Re: quite an achievement
- From: anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr A. N. Walker)
- Date: 5 Oct 2007 16:47:56 GMT
In article <n40yKoYys6AHFwAK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Henderson <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sigh. He was a top class county batsman: The only other players whoNot too bad, but not evidence of the high-quality batsmanshipLook, I have nothing15465 runs at 31.17 - very good for the period he played in.
against Arnold Hamer, a decent enough county batsman;
you are claiming for the players in your list.
played CC throughout the fifties and ended up with a career average of
over thirty were: Insole, Bailey, Parkhouse, Gray, [...]
In other words, he was pretty similar to a bunch of players
a few of whom were Test regulars, a few more of whom were fringe Test
players, with the rest being perfectly decent county-class batsmen.
AH fits well with that last group. Nothing wrong with that, but you
have not given us any evidence that he would be any different if he
were transported to the present day. He didn't get into the Test side
in the '50s; you have not given us any reason to suppose that he would
be closer to it today.
So what? They have not all played a full seasonReally? The players in my list alone have clocked up someBut since you ask, Ramprakash scored his 2000 runs this yearFeeble compared with the established bowlers available in 1955. RH
against Gough, Hoggard, Gillespie, [...]
2300 Test wickets,
So what? The ones I listed were the *actual* bowlers against
whom Ramprakash scored his 2000 runs this year.
and the cost of their
Test wickets is considerably greater than the best English bowlers of
the fifties: Laker (Test ave 21), Trueman (21), Tyson (18), Statham
(24). Bedser (24), Bailey (29), Lock (24), Wardle (20), Tattersall (22),
Loader (22). RH
You keep telling us how much better the pitches are, so this is
not at all surprising. New Zealand and India aren't the pushovers they
were in the '50s, either [against NZ '58: Laker 17@10, Lock 34@7,
Bailey/Statham/Trueman incredibly expensive at 29@17 between them].
Murali's average of 21 isn't exactly disgraceful by any standards, but
if you insist on devaluing Ramprakash's average by around 1/3 you
should clearly do the same for the bowlers, which brings all the great
modern bowlers down to those same sorts of average.
and there were several other big names playingEntirely bogus comparison because of the much greater frequency of
in the CC this year. Take a look at the list of bowlers with more
than 200 wickets in Tests; 13 of them played in this year's CC;
3 in 1955 [and only one *by* 1955].
modern Tests. RH
Oh, really? Then you *did* understand the comparison when
it was pointed out to you that when batsmen often scored 2000 in a
season they played more matches. Why did you wriggle?
But in any case, you might care also to take a look at the
lists of "fastest to 100 wickets" in Tests. Of those who did it
in less than 30 Tests, 13 played in this year's CC [and several
more have played in the CC recently and might well do so again],
5 in the 1955 CC. Go figure. For someone who insists that Tests
are the true measure of greatness, you seem very reluctant to
accept what the numbers are telling you.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
- Prev by Date: Re: quite an achievement
- Next by Date: Re: Cricket quiz Oct 2007 - answers
- Previous by thread: Re: quite an achievement
- Next by thread: Re: quite an achievement