Glenn Mcgrath or Malcolm Marshall?

[subshakerz]

Frankly, I'm tired of this whole adjusting for different eras business. The main difference between the 2000s and the 80s/90s was that in the latter you simply had many more worldclass fast bowlers. Once these fast bowlers retired by 2003, batsmen had a field day. Flatter pitches are a minor factor and have been exaggerated to such an extent given that lower quality pace bowling tends to make any pitch look flatter. Look at how the pitch mysteriously changed when India came to bat in this recent series, for example. Pretty certain that the pitches in the subcontinent are probably as result-oriented as they have been in the previous decades. Drawn tests are much less frequent now, are they not?

The 2000s were not much harder to bowl in, they were rather much easier to bat in. There is a big difference. McGrath was pretty much the only worldclass pacer who consistently played most of the decade. Yet some posters are pointing to the fact that there was so much crappier bowling in the 2000s as somehow proof that bowlers in the 80s had it easy. Rubbish.

 

[smash84]

awta

 

[centurymaker]

Frankly, I'm tired of this whole adjusting for different eras business. The main difference between the 2000s and the 80s/90s was that in the latter you simply had many more worldclass fast bowlers. Once these fast bowlers retired by 2003, batsmen had a field day. Flatter pitches are a minor factor and have been exaggerated to such an extent given that lower quality pace bowling tends to make any pitch look flatter. Look at how the pitch mysteriously changed when India came to bat in this recent series, for example. Pretty certain that the pitches in the subcontinent are probably as result-oriented as they have been in the previous decades. Drawn tests are much less frequent now, are they not?

The 2000s were not much harder to bowl in, they were rather much easier to bat in. There is a big difference. McGrath was pretty much the only worldclass pacer who consistently played most of the decade. Yet some posters are pointing to the fact that there was so much crappier bowling in the 2000s as somehow proof that bowlers in the 80s had it easy. Rubbish.

 

[kyear2]

emmm.....what point are you trying to make?

That was a question for Ikki. He states that Lillee avg. in WSC was around 23, and that he was far away the best bowler in the series. Was just asking then if the stats presented was incorrect?

 

[subshakerz]

One can have their disagreements with adjusting or whether Ambrose et al could have done the same as McGrath but the above is tedious, and wrong IMO, in what it is trying to portray.

You talk as if players are always the same way throughout their career and any improvement on their record is a reflection of the conditions and not their own prowess.

The irony is that one of the batsmen you touch on who averages 50+ in the 90s was averaging far below that in the 80s (Steve Waugh). Based on your logic, because Waugh could average 50+ so too could someone from the 80s like Saleem Malik. You've already damned Hayden because of a handful of Tests at the beginning of his career.

There's quite a few batsmen who bumped up their career averages transitioning from the 90s to the 2000s to end up in the late 40/50s averages. Inzi, Mohd. Yousuf, Jawawardene, Ponting, Kallis, etc. Very few actually had their averages drop. I find it hard to believe all of them happened to become so much better players to account for a 10 point plus average increase.

 

[centurymaker]

There's quite a few batsmen who bumped up their career averages transitioning from the 90s to the 2000s to end up in the late 40/50s averages. Inzi, Mohd. Yousuf, Jawawardene, Ponting, Kallis, etc. Very few actually had their averages drop. I find it hard to believe all of them happened to become so much better players to account for a 10 point plus average increase.

Dravid too actually.

i think you are right that flat pitches is a minor factor. Great bowlers can get assistance from any pitch apart from absolute roads.

 

[subshakerz]

There's no reason to give McGrath every points for succeeding in an era of lower quality bowling. The reality is that for a worldclass fast bowler you should expect nothing less.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I see the spindoctors are out in full force.

 

[Ikki]

There's quite a few batsmen who bumped up their career averages transitioning from the 90s to the 2000s to end up in the late 40/50s averages. Inzi, Mohd. Yousuf, Jawawardene, Ponting, Kallis, etc. Very few actually had their averages drop. I find it hard to believe all of them happened to become so much better players to account for a 10 point plus average increase.

Ironically, they are of a similar age and peaked at a similar period. Not that tough to understand. Again, the difference between batting averages in the 80s and 00s is 1.5 runs. This would be like saying that the emergence of Hadlee, Lillee, Marshall, Imran, Garner, Holding et al proves that the batsmen got worse or the pitches starting aiding bowlers a lot more than the past. And then use that to denigrate against their record.

The idea that this 1.5 difference explains 10 points in jump between these ATG batsmen you've mentioned is not really intelligible.

That was a question for Ikki. He states that Lillee avg. in WSC was around 23, and that he was far away the best bowler in the series. Was just asking then if the stats presented was incorrect?

Yes, as The Sean pointed out it doesn't include the NZ match where Lillee took 12 wickets. I think with his WSC stats The Sean mentioned that Lillee's average remains pretty much the same whereas his SR goes to below 50. If you include his World XI matches earlier in his career then both his avg and SR goes down even lower.

 

[kyear2]

Frankly, I'm tired of this whole adjusting for different eras business. The main difference between the 2000s and the 80s/90s was that in the latter you simply had many more worldclass fast bowlers. Once these fast bowlers retired by 2003, batsmen had a field day. Flatter pitches are a minor factor and have been exaggerated to such an extent given that lower quality pace bowling tends to make any pitch look flatter. Look at how the pitch mysteriously changed when India came to bat in this recent series, for example. Pretty certain that the pitches in the subcontinent are probably as result-oriented as they have been in the previous decades. Drawn tests are much less frequent now, are they not?

The 2000s were not much harder to bowl in, they were rather much easier to bat in. There is a big difference. McGrath was pretty much the only worldclass pacer who consistently played most of the decade. Yet some posters are pointing to the fact that there was so much crappier bowling in the 2000s as somehow proof that bowlers in the 80s had it easy. Rubbish.

++
I had previously brought up both of these points, whick Ikki constantly ignores. Even watch how Sangakkara got out to Watto this morning, or how Strauss looked againts Ishant when he was hit. Imagine those guys or Hayden vs the W.I of the 80's -90's, or Hadlee or Lille and Thomo, the guys today feast on mediocrity and when they face Steyn they are out to sea againts him.
You adjust for eras, but primarily to adjust for the advent of prepared pitches, then covered pitches, the change of the LBW rule, the increase of stump size and the introduction of the second new ball and the increase of seam size on balls (the latter four to counter Bradman or to ensure there wasn't another Bradman). Not over the past 30 years, where particularily after Packer the standard of cricket and protection drastically improved.
No one is trying to tear down what Mcgrath has achieved, but for one who pushes for Lillee so hard, why are you trying to discredit what MM (and subsequently Hadlee, Holding, Donald, Imran, Ambrose and by your own argument Lillee ect) has achieved.

 

[Ikki]

++
I had previously brought up both of these points, whick Ikki constantly ignores. Even watch how Sangakkara got out to Watto this morning, or how Strauss looked againts Ishant when he was hit. Imagine those guys or Hayden vs the W.I of the 80's -90's, or Hadlee or Lille and Thomo, the guys today feast on mediocrity and when they face Steyn they are out to sea againts him.
You adjust for eras, but primarily to adjust for the advent of prepared pitches, then covered pitches, the change of the LBW rule, the increase of stump size and the introduction of the second new ball and the increase of seam size on balls (the latter four to counter Bradman or to ensure there wasn't another Bradman). Not over the past 30 years, where particularily after Packer the standard of cricket and protection drastically improved.
No one is trying to tear down what Mcgrath has achieved, but for one who pushes for Lillee so hard, why are you trying to discredit what MM (and subsequently Hadlee, Holding, Donald, Imran, Ambrose and by your own argument Lillee ect) has achieved.

You need to actually read my posts.

Either the pitches were the cause, the bowlers were, or both. Regardless; the difference between batsmen in the 80s and the 00s is 1.5 runs on average...that's it.

It really doesn't matter what you consider a good technique or a poor one, merely what is scoring runs. I touched on this earlier in the thread; batsmen these days take more calculated risks and score more runs at the crease. That is why batting SRs have risen as well as averages. It also explains how bowling averages and ERs have been hurt whilst their SRs have improved. This shows that batsmen are making more runs at the crease, but they are not staying there as long.

I have not tried to discredit anyone, stop arguing against strawmen.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, as The Sean pointed out it doesn't include the NZ match where Lillee took 12 wickets. I think with his WSC stats The Sean mentioned that Lillee's average remains pretty much the same whereas his SR goes to below 50. If you include his World XI matches earlier in his career then both his avg and SR goes down even lower.[/QUOTE



World Series Cricket Results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were these matches in N.Z or vs. N.Z ? Could you kindly post a scoreboard please?

 

[kyear2]

You need to actually read my posts.

Either the pitches were the cause, the bowlers were, or both. Regardless; the difference between batsmen in the 80s and the 00s is 1.5 runs on average...that's it.

It really doesn't matter what you consider a good technique or a poor one, merely what is scoring runs. I touched on this earlier in the thread; batsmen these days take more calculated risks and score more runs at the crease. That is why batting SRs have risen as well as averages. It also explains how bowling averages and ERs have been hurt whilst their SRs have improved. This shows that batsmen are making more runs at the crease, but they are not staying there as long.

I have not tried to discredit anyone, stop arguing against strawmen.

So if the difference in runs is "only 1.5" and we all acknowledge that the quality of bowling has decreased, why the need to adjust for era.
And once again why adjust for MM et al and not Lillee, and dont give me the long speach, emperical reasons please.

 

[robelinda]

Yes, as The Sean pointed out it doesn't include the NZ match where Lillee took 12 wickets. I think with his WSC stats The Sean mentioned that Lillee's average remains pretty much the same whereas his SR goes to below 50. If you include his World XI matches earlier in his career then both his avg and SR goes down even lower.[/QUOTE



World Series Cricket Results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were these matches in N.Z or vs. N.Z ? Could you kindly post a scoreboard please?

I remember looking for the scorecard for that NZ match a few months ago, no luck. Its certainly isn't on cricinfo.

 

[Ikki]

World Series Cricket Results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Were these matches in N.Z or vs. N.Z ? Could you kindly post a scoreboard please?

They were in NZ. I can't find a scorecard but I found an excerpt from a book on Google:

So if the difference in runs is "only 1.5" and we all acknowledge that the quality of bowling has decreased, why the need to adjust for era.
And once again why adjust for MM et al and not Lillee, and dont give me the long speach, emperical reasons please.

You're really trying my patience as I've stated the answer to these questions at least half a dozen times. I didn't mention "era differences" to say that Marshall would be a clearly different bowler. And I already said I am fine if someone wants to adjust averages for Lillee. It doesn't change my opinion about Lillee because I am not saying x > y because of 2 points on runs in average. If Lillee was not the champion he was in the WSC, his battles against the WIndies and his earlier World XI matches I too would question if the depth and quality of the batsmen he faced could equate with McGrath.

This whole thing started because I said that I have a doubt about the depth and quality of the line-ups that Marshall faced. I even talked about the line-ups on a country by country basis. Yet we had some actually argue that the batsmen of the 80s were just as good and India became a talking point. That is why I brought in the stats; to show that even statistically this is not true on a quantitive basis.

 

[centurymaker]

the great bowlers were still around in the first couple of years of this century.

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

batting avg - 31.53

Aggregate/overall records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

batting avg- 34.91 (using 2003 gives a higher figure - 35.26)


3.5 to 4 run increase in batting avg. (10% + increase)

pretty significant.

 

[robelinda]

The 'match' where Lillee took the 12 wasn't a supertest (obviously), it was a 3 day match at Ericsson Stadium (Mount Smart back then). Not sure if it should be counted.

 

[robelinda]

http://archive.blackcaps.co.nz/Scorecards/38/38618.html

 

[subshakerz]

You need to actually read my posts.

Either the pitches were the cause, the bowlers were, or both. Regardless; the difference between batsmen in the 80s and the 00s is 1.5 runs on average...that's it.

It really doesn't matter what you consider a good technique or a poor one, merely what is scoring runs. I touched on this earlier in the thread; batsmen these days take more calculated risks and score more runs at the crease. That is why batting SRs have risen as well as averages. It also explains how bowling averages and ERs have been hurt whilst their SRs have improved. This shows that batsmen are making more runs at the crease, but they are not staying there as long.

I have not tried to discredit anyone, stop arguing against strawmen.

Yes but why? Can it be because the bowling nowadays is a lot poorer that taking such an approach is less riskier, as we suggest? Or were the test batsmen of the 80s and 90s simply hard in the head that it never occured to them that all they need to do is score faster?

Again, you seem to imply that the the big change in the 2000s was on the part of the batsmen, which is manifestly untrue. As if quality bowling was somehow made more oridnary by the batting onslaught. The reality is that test cricket is dictated more by its bowling dimension than by the batting side rather than vice versa.

 

[robelinda]

Better scorecard

The Home of CricketArchive