he'd played from 2001/02 onwards, though. You look at the fact that the likes of Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood, all of whom are notably inferior to him (and the Athertons, Stewarts and Hussains), have had no problem averaging a decent bit over 40.

Sorry Richard but I don't think that you can reasonably claim that Strauss is notably inferior to Atherton, Stewart or Hussain.

 

[Richard]

Haha why would you exclude the time where he bowled the best? It's doing what that Wally bloke did on that comment about Clarke, excluding all his hundreds and not outs and saying what a terrible average he has.

It isn't, at all. It's treating two different time and result periods as separate, which makes perfect sense. I group the short periods where Lee bowled well together, and the long periods where he bowled not-so-well together. As I said, 2005/06-2008/09-excl-2007/08 isn't really something in itself - it goes with 2001-2005. While 1999/2000-2000/01 and 2007/08 go together.

No-one's saying the times he bowled well are irrelevant, as that Wally type did - no-one's saying they should be excluded. Merely that the times when he bowled well are in a small minority.

And FTR, that 31.43 is still better than McMillan's average, all while bowling in an era you acknowledge being much harder for fast bowlers, while McMillan had the benefits of the 90s.

That isn't the time-period in question. For most of his career McMillan averaged 29-30, and Lee in the time in question averaged all but 40.

 

[Richard]

Sorry Richard but I don't think that you can reasonably claim that Strauss is notably inferior to Atherton, Stewart or Hussain.

Right now, he is, very much so, in my book. He's essentially had 1 good year to start his Test career off, gone crap for 2-and-a-half years, then been good for nearly 2 years now so far (ie, since summer 2008).

I hope that Strauss will continue to bat well for another 2-3 years and if he does then he might have some element of case to be compared with Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe, but if his career were to end tomorrow, I'd rank him below them without hesitation.

 

[King Pietersen]

If you go by calendar years, then his stats show 3 disappointing years, but if you go by Cricinfo's defined seasons, his record looks a lot better, and it provides a much fairer assessment AFAIC:

2004: 590 runs at 45.38
04/05: 656 runs at 72.88
05: 470 runs at 39.16
05/06: 281 runs at 28.1
06: 600 runs at 50.00
06/07: 247 runs at 24.7
07: 379 runs at 29.15
07/08: 274 runs at 45.66
08: 446 runs at 40.54
08/09: 763 runs at 72.09
09: 530 runs at 48.18
09/10: 170 runs at 24.28

That's only really 3 bad 'seasons', 2 of them coming on tour. He's only had 1 poor English summer; averages of 39 and 40 in 05 and 08 aren't brilliant, but they're certainly not crap performances. I think Strauss is pretty under-rated tbh, he's been an excellent opening batsman for England. I'm not going to be drawn into a comparison though, as I don't know enough about Atherton and Hussain's career, and haven't seen enough of them to pass judgement.

 

[Richard]

If you look purely at convenient season-by-season records, he looks to have done OK from 2005/06 to 2007/08, but in reality, he did nothing of the sort. He played one brilliant, gutsy knock right at the end of 2007/08 to, in all likelihood, save his career (he might well never have played again but for that knock) but he'd been dreadful previously. In 2006, too, he cashed-in against the third-rate Pakistanis and failed against the quality Lankans.

So, in essence, between 2005/06 and 2007/08, he enjoyed 1 good series (against a bowling-attack missing 3, maybe even 4, first-choice players) out of 8. That, to me, demonstrates that something was clearly wrong - and having watched all the games, it was apparent what, too; he just could not drive the ball off the front-foot through the off-side effectively and edged into the slips time and again.

As for Atherton and Hussain, well Atherton's career essentially spanned 1990-2001 (he had a bad year at the end like so many) and in that time he only had 1 disappointing period when fully fit, that being the 1997 Ashes and the 1998 WI tour. Hussain, of course, infamously could barely buy a run between January 2000 and March 2001, but apart from that he was consistency personnified from his establishment in 1996 to retirement at the start of 2004.

To me, both of those are far more impressive than what Strauss has, so far, done - but I reiterate, I do believe Strauss has it in him to play as well as he has since summer 2008 for a good while longer yet. Comparing a player whose career still has a fair way to run with one whose career has finished is rarely a particularly good idea.

 

[GIMH]

sorry richard but i don't think that you can reasonably claim that strauss is notably inferior to atherton, stewart or hussain.

awta, 100000%

 

[Richard]

How can you possibly claim that if Strauss' career ended tomorrow he'd have achieved as much as \ more than Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe?

 

[gwo]

Dunno, just a hunch (not including Thorpe as Pothas didn't include it in his original list)

Strauss - 43.48
Atherton - 37.69
Hussain - 37.18
Stewart - 39.54


Dunno though, it's just a hunch.

 

[gwo]

Oh, and 50's to 100's conversions.

 

[King Pietersen]

If you look purely at convenient season-by-season records, he looks to have done OK from 2005/06 to 2007/08, but in reality, he did nothing of the sort. He played one brilliant, gutsy knock right at the end of 2007/08 to, in all likelihood, save his career (he might well never have played again but for that knock) but he'd been dreadful previously. In 2006, too, he cashed-in against the third-rate Pakistanis and failed against the quality Lankans.

So, in essence, between 2005/06 and 2007/08, he enjoyed 1 good series (against a bowling-attack missing 3, maybe even 4, first-choice players) out of 8. That, to me, demonstrates that something was clearly wrong - and having watched all the games, it was apparent what, too; he just could not drive the ball off the front-foot through the off-side effectively and edged into the slips time and again.

Agreed, he did look in horrible form for most of that time. I remember thinking he looked at his worst in Australia. That career-saving innings in NZ batting 3 really did get him going again. He finally decided to put away the shots that were getting him out, and has been playing far better for it. Hopefully he'll continue to put the big flashing drive away.

Strauss did have a very good series against Pakistan though. He was under pressure after being given the captaincy, and his 2 centuries came when the match situation required Strauss to make a big score. Even given the modest attack's Strauss did well to make 128 of England's 296 at Lords and 116 of England's 345 to set up the victory at Headingley.

Comparing a player whose career still has a fair way to run with one whose career has finished is rarely a particularly good idea.

Agreed, another reason why I decided against trying to compare them. Would have been an entirely stats based argument too, which is never a wise thing.

 

[GIMH]

How can you possibly claim that if Strauss' career ended tomorrow he'd have achieved as much as \ more than Atherton, Hussain, Stewart and Thorpe?

I haven't checked, but I think he scored more hundreds, obviously averages aren't everything but his averages are higher, his conversion rate is I believe the best for any England player ever (maybe behind Pietersen, not sure), and to top it all he's the only one on the list to have captained England to Ashes success. Fair to say he achieved more, IMO.