TheJediBrah
Request Your Custom Title Now!
i never claimed it wasIf it's to with batting averages in general
i never claimed it wasIf it's to with batting averages in general
How does any of this proves though that T20 haven't affected Tests negatively??If it's to do with the shots being played, then there is a visible effect of T20 cricket, though that can also be attributed to the development in ODI cricket over a longer period. I've not denied this anywhere to be honest.
If it's to with batting averages in general I can point to pitch conditions around the world in the past few years, the general record of bowlers during said period, the developments in bowling skills like the wobble seam becoming widespread and so on that suggest other factors have had a larger negative effect on Test batting records than people playing more T20 cricket.
Refer to my quote of @shortpitched713. It's essentially meaningless because there are far more visible factors that actually have recordable impact on batting performances than playing T20 cricket.How does any of this proves though that T20 haven't affected Tests negatively??
what does wobble seam’s rise, test bowling pitches becoming spicier to encourage more attention being paid to tests by cricket fans and to encourage more results have anything to do with t20s??How does any of this proves though that T20 haven't affected Tests negatively??
Does a batter's mean ability to handle conditions not reflect in their batting averages? I thought the two points were inseparable.i never claimed it was
if we had to start a new thread everytime a thread on this forum is derailed we would have to start 10 new threads everydayI thought this thread was about comments on our current bowling poll. Instead it's become a debate about Test standards and the effect of t20s on batting. Everyone is entitled to opinions but this has become a discussion on whose opinion is fact and whose is not.
@Xix2565 you have had a lot to say on these off the thread's theme. Why not start a new thread rather than contributing to the drowning of the original OP?
Alright, I'll stop here then.I thought this thread was about comments on our current bowling poll. Instead it's become a debate about Test standards and the effect of t20s on batting. Everyone is entitled to opinions but this has become a discussion on whose opinion is fact and whose is not.
@Xix2565 you have had a lot to say on these off the thread's theme. Why not start a new thread rather than contributing to the drowning of the original OP?
I think that poll is Dead now imo . I mean does it matter who is 41st ATG bowler and who is 48 th ?I thought this thread was about comments on our current bowling poll. Instead it's become a debate about Test standards and the effect of t20s on batting. Everyone is entitled to opinions but this has become a discussion on whose opinion is fact and whose is not.
@Xix2565 you have had a lot to say on these off the thread's theme. Why not start a new thread rather than contributing to the drowning of the original OP?
It does matter for draftersI think that poll is Dead now imo . I mean does it matter who is 41st ATG bowler and who is 48 th ?
No, they aren't. You can have a reduced ability of Test batsmen to handle difficult conditions without a reduction in overall average. It can be counter-balanced by other factors like bigger bats, smaller boundaries, enhanced strokeplay and scoring rates.Does a batter's mean ability to handle conditions not reflect in their batting averages? I thought the two points were inseparable.
not the nicest thing to say to the opI think that poll is Dead now imo . I mean does it matter who is 41st ATG bowler and who is 48 th ?
I get why you say this. But to realize that in 100+ years of test history, we have only 30 odd notable bowlers is something sad.I think that poll is Dead now imo . I mean does it matter who is 41st ATG bowler and who is 48 th ?
this forum doesnt have a monopoly on deciding who are the only notable test bowlersI get why you say this. But to realize that in 100+ years of test history, we have only 30 odd notable bowlers is something sad.
If you think such polls should stop at 30 you are showing rather shallow knowledge of cricket history. Look at some of the names yet to be mentioned and tell me they don't matter.It does matter for drafters
I didn't think that at all. Why are you quoting meIf you think such polls should stop at 30 you are showing rather shallow knowledge of cricket history. Look at some of the names yet to be mentioned and tell me they don't matter.
He is supporting your point tbh .I didn't think that at all. Why are you quoting me
Pujara is one of the top 10 bats to ever play for India. I’ll take that. If “all” Jaiswal turns out to be is Pujara, that’s a great outcomeWTF did I just read ?
Do you know both Pujara and Mayank Aggarwal had similar start to Jaiswal and see where they are now .