While this argument is often advanced to promote a favoured player, it is - generally speaking - not true. As the decade by decade averages are much the same (low to middle 30s with exceptions like the 1950s) no one receives such an advantage to rely on the argument.
You know there are exceptions to the rule and Barry Richards is a rare one.
You can say that about Richards because of the opinions of many great players, his test record, supertest record and fc record. He succeeded whenever tested. Which makes him the exception.
Super Tests were higher than tests and he dominated those.
Those three are, imo, a cut above the others.
Conditions changed 2018 onwards and Smith averages 55 in that time.
Viv is in the 2nd tier. Anyone who doesn't think so is missing the point. Viv has a near flawless record and the only reason his average is lower is he didn't play minnows.
That Smith played in tougher conditions is laughable. I know you weren't the one who said it but I just had to say something. Sobers used match sticks for bats, played with minimal protection, unlimited bouncers, and the occasional uncovered wicket etc
Agreed. Just showing that Smith in the 'bowling friendly time' averages around 8 points lower than during the flatter time.
Sobers has a 15 year peak averaging 65.
Nope Hobbs and Sobers stats are similar, except the fact that Hobbs played and mastered extremely tough conditions. Hobbs has a 15 year peak averaging 65 too(52 vs 71 matches for Sobers). Both have a different longevity as compared to Sachin(as Sachin played vastly more matches in that time frame) Like Sobers, Hobbs was ridiculously consistent at his peak, whilst simultaneously dominating series. The fact the Sobers played better attacks is easily offset by the fact Hobbs played in an era where rules and the game itself were overwhelmingly helpful to the bowlers. Hobbs also dominated his peers in the pre war era and in sticky wickets to an extent surpassed only by Bradman(relative to his peers). So if Sobers is better than Smith, Hobbs(having a record similar to Sobers, for 20 less matches or so(because Sobers was a modern player than Hobbs) is clearly ahead of both. Even you know, why Sachin is ahead of Sobers.
They were cool, but still not Test cricket. Higher level or something of an exhibition? Regardless, it's still not a huge sample to be adding to 4 Tests.
For Viv why he is ahead of Sobers, the reasons are he played in a clearly tougher era(bowling and pitches wise), never faced any soft attack, his attacking batsmenship and high SR(which he meant he could the change the game in the matter of one session)his unprecedented psychological domination of the opposition(ex the Rodney Hogg incident), better short term peak than any man not named Bradman. Sir Gary definitely had a better long term peak, and didn’t have a late career slump like Viv. But Viv wins this for me.
