Mohammad Yousuf vs V.V.S Laxman

[ankitj]

This is what you are looking for: Gooch holds his own with Bradman !!! | It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Ricky Ponting, in a 52-test span between Test # 1595 (Saf vs Aus 15/03/2002) and Test # 1819 (Aus vs Eng 1/12/2006) accumulated 5853 runs at an average of 74.09 (90-11-5853-74.09-23 hundreds). His average improved from 45.09 to 59.97.

And a similar article for bowling performances: Barnes and Muralitharan at par | It Figures | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

And the thread on CW discussing these couple of articles: http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/48919-best-performance-streaks.html

 

[miscer]

Best averages in 80-plus innings | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

i think the most impressive in the top 10 is
* i set qualification at 2500 when i was looking at it in statsguru
1) bradman
2) sobers (74 while next best is 60something in that period)
3) barrington (65 to 53)
4) tendulkar (65 to 54)

solid list of top batsmen ever too lol!
edit: at at the risk of sounding ignorant, who is barrington (heard his name a lot) and why isn't he talked about more frequently? dude seems like a beast however you break it down.

 

[smash84]

yeah even I am quite ignorant about Barrington

 

[weldone]

yeah even I am quite ignorant

awta

 

[smash84]

 

[angad]

Laxman is better player of quality spin.

OT - He is good slip fielder also.

 

[Howe_zat]

edit: at at the risk of sounding ignorant, who is barrington (heard his name a lot) and why isn't he talked about more frequently? dude seems like a beast however you break it down.

Barrington has a reputation as a grinder, and as a successful but limited batsman. The prevailing opinion, I think, is that he's one of England's best ever players, but never really displayed the level of batsmanship that the likes of Hammond, Hobbs or Hutton did.

I suppose the modern equivalent would be someone like Jacques Kallis, for example.

 

[amanuensis]

Barrington has a reputation as a grinder, and as a successful but limited batsman. The prevailing opinion, I think, is that he's one of England's best ever players, but never really displayed the level of batsmanship that the likes of Hammond, Hobbs or Hutton did.

I suppose the modern equivalent would be someone like Jacques Kallis, for example.

Did he not start out as a rather more "flamboyant" one, before changing his approach to batting?

 

[Howe_zat]

I haven't heard that before, but I'm far from the man to ask with respect to the details.

 

[The Sean]

Did he not start out as a rather more "flamboyant" one, before changing his approach to batting?

That sounds more like Len Hutton, who was quite the dashing opener early in his Yorkshire days, but I stand to be corrected if it applies to Barrington as well.

EDIT - actually, I think you might be right. I knew he was dropped early in his career but it seems that after being dropped he remodelled himself into a far less attacking player.

 

[The Sean]

Barrington is someone we've actually discussed quite a bit on here before, specifically with regard to why his Test record - which, from a statistical point of view, puts him in the discussion for the title of the second greatest batsman ever - is far greater than his reputation. It's not just that he's rated below the likes of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Hutton, but he's frequently ranked below contemporaries like May and Cowdrey who have hugely inferior statistical records.

PEWS actually raised an interesting point and hit the nail on the head IMO, noting that Barrington - as opposed to most of the great batsmen - played the vast majority of his Test career at his peak, as opposed to being picked too early and/or playing on too long, which statistically inhibits so many other players. Not that this should be held against him too much - he still averaged nearly 60 over 79 Tests and 13 years.

 

[amanuensis]

Barrington is someone we've actually discussed quite a bit on here before, specifically with regard to why his Test record - which, from a statistical point of view, puts him in the discussion for the title of the second greatest batsman ever - is far greater than his reputation. It's not just that he's rated below the likes of Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Hutton, but he's frequently ranked below contemporaries like May and Cowdrey who have hugely inferior statistical records.

PEWS actually raised an interesting point and hit the nail on the head IMO, noting that Barrington - as opposed to most of the great batsmen - played the vast majority of his Test career at his peak, as opposed to being picked too early and/or playing on too long, which statistically inhibits so many other players. Not that this should be held against him too much - he still averaged nearly 60 over 79 Tests and 13 years.

That's an interesting argument. The thing that stands out for me about him is the disparity between his test & first class averages - it's massive!

 

[The Sean]

That's an interesting argument. The thing that stands out for me about him is the disparity between his test & first class averages - it's massive!

Yeah for sure, that's something that's come up in discussion as well. It's like his FC record shows him "more accurately" as a player overall, whereas his Test record shows him just at his very best. Still, I bet there are a lot of batsmen who wish they could claim that!

 

[hang on]

Did he not start out as a rather more "flamboyant" one, before changing his approach to batting?

yes. far more of an aggressive batsman initially who adapted his game to fill the need for a bulwark, especially in foreign conditions.

 

[robelinda]

I'd better upload some Barrington....probably got 5 or 6 tons.

 

[hang on]

if u can stay awake during it.

 

[robelinda]

I stayed awake making those Bill Lawry innings......I can stay awake for Barrington ok!

 

[smash84]

Rob is a snake sitting on a treasure