Career Averages that dont do justice

[Top_Cat]

Greg Blewett.

 

[0RI0N]

MTG Elliott
Talented opener who just lost the plot 2nd half of his test career.
M Slater as well.

 

[vcs]

What more does Sehwag have to do to "deserve" his average? He's the closest thing to a "match-winning batsman" that you can get in world cricket...

 

[wfdu_ben91]

What more does Sehwag have to do to "deserve" his average? He's the closest thing to a "match-winning batsman" that you can get in world cricket...

Average more then 20 in seam-friendly conditions.

 

[vcs]

Average more then 20 in seam-friendly conditions.

He has scored centuries in all Test-playing nations bar NZ, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Face it, seam-friendly conditions aren't all that common these days, and he is a product of his times. He's certainly no worse than Hayden in seam-friendly conditions anyway.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

He has scored centuries in all Test-playing nations bar NZ, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Face it, seam-friendly conditions aren't all that common these days, and he is a product of his times. He's certainly no worse than Hayden in seam-friendly conditions anyway.

He is worse then Hayden in seaming conditions, not by a massive amount, but still by a noticable and considerate amount. Notice how before he had this fabulous run, he wasn't making runs outside the subcontient but as soon as he went back to the subcontient he was the king and conquered of all. Most believed that until that run, Gambhir was already a better Opener then Sehwag, even Sehwag himself said it.

 

[Migara]

Matthew Hayden - Should be slightly higher (53-54 instead of 50)
Kevin Pietersen - Should be allot higher (55-56 instead of 48-49)
Mahela Jayawardene - Should be allot lower (low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Mark Waugh - Should be higher (mid-high 40's instead of low 40's)
Mohammad Yousuf - Should be allot lower (mid-low 40's instead of mid 50's)
Virender Sehwag - Should be slightly lower (mid 40's, not 50+)
Michael Slater - Should be slightly higher (atleast in the mid 40's)
Michael Clarke - Should be slightly lower (not a 50+ average batsman imo)
AB de Villiers - Should be allot higher (Good enough to average 50+)
Dean Jones - Should be higher (On footage, his one of the best bats out of the 80s era .. deserves to average 50+)

Yeah, Aussies should score higher, Asians should ne lower. Great logic. Doesn't need that much of typing if you put it that wat.

 

[Migara]

Average more then 20 in seam-friendly conditions.

And some of the greats should average 30+ in spin friendly conditions.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

And some of the greats should average 30+ in spin friendly conditions.

You mean like how Ponting averages 50+ in Sri Lanka?

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah, Aussies should score higher, Asians should ne lower. Great logic. Doesn't need that much of typing if you put it that wat.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You mean like how Ponting averages 50+ in Sri Lanka?

He means like how Ponting averages 21 in India or how the great Pietersen conquerer of mcgrath averages 25 in SL and 30 something in Asia

 

[social]

It's less a case of pre-WW1, and more of pre-1900, as I understand it. There was a big change in pitch-preparation capability in, in fact, the very turn-of-the-century year (the upping in scoring 1899-1900 was greater even than the change which took place in a two-year spurt from 2000 to 2002). There was no particularly significant difference in scoring, as I understand it, in, say, 1909 and 1924 - in fact, the Golden Age (1900-1913) was famous for the free-flowing amateur batsmanship which would simply not have been possible under conditions which had prevailed in the 19th-century.

It was 1930 when, once more, decks experienced a flattening-out. The cessation caused by WW2 then seemed to perk things up and when cricket resumed in the 1940s it was more recogniseable for what it had been in the '00s and '20s (and what little of the '10s survived the War).

Hence, I'm quite open to the suggestion that Lohmann's excellence is incomparable with excellence of modern bowlers - we honestly do not, to my mind, have a clue how good he might have been, IMO. He could've been in the Marshall-Imran-Donald-Lillee-Hadlee class; he could've been less than Dominic Cork or Alan Connolly. We just don't know. Barnes, however, is an entirely different matter - I've always maintained that there is enough evidence of Barnes being pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball, though it is almost certainly my greatest regret that he was never handled in such a way that would have allowed him to show such unequivocally.

Crowe's case simply shows that a career average is a pretty meaningless thing. He was picked far too early and was ruined by injuries to his knees at a far younger age than most are. IIRR, he averaged about 54 for what still made-up the bulk of his career, which seems to do far more justice to what most seem to reckon was his capability.

The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:

a. he played for money or not at all; and

b. he was a medium pacer *** quick spinner

Bottom line is that whilst (a) may not have done him too much harm today, (b) almost certainly would've done so there is NO WAYthat anyone can say that he would've achieved much success let alone being "pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball".

That is a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassive stretch

 

[Richard]

That's why it's called an average though.

Well, strictly speaking it's called an arithmatic mean, but either way... a career average in itself tells you nothing much about a player whose career has lasted very long in 99 cases out of 100 if not more.

 

[NUFAN]

Well, strictly speaking it's called an arithmatic mean, but either way... a career average in itself tells you nothing much about a player whose career has lasted very long in 99 cases out of 100 if not more.

Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..

 

[Richard]

The only things that we know for certain re Barnes are:

a. he played for money or not at all; and

b. he was a medium pacer *** quick spinner

Bottom line is that whilst (a) may not have done him too much harm today, (b) almost certainly would've done so there is NO WAYthat anyone can say that he would've achieved much success let alone being "pre-eminent over any other bowler ever to have picked-up a ball".

That is a maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaassive stretch

Being a quick big-spinner is about the ultimate method for a bowler. There has never been another like Barnes who bowled in such a manner. You somewhat under-exaggerate the amount that is known for certain about Barnes - his hands, there has been much reliable testimony, were unusually large and strong; this is a considerable piece of knowledge, and makes it more likely that he could spin the ball more, at greater pace, than any other bowler has ever managed.

As I say - we'll never really know for certain that Barnes was pre-eminent over any other bowler to have picked-up a ball. If he'd played First-Class (rather than "Second-Class" as it was known in those days) cricket for 20-odd years, taken 50,000 wickets at 14, and played 50 Tests and taken 600 wickets at 16-17, as he could conceivably have done, then there'd be as little doubt about his supremacy over all-comers as there is about Bradman's. And because both occurred in the days of B&W film, some people doubt the supremacy of even the latter.

 

[Richard]

Haha absolutely no way that is correct or otherwise we'd be naming well 99% of cricketers who have played cricket for a very long time..

As I said - most people, when using this term, mean "he underperformed" or "he looked better than he was". A career record is a reflection of exactly what happened over a player's career - its fault is that it treats every innings as equal, which, well, plainly and simply is not the case.

Judging a cricketer by his career average is about as foolhardy a task as can be undertaken, IMO.

 

[Teja.]

I've always assumed Barned to a huge turner of the ball bowling at about 125 kph which is a deadly combo, not the Shahid Afridi kind but rather the very-very fast version of a Mcgill or a Mushtaq, there has been clearly none-a-better bowler than him.

 

[Migara]

He means like how Ponting averages 21 in India or how the great Pietersen conquerer of mcgrath averages 25 in SL and 30 something in Asia

And still considered better than Flower and Sangakkara

 

[wfdu_ben91]

And still considered better than Flower and Sangakkara

Because I don't bury players, write them off and completely forget what they've acchieved when they're out of form.

 

[Migara]

My picture about Barnes is that he bowled rollers, that were rolled out of the hand as wrist spinner or a finger spinner or as a medium pacer. The standards of wickets he bowled I think is dire.

Once as a Div II player in SL, I came across a pitch which was gripping so much because of wet mud underneath. I could not hold the ball for a leggie because it was so slippery. Then I decided to roll it back of my hand as a medium pacer. (It slants in as an inswinger and breaks away as a small leg break. An ideal pitch middle hit middle ball) I have tried that few times in nets, but it does not spin much because of better quality pitch (but still was eniugh to beat the bat). Thent I could disguise a medium pacer very effectuvely with it without much change of action. With little bit of practice "off roller" was also not that difficult to bowl. On this mud soaked matting these spun quite an amount. And I bowling possibly around 90 - 95k with this particluar ball and 105 - 110k with my medium pacer.

Now what Barnes played on may not be bad as the above one, but cannot be closer to what test cricket is played on today. Because he was a very strong person he might have bolwled 130 - 135k medium pacer and 100 - 110k "roller" that would have turned appreciably (but not more than from a spin bowler). If that was what he was doing, he had been mighty difficult to play on bad wickets. And above type of bowling is more effective when done with a new ball, because "rollers" that bounce are the ones that gets batsmen thinking. But he would be easy to play on better wickets. SF barnes IMO was not an idiot. On better batting wickers when the "roller" is ineffective he would have operated with fast medium speeds by swinging and seaming the bal, with odd "roller" thrown here and there.