Re: quite an achievement

In article <n40yKoYys6AHFwAK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Robert Henderson <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Look, I have nothing
against Arnold Hamer, a decent enough county batsman;
15465 runs at 31.17 - very good for the period he played in.
Not too bad, but not evidence of the high-quality batsmanship
you are claiming for the players in your list.
Sigh. He was a top class county batsman: The only other players who
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.

[...]
But since you ask, Ramprakash scored his 2000 runs this year
against Gough, Hoggard, Gillespie, [...]
Feeble compared with the established bowlers available in 1955. RH
Really? The players in my list alone have clocked up some
2300 Test wickets,
So what? They have not all played a full season

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 playing
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].
Entirely bogus comparison because of the much greater frequency of
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.
anw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: quite an achievement
    ... And the prime reason it has improved is because the bowlers are ... Even though playing in a much lower scoring period their COLLECTIVE career averages are far better than any five players chosen from the past decade when they played in a high scoring period. ... Strike rates tell you little in themselves because the over rates were much faster in the fifties. ... Test wickets now, esp in D1, than in the fifties. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: quite an achievement
    ... he was pretty similar to a bunch of players ... Feeble compared with the established bowlers available in 1955. ... Test wickets is considerably greater than the best English bowlers of ... lists of "fastest to 100 wickets" in Tests. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Help sought in solving a couple of mysteries
    ... Give me any period of CC history and I will be as at home conjuring up players great and small as I would eb with present day players... ... followers in the fifties will very possibly remember practically all ... footage and you will see the bowlers in the fifties were vastly more accurate than those of today. ... Where bowlers of all types prosper it is reasonable to assume that the general standard of bowling is high. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: A sane future for English cricket
    ... Woodhead took over 50 wickets in 1946 at ... Harris and Stocks were useful change bowlers. ... guard of players who didn't return to f-c cricket after the war. ... England, inc matches at Lord's for an England XI.  So it wasn't ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Help sought in solving a couple of mysteries
    ... and 2009 contained two players who had *not* played most matches, ... playing 3 spinners and two pace bowlers as your main attack would have been thought unexceptional. ... Stocks was a top order, ie, top 5, batsman. ... We are concerned with the quality of the amateurs not why they did or did not play. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)