Re: quite an achievement
- From: Robert Henderson <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:01:38 +0100
In message <fde8eq$8bv$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dr A. N. Walker <anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
In article <6ZiliBNSre+GFwVZ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Henderson <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pick a random year, say 1955; look at the bottom sides.Except for Lawrence LBG, [...]
Here is what Playfair ['56] has to say about Somerset ['55]: [...]
Or about Kent: [...]Apart for Allan SLA , [...]Or Worcestershire: [...]Except for these players of course:
Of course. Tell Playfair, not me. They weren't simply, as
you do, looking at names and numbers, they were writing comments on
how *that* year had gone.
They were making the comment in the context of the game at the time. Those performances were weak in that context because the overall standard was so much higher. RH
Somerset/Kent/Worcs were clearly widely
regarded as weak bowling sides in 1955, as reflected in their
positions in the table.
It's no use saying "Ah, but Bloggs took
63 wickets at 26" and telling us that Bloggs was a Really Good
He may not have been in the context of 1955 but be good in the context of 2007. Rh
Perhaps he had been a few years earlier, perhaps he was
a few years later, but the commentators on the spot were not
Jenkins LBG (72 wickets) , Berry SLA
(66) Horton ROB (95) Flavell RF at that stage of his career (58). All
bowlers took their wickets at less than 29 runs each That was with 32 CC
No it wasn't; but no matter.
OK 28 matches. RH
Divide their wickets by two and then try to find a team this
year who came close to matching their 1955 record.
In terms of numbers of wickets, most of them do.
Really. Enumerate the teams in 2007 b which had five bowlers with as many or more wickets than the 52, 36, 33, 47, 29 at less than 29 one gets by halving the five 1955 bowlers. . RH
have lots of matches rained off or lose them by an innings, over the
season even a weak attack will get the wickets, just at a high price.
In terms of average, Paul's table lists the main suspects -- Durham,
Lancs, Somerset and Sussex all averaged below 30 over the season [some
4+ runs below the national average, so equivalent to around 21 in
1955 -- or a bit lower, since it was a low-scoring year].
And remeber, Worces
were one of the weakest teams in 1955. RH
As Derbyshire were this -- but still managed 254 wickets at
below the national average.
Anomalies will always happen. It is the general trend which is important,. RH
Sure. Few counties have come near the Surrey and YorkshirePrecious few current players and most playing only a few matches. Only
of those years. But there are dozens of Test-class bowlers in the
CC today -- just run your finger down the averages, and forget your
distaste for the foreigners.
Murali and Harbijan take a reasonable amount of wickets at under 20,
But when it comes to batting, you want to raise the bar much
further than this. Ramps is batting at over 5 times your bowling bar.
*No* batsman in 1955 averaged 5 times the leading bowler [Appleyard].
You make the schoolboy statistical howler of deriving a conclusion from a statistic based on a single individual. RH
So are Murali and Harbhajan better than everyone in 1955 [Appleyard,
Lock, Statham, Shackleton, Jackson, Wardle, ...], or is Ramprakash
better than all the 1955 batsmen [Watson, Cowdrey, Richardson, Dewes,
..., Graveney, May, ...]? Or what? Why is it so hard for you to
admit that Ramps has had a very decent couple of seasons? As Fred
says, this does not affect your case for whether or not he should
be eligible to play for England, or even Surrey.
The point about modern counties is that none of them have really strong
bowling and most are feeble. RH
Your evidence for this?
I suggest you look at this year's CC averages. Utterly depressing with only 13 bowlers able to reach 50 wickets and runs per wicket overall in the mid thirties. RH
You can't have it all ways [though IBy its nature it is impossible to quantify directly the difference in pitches, but the runs per wicket in the fifties was around 10 runs less than now,. That tells its own story. RH
don't suppose that will stop you trying]. You should either stop
telling us how much worse the bowling is today or stop telling us
how much worse the pitches were in the fifties. Unless, of course,
you're prepared to quantify it properly and produce a sensible model.
Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
- Prev by Date: Re: Asian plots to turn Leicester CC into an all Asian team
- Next by Date: Re: Wel done Sussex
- Previous by thread: Re: quite an achievement
- Next by thread: Re: quite an achievement