England - Champions Trophy

[marc71178]

Averages Lie Some times They Lieed for bradman

You What?!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Neil Pickup]

Yes, Don Bradman's average was a lie :rolleyes:

Only 29 centuries in 80 innings plus 13 fifties. Over 50% of his innings brok 50, and 36% broke 100. Compare that to Tendulkar with 30 100s and 33 fifties in 159 innings. Around 36% 50+ and 18% 100+. Not even close.

117 First Class 100s and 59 Fifties in 338 inns - that's an incredible conversion rate. Tendulkar has 54 tons and 75 fifties in 294. Worse % fifty-plus and conversion rate. Comfortably.

This is the most baseless argument ever. Yes, even more so than Agarkar being an allrounder.

And as for Trescothick, he had clear talent and just wasn't making best use of it.

 

[chris.hinton]

I meant that he was the best Batsman ever and over 100 would have been the best for Bradman

 

[luckyeddie]

I think that he would be prepared to settle for 99.94 or whatever it was.

His average only reflects what he had achieved in a stunning career. It can never tell the whole story - no-one's average ever can, the glorious sacrifice for the futile run chase, the dodgy decisions, circumstances in which runs are made, the standard of opposition, all of which are 'hidden' from the cold, antiseptic sting of 'the average'.

That's because it is 'an average'.

It is arguable that it COULD have been higher (much of his cricket was played on uncovered pitches) and he never had the opportunity to 'fill his boots' against the likes of Agarkar but I think that it pretty well indicates how special he was.

It is also arguable that it COULD have been lower. He never had to play tests against Australia!

[Edited on 9/9/02 by luckyeddie]

 

[Anil]

Hick is class - in lower-class cricket.

I remember when he smashed that championship 400 - we had just gone to 4 day games - and crikey he looked good.

He is one of those people who never quite made the transition to full-fledged test star. A couple of good knocks, a string of failures, out, recalled, a couple of good knocks ad nauseum.

Remind you of anyone else?

All together now....

Somebody said that you meant Ramprakash. Although he hasn't been as prolific as Hick at county level and I know he is inconsistent, but hasn't he been a much better player than this guy at international level?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Average wise they are very close.

Plus Hick could bowl. A bit.

 

[marc71178]

IMO Hick's been a better player for England, and his average compares favourably with batsmen of his era in the Test arena.

 

[luckyeddie]

Hick is a good barometer for judging the standard of the opposition.

Against mid-range bowlers, he can be devastating. Against a top-quality attack (pace or spin), he's a little better than Rampers - no more.

 

[Anil]

IMO Hick's been a better player for England, and his average compares favourably with batsmen of his era in the Test arena.

Really! Do you mean English batsmen of his era or all the batsmen of his era? Are you sure because Hick has 3383 runs in 65 tests at an average of 31.32 in a career that started 10 years back. You are right that Ramps has a worse record, 52 tests, 2350 runs at 27.32. There has surely been much better performers for England over the last 10 years like Atherton, Thorpe, Stewart, Hussain, Butcher, Trescothick....

[Edited on 9/11/02 by anilramavarma]

 

[Neil Pickup]

English batsmen, and with the era as the early to mid-90s - i.e. before the emergence of Vaughan Thorpe and Trescothick and re-birth of Butcher.

Butcher's for it now. I've just rated him.

 

[marc71178]

No, better than Ramprakash.

 

[Anil]

No, better than Ramprakash.

Much better reply.