How much a batsman should average . . .

[smash84]

Nah, I'm not saying the averages are the be-all and end-all. Circumstances matter a lot. I should have made it clear that my argument was a hypothetical perfect world one where all runs are the same worth and all the players played against the same opposition the same number of times from the same position on similar pitches.

yeah....thanks for clarifying......your point came across as if averages are be all and end all of judging a player

 

[Migara]

Even if someone did that today, they would be called a minnow basher.

That's gold.

 

[Debris]

Where is the 5 runs less option in the poll?

I think there is a case for Border, Gavaskar and Miandad to be considered better due to the much tougher conditions they had to bat in and probably higher quality of bowling faced overall.

 

[smash84]

Where is the 5 runs less option in the poll?

I think there is a case for Border, Gavaskar and Miandad to be considered better due to the much tougher conditions they had to bat in and probably higher quality of bowling faced overall.

Add Aravinda to that list as well. Massively under rated IMO. Not in the league of the above mentioned greats but not too far below for me. Definitely better than the likes of Samaraweera and Co although his average might show less

 

[Migara]

Where is the 5 runs less option in the poll?

I think there is a case for Border, Gavaskar and Miandad to be considered better due to the much tougher conditions they had to bat in and probably higher quality of bowling faced overall.

This is for the post-Border era mate

 

[Chehtha]

Good question. If Sachin retires today, and one of tommorrow's great batsmen score over 12000 runs with successes all over the world, and if he averages more than Tendulkar comfortably (say by 5 runs), then I see no point in rating him lower than Tendulkar regardless of the quality of tommorrow's bowlers. However, that '12000 runs' and 'successes all over the world' is important.

Even if thats the case one must understand the fact that since the pitches have eased out so much getting an average of 60 is not be a big deal nowadays. On the contrary only three batsman got their averages above 50 in the 90s with SRT being the highest. I would therefore say it is the quality of bowling faced that sets the difference between a very good player and a great player. Averages do play a part but tell only one part of the story. So even if a player comes and gets around 12000 at an average of 62 i would still place him a rung below SRT and BCL

 

[Maximus0723]

Where is the 5 runs less option in the poll?

I think there is a case for Border, Gavaskar and Miandad to be considered better due to the much tougher conditions they had to bat in and probably higher quality of bowling faced overall.

That notion is overrated.

90's bowlers were better or of equal magnitude to 80's. I choose better.
Test and ODI both.

 

[Migara]

Even if thats the case one must understand the fact that since the pitches have eased out so much getting an average of 60 is not be a big deal nowadays. On the contrary only three batsman got their averages above 50 in the 90s with SRT being the highest. I would therefore say it is the quality of bowling faced that sets the difference between a very good player and a great player. Averages do play a part but tell only one part of the story. So even if a player comes and gets around 12000 at an average of 62 i would still place him a rung below SRT and BCL

The bowling average from 90s to 2000s only has increased about 3.5 runs IIRC

 

[salman85]

That notion is overrated.

90's bowlers were better or of equal magnitude to 80's. I choose better.
Test and ODI both.

Cricket is becoming a batsman's game more than ever.The shorter than the game,the more it would favor batsman.The rise in number of ODIs after the 80's,and now that we've entered the world of T20,it is moving more towards the Batsman.So saying that the past had tougher cricketing conditions is not entirely wrong.Even if bowlers after the 80's were better,which i don't think they were,overall the game has swung into the Batsman's favor,and with so much cricket being played now,run accumulation has become easier.But wicket taking has also become easier,and it is all down to the sheer volume of cricket being played.

The notion you talk about is natural.Back in the day,getting 300 wickets used to be a massive achievement.The 300 of today is like the 200 of yesteryear.Our cricketing minds have become statistically raped.Chasing 300 back in the day used to impossible.Now you look at 350 as a chaseable target.But even if you keep both things in mind,it is hard to argue with the fact that the game has turned very Pro-Batsman,and it will continue to do so in the future.Keeping that in mind,arguing that bowlers in the past were better is not an overated notion.The fact that bowlers these days are getting so many wickets is not just down to quality alone.Sure,some really do have a lot of quality,but there is also another set that is accumulating wickets based on the sheer volume of cricket they play and not based on their quality.Plus with the massive shift in the Batsman's favor,you will fewer people actually wanting to become bowlers.In the 80's,bowling was probably more glamorized.Now it's batting.Bowling has suffered as a result of way cricket has evolved,and that have an impact on your quality.People who claim that the 80's had better bowlers were not wrong.You might have more good/great bowlers now since the pool is very big,but in the past the pool was small,and had more quality overall.

 

[bagapath]

richards averaged 50.
sobers averaged 57.
hobbs averaged 56.
hammond averaged 58.
bradman averaged 99.

all are considered better than sachin (56) and lara (52)

barrington averaged 58.
sutcliffe averaged 60.
kallis averages 57.
sangakara averages 57.

all are inferior to sachin and lara.

it just means using averages to determine the class of a batsman in ridiculous.

going purely by numbers we will end up with the conclusion that samaraweera > richards. see how silly it is?

when a better batsman than sachin and lara emerges, we will know for sure. we wont have to look at stats. we will just have to look at him and we will recognize the new king. of course, the stats will also fall in place once he takes guard.

 

[Migara]

Now who says that Richards, Hobbs and Hammond were better than SRT? Sachin is a better player than Richards at least in tests. Others are very difficult to comment because of the era and the closeness of average except Bradman. The average cannot be used crap comes only when there is obvious fanboyism. FFS average of a 67 should be better than 57 if the players play in close time frame.

Bagapath is pre-occupied with names as it looks. This thread never nominated a player except SRT/BCL.

 

[Migara]

going purely by numbers we will end up with the conclusion that samaraweera > richards. see how silly it is?

Now who has asked to do that? Looks like you've never read the opening post. The thread states few conditions.

1. 12000 runs
2. Average above 40 (or 35) in every condition

Now if a batsman manages that and averages 57 with the bat what would be your conclusion?

 

[bagapath]

Now who has asked to do that? Looks like you've never read the opening post. The thread states few conditions.

1. 12000 runs
2. Average above 40 (or 35) in every condition

Now if a batsman manages that and averages 57 with the bat what would be your conclusion?

since sachin already fulfills these conditions, the new guy you are talking about should have done something better.... like hundreds in all countries (besides the 40+ avg), or atleast in 6,7 out of 8 major test playing nations. and play match winning knocks against tough opponents. again, sachin has done all of it too. but lara didn't achieve that.

so this guy should probably have big double hundreds against the best bowlers of the era - like lara scored against murali and warne - but what sachin never managed. and he should be possessing the non-statistical X factor of lifting the quality of batsmanship a tad at least above his peers, what richards did in his times. and what sachin and lara did in the last two decades.

there is no one who is as good as them in the present setup. ponting came closest. and he has fallen back because he was bad in india and not great in england. if ponting cant go past them, then not too many from the present lot can.

 

[bagapath]

Sachin is a better player than Richards at least in tests.

Nope.

The average cannot be used crap comes only when there is obvious fanboyism.

I am a fan of cricket. so will take that as a compliment. this average is everything crap comes only from those who have no understanding of the sport.

Bagapath is pre-occupied with names as it looks.

and you are obsessed with decimals.

you are going to get both of us banned.

 

[Debris]

I am in the camp that thinks you need to look past the average to judge a batsman. It is a good initial indicator but not everything so the poll question is flawed.

 

[bagapath]

I am in the camp that thinks you need to look past the average to judge a batsman. It is a good initial indicator but not everything so the poll question is flawed.

totally agree with you on this. it is possible for a batsman to average 50 and still be a greater batsman than sachin and lara. so average is not the be all of everything. still.... to answer migara's question.... if a batter has scored over 12000 runs how much should he average to be rated better than tendulkar and lara? my answer would be.... anything over 50..... he will be ranked below or above them based on other factors. but a 50+ avg is good enough to keep him in great company. context comes in at this point and decides the rating. i am saying 50 assuming the eras will be closer. it is not always true. i rate greenidge/ boycott above hayden and gilchrist/ de silva/ crowe above samaraweera though they average in the 40s and the batters they are compared with are with 50+ avg.

 

[smash84]

Bagapath.........are you a lawyer????

 

[Migara]

Bagapath still don't get the point. If a batsman is able to average 40+ in every condition and average 65 then he has done better than any of the bastmen in near history. It doesn't matter which bowlers they faced ebcause bowlers quality don't vary much in the history. What ever "other" things you consider can you attribute it to a average of +8-10 (starting from 50+, so it's not like going from 28 to 38)? IMO if somebody can average 10+ to their contempories (we can say about 3 - 4 decade time), he must be the best out there.

 

[Migara]

I am in the camp that thinks you need to look past the average to judge a batsman. It is a good initial indicator but not everything so the poll question is flawed.

Sure, the question is in your camp. It assumes that the batsman in question has success all over the world.

 

[bagapath]

Bagapath still don't get the point. If a batsman is able to average 40+ in every condition and average 65 then he has done better than any of the bastmen in near history. It doesn't matter which bowlers they faced ebcause bowlers quality don't vary much in the history. What ever "other" things you consider can you attribute it to a average of +8-10 (starting from 50+, so it's not like going from 28 to 38)? IMO if somebody can average 10+ to their contempories (we can say about 3 - 4 decade time), he must be the best out there.

I think you are not getting my point. In the 70s and 80s, very few batters scored more than 7000 runs. among them greg chappell averaged 35+ home and away against every team everywhere. He averaged 53 which was more than what gavaskar, richards, miandad and border managed. still, he is not considered the best batter of the era. usually it is viv richards. and then it is gavaskar or chappell. the point is, no one chooses the best batter of the era on stats alone. had chappell averaged 60, he might still not be rated above richards.

similarly, even if someone averages more than sachin and lara, and scores 12000+ runs, and achieves all round success it is not going to be possible to anoint him as the next king based on his career average alone. he might average only 50 and still be the greatest of the era. he might average 60 and still be ranked below them.