What worth are rankings anymore?

[Spark]

I think we're in a lull with batting, if you could call it that, simply because so many great or very good batsmen are at the close of their careers - within the next two years, we'll probably see the retirements of Tendulkar, Ponting, Laxman, Hussey, Chanderpaul, maybe Younis and we've already seen Dravid go. Conversely, the "next generation" of batsmen - Clarke, ABdV, KP, Bell, Amla - are at the age when we'll be in a much better place to judge their quality in a few years or so.

In general, I think the whole "cricket is so bad nowadays" factor is vastly overstated. We tend to remember only the good bits from yesteryear, not the dull bits.

 

[Flem274*]

I get what you're saying, and I'm not for rose-tinted glasses myself, but modern batsmen, be it a result of more slap-dash cricket or whatever, definitely seem ill-equipped to handle the challenges of Test match cricket. Taking nothing away from Philander's spectacular achievements, but I 'm just saying: Rahul Dravid batted 263 balls (from memory) for his 95 on debut at Lord's in 1996. How many Michael Clarke/Kane Williamson style counter-attacking/grinding, ass to the wall knocks are we seeing today?

Trott in the last test, Williamson in the one before it. Warner at Hobart.

They're called arse to the wall knocks because no one else stands up.

 

[smash84]

And Philander/Steyn/Broad/Anderson etc aren't bowling well?

Do you think England are batting well?

 

[Flem274*]

Do you think England are batting well?

If opposing sides are batting and bowling to equal quality, do you know what happens?

Neither do I.

 

[smash84]

ftr Anderson/Broad/Philanderer and co have bowled well but otoh it would be naive to deny that batting techniques have not been affected by T20

 

[Flem274*]

The English test side hardly play 20/20, and David Warner has an unbeaten hundred on a green top where his more distinguished partners failed.

That line of argument doesn't work.

 

[Jono]

I get what you're saying, and I'm not for rose-tinted glasses myself, but modern batsmen, be it a result of more slap-dash cricket or whatever, definitely seem ill-equipped to handle the challenges of Test match cricket. Taking nothing away from Philander's spectacular achievements, but I 'm just saying: Rahul Dravid batted 263 balls (from memory) for his 95 on debut at Lord's in 1996. How many Michael Clarke/Kane Williamson style counter-attacking/grinding, ass to the wall knocks are we seeing today?

We were seeing heaps from 2005-2008 though.

 

[smash84]

@Phlegm.....what about the indian team and SL teams?

 

[Flem274*]

@Phlegm.....what about the indian team and SL teams?

Haven't seen any notable changes in Sanga, Jaya, Sachin, Dravid etc. The bowling has just been too good, and their bowling isn't as strong as other sides bar one or two players, so they're not doing as well as they could. Simples.

 

[NUFAN]

If opposing sides are batting and bowling to equal quality, do you know what happens?

Neither do I.

This..


I think Test Cricket is at a very exciting time. There are so many Cricketers who are still only in their formative years of playing at the highest level, so it's not that big a surprise to see these young batsman in particular struggle.

The pitches have definitely been a bit easier for the bowlers recently, but that's awesome for the game. It's so much more entertaining when 300 is considered a good team score.

 

[smash84]

awtnufan

 

[Arachnodouche]

Haven't seen any notable changes in Sanga, Jaya, Sachin, Dravid etc. The bowling has just been too good, and their bowling isn't as strong as other sides bar one or two players, so they're not doing as well as they could. Simples.

I disagree here. These are the same guys who've scored quite a bit in the same conditions against far more experienced bowlers. There have been other mitigating factors in the case of Laxman, Sachin, Dravid underperforming in Oz. All due respect to Pattinson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, but those three have faced far better and skilled opponents over the years in much more testing conditions, and come out smelling roses.

 

[Jono]

Better by name. Not better by performance.

Pattinson in 2011's bowling was better than Lee in 2007 or Gillespie in 2004.

Just by the actual performance, not name.

 

[Spark]

Jono on point here. Bit of a peeve of mine lately.

 

[Flem274*]

I disagree here. These are the same guys who've scored quite a bit in the same conditions against far more experienced bowlers. There have been other mitigating factors in the case of Laxman, Sachin, Dravid underperforming in Oz. All due respect to Pattinson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, but those three have faced far better and skilled opponents over the years in much more testing conditions, and come out smelling roses.

Don't look at the names, look at how they bowled.

Cricket isn't played in a vacuum. Every match is a new game. It sounds cliche, but it's true.

What are the notable changes you have noticed in those players techniques?

 

[Arachnodouche]

Better by name. Not better by performance.

Pattinson in 2011's bowling was better than Lee in 2007 or Gillespie in 2004.

Just by the actual performance, not name.

But then going by the premise of the last two pages, how do you measure they were bowling better than Lee or Gillespie?

 

[Flem274*]

Better by name. Not better by performance.

Pattinson in 2011's bowling was better than Lee in 2007 or Gillespie in 2004.

Just by the actual performance, not name.

fffuuuu

awta

 

[Spark]

What makes a player good/great isn't how good they were in a particular Test or even a series. An all-time-great innings is an all-time-great innings regardless of whether Sachin Tendulkar or Michael Slater plays it.

What defines quality is how often and how many. Pattinson bowling better in 2011 than Lee did in 2004 doesn't necessarily make him better, from a career POV, than Lee. What it does mean that the bowling faced by the batsmen was better, however, which is the salient point.

 

[Ruckus]

Better by name. Not better by performance.

Pattinson in 2011's bowling was better than Lee in 2007 or Gillespie in 2004.

Just by the actual performance, not name.

Yeah agree. A few of the wicket taking balls Hilf bowled were some of the best deliveries I've ever seen as well.

 

[honestbharani]

But then going by the premise of the last two pages, how do you measure they were bowling better than Lee or Gillespie?

They weren't, IMO.. Just that the pitches gave them something that was not there in 2004 and 2007..