Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[kyear2]

Bradman's average is hampered by wet pitches, they don't exist anymore, so probably more.

How do the pitches from the '30's and 40's compare to those of the 90's?

How does the attacks of Wasim and Waqar, McWarne, Donald and Pollock compare to the pacers of the day.

To disregard all of that is missing quite a bit of context.

There've been plenty of material where it's referenced that Hobbs and Bradman were held in equal esteem in particular because of the pitches.

After he retired the pitches around the world, outside of the WI or course we're intentionally livened up.

But what happens when Weekes and Walcott were less than God like away from the Caribbean? They were and are seen as HTB's. Those were the same types of tracks that Bradman had everywhere, not to add bowling squads that were light years ahead of what Bradman faced. Lindwall, Miller and that crew, Statham and Trueman.

Of all the batsmen in the top 14 or so, Bradman was the only one to face almost no pitches conducive to fast bowling, and no ATG pacers. The one time he faced anything close to resembling what subsequent batsmen had to face, it sparked an international incident. Though when it was repeated not too long after, the blowback wasn't nearly quite the same.

Sachin isn't revered for what he did in the 2000's, it's for what he did in the 90's.

No one quite had the perfect storm that Bradman did, and to his eternal credit, he capitalized on them like possibly no one would. But as @peterhrt has consistently said, runs from the late 20's started to be devalued, and for good reason.

For all of his average, Sutcliffe was never seen to be close to being on par with Hobbs or Hutton. Both openers both pre and post their respective wars faced far more significant challenges.

The period and it's level of non responsiveness from the pitches is a large reason why O'Reilly is rated as highly as he is.

Bradman is the best, the greatest, all of that. No one's even questioning that.

But to believe he's somehow twice as good as everyone else is something that wasn't even beloved when he played and even a decade after he retired.

Hobbs was very much on his heels of not seen to be his equal by many.

The literature is there.

In any event, I don't rate him to be twice as good as any of the batsmen in my BAB category. Not close.

 

[Johan]

How do the pitches from the '30's and 40's compare to those of the 90's?

How does the attacks of Wasim and Waqar, McWarne, Donald and Pollock compare to the pacers of the day.

To disregard all of that is missing quite a bit of context.

There've been plenty of material where it's referenced that Hobbs and Bradman were held in equal esteem in particular because of the pitches.

After he retired the pitches around the world, outside of the WI or course we're intentionally livened up.

But what happens when Weekes and Walcott were less than God like away from the Caribbean? They were and are seen as HTB's. Those were the same types of tracks that Bradman had everywhere, not to add bowling squads that were light years ahead of what Bradman faced. Lindwall, Miller and that crew, Statham and Trueman.

Of all the batsmen in the top 14 or so, Bradman was the only one to face almost no pitches conducive to fast bowling, and no ATG pacers. The one time he faced anything close to resembling what subsequent batsmen had to face, it sparked an international incident. Though when it was repeated not too long after, the blowback wasn't nearly quite the same.

Sachin isn't revered for what he did in the 2000's, it's for what he did in the 90's.

No one quite had the perfect storm that Bradman did, and to his eternal credit, he capitalized on them like possibly no one would. But as @peterhrt has consistently said, runs from the late 20's started to be devalued, and for good reason.

For all of his average, Sutcliffe was never seen to be close to being on par with Hobbs or Hutton. Both openers both pre and post their respective wars faced far more significant challenges.

The period and it's level of non responsiveness from the pitches is a large reason why O'Reilly is rated as highly as he is.

Bradman is the best, the greatest, all of that. No one's even questioning that.

But to believe he's somehow twice as good as everyone else is something that wasn't even beloved when he played and even a decade after he retired.

Hobbs was very much on his heels of not seen to be his equal by many.

The literature is there.

In any event, I don't rate him to be twice as good as any of the batsmen in my BAB category. Not close.

walk me through on why Hammond was rated higher than Hutton for 30 years and is still rated a league above Compton then?

 

[sayon basak]

walk me through on why Hammond was rated higher than Hutton for 30 years and is still rated a league above Compton then?

Slip fielding.

 

[The Sean]

How do the pitches from the '30's and 40's compare to those of the 90's?

How does the attacks of Wasim and Waqar, McWarne, Donald and Pollock compare to the pacers of the day.

To disregard all of that is missing quite a bit of context.

There've been plenty of material where it's referenced that Hobbs and Bradman were held in equal esteem in particular because of the pitches.

After he retired the pitches around the world, outside of the WI or course we're intentionally livened up.

But what happens when Weekes and Walcott were less than God like away from the Caribbean? They were and are seen as HTB's. Those were the same types of tracks that Bradman had everywhere, not to add bowling squads that were light years ahead of what Bradman faced. Lindwall, Miller and that crew, Statham and Trueman.

Of all the batsmen in the top 14 or so, Bradman was the only one to face almost no pitches conducive to fast bowling, and no ATG pacers. The one time he faced anything close to resembling what subsequent batsmen had to face, it sparked an international incident. Though when it was repeated not too long after, the blowback wasn't nearly quite the same.

Sachin isn't revered for what he did in the 2000's, it's for what he did in the 90's.

No one quite had the perfect storm that Bradman did, and to his eternal credit, he capitalized on them like possibly no one would. But as @peterhrt has consistently said, runs from the late 20's started to be devalued, and for good reason.

For all of his average, Sutcliffe was never seen to be close to being on par with Hobbs or Hutton. Both openers both pre and post their respective wars faced far more significant challenges.

The period and it's level of non responsiveness from the pitches is a large reason why O'Reilly is rated as highly as he is.

Bradman is the best, the greatest, all of that. No one's even questioning that.

But to believe he's somehow twice as good as everyone else is something that wasn't even beloved when he played and even a decade after he retired.

Hobbs was very much on his heels of not seen to be his equal by many.

The literature is there.

In any event, I don't rate him to be twice as good as any of the batsmen in my BAB category. Not close.

I reckon you might have written that exact post more often than I have posted on CW in total. And I joined in 2006.

 

[shortpitched713]

Less. 70/80s maybe.

65.7 for mine.

 

[sayon basak]

67.5 for mine.

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

 

[DrWolverine]

Smith’s average touched 65 around his 70th Test

Even during his 94th Test, his average was 60+

 

[DrWolverine]

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

I am more interested to see if Wally Hammond would average more or less than Pujara by that metric

 

[Johan]

Hammond playing today would still average more than Root

 

[shortpitched713]

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

Will do.

 

[sayon basak]

I am more interested to see if Wally Hammond would average more or less than Pujara by that metric

By that metric, I suppose even Sachin would would average worse than Pujara.

 

[Johan]

Gavaskar would average Crawley numbers in the great modern era.

 

[shortpitched713]

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

I am more interested to see if Wally Hammond would average more or less than Pujara by that metric

I know y'all are half joking, but I do have a formula for this. I was satisfied with it, because it also put the 50s batting inflation of the top few batsmen more into line with the rest of history as well.

Obviously it gets a bit more extreme the further back in time you go.

 

[Coronis]

I know y'all are half joking, but I do have a formula for this. I was satisfied with it, because it also put the 50s batting inflation of the top few batsmen more into line with the rest of history as well.

Obviously it gets a bit more extreme the further back in time you go.

 

[kyear2]

I reckon you might have written that exact post more often than I have posted on CW in total. And I joined in 2006.

Tell what I said that was incorrect.

From a factual perspective, what was wrong.

Just one example. What if Walcott had played all of his matches at home or in similar pitches, considering that he would have faced multiple times better bowlers, where do we rate him?

But he's rated taking into account his away games, especially against said ATG bowlers.

 

[smash84]

How do the pitches from the '30's and 40's compare to those of the 90's?

How does the attacks of Wasim and Waqar, McWarne, Donald and Pollock compare to the pacers of the day.

To disregard all of that is missing quite a bit of context.

There've been plenty of material where it's referenced that Hobbs and Bradman were held in equal esteem in particular because of the pitches.

After he retired the pitches around the world, outside of the WI or course we're intentionally livened up.

But what happens when Weekes and Walcott were less than God like away from the Caribbean? They were and are seen as HTB's. Those were the same types of tracks that Bradman had everywhere, not to add bowling squads that were light years ahead of what Bradman faced. Lindwall, Miller and that crew, Statham and Trueman.

Of all the batsmen in the top 14 or so, Bradman was the only one to face almost no pitches conducive to fast bowling, and no ATG pacers. The one time he faced anything close to resembling what subsequent batsmen had to face, it sparked an international incident. Though when it was repeated not too long after, the blowback wasn't nearly quite the same.

Sachin isn't revered for what he did in the 2000's, it's for what he did in the 90's.

No one quite had the perfect storm that Bradman did, and to his eternal credit, he capitalized on them like possibly no one would. But as @peterhrt has consistently said, runs from the late 20's started to be devalued, and for good reason.

For all of his average, Sutcliffe was never seen to be close to being on par with Hobbs or Hutton. Both openers both pre and post their respective wars faced far more significant challenges.

The period and it's level of non responsiveness from the pitches is a large reason why O'Reilly is rated as highly as he is.

Bradman is the best, the greatest, all of that. No one's even questioning that.

But to believe he's somehow twice as good as everyone else is something that wasn't even beloved when he played and even a decade after he retired.

Hobbs was very much on his heels of not seen to be his equal by many.

The literature is there.

In any event, I don't rate him to be twice as good as any of the batsmen in my BAB category. Not close.

Again, players are judged against their peers because that is who they play against..no batsman in the history of cricket was so far ahead of his peers than Bradman was to his. Doesn't matter if Bradman played in the 30s, he was just so far ahead of everyone that nobody has replicated anywhere close to that level of dominance in any other era

 

[kyear2]

Could you find out what Everton Weekes would average using the same metric that you used?

What metric? Weekes faced like pitches and ATG bowlers home and away.

And he's not seen as an ATG

 

[kyear2]

By that metric, I suppose even Sachin would would average worse than Pujara.

Based on what?

Sachin again faced varied conditions and great bowlers.

 

[Johan]

@kyear2 what do you think Hammond would average today

 

[kyear2]

Again, players are judged against their peers because that is who they play against..no batsman in the history of cricket was so far ahead of his peers than Bradman was to his. Doesn't matter if Bradman played in the 30s, he was just so far ahead of everyone that nobody has replicated anywhere close to that level of dominance in any other era

I swear the concept of context is lost on most here.

When there are only two good teams and one of them have the only ATG and great test bowlers of the era, and you're playing in literally two countries and a decent amount against outright minnows. Not even travel to the Caribbean like Hammond did, he didn't quite face the same scenarios as even people from his own era.

When they're 4 or 5 test level teams you can get a feel for how players do in varied conditions and against similar teams. It's not so cut and dry back then.

Even with the drastic pitch changes within 3 years of his retirement, even someone like Hutton didn't have the same career experiences. And again he faced so much better bowlers, O'Reilly, Lindwall, Miller and that's just from Australia. He played all over the world against varied attacks in new environments.

Context.