• 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.

Averaging 35 will be accepted again

a massive zebra

a massive zebra

International Captain
Last edited:
a massive zebra

a massive zebra

International Captain
trundler said:
How often does this happen though? Peak Australia aside, almost never I'd guess. Even 80s WI put up with Hooper and Logie, 1948 Australia had *checks notes* Sam Loxton. Probably worth mentioning that peak Australia carried Lee for 70 tests and guys like Nel and Zaheer were the premier bowlers of the age.
Click to expand...
Late 1920s England could pick from Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Mead, Jardine, Leyland and Tyldesley, all of whom averaged 45+.

1948 Australia had at least six 40+ averaging batsmen with Morris, Barnes, Bradman, Hassett, Harvey and Brown, although it's fair to say Brown was not actually averaging 40+ at that stage of his career.
 
Last edited:
Chrish

Chrish

International Debutant
Flem274* said:
Anyway, the correction to normal began around 2010ish and violently so from 2018 onwards. In my book the main contributors are DRS spelling out leg stump exists, more variety in pitches worldwide and improved bowler management compared to the 2000s creating a production line of good attacks around the world with strong depth and competition for places.
Click to expand...
Is it really it though? I am not particularly convinced. For example, Lyon and O’keefe wrecked the havoc last time when they were in India. They wouldn’t have come close against previous Indian team on the same decks IMO. So, I don’t think it has to do with variety in pitches. It’s cliche to say it but there have been change in the way batsmen play the game after induction of t20. I have seen old timers mention today’s batsman don’t have technique to grind it out when facing a tough spell. This might seem like an arrogant statement full of nostalgia ie. things were better in my days but looking at above example of Indian team vs spin, this sentiment definitely holds true. Are wickets really varied these days?

Does drs make a significant difference? I see just as many decisions going in batsman’s favor as being given out. I don’t know.

Overall quality of bowling is definitely higher, I will give you that. India, England and NZ have gotten better but Lanka, Sa and Pakistan have regressed. But India and Eng play higher percentage of tests so results are heavily skewed by big 3.
 
Flem274*

Flem274*

123/5
Chrish said:
Is it really it though? I am not particularly convinced. For example, Lyon and O’keefe wrecked the havoc last time when they were in India. They wouldn’t have come close against previous Indian team on the same decks IMO. So, I don’t think it has to do with variety in pitches. It’s cliche to say it but there have been change in the way batsmen play the game after induction of t20. I have seen old timers mention today’s batsman don’t have technique to grind it out when facing a tough spell. This might seem like an arrogant statement full of nostalgia ie. things were better in my days but looking at above example of Indian team vs spin, this sentiment definitely holds true. Are wickets really varied these days?

Does drs make a significant difference? I see just as many decisions going in batsman’s favor as being given out. I don’t know.

Overall quality of bowling is definitely higher, I will give you that. India, England and NZ have gotten better but Lanka, Sa and Pakistan have regressed. But India and Eng play higher percentage of tests so results are heavily skewed by big 3.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to comment on your example spin in India because I haven't seen enough before the 00s to make an informed comment. I've seen spin in old cricket highlights in other countries where spin bowling was, to be quite honest, really bad - and that's reflected in the opinions of the time stressing about the state of spin bowling before the Murali/Warne/Kumble/Saqlain generation rejuvenated it.

I think batting has definitely changed for sure. Some things have regressed - backfoot aggressive shots during what I think of as the great leap forward in fast bowling (70s and 80s) were much better. Modern batsmen tend to be more worried about their balance playing those shots than getting back and across with your head in a safe position, which isn't bad at all but definitely more physically dangerous to yourself even with a modern helmet (small knocks over time to the head if you keep messing up - I'm worried for a few modern bowlers who compulsively hook but badly).

What really surprises me though is how bad some of these old timers are at following the ball with their hands against back of a length bowling. I'm far from a batting coach, but my couch suspicion is they do it due to not trusting the bounce of pre-modern decks and the greater physical threat in general of tinny little helmets or no helmet at all. Leaving on length is a big thing today, with the Australian and NZ batsmen being especially good at it. Again though, if one rears unexpectedly then you're wearing it.

Pitches are definitely more varied compared to 2000-2010 or so. I watched a lot of cricket then, and you often got a choice between the fast motorway, the slow motorway, the motorway with a hint of turn or the classic motorway. Countries are definitely pulling out their fun cards with the decks now.

DRS makes a huge difference. It sure stops batsmen getting out wrongly, but umpires used to be so stingy about lbws in particular. Ashwin doesn't average 24 if he's bowling from 1999-2011 thanks to both kinder decks for foreign batsmen (and broadcast revenue) and DRS.

In terms of bowling standards, South Africa didn't get much of a bowl during the 70s and 80s and they were one of the few attacks during the 00s who kept the rampant 50+ averages in check. Currently they have their newest great bowler, a good spinner and a couple of newer guys after some retirements. Their bowling is fine. Sri Lanka's finest bowling was during the 00s and now they're duking it out for 8th. Not really in the picture. Pakistan...eh...since Wasim and Waqar they seem to unearth a few good guys then they either cheat or they get bored of them. Shaheen and Hasan have made strong starts.

Australia, South Africa and England have remained fairly consistent in producing bowling talent. India and NZ pulling their socks up has made a noticeable change in global pace bowling quality.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
a massive zebra said:
Late 1920s England could pick from Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Hendren, Mead, Jardine, Leyland and Tyldesley, all of whom averaged 45+.

1948 Australia had at least six 40+ averaging batsmen with Morris, Barnes, Bradman, Hassett, Harvey and Brown, although it's fair to say Brown was not actually averaging 40+ at that stage of his career.
Click to expand...
Well you and I both know Chapman and those stupid rules about amateurs captaining ****-blocked that '20s dream and Mead's career in the process.

And yeah, one could look back at Ponting-Clarke-Hussey-Smith in the future and think jeez that must've been some powerhouse lineup but 2 of those fellas were well over the hill and one was a spring chicken.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
trundler said:
How often does this happen though? Peak Australia aside, almost never I'd guess. Even 80s WI put up with Hooper and Logie, 1948 Australia had *checks notes* Sam Loxton. Probably worth mentioning that peak Australia carried Lee for 70 tests and guys like Nel and Zaheer were the premier bowlers of the age.
Click to expand...
England circa 2010 did, top seven in fact

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
GIMH said:
England circa 2010 did, top seven in fact

Strauss
Cook
Trott
Pietersen
Bell
Collingwood
Prior
Click to expand...
Ha, yeah, and we weren't happy even then.

Scarcely a series went by without some handwringing over (usually) Bell's or Colly's position.
 
A

AndrewB

International Vice-Captain
100 Test teams have had 7 players with a (final) batting average of 40+:
- 78 involved Adam Gilchrist
- 15 involved Matt Prior
- 4 involved Les Ames (Hutton, Edrich, Gibb, Hammond, Paynter, Valentine, Ames each time)
- 2 involved Greg Matthews (Taylor, Boon, Waugh x2, Martyn, Border, Matthews)
- 1 was the England team that scored 903 in 1938, where they picked 7 batsmen (Hutton, Edrich, Leyland, Paynter, Hammond, Compton, Hardstaff) and relied on Edrich/Hammond/Leyland to act as support bowlers to Farnes, Bowes and Verity.

231 teams (besides the 100 mentioned above) have had 6 players with a final average of 40+.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
That works out to about 6.8% of all times. Not sure what to make of that but I'll call that pretty rare and claim a win. Besides, final average may not really be reflective of actual quality so it's probably a way lower percentage.
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
trundler said:
That works out to about 6.8% of all times. Not sure what to make of that but I'll call that pretty rare and claim a win. Besides, final average may not really be reflective of actual quality so it's probably a way lower percentage.
Click to expand...
I think the take home message is keeper batsmen (and mediocre NSW offies) who average 40+ are like hen's teeth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top