Do averages mean much over time?

[Frodo]

I was reading Glen McGraths comments that the new rule of one bouncer per over in one day matches reduced scores by around 30 runs per innings. So bowlers will now have better stats and batsmen worse.

But we often see comparisons of bowling and batting statistics for players over time eg Benaud v Warney. These cannot be true comparisons when the rules differ from time to time.

[Spogs]

The other big difference of course between Benaud and Warne is that in Benaud's days he was bowling 8 ball overs in the Southern hemisphere.

The impact wouldn't be as great for a spinner as a quick but you'd think that putting 8 balls in a row on a spot would be a lot harder than 6.

I also have a problem comparing batsmens averages between eras. The balls now have no real seam to speak of, the pitches are all covered, ropes shorten boundries. When you think about it, batters have it pretty good these days.

[Fat Red]

Reverse swing is something that has changed in bowlers' favour. If you're right though, it shows how good McGrath and Donald really are, to have the records they do.

[Fat Red]

In answer to your original question Frodo, I'm not sure that averages mean a lot in one-day cricket anyway. Test averages are much more meaningful, especially for batsmen.

[SeinDude]

It just illustrates how damn good Sir Donald Bradman really was... to average 99.94 with the bat, batting on uncovered pitches as well.

The other thing I would say about one-day cricket is how about the time when they used 2 new balls for 25 overs each back in the early 1990's??? That was very much in favour of the faster bowlers & not the batsman or spinners.

SeinDude

[wagstaff]

Averages are relevant, as long as you have a good enough knowledge of the game to put the stats in their context

[Booze Hound]

Spogs: Remember that if a pitch is kept covered and stays drier it will 'break up' faster. Rain would often bind an uncovered pitch and make it easier, certainly over here.

Seindude: Bradman ws not rated highly at all on rain damaged pitches. He was certainly ranked well behind Hammon d and Headley on them.

[Darky]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Averages are relevant, as long as you have a good enough knowledge of the game to put the stats in their context

Agreed - I think that applies to every sport which is statistically analysed.

Cricket, though, seems to be a sport which is analysed more than most, despite it (essentially) being a simple game where one bloke tosses the ball to another bloke who tries to hit it away and aims to build a score.