Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
Is Steve Smith the second best batsman ever now ?
Serious question, his record continues to baffle me but the numbers just don’t lie.
Of course millions of semi literate Indians will argue Tendulkar or Kohli online aye @NTA.....
But Smith really is a freak.
Hard to say. He plays on roads compared to batsmen in previous eras and the bowling now is nowhere near as good as it was in the 90s and early 00s imo. As a fan, I would pay good money to see Lara, Tendulkar, Crowe, Mark Waugh and Kohli bat, not so much Steve Smith.
i disagree about the quality of the bowling now, i actually think it's as good as ever. the issue is the weighted advantage technology is playing in favour of batsmen. Cricket balls haven't changed. everything else has.
the one thing that is good for bowlers is DRS. Umpires are way more comfortable giving front foot LBW these days, and nicks are actually picked up.
I don't agree with some of the DRS rules, ut it's a strong net positive in the game for me
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
Is Steve Smith the second best batsman ever now ?
Serious question, his record continues to baffle me but the numbers just don’t lie.
Of course millions of semi literate Indians will argue Tendulkar or Kohli online aye @NTA.....
But Smith really is a freak.
Hard to say. He plays on roads compared to batsmen in previous eras and the bowling now is nowhere near as good as it was in the 90s and early 00s imo. As a fan, I would pay good money to see Lara, Tendulkar, Crowe, Mark Waugh and Kohli bat, not so much Steve Smith.
i disagree about the quality of the bowling now, i actually think it's as good as ever. the issue is the weighted advantage technology is playing in favour of batsmen. Cricket balls haven't changed. everything else has.
Agree. Pace bowling. Although 3 or 4 of the strongest play for Steve Smith's own team. Obviously no Warne or Murali around at the moment, though.
NZ, Eng, India have way stronger bowling attacks than back then.
WI, Saf, Pak probably don't (Although, who along with Australia are the pace bowling traditional powers).
Biggest difference is probably the factor the average punter can't really measure. The consistency of pace and bounce in wickets. E.g. true roads. Turf technology has obviously come on miles, and the guild has been infiltrated by the batting freemasons.
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
Is Steve Smith the second best batsman ever now ?
Serious question, his record continues to baffle me but the numbers just don’t lie.
Of course millions of semi literate Indians will argue Tendulkar or Kohli online aye @NTA.....
But Smith really is a freak.
Hard to say. He plays on roads compared to batsmen in previous eras and the bowling now is nowhere near as good as it was in the 90s and early 00s imo. As a fan, I would pay good money to see Lara, Tendulkar, Crowe, Mark Waugh and Kohli bat, not so much Steve Smith.
i disagree about the quality of the bowling now, i actually think it's as good as ever. the issue is the weighted advantage technology is playing in favour of batsmen. Cricket balls haven't changed. everything else has.
Agree on your second point but I do think the bowlers back then were better. Granted that today's bowlers have it tougher due to everything being in the favour of the batsmen, but I would still rate the bowlers from that period higher than the current ones purely based on skill and variety.
We had Warne, Akram, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Younis, Lee, Akhtar, McGill, Kumble, Murali, Mushtaq Ahmed etc back then. That takes some beating imo.
-
@nzzp said in Australia v India:
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
but it's fucking shit being a bowler. video reviews on every delivery in case you over step. hard ball for 50 overs, but no shining. flat, lifeless pitches. rapid outfields. Going for a run a ball is now seen as a good day out.
shortened boundaries, and the insane bats the batters get. honestly, we should have bowlers getting to choose the ball they use, with higher seams and the ability to shine/deface. It's one sided, and that doens't make for consistently good entertainment.
I enjoyed cricket when it took considerable talent to protect one's wicket, let alone make runs. IMO it's far too slanted in the batsman's favour because run rate is what keeps the crowd entertained these days.
-
@antipodean said in Australia v India:
@nzzp said in Australia v India:
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
but it's fucking shit being a bowler. video reviews on every delivery in case you over step. hard ball for 50 overs, but no shining. flat, lifeless pitches. rapid outfields. Going for a run a ball is now seen as a good day out.
shortened boundaries, and the insane bats the batters get. honestly, we should have bowlers getting to choose the ball they use, with higher seams and the ability to shine/deface. It's one sided, and that doens't make for consistently good entertainment.
I enjoyed cricket when it took considerable talent to protect one's wicket, let alone make runs. IMO it's far too slanted in the batsman's favour because run rate is what keeps the crowd entertained these days.
Same.
I only really watch test cricket these days, the jeopardy of loisng your wicket makes the sport interesting.Got to applaud the new shots invented and mastered over last 20 years. Tendulkar ramp, Marillier or Dishan scoop. Pietersen switch hit, everyone reverse sweeping.
But watching the ball sail over 60m boundaries with bazooka bats, nah.
-
@antipodean said in Australia v India:
I enjoyed cricket when it took considerable talent to protect one's wicket, let alone make runs. IMO it's far too slanted in the batsman's favour because run rate is what keeps the crowd entertained these days.
With a few exceptions of course.
-
-
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Every time I watch highlights of Johnson in that series, I almost feel sorry for the Poms.
he was evil
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@NTA said in Australia v India:
Every time I watch highlights of Johnson in that series, I almost feel sorry for the Poms.
he was evil
Just found it for that series. The mo, the haircut, the compact runup and throat-ripping pace.
It is a wonder mofos didn't get seriously injured.
-
@mariner4life sucking out souls one delivery at a time. Good video this one as well.
-
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@akan004 said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
Is Steve Smith the second best batsman ever now ?
Serious question, his record continues to baffle me but the numbers just don’t lie.
Of course millions of semi literate Indians will argue Tendulkar or Kohli online aye @NTA.....
But Smith really is a freak.
Hard to say. He plays on roads compared to batsmen in previous eras and the bowling now is nowhere near as good as it was in the 90s and early 00s imo. As a fan, I would pay good money to see Lara, Tendulkar, Crowe, Mark Waugh and Kohli bat, not so much Steve Smith.
i disagree about the quality of the bowling now, i actually think it's as good as ever. the issue is the weighted advantage technology is playing in favour of batsmen. Cricket balls haven't changed. everything else has.
Agree on your second point but I do think the bowlers back then were better. Granted that today's bowlers have it tougher due to everything being in the favour of the batsmen, but I would still rate the bowlers from that period higher than the current ones purely based on skill and variety.
We had Warne, Akram, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Younis, Lee, Akhtar, McGill, Kumble, Murali, Mushtaq Ahmed etc back then. That takes some beating imo.
i take the point, but that's like 25 years of players there
-
@mariner4life And Kumble was shit. Averaged 20 at home and double that overseas.
-
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
@mariner4life said in Australia v India:
@MN5 i have problems saying yes to that
but the body of work gets longer and longer now, but little drop off.
i still think Lara is the genius bat of my generation, but Smith's ability to score runs consistently is fucked.
I fucken loved Lara, way more than Tendulkar. He shares my birthday and we’re both left handed and that’s absolutely the only two things we have in common.
Probably due to the fact he batted in a weak team for so much of his career and had to go for it he got fuck all not outs to pad the average compared to others of his generation. Just six compared to Tendulkar ( 33 ) Ponting ( 29 ) Kallis ( 40 ) Dravid ( 32 ). So I think Lara was better than his ( already very impressive ) average if that makes sense
i know what you mean mate.
Math hey, bringing blokes together on the internet since forever
-
There’s a reason openers like Gooch, Greenidge and Haynes are regarded as legends despite ‘only’ averaging 42-44. The fast bowlers of that era were exceptional.
It’s a really tough one to gauge, bowlers nowadays are considered great if they nudge the average under 30, then you had a guy like Dale Steyn whose figures compare with the best of the 80s.
The amount of boundaries nowadays compared to what big hitters like Beefy, Viv Richards etc managed in the 80s is a bit ridiculous. Bat technology has made a huge difference.
-
Pace bowling has been going ok
Why this is the greatest age for fast bowling in 60 years
In the last 100 Tests, pace attacks worldwide have averaged 26.26 runs per wicket, which is among the best in any 100-match period in Test history
-
@Chris-B said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
Is Steve Smith the second best batsman ever now ?
Serious question, his record continues to baffle me but the numbers just don’t lie.
Of course millions of semi literate Indians will argue Tendulkar or Kohli online aye @NTA.....
But Smith really is a freak.
Kohli's pretty freaky as well.
Smith probably shades him in test cricket, but Kohli is phenomenal across all three formats.
Kohli has played 250 ODIs, he's averaging 59 and has been past 50 on more than 100 occasions.
I think test record > odi record will always be the yardstick.
That’s why Steve will always get first choice when they slice the Turkey at the Waugh family Xmas get togethers. I say that as a massive fan of ‘junior’ as well....
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
There’s a reason openers like Gooch, Greenidge and Haynes are regarded as legends despite ‘only’ averaging 42-44. The fast bowlers of that era were exceptional.
Average isn't a great metric by which to judge a career IMO.
One thing that tends to be overlooked is the tail-off in the last few years of a batsman's career, and how the decision on when to retire impacts their end numbers.
I'd put Ricky Ponting right up there in terms of the best I've seen. He ended on an average of about 52, but he would have been well within his rights to retire two years earlier than he did, with an average of about 55 or 56. Instead he hung around for the good of the team even though he was well past his prime.
The same will happen to Smith. He won't sustain his current numbers, unless he decides to retire tomorrow in which case he'll be an all time great.
-
@barbarian Not in my books he won't be. Anyone with a ball tampering suspension cannot be accorded "greatness" in what is supposed to be a gentlemen's game.
