Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
Weather in England is unpredictable.It really depends on the forecast and the pitch. You live there, right? Tell us what the forecast is like and what the weather has been like?
Weather in England is unpredictable.It really depends on the forecast and the pitch. You live there, right? Tell us what the forecast is like and what the weather has been like?
Quality of batting seems lower though, even though the bowling quality is fairly high.Root - much harder to score runs in this era.
He's also gotten to 1000 against india both home and away, and he'de have to average 50+ for the remainder of the year, against a very good indian lineup and australia in australia, who starc's form aside are a great attack. If he pulls it off there's definitely an argument to be made.Quality of batting seems lower though, even though the bowling quality is fairly high.
Yes - he's a definite fantastic batsman. What he's great at is the positivity to get through the nervy early period of the innings and then once he's in, he's obviously extremely solid. I just disagree that it is harder to score runs in this era but rather that batsmen are typically worse at it.He's also gotten to 1000 against india both home and away, and he'de have to average 50+ for the remainder of the year, against a very good indian lineup and australia in australia, who starc's form aside are a great attack. If he pulls it off there's definitely an argument to be made.
Your face and posts should be banned itbtShould England be banned from hosting Tests? I’m not saying yes, but I’m also not saying no.
This is also likely true.Your face and posts should be banned itbt
Isn't this totally unfalsfiable and could be used to arbitrarily discredit any cricketer from any era for any reason? "The bowling wasn't that good, the batting was just ****/the batting wasn't that good, the bowling was just ****"Yes - he's a definite fantastic batsman. What he's great at is the positivity to get through the nervy early period of the innings and then once he's in, he's obviously extremely solid. I just disagree that it is harder to score runs in this era but rather that batsmen are typically worse at it.
It could, if applied recklessly. Being able to disprove something is important for science but cricket is not a science, whatever statsguru advocates would have you believe.Isn't this totally unfalsfiable and could be used to arbitrarily discredit any cricketer from any era for any reason? "The bowling wasn't that good, the batting was just ****/the batting wasn't that good, the bowling was just ****"
It is not harder than the 1990s but perhaps harder than in Michael Clarke's era - only perhaps though, not "obviously". Techniques these days are not great for Test cricket. Batsmen are scoring less runs partially because they're jumping between formats. A prime Sir Alistair Cook would have had a more comfortable time against even this India attack because of his exceptional shot selection.Batting is very obviously much harder than it used to be.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Particularly when there is a narrow view of what constitutes evidence (i.e. raw numbers).Maybe batsmen have got worse too but I think that’s harder to nail down evidence of. Batting has sooo obviously gotten harder though. The very idea of seam movement used to feel like an elusive myth of bygone days.