• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
TheJediBrah said:
Yeah the pitches were unashamedly doctored, but the Aus batting was still atrocious. And the bowling wasn't much better apart from Starc. They brought Jon Holland in with no match practice and Henriques was in the team as a batsman . . . Can't remember why SOK wasn't playing.
Click to expand...
Got injured. Hence why Holland was brought in with no match practice.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
So I was comparing the standardised averages of batsmen from the 50s and 60s. The 3 Ws each take a massive hit. Sobers's average comes down slightly too. Barrington goes up. May and Dexter who preceded him sharply go up. Harvey does as well. Lawry and Simpson don't show much variation. This makes sense considering how many dull draws there were back in, especially in the West Indies. English tours of the Caribbean were quite dull. Lots of draws in Australia too. Only 2 Australian bowlers had averages below 40 in 62-63 Ashes. A typical series scoreline would be 1-1. So could you tell me what the standardised average in Australia, England and WI were in say, 1962?
 
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
aussie tragic said:
Sorry, can't get past the Lillee rating. He has 355 wkts @ 23.92 in 70 tests vs Flintoff 219 wkts @ 33.35 in 78 tests but they're basically ranked the same :(
Click to expand...
I thought these ratings became meaningless after above post. Clearly biased against Aussie quicks if Lillee is ranked 83 while Freddie is 84 (and Siddle ranked 53)
 
harsh.ag

harsh.ag

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You keep bringing up how other Aussie quicks are ranked higher and then claim the list is biased against Aussie quicks
 
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
Sorry, biased against Aussie quicks in the 70's and 80's...and while Freddie would love to be an Aussie, he's not there yet ;(
 
T

Test_Fan_Only

First Class Debutant
Lillee's ranking is the biggest problem with the list that I can see but it is hard to say it is biased against Australians when the top bowler by a margin is an Australian. I am not sure Lillee was better than McGrath but certainly better than Siddle and Lee.
 
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
For TFO, I researched this a year ago...ratings haven't changed since

aussie tragic said:
Thanks for detailed response. Still seems strange that every Aussie pace bowler from the 70s and 80s have such increased averages compared to other nations bowlers from the same period.

Lillee, McDermott, Thomson, Hughes, Walker, Alderman, Hogg and Lawson all have significantly higher averages ( I couldn't find one that didn't)
Click to expand...
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
maybe the 70s, 80s and 90s quicks in general are overrated?

geez in the 90s any medium pacer could rock up and average less than 30 by the looks of it.
 
morgieb

morgieb

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would be very interested in seeing what Cummins's standardised average looks like, when you consider how many modern Aussies fare a lot better in terms of standardised than real averages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top