How much a batsman should average . . .

[weldone]

That notion is overrated.

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

Very true...

 

[Teja.]

I find it extremely interesting that the difference in the global batting average is only 3-odd between the 00s and the 90s. Even teams having better tali-enders would have made that much of a difference, One could've thought.

 

[weldone]

had chappell averaged 60, he might still not be rated above richards.

That's such a pointless sentence...

...how would you rate Bradman if he averaged 46 by the way?

 

[bagapath]

That's such a pointless sentence...

...how would you rate Bradman if he averaged 46 by the way?

You know what? You are bang on. It is an absolutely pointless sentence. And I added it as an afterthought. What a dickhead I am! I am not gonna edit it out so that future generations can read it and spit on my grave. I am really embarrassed.

 

[smash84]

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 gavaskar, richards, miandad and border. 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 decides on 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 score 12000+ runs, and have achieve 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.

Top notch stuff. There is certainly more to the game than just stats. In the recent captains event held in december for the WC by the ICC in Mumbai, Imran stated that Viv, for him, was the greatest batsman ever to play the game (adding that he didn't see Bradman play) because he would just turn around a match within a matter of minutes and he would scare the opposition batsmen ****less.

It is just not only about stats but also about the X factor, the presence on the field, the ability to out think, out play, and the ability to change the fortunes of a match single handedly.

You know what? You are bang on. It is an absolutely pointless sentence. And I added it as an after thought. What a dickhead I am! I am not gonna edit it out so that future generations can read it and spit on my grave. I am really embarrassed.

 

[weldone]

I am not gonna edit it out so that future generations can read it and spit on my grave.

No chance. The future generation will be too busy ranking the past cricketers according to glamour quotient, and discussing cricketers' fate in Hollywood after retirement to be bothered by these petty issues...

 

[marc71178]

I find it extremely interesting that the difference in the global batting average is only 3-odd between the 00s and the 90s. Even teams having better tali-enders would have made that much of a difference, One could've thought.

I think it's all masked by the ****ness of Bangladesh early on (and latterly Zimbabwe) - would expect that their batting drags things down.

 

[Furball]

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

If that's the case then why does no modern day batsman average 60?

 

[Maximus0723]

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

all are considered better than sachin (57) and lara (52)

You say this with conviction making it seem as if it's a common knowledge, which obviously isn't.

 

[akilana]

I think it's all masked by the ****ness of Bangladesh early on (and latterly Zimbabwe) - would expect that their batting drags things down.

but compensated by the opposition making merry against Bangaladesh.

 

[marc71178]

Still pulls it down by half a point.

So it's roughly a 10% swing - not insignificant.

 

[Chehtha]

If that's the case then why does no modern day batsman average 60?

There is the case of trott having an average in excess of 60 even though for only 30 innings.While i accept that he is quite a talent it should also be noted that he has been helped by the poor bowling standards atm. An analysis of the averages of players would indicate how much the batsmen have enjoyed this decade and how the quality of bowling has waned subsequently.

 

[Furball]

There is the case of trott having an average in excess of 60 even though for only 30 innings.While i accept that he is quite a talent it should also be noted that he has been helped by the poor bowling standards atm. An analysis of the averages of players would indicate how much the batsmen have enjoyed this decade and how the quality of bowling has waned subsequently.

Trott's played 6 Tests against Australia, 4 against South Africa and 4 against Pakistan. In terms of bowling attacks, he's probably faced the strongest attacks out there.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Viv averaged 60 for a while in the 80s too.

 

[bagapath]

You say this with conviction making it seem as if it's a common knowledge, which obviously isn't.

if you want to rank sachin above hammond or lara above hobbs, be my guest. you would still be supporting my main argument; which is, averages dont determine the ranking of the great batsmen beyond a point.

 

[bagapath]

Viv averaged 60 for a while in the 80s too.

in the 70s. he averaged in the 40s in the following decade, IIRC.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

In other words, a game that is not cricket...

 

[smash84]

In other words, a game that is not cricket...

 

[GIMH]

Often, the line between winning and losing a series for your team lies near the 45-50 mark. That's why it's a meh whether you average 11 or 26, in either case you are likely to end up on the losing side. Also the difference between averaging 70 or 100 in a winning team can be a matter of remaining not out in one innings, which doesn't really matter in the larger picture. And then there's the question of which batsman scored the more important runs that swung the pendulum. Examples that come to mind are Sehwag's 86 in Chennai and Dravid's 140 in Headingley 2002. Sachin scored more runs in both matches, but Sehwag and Dravid played the pivotal knocks. Laxman's 96 in Durban was priceless, more so than many hundreds. You cannot reduce everything to plain numbers.

Another example of this is when you compare Ponting and Gilchrist's averages in India. Both are < 30, i.e. poor on paper. When you delve into it, you find that Gilchrist has scored two hundreds and swung both matches decisively in Australia's favour. That's why it shouldn't be held as a big negative for him, whereas Ponting certainly has unfinished business in India.

This really is an excellent post

 

[G.I.Joe]

in the 70s. he averaged in the 40s in the following decade, IIRC.

Interesting. What a hack.