Top 5 Australian batsman after Bradman.

DJellett · Apr 23, 2008

Richard said:
Justin Langer and Martin Love, ITSTL. Amazed anyone enjoyed watching either of them.

Ditto Katich.

Burgey · Apr 23, 2008

SJS said:
I am surprised myself that I included him. When I started writing the names, I had no clue I would include him but when I started short-listing Australian batsmen, I found not so many to challenge him.

My first reaction, to myself, was, how the hell have Australia dominated world cricket so often with so few truly great batsmen !

Seriously.

It's not a bad point you make there SJS. I suppose the short answer might be that they've had some quality bowlers during those periods.

sideshowtim · Apr 23, 2008

SJS said:
I am surprised myself that I included him. When I started writing the names, I had no clue I would include him but when I started short-listing Australian batsmen, I found not so many to challenge him.

My first reaction, to myself, was, how the hell have Australia dominated world cricket so often with so few truly great batsmen !

Seriously.

Great bowlers lead to dominance, not great basmen. India have had great batsmen for the last decade but have produced rubbish results. A great bowler is better than a great batsmen. Australia have had a ridiculous amount of quality bowling, India in comparison have had absolute garbage.

gwo · Apr 23, 2008

Burgey said:
Chappelli over Chappellg is an interesting one.

I take it you rate the fighting qualities in players pretty highly?

Flair is overrated.

Much rather see a grafted 50 under difficult circumstances than say Gillys 100 against England a few seasons back.

SJS · Apr 23, 2008

sideshowtim said:
Great bowlers lead to dominance, not great basmen. India have had great batsmen for the last decade but have produced rubbish results. A great bowler is better than a great batsmen. Australia have had a ridiculous amount of quality bowling, India in comparison have had absolute garbage.

Yes thats true.

Also explains why Bradman's selected sides are always heavier in bowling

SJS · Apr 23, 2008

Burgey said:
It's not a bad point you make there SJS. I suppose the short answer might be that they've had some quality bowlers during those periods.

All through in fact.

The_Bunny · Apr 23, 2008

SJS said:
I am surprised myself that I included him. When I started writing the names, I had no clue I would include him but when I started short-listing Australian batsmen, I found not so many to challenge him.

My first reaction, to myself, was, how the hell have Australia dominated world cricket so often with so few truly great batsmen !

Seriously.

More a constant stream of good to very good batsmen than a few great ones

SJS · Apr 23, 2008

I could be wrong but I suspect it was also true that a successful English batsman tended to play much longer than a succesful Australian - perhaps due to the better structured doestic English season at leat till the end of WW2.

The number of tests played by Australian top cricketrs is generlly lower than their English counterparts.

This led them to have more career runs, more test centuries etc. In the modern era that has changed with a much better and professional set up in Australia and the Australian cricketer now invariably goes on to play 70 or more tests. The highest run getters in the game are increasingly coming from Australia (we are talking in comparison to England here) while the English whose players had once played most tests, scored most runs and most centuries now have only five players with 20 plus centuries and only one with over 25.

So, in a game so enamored with statistics as a measure of success, we find more English great players in the older lot and prefer more recent Australians.

archie mac · Apr 23, 2008

Just looking at some of the members in the early pages of this thread that are no longer around

Richard · Apr 23, 2008

gwo said:
Hmmm

1992/1993 wouldnt have been a good time to start filtering those statistics

The period you mentioned... up until Sep 01 (where the bowling of the world dropped off...) ... Stephen Waugh infact averages 31.40. (from start of his career to Sep 01 he averages 31.39). This is with 1 Century, 6 50s and 8 ducks and 21 sub 20 scores (where he was dismissed or retired).

That said...of his 50s ..5 of them were not out and that was also with a 49* and 47*.

Yes, from Sept 01 onwards Waugh averaged 39.10 with the bat... Even when "chasing quick runs".

It seems pretty clear to me that statistics don't paint the whole picture with Mister Waugh, but it's also pretty clear that his 2nd innings performances were outright **** in general.

I can't paint it any other way.

2nd dig average...
1985-1991 - 31.36
1992-Sept 2001 - 31.40
Sept 2001 - End of Career - 39.1

That is why NUFAN is correct...when games were more likely to be on the line between 1985 to 2001... Stephen Waugh averaged 31.39.

*yes i understand stats don't say all and he does have a few things in his favour (ie majority of his large 2nd innings scores have been n.o.)

This, yes, is figures in third- and fourth-innings in total?

If so, then vaguely interesting, but I'd still want to have a closer look.

1992/93 is always a good time with Stephen Waugh, BTW, as before then as I've mentioned he was (bar 1989) a very poor batsman in first-, second-, third- or fourth-innings. He played as many games as he did only because he could also bowl.

Richard · Apr 23, 2008

Burgey said:
Ind33d, and that's my point. Some guys get thrown in, owing to circumstances, when they may not be ready. An example would be S Waugh in the 80s. Had circumstances contrived to put someone like Hussey (or anyone else for that matter) in before they were ready, then their record and the manner in which we regard them may suffer.
Some guys come in and prosper from a young age (Tendulkar), others come in older as a complete package (Hussey) others aren't ready or don't measure up at first, but end up great or fine players after spells out of a team (Langer, Hayden, S Waugh to name but three).
Just a confluence of timing, form and availablility of places I guess.

I've often wondered, indeed, what might have happened had Stephen Waugh debuted in, let's say, 1992/93 on the tour of New Zealand, and done exactly as well as he ended-up doing. Because from that point until the end of the 2001 Ashes, Waugh averaged 61 - exactly the same as Sachin Tendulkar's average over a few more games after his own introductory period had finished and he had started to score with the regularity we come to know him for.

Incidentally, much as Tendulkar gains credit for his facing of Imran and the W's in his debut series, I've always wished they'd waited a little longer with him and introduced him on the England tour, as even the very best are likely to struggle with Test cricket at 16 years of age.

Yes, Waugh's case is always one that fascinates me, because as I mention above - 1989 aside, Waugh was a very poor batsman for the first 7 years of his Test career - and that's a fair while.

gwo · Apr 23, 2008

Richard said:
This, yes, is figures in third- and fourth-innings in total?

If so, then vaguely interesting, but I'd still want to have a closer look.

1992/93 is always a good time with Stephen Waugh, BTW, as before then as I've mentioned he was (bar 1989) a very poor batsman in first-, second-, third- or fourth-innings. He played as many games as he did only because he could also bowl.

Unfortunately yes :huh:

I meant 92/93 isn't good for his 3rd and 4th innings... yes his 1st and 2nd innings improved out of sight though.

I was at work and didn't wanna do an elaborate job with that post...but here goes ...

Overall Career:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...rt;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Now if we cut off his career into 3 parts (slightly different cut off dates to this morning) (Debut to Jan 93 (where he scored the 100 against the Windies), Jan 93 to Sept 01 (where world bowling dropped off) and Sept 01 to Retirement)... we see:

Debut to Jan 93:

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Jan 93 to Sept 01

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Sept 01 to retirement

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

It's not very flattering at all is it :dry: