Peter May vs Kane Williamson

[Johan]

Average in England games without May — 23.3

this some minefield BS

 

[Athlai]

England averaged 32 at home during May's career

The rest of the world drag the average in England down because they were spuds.

 

[Johan]

average of England at home without May is 29, still a lot lesser than NZ excluding Kane (33.7), though I'd argue English batting at home was a lot stronger than current NZ batting in general. Compton/Hutton/May as the big three and you got Richardson/Cowdrey/Graveny and Barrington at the end to put on runs on the board.

 

[Athlai]

Kane at home 5142 @ 66.77
NZ average at home in games KW played - 27048 @37.20
NZ average at home excluding Kanes figures - 21906 @ 33.70
Average in NZ in games KW played - 52308@ 32.09
Average in NZ excluding Kanes figures - 47166 @ 30.37
Opposition average in NZ for games KW played - 25260 @ 27.97

May at home 2865 @ 57.30
Eng average at home in games May played - 15606 @32.31
Eng average at home excluding Mays figures - 12741 @ 29.42
Average in Eng in games May played - 29272 @ 24.80
Average in Eng excluding Mays figures - 26407 @ 23.36
Opposition average in Eng for games May played - 13666 @ 19.60

The biggest difference appears to be that May didn't have to play vs England's attack.

 

[Johan]

with numbers in mind, most adjustment you could do there would put May at home as equivalent to Kane at home or better.

 

[capt_Luffy]

with numbers in mind, most adjustment you could do there would put May at home as equivalent to Kane at home or better.

Will say May lacks in longevity though

 

[Athlai]

Don't agree with that at all. The English dominance at home was so extreme that it really just makes any kind of comparison on raw numbers entirely meaningless.

 

[Johan]

Will say May lacks in longevity though

his record against Australia (best bowling of the time) is very impressive to me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

his record against Australia (best bowling of the time) is very impressive to me.

Best bowling was Engaged imho. But no shade on May, he was a Great, just played for shorter than most, like Williamson

 

[Johan]

Don't agree with that at all. The English dominance at home was so extreme that it really just makes any kind of comparison on raw numbers entirely meaningless.

even from a non-numerical perspective, the English pitches of the time were completely uncovered to the point that any tom, dick, Harry spinner would become lethal on the pitches, pacers also got tons of help on the wickets and some of the games are so absurdly low scoring that you've 40 wickets falling before both teams combined can make 600 runs, both Ashes in England at the time are also very low scoring, there is the odd decent batting pitch tho

 

[Johan]

Best bowling was Engaged imho. But no shade on May, he was a Great, just played for shorter than most, like Williamson

debateable on whose the best

 

[Athlai]

Must be why the average at the time was 30 odd for England

 

[Johan]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Interesting, I think I might have to go match by match. Their home stats are only equivalent by stats but I think May's is better.

 

[capt_Luffy]

debateable on whose the best

England just had crazy depth. There was a good reason why Trueman and Laker played so few matches.

Fast pitch? Bring on: Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Loader, Bailey

Greentops? Roll out: Cartwright, Shackleton, Jackson

Rankturner? Yesh: Laker, Lock, Wardle, Appleyard


These are just on top of my head

 

[Johan]

England just had crazy depth. There was a good reason why Trueman and Laker played so few matches.

Fast pitch? Bring on: Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Loader, Bailey

Greentops? Roll out: Cartwright, Shackleton, Jackson

Rankturner? Yesh: Laker, Lock, Wardle, Appleyard


These are just on top of my head

oh depth wise England easily wins but I rate the 1950 ashes attack the highest because I believe Miller and Lindwall are less condition dependent than anyone from english side bar Tyson who kind of broke and Trueman (cry)

on a spin pitch/rank turner/wet pitch, 50s England is probably the strongest side ever or atleast up there

 

[capt_Luffy]

oh depth wise England easily wins but I rate the 1950 ashes attack the highest because I believe Miller and Lindwall are less condition dependent than anyone from english side bar Tyson who kind of broke and Trueman (cry)

on a spin pitch/rank turner/wet pitch, 50s England is probably the strongest side ever or atleast up there

Oh **** I forgot Bedser!!! Yeah the Aussie attack was less condition dependent (Tyson in 50s English Bond, don't know why people rate him over Larwood and even Trueman played mostly at home), but English depth was mind boggling. Imo more than any team ever had in sheer variety. I think that's what wins over the long run.

 

[Johan]

@sayon basak come over to this side

 

[sayon basak]

@sayon basak come over to this side

Williamson>May≈Kohli

 

[Johan]

Williamson>May≈Kohli

May~Kohli is insulting to the prior oml

 

[Coronis]

Oh **** I forgot Bedser!!! Yeah the Aussie attack was less condition dependent (Tyson in 50s English Bond, don't know why people rate him over Larwood and even Trueman played mostly at home), but English depth was mind boggling. Imo more than any team ever had in sheer variety. I think that's what wins over the long run.

Larwood had one great series. Outside of that he was extremely inconsistent, and more often than not, very poor at test level. For example, in the previous Ashes in Australia, he played all 5 matches, taking 18 wickets @ 40. However he took 8/62 in one match, leaving him with his other 10 wickets costing him 66. Reminiscient of Starc’s recent performance in the B/G series. Outside of his one series, he wouldn’t really fire for more than one match in a series.