Cricket - best ever, trivia etc
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@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.
I'm not convinced Smith would get away with his technique 20+ years ago.
-
i want to think that, but then...
what makes him hard to bowl to is his patience. He will sit there and leave and leave and leave until you try something else, bowl too straight, and he hits you through midwicket. his eye is incredible, and surely that brings him undone first. He doesn't have rock solid technique to fall back on when his eye starts to go.
he's scored against pace, he's scored against swing, he's scored against spin. He just scores runs. A bit more variation in the pitch might do it. maybe. i just have to accept the guy is a freak.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@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....
Can't disagree on that - though Kohli is only a gnat's dick behind Smith.
But, Kohli's dominance of ODI stats - well, it's not quite Bradmanesque, but it's fucking impressive.
ODI matches | Batting records | Highest career batting average | ESPNcricinfo
Find records of Highest career batting average in ODI matches only on ESPNcricinfo.
Compare him to Bevan who was sort of a yardstick of ODI excellence.
Mike made 6 hundreds and Kohli has made 43!
I'd say Kohli, de Villiers and Dhoni are top of the ODI pantheon now.
-
Averages in test cricket have actually dropped slightly since their peak. This isn't an especially friendly time for batsmen. Not like it was in 2010 anyway. ODI cricket is different - players seem to be scoring more and more runs. Still
I have always believed that the three forms of the game are distinct. There is no greatest of all time across formats. If there is, I don't ind it that meaningful. In test cricket you could put Smith 2nd. His peak has been insane and no-one will ever take that away from him. I think he will regress though. Tendulkar has the longevity and i think most people would still put him second. Smith's batting in the other formats isn't so good.
This objective list from the ICC puts Smith 2nd. Again though I think those rankings measure someone's peak and not longevity. Regardless, Smith is insane.
-
@hydro11 said in Modern batting averages:
Averages in test cricket have actually dropped slightly since their peak. This isn't an especially friendly time for batsmen. Not like it was in 2010 anyway. ODI cricket is different - players seem to be scoring more and more runs. Still
I have always believed that the three forms of the game are distinct. There is no greatest of all time across formats. If there is, I don't ind it that meaningful. In test cricket you could put Smith 2nd. His peak has been insane and no-one will ever take that away from him. I think he will regress though. Tendulkar has the longevity and i think most people would still put him second. Smith's batting in the other formats isn't so good.
This objective list from the ICC puts Smith 2nd. Again though I think those rankings measure someone's peak and not longevity. Regardless, Smith is insane.
We’re not all Indians
-
@hydro11 Tendulkar not even on that list. There’ll be a meltdown on the subcontinent!
-
@Catogrande said in Modern batting averages:
@hydro11 Tendulkar not even on that list. There’ll be a meltdown on the subcontinent!
Lara isn’t either and some seriously inferior names are. What a loaf of shit.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@Catogrande said in Modern batting averages:
@hydro11 Tendulkar not even on that list. There’ll be a meltdown on the subcontinent!
Lara isn’t either and some seriously inferior names are. What a loaf of shit.
Nor Chris Gayle, someone’s going to have sand in their panties 😂
-
@mariner4life said in Modern batting averages:
i want to think that, but then...
what makes him hard to bowl to is his patience. He will sit there and leave and leave and leave until you try something else, bowl too straight, and he hits you through midwicket. his eye is incredible, and surely that brings him undone first. He doesn't have rock solid technique to fall back on when his eye starts to go.
he's scored against pace, he's scored against swing, he's scored against spin. He just scores runs. A bit more variation in the pitch might do it. maybe. i just have to accept the guy is a freak.
Yeah, I know, the fluffybunny should have been found out by now with that nonsense tailender technique. It doesn't make any sense.
-
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
For players playing right now I have Kohli at number one as his numbers across all formats are incredible. He had a pretty slow start to his test career but his average has been climbing for some times now.
-
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Whilst that argument has merit, Bradman was also sooo far ahead of anyone else of his own time. Would he have averaged in the 90s? Who knows, but for sure he’d have been head and shoulders above the next bloke.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
-
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
-
Hard to compare across eras, different bats, technology, pitch conditions, laws, protective equipment etc. Not a completely different game, but not the same either. Herbert Sutcliffe averaged over 60 as a test opener between 1924-35 (and never fell below 60 at any point in his test career) - if we're looking for a second greatest average before the modern era, it's probably that.
-
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@MN5 said in Modern batting averages:
@antipodean said in Modern batting averages:
@No-Quarter said in Modern batting averages:
Bradman's numbers are so insane that we'll never have any genuine GOAT conversations about modern day players. A few players have managed those numbers for a couple of seasons - I remember Ponting in his prime averaging close to a hundred for a decent period of time, but to just straight up average 95+ across both first class and tests for such a prolonged period is time is absolutely bananas no matter what era it is.
Imagine if modern bowlers had to provide batsmen with a sporting opportunity to score runs. How'd Bradman go against bodyline? How do we think he'd go against the WIndies fearsome line up? Not 99.94 I'd wager.
Yeah but those arguments are pretty churlish and discredit a genuine great of Bradmans era in Wally Hammond who ‘only’ averaged 58.
I just don’t think you can logically argue that Bradman isn’t the most dominant ( relative to his peers and all time ) sportsman of all time.
Did I do that? No I fucking didn't. Just pointed out his dominance would unlikely to have been as statistically as great an outlier. And for that there's sufficient evidence.
I don’t reckon there’s anything concrete. Averages as yardsticks have fluctuated a fair bit ( ie in the 80s mid 40s put a player pretty close to elite ) but Bradmans ridiculous numbers skew all of that. How many guys of the era were close to Hammond let alone the Don himself ? ( less cricket teams in those days granted )
A twenty year test career with those numbers ? with the first class figures thrown in for good measure ?Yeah he’s the greatest by a long shot.
How many modern players played in only two countries, playing tests only on 10 grounds, against largely amateur players (while being for all intents and purposes a professional) during their career? How often did Bradman face defensive fielding and bodyline style bowling?
There's no doubting his talent, but there's no way he'd score the average he did in the modern era. None. It would be at least 20 less. See the marked disparity of his series average in England and Australia.
I do get what you're saying. But the counter argument can be made that he didn't get as many opportunities to pad the average against shit teams ( he never played NZ as an example and we were terrible then )
Neither of us can say conclusively but your mark of 20 less still puts the career average at 79. That's still rather decent.
