Best performed cricketers across all conditions and vs any opponent

[the big bambino]

Ok. Yeah sorry I missed that.

 

[kyear2]

It is great to be good in every country, but has any one been brilliant in every country the way that Marshall was?

 

[OverratedSanity]

It is great to be good in every country, but has any one been brilliant in every country the way that Marshall was?

McGrath? Even Donald was ridiculously great everywhere except Australia

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Curtley Ambrose - although struggled against India at home - 38 (but excellent in every country he played - never played a test in India):

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Worst average by country - Pakistan (25.2!)
Worst average by continent - Africa (23.76!)

 

[Migara]

I'm seeing that SRT's ave v SA is 42 overall and 46 in SA which is quality. Charles Davis did a break down of his ave against bowlers faced and he averaged 34 against Donald and you'd have to doubt any other player did as well against Donald.

If I am not mistaken, Aravinda took to Donald few times. It was Pollock and Kallis who kept cutting him short of carnage on Donald.

 

[karan316]

There is every denying the highlighted. Ironically if Larwood was as inept as described you wouldn't have heard this story. His club would have sacked him and he'd have gone back down t'pit and no one would have heard of him.

The decadal batting averages for the last 10 decades have been consistently around the 32-35 mark with the exception of the 50s. The 30s ave was 32.7 making it indistinguishable from the 60s 70s and 80s and 3/4 of a point higher than the 90s or no real difference at all. However the 30s ave is distorted both by Bradman's presence and the relatively high proportion of innings he played. Bradman is often a victim of his own success. Revisionists point to the bowling averages he destroyed to argue he didn't face much. While that is false as the decadal averages show it is fair to remove Bradman's stats so we can gauge a baseline ave to see what he had to contend with before battering them. Removing his stats sees the 30s batting ave fall to 31.46 or the 2nd lowest of the last 100 years. Larwood is therefore clearly mistaken.

Plainly false. Modern players do not play on uncovered and sticky wickets.

The players here are rated on their ability to adapt to different geographical locations. A sticky wicket, like any other bad pitch, is merely a rare circumstance. Bradman's failures on stickies no more define his adaptability than if SRT had a single figure match on a raging green top.

Really? Who was better?

Hmmm. I'm not fine with revisionists under rating past champions for whatever reason might motivate them.

Well yes; the line that holds standards in cricket have improved but not cinematography. Look I could show future generations clips of SRT getting bowled sitting on his butt or Lara getting out to a woman. Doesn't prove much. Besides this thread is about players adaptability not the improving standards of cricket. If that was a consideration you would similarly discount Graeme Pollock, both Richards, Lillee, Thompson Hall...in short practically anyone who'se played the game. But you fixate on Bradman almost exclusively. It suggests a motivation to talk him down. I suspect I know the reason.

You would have been more genuine if you began with this and left it at that.

Twisting my comments and changing yours. Not gona argue on this further. You have your reasons to rate the cricketers of those times very highly and I have my reasons to believe that people overrate them and exaggerate things.

 

[the big bambino]

Oh for goodness sake I gave you facts.

@ Migara do you have a breakdown on Aravinda's stats on Donald? Aravinda and Mark Waugh were very similar players imo and they'd both make a great video...if you know what I mean. Beautiful batsmen to watch. Though I think Kalu is often overlooked when talking about exceptional batsmen and I think he was a revolutionary player. Especially in odi cricket.

 

[viriya]

I respectfully disagree. A bowler with an average of 30 is just average similar to me for a batsman with an average of 35. A batsman with an average of about 40 is a great (or even ATG) batsman. Morris, Richardson, Gooch, Greenidge all averaged below 45. Bowlers with averages at or below 26 who are great (but not ATG) Willis, Bishop, Gillespie.

Honestly to average 30 with the ball is more like averaging 35 with the bat.

For the record and for mine, ATG with the bat around 50 and for a bowler around 23.

Honestly this makes no sense.. For one, the equivalent of a batting average of 40 in bowling can't be quantified in bowling average alone. Bowling is about wkts as well, and wkts/match should be taken into account as well as bowling average.

Putting that aside for now, if you consider a bowling average of 26 to be equivalent to 40 in batting, Shane Warne averaged less than 45 in his career (in batting terms)? It makes no sense whatsoever. You are underestimating how good a bowling average of 30 is - you could count the number of bowlers with such a record nowadays.

If you had to look for the equivalent of a batting average of 40 purely with bowling average it would be make more sense to go with something like 31 or even 32.

 

[viriya]

What's easier to compare is runs with wickets. Equating 2000 runs to be 100 wickets (more or less the case historically), 40 runs ~= 80 runs/match = 4 wickets/match.

This is obviously easier on spinners who get to bowl more (and generally average a higher wkts/match), so a comparable statistic would be something like:
(wkts/match) / bowlingAvg.

In the interest of equating 4 wkts/match with 40 runs, with a bowlingAvg of 30 as the benchmark (equating a bowling return of 2/60 with making 40 runs which I think is in the right ballpark), the equivalent bowling statistic to consider would be:

(wkts/match) * 300 / bowlingAvg

a bowler with 2 returns of 2/60 in a match would have:

4 * 300 / 30 = 40.

 

[the big bambino]

What is the basis for including the multiplier of 300?

 

[viriya]

What is the basis for including the multiplier of 300?

to make 2/60 in an innings (4/120 in match) equivalent to 40 runs

 

[kyear2]

Honestly this makes no sense.. For one, the equivalent of a batting average of 40 in bowling can't be quantified in bowling average alone. Bowling is about wkts as well, and wkts/match should be taken into account as well as bowling average.

Putting that aside for now, if you consider a bowling average of 26 to be equivalent to 40 in batting, Shane Warne averaged less than 45 in his career (in batting terms)? It makes no sense whatsoever. You are underestimating how good a bowling average of 30 is - you could count the number of bowlers with such a record nowadays.

If you had to look for the equivalent of a batting average of 40 purely with bowling average it would be make more sense to go with something like 31 or even 32.

A batsman even on the ATG scale with a batting average is great to even ATG, on a similar scale a bowler with an average of 32 is below average at best.

 

[hendrix]

A batsman even on the ATG scale with a batting average is great to even ATG, on a similar scale a bowler with an average of 32 is below average at best.

disagree.

 

[viriya]

A batsman even on the ATG scale with a batting average is great to even ATG, on a similar scale a bowler with an average of 32 is below average at best.

There are 146 batsmen with 2000+ runs and a 40+ average.
There are 117 bowlers with 100+ wickets and a <32 average.

You are underestimating how difficult it is to have a career as a Test bowler.

Interestingly, there are 147 bowlers with 100+ wickets and a <35 average. I guess we found the equivalent level!

 

[Spark]

Twisting my comments and changing yours. Not gona argue on this further. You have your reasons to rate the cricketers of those times very highly and I have my reasons to believe that people overrate them and exaggerate things.

Just so everyone is aware, this sort of post comes under the category of "continuing the argument".

 

[G.I.Joe]

There are 146 batsmen with 2000+ runs and a 40+ average.
There are 117 bowlers with 100+ wickets and a <32 average.

You are underestimating how difficult it is to have a career as a Test bowler.

Interestingly, there are 147 bowlers with 100+ wickets and a <35 average. I guess we found the equivalent level!

While I agree with the assertion that 30 is a good bowling average, you need to alter your search criteria there. You're treating 2000 runs and 100 wickets as equivalent. You're basically stipulating that a wicket is worth 20 runs. It is plainly obvious that only the elite bowlers manage that. You'll need to either bump up the career run requirement or lower the wickets requirement.

 

[Dan]

3000 runs at 45+ -- 68 players
100 wickets at <28 -- 66 players

Seems like this could be a rough equivalence.

A wicket being worth 30 runs seems relatively fair; 45 and 28 seem like decent averages to use as cut-offs for pushing ATG status. Obviously there will be exceptions.


FTR 3000 runs at 42+ and 100 wickets at sub-30 gives exactly 100 players each.

 

[Red]

3000 runs at 45+ -- 68 players
100 wickets at <28 -- 66 players

Seems like this could be a rough equivalence.

A wicket being worth 30 runs seems relatively fair; 45 and 28 seem like decent averages to use as cut-offs for pushing ATG status. Obviously there will be exceptions.


FTR 3000 runs at 42+ and 100 wickets at sub-30 gives exactly 100 players each.

Is there an easy way you can list them in this thread?

 

[G.I.Joe]

I also think there should necessarily be more batsmen than bowlers given a set of equivalent criteria because most teams play 5.5-6 pure batsmen and 4-4.5 pure bowlers in a XI. Batsmen will and should always outnumber the bowlers by a factor of around 1.2 because there have been more of them in history than bowlers.

 

[Dan]

Changing the bowling criteria to 27 gives you 59 players, which is roughly equivalent to your factor of 1.2

Batsmen with 3000+ runs at 45+
Bowlers with 100+ wickets at sub-27


EDIT: 59, not 56.

Interestingly though, the lowest number of matches required to qualify as a batsman was 42; as a bowler, 17. Something that needs to change, perhaps?