By when do you think India will become number one team in the World?

[Howe_zat]

Hussey's away troubles are overstated IMO. He did very well in India in 2008 but his average was brought down in the last series because he received a couple of shockers. Also did very well in SA in 2006, not so well the next time. England is his bogey destination so far which he needs to improve upon. He has played a couple of matches each in NZ and WI, not much of a sample size.

And considering he still hit a hundred during his only series here, I think we can regard Hussey away from home as officially "not terrible".

 

[GotSpin]

Hussey's away troubles are overstated IMO. He did very well in India in 2008 but his average was brought down in the last series because he received a couple of shockers. Also did very well in SA in 2006, not so well the next time. England is his bogey destination so far which he needs to improve upon. He has played a couple of matches each in NZ and WI, not much of a sample size.

When you compare his home and away record I don't think it's overstated at all. He averages under 40 and this is further propped up by milking Bangladesh for an average of 80.

And I'm sorry, but hitting a century in the last innings in the last test match in what was effectively a futile effort does not make up for failing the rest of the time (England)

 

[vcs]

When you compare his home and away record I don't think it's overstated at all. He averages under 40 and this is further propped up by milking Bangladesh for an average of 80.

And I'm sorry, but hitting a century in the last innings in the last test match in what was effectively a futile effort does not make up for failing the rest of the time (England)

He'd get into any team in the world right now (No. 6 for India, over Prince for SA and over Morgan for England) and is easily among Australia's top 3 batsmen currently. I agree he has failed in England so far, though.

 

[GotSpin]

He'd get into any team in the world right now (No. 6 for India, over Prince for SA and over Morgan for England) and is easily among Australia's top 3 batsmen currently. I agree he has failed in England so far, though.

I agree he would, but I do think he has become overrated because of his initial success at home.

- He'd make those teams because they could afford to carry a potential passenger. Australia can't

 

[GIMH]

But his overall average, for whatever the reasons, does show us that he just wasn't that good for quite a while. While not referring to Anderson specifically, I don't rate a player that comes good after wandering in the wilderness for years. Fidel Edwards is perhaps a decent example. Started test cricket too young, was crap but was finally starting to come good in 2009 before his injury. I don't think that can completely make up for 5 or 6 years of bad bowling though.

I feel like we get wrapped up in applauding a particular player for a couple good seasons in the present while forgetting how woeful they were previously

Yeah, it does tell us that, I didn't dispute it. I don't think Anderson should have played as many Tests as he has.

If you were comparing two bowlers at the end of their careers, who is better? The one who has a career average of 28 and it was steadily around that his whole career, or the one who averages 30, but averaged 36 for a few years and then 24 for the second half of his career?

Ryan Sidebottom averages about 28, but he played just one Test as a youngster, was picked at his peak, and discarded as soon as it was clear he wasn't hitting such heights again. Or Swann, he's averaging 27-28 IIRC, had he played the few years when Panesar was a regular, there's a fair chance this would be about 30-31. Would he then be a better bowler?

I guess what I'm saying is that a career average can tell us as much about whether a player was picked too early, kept too long etc as it does about how good they actually are/were.

And then you have players like Tendulkar who are picked young and maintain an amazing average. Something to be said for that, obviously.

 

[GotSpin]

Yeah, it does tell us that, I didn't dispute it. I don't think Anderson should have played as many Tests as he has.

If you were comparing two bowlers at the end of their careers, who is better? The one who has a career average of 28 and it was steadily around that his whole career, or the one who averages 30, but averaged 36 for a few years and then 24 for the second half of his career?

Ryan Sidebottom averages about 28, but he played just one Test as a youngster, was picked at his peak, and discarded as soon as it was clear he wasn't hitting such heights again. Or Swann, he's averaging 27-28 IIRC, had he played the few years when Panesar was a regular, there's a fair chance this would be about 30-31. Would he then be a better bowler?

I guess what I'm saying is that a career average can tell us as much about whether a player was picked too early, kept too long etc as it does about how good they actually are/were.

.

It depends how long the bowler spent bowling rubbish compared to how long he started doing well, and whether his improved bowling actually benefited the team compared to the costs from his previous bowling.

 

[Jacknife]

When this thread started (Feb 2004) the top 3 sides were Australia, South Africa and Pakistan. England broke into the top 3 in April of that year (ahead of Pakistan) and India moved to 3rd in November 2004, with England in 2nd. The rankings stayed that way for about a year.

Looking at the old rankings, it took till November 2007 for England to drop out of the number 2 spot, apart from a 2 month spell England were No2 from August 2004 till Nov 2007.

 

[Howe_zat]

Amazing we managed to last that long, really. But I suppose the 06/07 rout wouldn't really show much on the rankings considering how far ahead Aus were.

 

[Jacknife]

Amazing we managed to last that long, really. But I suppose the 06/07 rout wouldn't really show much on the rankings considering how far ahead Aus were.

Yes even with that huge loss, England appeared to just do enough, to keep themselves in 2nd place and when we dropped out of 2nd, we plummeted straight to no 5.
At that same time, the gap between Oz and the second pace team which was SA was 34 points, that's some lead they built themselves, back in '07.

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah. Thinking about it, late 07 to early 09 was really the where it all went wrong - losing to India twice, Sri Lanka, South Africa and the WI in 18 months. Between the 2005 and 2006/7 Ashes the only real bad result was losing away to Pakistan, and that was countered by beating them comfortably at home. And as we know, since 2009 it's all rosy.

 

[vcs]

I'd say 5-0 was pretty bad, and also drawing with SL at home. I think the fact that England slipped straight from 2nd to 5th shows that they weren't really a long way ahead of the other teams by that point, if at all.

 

[Ruckus]

If you were comparing two bowlers at the end of their careers, who is better? The one who has a career average of 28 and it was steadily around that his whole career, or the one who averages 30, but averaged 36 for a few years and then 24 for the second half of his career?

All other things being equal, definately the latter imo. I think it's a pretty good example of why cricket isn't just a numbers game - while the bowler who averages 28 is better from a stats point of view, they can't be said to have reached the skill level of the bowler who averages 24 over the second half of their career. Playing cricket is ultimately about honing your skills, so surely your ability to reach such a level of expertise has to count for something...

 

[GIMH]

It depends how long the bowler spent bowling rubbish compared to how long he started doing well, and whether his improved bowling actually benefited the team compared to the costs from his previous bowling.

So in the case of Anderson, for example, his poorer performances were probably worth it?

 

[GotSpin]

So in the case of Anderson, for example, his poorer performances were probably worth it?

Probably because Anderson now has the potential to lead England to a no.1 position so it'd be worth it.

When judging a player over the course of his career I always think it's important to consider the ramifications his performances had on the team performances, especially when assessing peaks, because the team had to suffer from poor individual performances throughout the time it took that bowler to graduate from **** to good. It's by no means a perfect judgement system but I think it's a useful way to compare players who have distinct careers that can be split into halves

 

[GIMH]

Okay, I agree, but you're still a ****

 

[GotSpin]

Okay, I agree, but you're still a ****

Four star champion?

Why thank you

 

[Spark]

It's a good system but doesn't it give bowlers who bowled in better teams an easy ride though?

 

[Jarquis]

All other things being equal, definately the latter imo. I think it's a pretty good example of why cricket isn't just a numbers game - while the bowler who averages 28 is better from a stats point of view, they can't be said to have reached the skill level of the bowler who averages 24 over the second half of their career. Playing cricket is ultimately about honing your skills, so surely your ability to reach such a level of expertise has to count for something...

Completely ignoring that the latter also reached a level of direness that the former didn't. Cricket is not about honing skills, it is not about who can bowl the most deceptive slower ball or who can play the prettiest cover drive.
Basically it is a numbers game, you have to score more runs than your opponent and take wickets for fewer runs than they do.

 

[Ruckus]

Na it's not equivalent. Any player can have poor skills, not every player can acquire top-of-the-range skills. You could argue that consistency over a career is in itself an important skill - and indeed it is. So ultimately it just comes down to whether or not you value consistency (across a career) or peak performance differently. I value the latter more...I see cricket as an art, you clearly see it as a science.

 

[centurymaker]

Na it's not equivalent. Any player can have poor skills, not every player can acquire top-of-the-range skills. You could argue that consistency over a career is in itself an important skill - and indeed it is. So ultimately it just comes down to whether or not you value consistency (across a career) or peak performance differently. I value the latter more...I see cricket as an art, you clearly see it as a science.

duration of the peak is also an important factor.