Does a 50 average mean anything anymore?

[Wicked Lester]

As noted in another thread of current regular or semi regular Australian batsmen only Love, Martyn and Langer do not currently average 50. For Love its too early to tell - for Langer and Martyn its 46 - or perhaps they're just hacks.

A look around world cricket however makes me wonder whether there has ever been a time when so many batsmen have been at or very near the magic mark.

Vaughan, Kallis, Lara, Dravid, Tendulkar and Andy Flower (now retired) are all established players with an average over 50. Add them to Hayden, Ponting, Waugh, Lehamnn and Gilchrist. Newer players to the test arena such as Graeme Smith and Rudolphs are there as well and several others such as Richardson of NZ, Inzamum, Yousaf Youhanna, Jayawardene and Sangakarra are only a big series from averaging 50 as well.

A number of others are confortably averaging in the 40's.

So does this tell us anything? Is it simply reflective of the number of test playing nations today? Does it say something about the quality of bowling around the world?

When I first became fascinated by the game in the 70's an average of 50 seemed an incredible achievement. There were but a handful in test cricket at the time - Greg Chappell, Viv Richards, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad. That's all. A player averaging in the mid 40's at that time was generally regarded as very good also.

My inclination is to think that bowling stocks are a bit thin at present and perhaps batsmen's records are a little inflated.

The impression I now have is that to average 50 is not quite as 'special' as it once was.

Thoughts?

 

[The Passenger]

I do agree - probably a combination of the batting being as strong as its ever been, and the bowling not quite as strong (although still pretty strong) and the pitches and outfields are now heavily in the batsmen favour.

thinking back to the days with Chappell the bowling was as strong as ever in those day's too.

 

[llosis]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
My inclination is to think that bowling stocks are a bit thin at present and perhaps batsmen's records are a little inflated.

Spot on.

Look at the bowling averages of even the Australians. Apart from McGrath around 21 the rest are mid to high twenties. Which isn't bad but when you consider their strike rates (low 50s) and how highly they are rated it isn't crash hot.

Compare that to the bowlers of the Windies era, when they hada dominant flow of quicks but also you also had every test playing nation with a gun strike bowler - Imran, Kapil, Hadlee, Botham/Willis etc. Where are the gun bowlers today?

Look at the England v SA test. You have Pollock and Gough that are the only bowlers considered decent strike bowlers and arguably both are past thier prime. The windies tour was a classic example - bowlers getting thrown up who were complete hacks. I think the lack of bowling stock is the key to the over inflated averages we see today. I don't think you can compare a Chappell / Border 50 with a Dravid / Inzaman 50 average at all.

 

[P76]

What follows is of course completely subjective, but I would tend to agree that it is easier to get a higher batting average these days.

I think the current crop of bowlers are not up there with the 70's 80's crop. I think all sides lack really good combinations of bowlers, which was the key to the great attacks of days gone by. You had Lillee and Thommo, or Roberts and Croft, Holding and Marshall as real fear inspiring pace duos. There is not a team around today who has two of these types of bowler.

That is balanced against a definite improvement in spinners, perhaps not from the 70's, but at least from the 80's. Generally however spinners averages are higher than pace bowlers, so they are giving the batsmen more runs before they get them out.

As for batsmen, what it shows is that although cricket is a statistical game, statistics don't tell you everything. Of the batsmen I have seen in my life of cricket watching (realistically 1975 on), there are two greats G. Chappell and S. Tendulkar. Sachin is the only one of the current batsmen who I would compare to Chappell, although R. Ponting at the moment is approaching Chappellesque sublimeness - we will wait and see if he can be as consistent as the great man.

The Australian figures at the moment are probably high because they don't have to face the best bowlers in the world - Australian bowlers. We have the only complete attack in world cricket at the moment, where every bowler is of true test standard. All the other attacks seem to have at least one bowler that gives you a rest as a batsman. That is a huge benefit I would think.

 

[Dipper]

I'd definitely say that an average of 50 seems a bit easier to make these days than at probably any time since the war , although it is slightly skewed by how many Aussie batsmen have reached the mark which is as much due to Australia's complete dominance of Test cricket as anything, but go back to the 1930s & you see a whole heap of batsmen with big averages from then.

From an England point of view there's Hammond, Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Paynter & I'd guess there's just as many Aussie batsmen from that era who average 50, so I suppose it's not a completely new phenomanen.


Maybe the pitches around the world are partly to blame, I mean in England we had uncovered pitches which left them open to the vaugeries of the weather & thus assisted the bowlers.

Plus they used to deteriorate more here than they do now where they stay pretty solid for the whole 5 days.Maybe this trend is found throughout the rest of the world?

Certainly the pitches in the Windies used to be bloody fast & gave the quicks every encouragement whilst now whenever I see cricket form there they always appear low & slow.

Maybe groundsmen are encouraged to produce pitches that last the full 5 days to generate maximum income-I'm pretty sure that's what has started happening over here.

I can't believe that the outfields help the batsmen that much, they may give the batter more value for his shots due to their better condition but the flip side is that pitches in dry countries (everywhere but England!) used to be so rough & uneven that they'd rough the ball up really quickly & so the new ball was more important but nowadays the ball stays in much better shape & keeps it shine for much longer due to the nice lush green playing areas.


I think perhaps we have just come out of a period where a number of countires had good pairs of fast bowlers:

Pollock/Donald
Waqar/Wasim
Ambrose/Walsh

plus Australia has always had a good attack in this period but perhaps this was more the exception than the norm.


It's interesting though if you look at the top performing fast bowlers ever a lot of the current top ones have bowling averages that compare well with different eras.I mean bowlers with an average of 20 are pretty rare but we've got McGrath & Pollock.

I suppose nowdays batsmen are more prepared to take the attack to the bowlers, whilst once Test batting was about taking as few risks as possible(certainly for the top 3) now it's more about dominating the bowlers so perhaps this trend has meant that batsmen score more runs.


PS I wouldn't class Greg Chappell as a great above Viv Richards.

 

[TigerCraig]

Agree that bowling stocks are thin, and that pitches are being prepared to suit batsmen and last 5 days.

Also a lot more tests are being played - so when a guy is in form he can get on a run, while the bowlers get more & more fatigued.

Plus a lot of tests are being played on pretty small grounds with fast outfields, esp on the subcontinent.

 

[P76]

Originally posted by TigerCraig


Also a lot more tests are being played - so when a guy is in form he can get on a run, while the bowlers get more & more fatigued.

Good point Tiger, the bowlers would suffer more from this.

Dipper, I take your point about Viv, and it has been mentioned to me by others, but as I said, that's my subjective opinion, and in that perhaps limited opinion, I don't think Viv was as consistently good as Greg.

 

[Wicked Lester]

I agree with P76 and Dipper.

The are three batsmen who for me stand head and shoulders above others during my time as a cricket tragic.

Tendulkar, Richards and Greg Chappell - in no particular order.

Richards overall test record probably suffers as a result of playing on a bit long or at least sacrificing his consistency as he got older in lieu of being an entertainer.

On his day of course he was truly devastating - a match winner.

Chappell, G was the supreme artist but perhaps what is often overlooked now was also a model of consistency (except for 1981/82 - which many forget was preceded by a double hundred against Pakistan and followed by 176 against NZ. It was a short sharp and dramatic loss of form extending a month or so - not a year or more form slump experienced by others). 24 centuries in 87 tests is a remarkable achievement with another 5 or 6 scored in 15 World Series Supertests when he was at the peak of his powers.

Of note also is that both batted at three or four for the most part - IMO the positions every great batsmen should occupy

Unfortuntely we did not see Barry Richards or Graeme Pollock at international level for any reasonable period to support the view they were the equal (or better) of Richards and Chappell.

Gavaskar also comes pretty close to this level.

To me Tendulkar is the only batsman since who matches these two - though clearly when 'on song' and in the right frame of mind Lara is capable of almost anything.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by P76


Dipper, I take your point about Viv, and it has been mentioned to me by others, but as I said, that's my subjective opinion, and in that perhaps limited opinion, I don't think Viv was as consistently good as Greg.

Fair play mate, that's what it's all about, opinions, nobodies is any more relevants than anybody else's.


Going on to what Wicked Lester adds I absolutely agree that Richards' record suffered to an extent from being an entertainer but I don't think he was being an entertainer for the sake of it.

I remember many matches against England where he would come in and play a whirlwind 60 or so that really ripped the bowlers to pieces, I think he was willing to sacrifice the big personal scores in order to take the game away from us & put us on the back foot by spreading the field & demoralising the bowlers, it seemed that he knew his side was usaully stronger than ours & that the Windies middle order could then capitalise on the momentum being with them.

Having said that I don't think it he would have really enjoyed grinding out big scores on a regular basis, if he was going to score a big one it had to be done reasonably quickly.


Lara is also an intereting case, these days most people rate Tendulkar above him but although the Indian may be a more consistant performer I still believe that Lara is touched by a certain genius that no other batsman has been probably since Vivy.
I don't beleive that even Tendulkar could have produced some of the innings that Lara has, there was a period when it appeared that Lara was just toying with the game & his heart wasn't really in it but lately he seems more commited & his average is still way up there.

For sure you'd want Tendulkar to bat for your life more than Lara but I don't think he's as talented.

It goes back to your point about Chappell being more consistant than Richards I suppose it's similar with Tendulkar & Lara, maybe I go a bit more for the streaky genius than the day in day out performer.

 

[Dipper]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester

Of note also is that both batted at three or four for the most part - IMO the positions every great batsmen should occupy

I agree with you here except if they're an opener, I just think some players are born to open it's part of their psyche & it doesn't make them a lesser player but I'm guessing that's not what you were really getting at, I'm guessing that you're being a bit scornful of 'great' batsmen who bat at 5 or even 6 & I'd tend to agree with you here, I think if you really are a top class batsman (who doesn't open) then you really have to take 3 or 4, some people would even say that you should take 3.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by DIPPER
I agree with you here except if they're an opener, I just think some players are born to open it's part of their psyche & it doesn't make them a lesser player but I'm guessing that's not what you were really getting at, I'm guessing that you're being a bit scornful of 'great' batsmen who bat at 5 or even 6 & I'd tend to agree with you here, I think if you really are a top class batsman (who doesn't open) then you really have to take 3 or 4, some people would even say that you should take 3.

You have guessed my thoughts accurately Dipper.

Three is the test, four I'm quite happy with also, but world's best batsmen don't bat at 5, 6 or 7 IMHO.

 

[P76]

Yes, one does always tend towards a favoured batsman because you like their style, and I found Chappell G sublime - however, going through Viv's stats I feel that perhaps I have undersold him a little - I think my memory of his '81-82 tour here might be colouring my thoughts on him a little too much (he averaged 26.6 on that tour).

And I am totally in agreement with both of you guys about batting position - Opening is a special skill in its own right, but I truly believe you bat your best at 3 or 4, and that to be considered a true great one should bat there.

6 especially I would see as a blooding position for a new batsman in the team, not a long term position.

 

[Angus1]

I would say the pitches are far better to bat on then in the past and thus batsmen score more runs. It's a good thing as it means runs are scored a lot quicker and batsmen can play some shots rather then just pushing around like in the ODIs.

I have always thought that Chappell was just a fraction better then Richards and the reason was and still is that he was more reliable. I always felt that Chappell could bat through a hard spell where as Viv might go for a bit of a wack which didn't always come off. To me it is a bit like comparing Hayden to Gilchrist to some extent.
On the other side of the coin Richards was the more lethal one. In full flight he was truely awesome and that was quiet regular.
Good to have watched them both in the same games.