1009* not out
-
<p>on England, i assume you mean "... and played more than 50 test innings"</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The number isn't high, but the names are some of the greatest in test history.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>They also have an awful lot in the very late 40s</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It doesn't surprise me that much actually. England weren't much chop for a long time in the batting era, and even then they didn't have stand-out test batsmen, but a lot of very good guys who are in the really late 40s.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Australia, who fucking dominated much of the "batting" era, only have 9 guys to play 50 innings and average over 50, and 2 are still playing. </p> -
I see what's happened. For Pakistan, yes you are right about lard boy.....<br><br>
But one shit match for ICC brought the average below 50......<br><br>
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/40570.html'>http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/player/40570.html</a> -
Off the top of my head for other countries I'd say.....( with no cricinfo cheating ) <br><br>
Oz: Bradman, Border, G Chappell, S Waugh, M Hayden, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey....( probably a few more )<br><br>
WI: Lara, Sobers, Richards, Worrall, Weekes, Walcott, Chanderpaul, Headley<br><br>
Zimbabwe: Flower<br><br>
SL: Sangakara<br><br>
SA: Kallis, Amla<br><br>
NZ:.............. -
<p>For Aus Clarke didn't get there, but Smith and Warner are both in. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Who the fuck is Headley? Worrall didn't get there</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>statsguru is so great. </p> -
Dude, hand on heart that was totally off the top of my head like I said. Pretty happy with my awesome level of cricket nerdness. <br><br>
This joker.....career was too short to qualify.....get a load of that fucken first class average though. <br><br><a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52050.html">http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/player/52050.html</a><br><br>
I remember reading my Grandads books about the three Ws from the Windies, the one who missed the 50 average was a great captain I think..... -
<p>cracking record! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>While i was looking at this stuff, it showed how fucking good Bradman's numbers are. He played 52 tests, batted 80 times, and scored 7,000 runs. What was the 1930s equivalent of PEDs?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="551444" data-time="1452230393">
<div>
<p>cracking record! </p>
<p> </p>
<p>While i was looking at this stuff, it showed how fucking good Bradman's numbers are. He played 52 tests, batted 80 times, and scored 7,000 runs. What was the 1930s equivalent of PEDs?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Food.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="551444" data-time="1452230393"><p>
cracking record! <br><br>
While i was looking at this stuff, it showed how fucking good Bradman's numbers are. He played 52 tests, batted 80 times, and scored 7,000 runs. What was the 1930s equivalent of PEDs?</p></blockquote>
Without a word of a lie I truly believe the Rugby equivalent of Bradman would be a guy who plays like Richie McCaw with the added bonus of getting wide and playing like Jonah at the next phase. <br><br>
I still wonder if he wasn't actually real and was made up, how can anyone have dominated the game like that? The thread a few years back on here comparing Tendulkar to him was laughable, I'd argue ST was not even the best of his generation let alone being compared to 'The Don'<br><br>
You have to feel for a guy like Walter Hammond who played in the same era and who, whilst rightly regarded as one of the best of all time, averaged FORTY ONE less than he did!!!! -
<p>It's called the war. Take out 3/4 of the good cricketers who were killed in WW2 and suddenly, his record doesn't seem that great.... :fishing:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I said that to an aussie mate once, he dead seat punched me in the head. We are sitll good mates to this day, and he confesses it's the greatest wind-up he's ever heard. I'm not convinced he's 100% over it, and it was over 10 years ago.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="551448" data-time="1452232240"><p>It's called the war. Take out 3/4 of the good cricketers who were killed in WW2 and suddenly, his record doesn't seem that great.... :fishing:<br>
<br>
I said that to an aussie mate once, he dead seat punched me in the head. We are sitll good mates to this day, and he confesses it's the greatest wind-up he's ever heard. I'm not convinced he's 100% over it, and it was over 10 years ago.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I'm not even Australian and I woulda glassed you for even joking about it. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="551444" data-time="1452230393"><p>cracking record! <br><br>
While i was looking at this stuff, it showed how fucking good Bradman's numbers are. He played 52 tests, batted 80 times, and scored 7,000 runs. What was the 1930s equivalent of PEDs?</p></blockquote>
6,996 runs to be pedantic, hence the shit 99.94 average.<br><br>
Clearly a choker too. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="551506" data-time="1452286556"><p>6,996 runs to be pedantic, hence the shit 99.94 average.<br>
Clearly a choker too.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Next best is 60. How many guys finish a long career averaging 60?<br><br>
I think this Bradman guy was pretty good but I never saw him play so I guess the jury is out. -
<p>10 - 20 tests is far too small of a career to gauge how good someone is. Lots of batsmen in the more modern era have started off with a rush of runs and had massive figures early on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If Voges was to quit now would he be regarded as a great?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="551513" data-time="1452289577"><p>10 - 20 tests is far too small of a career to gauge how good someone is. Lots of batsmen in the more modern era have started off with a rush of runs and had massive figures early on.<br>
<br>
If Voges was to quit now would he be regarded as a great?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I doubt it. People would point out how many he got against probably the worst Windies side ever. The bloke with the 60 average is Herbert Sutcliffe and his opening partner ( who experts consider a much better player in Jack Hobbs ) averaged 56. That woulda been rather daunting. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="551515" data-time="1452289829">
<div>
<p>I doubt it. People would point out how many he got against probably the worst Windies side ever. The bloke with the 60 average is Herbert Sutcliffe and his opening partner ( who experts consider a much better player in Jack Hobbs ) averaged 56. That woulda been rather daunting.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Sutcliffe is a whole different matter, outstanding first class record, and formed one of the greatest opening partnerships of all time with Hobbs.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Virgil" data-cid="551516" data-time="1452289919"><p>Sutcliffe is a whole different matter, outstanding first class record, and formed one of the greatest opening partnerships of all time with Hobbs.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yeah those two were outstanding, scored over 100,000 first class runs between them too. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MN5" data-cid="551446" data-time="1452231671"><p>
Without a word of a lie I truly believe the Rugby equivalent of Bradman would be a guy who plays like Richie McCaw with the added bonus of getting wide and playing like Jonah at the next phase. <br><br>
I still wonder if he wasn't actually real and was made up, how can anyone have dominated the game like that? The thread a few years back on here comparing Tendulkar to him was laughable, I'd argue ST was not even the best of his generation let alone being compared to 'The Don'<br><br>
You have to feel for a guy like Walter Hammond who played in the same era and who, whilst rightly regarded as one of the best of all time, averaged FORTY ONE less than he did!!!!</p></blockquote>
<br>
I remember that thread! Laughable doesn't begin to describe it. Check out the Roar thread about the same topic. Headley was cited as "evidence" that Bradman wasn't exceptional for his time. The fact that Bradman's test average was still 30 fooking runs better than Headleys first class average didn't seem to register. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rancid Schnitzel" data-cid="551546" data-time="1452307096"><p>I remember that thread! Laughable doesn't begin to describe it. Check out the Roar thread about the same topic. Headley was cited as "evidence" that Bradman wasn't exceptional for his time. The fact that Bradman's test average was still 30 fooking runs better than Headleys first class average didn't seem to register.</p></blockquote>
<br>
Arguements could be made for Lara and Kallis from Tendulkars era alone let alone other eras. There were also any number of fine batsmen like Ponting, Hayden, Dravid, S Waugh, Chanderpaul etc who Tendulkar was better than but shit, not exactly much in it. <br><br>
We have a bit of a laugh on here about 50 being the new 40 but all that being said even in a batting friendly era a 50 average is still a fucken excellent effort as illustrated by the fact not a hell of a lot of guys have done it.
