Shane Warne vs Dale Steyn

[kyear2]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

God no.

But there's still no argument to him being the best ever.

 

[kyear2]

Do you think he would have averaged less or more?

Considerably less.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Just because Marshall bowled well in the 80’s doesn’t mean he would have done as well in the 30’s. He certainly couldn’t handle the 70’s.

I believe he meant with regards to performance against peers rather than pure stats. But I could be wrong.

And if a champion in one era would have done well is not a valid premise, then neither is any premise which involes players from multiple eras. So lets shut down this forum, or only do comparisons between contemporaries.

What??

 

[sayon basak]

The comp was that I wouldn't select 4 batsmen from the 30's.

I mean, if there were 4 batsman from the 30's worthy of including in your XI, why wouldn't you?

 

[DrWolverine]

Barnes
O’Reilly
Spofforth
Lohmann

or

Marshall
Hadlee
McGrath
Murali

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think he would have averaged less or more?

Less. 70/80s maybe.

 

[sayon basak]

Less. 70/80s maybe.

Then he is not even clear off Steve Smith. Smith himself averaged 78 in 80 consecutive innings.

 

[Coronis]

What??

I think he averaged 80 odd in the 70’s. Couldn’t handle it

The argument started as a simple one.

Why would I select all 3 fast bowlers from the same era.

The comp was that I wouldn't select 4 batsmen from the 30's.

Why would one select the 3rd best bowler from a relatively bowler friendly era, I wouldn't. Same way I'm not choosing my entire batting lineup from the most friendly batting era either.

I've been talked down from Steyn, fine. I think that the 3 I select covers a bit more ground in time, McGrath is far enough from Marshall and faced more challenging conditions than Hadlee. Hence he gets that edge. My top 2 guys a d two greatest bowlers in my opinion with the most diverse skill sets makes it.

Even though Wasim was in between this two, he's here for multiple reasons.

But at the end of the day, there's still some variance and experience in different conditions.

Why would your worry about if they were from the same era if they’re the best choices tho.

 

[subshakerz]

Then he is not even clear off Steve Smith. Smith himself averaged 78 in 80 consecutive innings.

Definitely Bradman is the greatest cricketer ever.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

If you are having Jack Hobbs, you should have Sydney Barnes as well.

I leave out Sydney for a similar reason as George Headley and O'Reilly. I consider all three atgs but their sample sizes are just too small.

 

[Coronis]

I leave out Sydney for a similar reason as George Headley and O'Reilly. I consider all three atgs but their sample sizes are just too small.

Fair

 

[Migara]

First off that's not what I meant.

I meant that when the tail was in play, Murali has greater and more uncontested access to them.

You totally disregard how often tail was in play.

 

[smash84]

We don't rank a 50 average from the 80's the same way we do one from the 2000's.

Hammond didn't face the level of bowlers that Richards did.

You have to adjust for eras, just because someone batted well in the 30's or 40's doesn't mean they would have done as well in 2024.or the 90's.

So it's not as simple as a champion in one era would have done as well in another.

Yes, but we look at performance against peers. That is where the players actually play, not in some mythical future or past. The 2000s had a large proportion of batsmen averaging over 50 where even the likes of Mohammad Yousuf ended up averaging more than Viv Richards but given the era, averaging like that wasn't too special.

 

[Johan]

For some reason this applies to batsmen and not bowlers. Jack Hobbs gets picked whereas Barnes or Spofforth or Lohmann don’t get picked.

Hobbs is the second greatest Batsmen, Spofforth and Lohmann aren't top 20 bowlers.

 

[Johan]

Would Bradman average 99.94 if he played today?

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

 

[DrWolverine]

Don played 70% of his tests against the best team.

 

[Xix2565]

Barnes
O’Reilly
Spofforth
Lohmann

or

Marshall
Hadlee
McGrath
Murali

I'll easily take the latter. Though this tangent should be discussed elsewhere IMO.

 

[shortpitched713]

Don played 70% of his tests against the best team.

Australia were playing against cloned twins of themselves?

I didn't know they had the technology back then!

 

[Johan]

Australia were playing against cloned twins of themselves?

I didn't know they had the technology back then!

England and Australia were roughly on the same level back then.

 

[kyear2]

Then he is not even clear off Steve Smith. Smith himself averaged 78 in 80 consecutive innings.

And look at what happened to him when the pitches perked up.