The other Steve Smith question - Who would you try and get him out ?

[GIMH]

Or is he dancing?

 

[vcs]

How so?? Sachin didn't exactly excel against the above bowlers (bowling together). If you know otherwise I'll be glad to rescind my comment.

Maybe not, but he hit peak Steyn and Morkel for heaps of runs at the twilight of his career.

Also averaged close to 50 while surrounded by hapless spuds in '99 despite getting sawn off a couple of times.

Not sure if Gillespie was playing though, so it probably doesn't count in your book.

 

[Slifer]

Maybe not, but he hit peak Steyn and Morkel for heaps of runs at the twilight of his career.

Also averaged close to 50 while surrounded by hapless spuds in '99 despite getting sawn off a couple of times.

Not sure if Gillespie was playing though, so it probably doesn't count in your book.

I meant overall. Where Gillespie/ McGrath feature, Srt didn't exactly set the world alight. The point is, a poster (I dont remember who) implied that the likes of BCL, SRT, IVAR etc would've found a way to make runs vs the 4 horse men. I was just pointing out how unlikely that is.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I honestly think that if Smith wasn't concussed and was able to play fully fit in all 5 tests he'd get really close to 900 runs this series, possibly threatening Bradman's 974.

Every time he's gotten out has either been slogging for declaration or with the tail, or when he was concussed and off his face. Only one that you could call a regulation dismissal was 2nd innings Edgbaston.

Maybe not, but he hit peak Steyn and Morkel for heaps of runs at the twilight of his career.

Also averaged close to 50 while surrounded by hapless spuds in '99 despite getting sawn off a couple of times.

Not sure if Gillespie was playing though, so it probably doesn't count in your book.

Gillespie wasn't there in 99, Fleming was. The only time McGrath & Gillespie really played together against India would have been the 2004 tour

 

[OverratedSanity]

Every time he's gotten out has either been slogging for declaration or with the tail, or when he was concussed and off his face. Only one that you could call a regulation dismissal was 2nd innings Edgbaston.



Gillespie wasn't there in 99, Fleming was. The only time McGrath & Gillespie really played together against India would have been the 2004 tour

01

 

[Spark]

I tend to agree with this, but also think that people look at series averages far too much to judge how someone did vs an attack. It's such a small sample that things like not outs/bad umpiring can skew things immensely. If you score one or two impactful knocks in a series vs a good attack, that should be viewed as a success. Series averages can lie. A lot.

Oh I 100% agree and have made this argument a lot. But the discussion centred around series averages, so here we are.

 

[trundler]

I feel the same way about WC knockouts

 

[vcs]

Would be interesting to hear Burgey's views on it, though

 

[Burgey]

In the ATG exercises, I expect Tendulkar, Sobers etc to average 35-40 and Bradman to average 55-60 with the bat over a 5 match series.

They had a terrific attack but this idea great players couldn’t score runs against them at all is bollocks. Obviously it’s a big ask, but to say those players would average so low is kind of odd tbh. Why would Tendulkar drop to the mid-30s all of a sudden? Seems bizarre. This sort of stuff actually is revisionism wrt how great they were.

They were fortunate to draw a series here in 81/82 when they were pretty much at their pomp and drew vs Pakistan. Blokes like TOTAB has great series against them, gavaskar too. To suggest a bloke like bradman would suddenly halve his average is kinda odd.

And for this idea about going back to the 80s and having to play them, let them come to the 2010s and bowl 85-90 over per day instead of 70, and see how hard they charge in then.

The Australian side of the late 90s-early 2000s would beat that WI side nine times out of ten in all conditions Nd across all eras. They had better batting depth, an attack leader as great as (better, frankly) than Marshall and an atg spinner plus a keeper batsman who made Dujon look like Tim Paine by comparison. Fmd Gus Logie and Hooper were regs in the WI side after Lloyd retired Nd they averaged 30.

 

[harsh.ag]

They had a terrific attack but this idea great players couldn’t score runs against them at all is bollocks. Obviously it’s a big ask, but to say those players would average so low is kind of odd tbh. Why would Tendulkar drop to the mid-30s all of a sudden? Seems bizarre. This sort of stuff actually is revisionism wrt how great they were.

They were fortunate to draw a series here in 81/82 when they were pretty much at their pomp and drew vs Pakistan. Blokes like TOTAB has great series against them, gavaskar too. To suggest a bloke like bradman would suddenly halve his average is kinda odd.

And for this idea about going back to the 80s and having to play them, let them come to the 2010s and bowl 85-90 over per day instead of 70, and see how hard they charge in then.

The Australian side of the late 90s-early 2000s would beat that WI side nine times out of ten in all conditions Nd across all eras. They had better batting depth, an attack leader as great as (better, frankly) than Marshall and an atg spinner plus a keeper batsman who made Dujon look like Tim Paine by comparison. Fmd Gus Logie and Hooper were regs in the WI side after Lloyd retired Nd they averaged 30.

I wasn't talking about the Windies attack but a hypothetical ATG XI attack.

Moreover, as I mentioned before, the lower average was an expected value, thought of in terms of likelihood. 20% probability avg< 35, 55% probability 35<avg<45, 25% probability avg>45.

So, 1-2 of the batsmen might end up having a high average in the hypothetical 5 match series. And 1-2 might end up with a low average. Bradman I expect to have a 55-65 average, say.

Obviously, these are rough numbers, but that's the thought process.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

When you starting bagging Bradman it's also saying that other great players like Hammond who had a more conventional record in the same era would average about 12.

 

[harsh.ag]

When you starting bagging Bradman it's also saying that other great players like Hammond who had a more conventional record in the same era would average about 12.

Am not bagging Bradman at all. Still paying him a great compliment, if you look at it in my way. Hammond again I expect in the 35-45 range.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Am not bagging Bradman at all. Still paying him a great compliment, if you look at it in my way. Hammond again I expect in the 35-45 range.

Would average 35-40 over what? A full career of playing against them? A 5 match series? Guys like Allan Lamb had a few series averaging 45-50 against the Windies with 3-4 ATG bowlers playing and you're telling me Hammond and Sachin would average 35 against an attack only a tad better? It doesnt make much sense.

Lots of merely ok to decent batsmen have had good series against great bowling lineups. There's no reason why its not possible for great batsmen to put up better numbers against them. All it takes is a few flukey hours for even meh players to get the runs ffs.

 

[Flem274*]

cricket is the only sport that actively thinks it's getting worse with time

it's weird - in rugby we're happy to celebrate greatness without caring how someone would do in another era. it's pretty obvious the standard has risen through the decades and skyrocketed through the roof after jonah and the beginning of the pro era.

then you log on to a cricket forum and read that arguably the second greatest batsman of all time wouldn't score a run against a great attack from 40 years ago.

i'd deadset not be surprised and laugh my head off if hadlee turned out to be a 130kph medium pacer and marshall topped out at 140 clicks. it wouldn't diminish those men at all in my eyes if they were, but for the established cricketing world it would be world breaking.

and before we start judging pace by eye and the feel of batsmen (i can predict cw threads you see), i've seen enough speedsters rise through the ranks of domestic cricket to an international speed gun to all of a sudden be revealed as 'heavy ball' bowlers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

then you log on to a cricket forum and read that arguably the second greatest batsman of all time wouldn't score a run against a great attack from 40 years ago.

Nice strawman.

Also appreciate that you seem to have this saved somwhere so you can paste it here every few days. Baffling how often you make this same post.

 

[Flem274*]

Nice strawman.

Also appreciate that you seem to have this saved somwhere so you can paste it here every few days. Baffling how often you make this same post.

cheers precam

 

[OverratedSanity]

You too Athlai

 

[harsh.ag]

Would average 35-40 over what? A full career of playing against them? A 5 match series? Guys like Allan Lamb had a few series averaging 45-50 against the Windies with 3-4 ATG bowlers playing and you're telling me Hammond and Sachin would average 35 against an attack only a tad better? It doesnt make much sense.

Lots of merely ok to decent batsmen have had good series against great bowling lineups. There's no reason why its not possible for great batsmen to put up better numbers against them. All it takes is a few flukey hours for even meh players to get the runs ffs.

5 match series, yes.

Read my reply to Burgey about the thinking being probabilistic in nature. I don't disagree that those batsmen could have a series averaging 50+ against an ATG XI attack.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

cricket is the only sport that actively thinks it's getting worse with time

it's weird - in rugby we're happy to celebrate greatness without caring how someone would do in another era. it's pretty obvious the standard has risen through the decades and skyrocketed through the roof after jonah and the beginning of the pro era.

then you log on to a cricket forum and read that arguably the second greatest batsman of all time wouldn't score a run against a great attack from 40 years ago.

i'd deadset not be surprised and laugh my head off if hadlee turned out to be a 130kph medium pacer and marshall topped out at 140 clicks. it wouldn't diminish those men at all in my eyes if they were, but for the established cricketing world it would be world breaking.

and before we start judging pace by eye and the feel of batsmen (i can predict cw threads you see), i've seen enough speedsters rise through the ranks of domestic cricket to an international speed gun to all of a sudden be revealed as 'heavy ball' bowlers.

Bradman would average about 30 nowadays don't @ me

 

[stephen]

Bradman would average about 30 nowadays don't @ me

Not bad for a pile of bones and a certainty for selection as an opener in the current setup.