Players of the past who would have better/worse records

[GuyFromLancs]

I'd disagree that Thorpe was either a) playing for an often terrible England side from 1993 to 1999/2000 (was much more like an occasionally terrible and often moderate one - certainly the worst days had passed for England by the time the 1990s rolled around) or b) by a considerable distance the best player of spin in the team. Atherton, Hussain and, when they were going well, Hick and Ramprakash were also fine players of spin on the relatively rare occasion England faced any particularly challenging spin bowling.

It is conceivable that he'd have averaged 50+ if he'd played from 2001/02 onwards, though. You look at the fact that the likes of Strauss, Cook, Bell and Collingwood, all of whom are notably inferior to him (and the Athertons, Stewarts and Hussains), have had no problem averaging a decent bit over 40.

I thought England were a horrible team in the 90s because I consider the Ashes to be the real benchmark of English cricket.

If Thorpe was playing in the England side today he'd be our best batsman, including Pietersen at the moment. I would actually have loved to have seen KP and Thorpey bat together for England.

I never rated Hussain as a batsman, nor Ramps whose test career is a disgrace.

 

[Richard]

Dunno, just a hunch (not including Thorpe as Pothas didn't include it in his original list)

Strauss - 43.48
Atherton - 37.69
Hussain - 37.18
Stewart - 39.54


Dunno though, it's just a hunch.

Oh, and 50's to 100's conversions.

Both career averages and conversion-rates are fairly meaningless statistics, especially when there's as little in them as that, and more especially than ever when one player's career is in motion and three others' are finished.

 

[Richard]

I haven't checked, but I think he scored more hundreds, obviously averages aren't everything but his averages are higher, his conversion rate is I believe the best for any England player ever (maybe behind Pietersen, not sure), and to top it all he's the only one on the list to have captained England to Ashes success. Fair to say he achieved more, IMO.

I'm talking about as batsmen, not as captains - though BTW Hussain captained England to Wisden Trophy success and Stewart to victory over South Africa, both of which were almost certainly bigger achievements than the 2009 Ashes victory.

And number of centuries, like conversion-rates and basic career averages, are relatively meaningless statistics, more so than ever when the career of one player being compared is still fully in motion.

 

[Richard]

Strauss did have a very good series against Pakistan though. He was under pressure after being given the captaincy, and his 2 centuries came when the match situation required Strauss to make a big score. Even given the modest attack's Strauss did well to make 128 of England's 296 at Lords and 116 of England's 345 to set up the victory at Headingley.

I wouldn't suggest otherwise that he had an excellent series against Pakistan, but given that it was against a reserve bowling-attack, I'd say it is fairly fair to say it doesn't count for very much given what it was sandwiched in between. In itself it was a decent achievement, but it doesn't come remotely close to atoning for what was otherwise awful form 2005/06-2007/08.

 

[Richard]

I thought England were a horrible team in the 90s because I consider the Ashes to be the real benchmark of English cricket.

I don't. It's the tip of the iceberg, IMO - all Test cricket is of great importance. Placing The Ashes way above anything else is the cause of big problems to the English game, in a myriad of different respects.

If Thorpe was playing in the England side today he'd be our best batsman, including Pietersen at the moment. I would actually have loved to have seen KP and Thorpey bat together for England.

It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure Thorpe and Pietersen would be a combo that'd work all that well. No real way of knowing, of course.

I never rated Hussain as a batsman, nor Ramps whose test career is a disgrace.

A disgrace is over-egging it - maybe between 1992 and 1995/96, excluding one-off dead Ashes Tests, you could indeed describe it as thus. But from 1997 to the end of his career, when not being made to open, he did well enough.

As for never rating Hussain as a batsman, that's deeply mistaken in my book. He was no superstar, but he could certainly play, and from 1996 to 2004, outside 2000, he was a very capable batsman who England would have been much, much lesser without.

 

[GIMH]

I'm talking about as batsmen, not as captains - though BTW Hussain captained England to Wisden Trophy success and Stewart to victory over South Africa, both of which were almost certainly bigger achievements than the 2009 Ashes victory.

And number of centuries, like conversion-rates and basic career averages, are relatively meaningless statistics, more so than ever when the career of one player being compared is still fully in motion.

Firstly - you may see them as bigger achievements but the fact is that winning the Ashes is the pinnacle of English cricket. It's as simple as that.

How on earth you can consider conversion rate to be meaningless is beyond me. And career averages, whilst not the be-all end-all can hardly be considered meaningless either.

Based on the fact that Strauss comes off as better purely on the stats (and you know I'm not a stats guy) what is the argument for the others? If one player is statistically superior then the onus is on the person arguing for those with weaker records to explain why they are still superior as players.

 

[Richard]

Firstly - you may see them as bigger achievements but the fact is that winning the Ashes is the pinnacle of English cricket. It's as simple as that.

It is at the moment, but it hasn't always been. It's foolish to judge by how things are at any one time and apply it blanket to all times. In, say, 1988 and 1989, do you really imagine beating Australia would've been received more rapturously than beating West Indies (not that England had a hope of doing either at that time)? Of course it wouldn't.

England's Wisden Trophy victory in 2000 was their first for 31 years. Given how rapidly West Indies have gone downhill in the last 8 years, those who didn't watch that series with full attention-to-detail may well not realise how huge it was. It was a more seismic moment than 2005, never mind 2009. 2009 compared to 2000 barely even registers, IMO.

And the victory over South Africa in 1998 was not merely the first since readmission, but the first in a series of more than three Tests by England for 11-and-a-half years. It was certainly something, and again, being less recent those who only remember the more recent one may well underestimate it.

How on earth you can consider conversion rate to be meaningless is beyond me. And career averages, whilst not the be-all end-all can hardly be considered meaningless either.

Career conversion-rate is especially meaningless when a career is in motion - it will change. It does have some meaning, but equally, the supposition that 100 is a miles better knock than, say, 92, is a ridiculous one. Each innings requires its own context, and sometimes 76 will be a far better knock than 152. That's why I don't set a particularly enormous amount of stall by conversion-rate.

Based on the fact that Strauss comes off as better purely on the stats (and you know I'm not a stats guy) what is the argument for the others? If one player is statistically superior then the onus is on the person arguing for those with weaker records to explain why they are still superior as players.

The main argument is that stats comparisons are near-useless when one player is (all being well) barely over halfway through his career and those he's being compared to are complete. And as I say, if by "stats" you mean "career averages" then yes, Strauss does come off best for the time being but if you mean "meaningful stats" then, well, no, he doesn't.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I don't. It's the tip of the iceberg, IMO - all Test cricket is of great importance. Placing The Ashes way above anything else is the cause of big problems to the English game, in a myriad of different respects

.

All of test cricket is important, but if we linger a full league or more behind the Aussies, which we did, we are failing badly.

It's certainly possible, but I'm not sure Thorpe and Pietersen would be a combo that'd work all that well. No real way of knowing, of course.

Opposites attract?

A disgrace is over-egging it - maybe between 1992 and 1995/96, excluding one-off dead Ashes Tests, you could indeed describe it as thus. But from 1997 to the end of his career, when not being made to open, he did well enough.

Hmmmmm

 

[Richard]

All of test cricket is important, but if we linger a full league or more behind the Aussies, which we did, we are failing badly.

Not neccessarily - in the time in question, many sides lagged miles behind them. That in itself was no real disgrace. You can't expect England to always compete with Australia - that's not realistic.

Aside from that fact, there were at least two Ashes in the 1990s - 1997 and 1994/95 - where England did indeed come not that far from being on level-pegging. Only in 1990/91, 1993 and 1998/99 were they genuinely outplayed by a large margin. Even in 1990/91 and 1998/99 there were times when there wasn't much between the sides - 1993 was the only utterly comprehensive thrashing.

 

[SJS]

Richard/GIMH

Please check your respective message boxes.

 

[GIMH]

Richard, the Ashes has and always will be the most important prize for the England team, bar none, regardless of how good Australia are. I don't know how you can even begin to try and argue otherwise. I understand what you are saying in other things being bigger achievements at various times but the Ashes will always be the most important.

Also, as much as they may have been a shadow of themselves, they were still ranked #1 when we beat them, not like it was a small achievement like, say, 1986/87

 

[Richard]

Richard, the Ashes has and always will be the most important prize for the England team, bar none, regardless of how good Australia are. I don't know how you can even begin to try and argue otherwise. I understand what you are saying in other things being bigger achievements at various times but the Ashes will always be the most important.

I'm really not sure that's true. I've read next to nothing which has ever suggested it. Most things suggest that fans and players alike craved victory over West Indies far more in the mid-1980s especially than that over Australia.

The teams who people want to beat most generally tend to be the best ones. There has certainly been unhealthy prioritisation of The Ashes (and even more unhealthy exaggeration of that prioritisation) of late with Australia being near-unbeatable for a long time, but as I say, judging everything by how things are now is a dangerous game.

Also, as much as they may have been a shadow of themselves, they were still ranked #1 when we beat them, not like it was a small achievement like, say, 1986/87

As I've said before, I don't set much stall by rankings. Australia certainly weren't as lowly as they were in 1985 or 1986/87 and certainly 2009 was a far more credible achievement for England than that. But there's no way they or anyone else were a clear #1 in spring 2009.

 

[GIMH]

No point arguing over it, we need one of our older heads to butt in at this point

 

[Richard]

Dave(s - any of the 3 will do)? Martin?