Players who went up or down in your judgement after going through their records

[The Sean]

I’d rather Alec, all things considered.

Yeah Alec was probably better but he doesn't have the Test magic.

Philip Derriman put it rather poetically when he wrote that while Alec's talent did not burn as brightly as Charlie's, it burned longer and more steadily.

 

[OverratedSanity]

This has been done a couple of times, though the only one I have to hand is the one which adds a twist in that it not only compiles the full WSC and RoW records into official Test stats, it also removes the Tests played against weakened sides without their WSC players (spoiler alert - look away now if you're an Indian fan).

I'm not necessarily fully onboard with discounting those matches as in a weird way it actually rewards failure - Boycott, for example, had a poor tour of Australia in 1978/79 against the second string Aussie XI, and so finds his average going up by this analysis because those matches are now discounted! However, it makes for interesting reading.

www.cricketcountry.com/articles/what-if-packer-supertests-and-world-xi-matches-of-the-1970s-had-been-official-tests-194978/amp/

Yeah this is actually partly why I had Gavaskar in my down list even though his average only changes by a marginal amount. Made hay in that Australia series against some complete no name bowlers. I always bring it up when people mention Gavaskar's record in Australia as great just because he averaged 51 there and slag off modern Indian batsmen like Dravid or Sehwag for cashing in in the 03-04 series where australia didn't have Warne and Mcgrath. Older players records are just not scrutinized as much.

Should be noted that WI still had Sylvester Clarke and Australia had Jeff Thomson who at that stage was still putting up great numbers despite it being post shoulder injury. So it'd be unfair to wipe away all those runs as worthless. The quality of the rest of the bowlers bar those two looks truly terrible though. I wonder how much impact the packer series had on Pews' standardized averages.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah Alec was probably better but he doesn't have the Test magic.

Charles was also a soft **** though. Retiring hurt, what a loser. Didn’t have that competitive edge.

Amusing he scored only 74 runs in his other 5 test innings. And that that single innings was his only FC ton and constitutes ~1/10th of his FC runs (44 matches, 84 innings).

Truely mercurial player.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The batsman whose gone down the most for me might be Hammond tbh. Used to think he was as good as Hobbs and Hutton but his record isn't nearly as impressive when you dig a bit deeper imo. There's a looooooottt of minnow bashing in there, arguably more than any ATG batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

no one.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Up: The Answer, The Lord
Down: Everyone else

 

[Slifer]

Yeah he has a great record at Sydney which was always the spin-friendly ground. His technique was almost perfect. I am gutted he never toured India too and I'm not an Aussie. If he had one great series there he would probably have a top 10 batsman of all time resume.

Chappell is a top 10 batsman for me fwiw. Flawless record and proved in WSC he can handle pace like fire. Then in his only series in Pakistan, he made runs vs Imran and Qasim (very underrated spinner). That's good enough for me.

 

[The Sean]

The length of his career wasn't too far off what was standard back then - he played Tests for 13 years and retired a few months short of his 36th birthday. That being said, he definitely could have stuck around a bit longer. I am sometimes overly harsh on Ponting for the scale of his decline, but I really admire that by his own admission he probably played on a couple of years too long but continued to make himself available because he felt he could still contribute to the team.

When Chappell retired, he knew that a young and relatively inexperienced side would then be playing their next ten Tests against West Indies - away on tour first, and then back at home. I'd really have respected him taking one for the team like Ponting did and playing on for another year to help Kim Hughes and the boys through it, even if it meant a hit to his Test average.

Two quick follow-ups to this. Firstly, a correction - Chappell was actually not yet 35-and-a-half when he retired. I had him at nearly 36 because from memory I thought his birthday was April rather than August. Not a big deal, but it would have annoyed me not to correct it.

Secondly, as a matter of interest regarding his longevity vs Ponting, had Punter retired at the same age as as Chappell - after Australia's tour of New Zealand in March 2010 (with a Test career just over a year longer than Chappell's) - his record would read: 144 Tests, 11,928 runs at 55.22. Make of that what you will.

 

[BazBall21]

Chappell is a top 10 batsman for me fwiw. Flawless record and proved in WSC he can handle pace like fire. Then in his only series in Pakistan, he made runs vs Imran and Qasim (very underrated spinner). That's good enough for me.

Not outrageous. I feel sure he would make my top ten with a big tour of India.

 

[subshakerz]

Chappell is a top 10 batsman for me fwiw. Flawless record and proved in WSC he can handle pace like fire. Then in his only series in Pakistan, he made runs vs Imran and Qasim (very underrated spinner). That's good enough for me.

Would have been better if scored against the Indian quartet.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Would have been better if scored against the Indian quartet.

It's not about doing it against India. But the one big innings he had in the subcontinent in his career was in a game where Imran didn't play and literally 1000 runs (well, 999 to be exact) were scored for the loss of 12 wickets.

I primarily bring up the spin thing because every other great player of his era did go on tours in unfamiliar conditions. He may have done brilliantly if he'd toured more , who knows. But to not acknowledge that his test record has this one small unproven thing, compared to border and Ponting would be unfair.

 

[The Sean]

It's not about doing it against India. But the one big innings he had in the subcontinent in his career was in a game where Imran didn't play and literally 1000 runs (well, 999 to be exact) were scored for the loss of 12 wickets.

I primarily bring up the spin thing because every other great player of his era did go on tours in unfamiliar conditions. He may have done brilliantly if he'd toured more , who knows. But to not acknowledge that his test record has this one small unproven thing, compared to border and Ponting would be unfair.

So it literally wasn't 1,000 runs?

It's the lies I can't stand.

 

[honestbharani]

So it literally wasn't 1,000 runs?

It's the lies I can't stand.

This from the 100s are 50s too guy. Overratedarithmetic more like, amirite??

 

[morgieb]

I just don't really rate any of the non-Simpson Aussie openers in the top class

Hell I'm not even convinced Simpson is as good as first hyped. No centuries before 1964 and retired after the 67/68 summer (before a brief WSC era comeback). The mid 1960's seems a really weak era for bowling too. Really, his record isn't too different to Khawaja's, for example.

 

[Coronis]

Hell I'm not even convinced Simpson is as good as first hyped. No centuries before 1964 and retired after the 67/68 summer (before a brief WSC era comeback). The mid 1960's seems a really weak era for bowling too. Really, his record isn't too different to Khawaja's, for example.

I don’t think its out of the realm of possibility to say that Simpson/Khawaja could be the ideal Aussie opening partnership once everything is said and done.

 

[trundler]

Hell I'm not even convinced Simpson is as good as first hyped. No centuries before 1964 and retired after the 67/68 summer (before a brief WSC era comeback). The mid 1960's seems a really weak era for bowling too. Really, his record isn't too different to Khawaja's, for example.

Yeah the problem with Hayden is that he dominated a weak era for pace bowling but Simpson's peak is even more brief and in a similarly easy era. Think he gets a free pass which Hayden doesn't. Morris too dominated weak English attacks and then came back to earth once England got better. That's the inverse of Hayden's career trajectory but he's not held to the same standard. Reckon Hayden and Lawry are better than both.

 

[The Sean]

Compton.

Up or down?

Down. Initially when I was younger basically all the info I had was from writing in whatever cricket books I had read and overall stats (usually listed in those books and considered of less importance). The writing had me thinking he was basically equal to Hutton.

I've marked Compton down slightly too, but only by a half notch really. His home/away numbers are heavily skewed and do him no favours, and his Test record seems disproportionately loaded into an incredible two-year peak with a surprisingly long stretch of mediocrity in the years following. However, he has three major mitigations to this in my opinion.

Firstly, most frivolously, his style of play – Compton's dashing batting and incredibly innovative strokeplay, particular in his younger days, clearly evoked a sense of wonder in those who watched him in action and spoke to a level of genius that I always have a soft spot for.

Secondly, and more importantly, the knee injury Compton acquired while flying down the wing for Arsenal really started to plague him as his career went on. This was a double whammy, as the effects of this seemed to correspond with batting becoming generally more difficult in the 1950s and by all accounts had a big impact on his disastrous 1950/51 tour of Australia (which ruined his away average almost irreparably).

Thirdly, and most importantly of all, the war. Compton lost seven prime years between the ages of 21 and 28 which could and would have made such a difference – he’s not alone in this of course, and all the players who were robbed of those years need to be viewed through that lens.

 

[The Sean]

Looking further into my comment above about Compton's disastrous tour of Australia in 1950/51, this was surely one of the most bizarre tours by any batsman.

In First-Class matches outside of the Test series, he scored 829 runs at 92.11, with four centuries.

In the Tests, his scores were 3, 0, 0, 23, 5, 0, 11, 11*. An average of 7.57.

 

[SteveNZ]

His List A record at the time was mediocre (it's improved quite a bit recently but still doesn't scream 'pick me for ODIs' overall) and those two ODIs he played earlier in his career were against Bangladesh and Ireland - both at home - so it didn't really move the needle much as to his standing in the format. I believe he only played those two games due to players being rested for those series, and possibly also as a way to get the quota averages up.

He's improved his OD game a lot since then and thoroughly deserves his place - he's improved in Tests too - but I can see why he wasn't particularly well-regarded in ODIs at the time.

I'll say it again, the inability for me to ever be really sure which country you come from and follow the most is absurd. And I envy how much cricket you must watch.

 

[SteveNZ]

against the 4 horsemen plus Wayne Daniel.

This is the greatest description of a bowling attack I've ever heard