Andy Flower vs Alan Knott

[Johan]

The 60s and early to mid 70s weren’t that tough for batting I think. Knott probably would have averaged in the 20s playing his entire career in the 80s and 90s.

England was really tough, outside of it? kind of normal

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Fair point. Knott would probably average higher if he played for another country.

 

[BazBall21]

Era tax is reduced somewhat by batting lower

 

[ma1978]

Knott played in a really tough batting era of uncovered wickets. He should have a mid 30s average

no. Look at batting averages and outcomes in that era. It was a joke. Barely any tests had results. There was virtually no class bowlers.

 

[BazBall21]

Knott batted on some damp pitches at home which yielded frequent low scoring games and held his own v Australia&WI in the mid 70s. Consistent output away from home. Not a world beater with the bat by a long shot but decent.

 

[OverratedSanity]

There was virtually no class bowlers.

Please tell me you're joking. Knott scored hundreds against Lillee/Thomson, Holding/Roberts and one against Imran (though before he hit his peak).

 

[Coronis]

no. Look at batting averages and outcomes in that era. It was a joke. Barely any tests had results. There was virtually no class bowlers.

I think you (and others) have no idea about the relative difficulties of a lot of eras, because the 00’s being so flat makes people overestimate the level of friendliness of tests since.

During Knott’s era… batting average of 29.80
During Litton’s era… batting average of 29.22

The gap is slightly wider (but still less than 1 run) when you look at top 7 batsmen due to far more competent tailenders these days.

 

[BazBall21]

Please tell me you're joking. Knott scored hundreds against Lillee/Thomson, Holding/Roberts and one against Imran (though before he hit his peak).

Knott has some good knocks v great spinners on turners too. Bourda 1968 and Bengaluru 1977 for instance.

 

[ma1978]

I think you (and others) have no idea about the relative difficulties of a lot of eras, because the 00’s being so flat makes people overestimate the level of friendliness of tests since.

During Knott’s era… batting average of 29.80
During Litton’s era… batting average of 29.22

The gap is slightly wider (but still less than 1 run) when you look at top 7 batsmen due to far more competent tailenders these days.

average isn't everything, strike rates were considerably lower. You will naturally tell me that strike rates don't matter but the percentages of draws in that era were much higher, which is a sign that cricketers were less skilled.

 

[sayon basak]

average isn't everything, strike rates were considerably lower. You will naturally tell me that strike rates don't matter but the percentages of draws in that era were much higher, which is a sign that cricketers were less skilled.

How do you conclude that? Couldn't it be that they were "equally" skilled instead of being "less" skilled?

 

[Coronis]

average isn't everything, strike rates were considerably lower. You will naturally tell me that strike rates don't matter but the percentages of draws in that era were much higher, which is a sign that cricketers were less skilled.

The **** are you smoking

 

[sayon basak]

The **** are you smoking

Not a bad thing to do tbh.
@Johan

 

[Johan]

Not a bad thing to do tbh.
@Johan

true

 

[ma1978]

The **** are you smoking

are you telling me cricket was better in the 1960s when the draw percentage was wlel norht of 50% than today

 

[Johan]

most of Alan's career is 70s, not 60s

 

[Coronis]

are you telling me cricket was better in the 1960s when the draw percentage was wlel norht of 50% than today

Are you telling me that draw percentage is related to overall skill level? I guess all the writers between the wars were correct, cricket peaked before WWI.

@capt_Luffy vindication for Grace, Ranji, Trumper et. all

 

[ma1978]

Are you telling me that draw percentage is related to overall skill level? I guess all the writers between the wars were correct, cricket peaked before WWI.

@capt_Luffy vindication for Grace, Ranji, Trumper et. all

that was premodern

and of course its related to skill level, the point of playing test cricket is to win

 

[sayon basak]

that was premodern

and of course its related to skill level, the point of playing test cricket is to win

So there's no point in playing tests that results in draws?

 

[kyear2]

Alan Knott averaged 32. Liton Das averages 34 in a less batter friendly era with a higher century rate. The keeping difference isn’t worth it.

And no there’s zero chance he gets picked over Jamie Smith today.

I agree he was the best of an era where wicketkeepers didn’t have to bat very well. The World has changed, for the better

I will refer again to the Kimber video that I watched yesterday, where he co hosts believed that cricket somehow only started in the 90's and the statement he retorted with is suitable here as well.

"Guess I'm older and remember when people know how to wicketkeeper"

It's strange how you believe it's changed for the better when the actual standard of wicket-keeping has so drastically declined.

But watching the podcast has at least illustrates the thought process of so many on the forum and allowed me to place it into perspective.

There's also not a majority on the forum, if given a choice between Pant and Knott to wicketkeeper, would choose Pant.

They would either choose both, and allow Knott to keep and find a way to hide Pant in the field, or if the batting lineup was strong enough, there would be a lessened need for the batting aspect in the keeping role.

And Knott could bat, stop pretending he was Martin or Walsh with the bat.

 

[kyear2]

The 60s and early to mid 70s weren’t that tough for batting I think. Knott probably would have averaged in the 20s playing his entire career in the 80s and 90s.

Just stop dude.

The two easiest eras to bat were the 30's and the 2000's.

By that argument was Gilchrist also a fraud with a soft average?