Honestly, we all know that Ricky and especially guys like Gilchrist played at the birth of T20, when no one knew or cared how best to do the slogathon, so their stats show that. The same is true of players at the birth of ODIs.
........
On current players, are you admitting that ICC rankings shouldn't be taken too seriously, as I've tried to convince you and Donny for years? Because, as you see above, your "spuds" are very highly ranked.
ICC rankings and “declining” standards
It will probably be difficult to “convince” me about anything, because I don’t much care. We all know that Smith is the best batsman to take the field since Bradman retired and that Finch and Warner are the best T20 players in the history of that form of the game. If the ratings don’t reflect those obvious facts, it is a problem with the ratings system.
No, he isn’t. He’s a genuine all-time great. If he were batting in a decent Test batting line-up (say with Ponsford and Woodfull taking the shine off the ball for him), his average would probably be well over 100. Also, if he hadn’t been picked as a bowler before his batting technique reached standard, his average would be much higher than it is. Even cricinfo describes him in its profile summary of him as the best Australian batsman since Bradman. You remind me a bit of my Dad trying to insist that Bill O’Reilly was better than Warne and that Fothergill was better than Daicos.
Err... what don't you accept? You mean you agree that Test batting has collapsed? Or disagree (in which case you're agreeing with what I wrote above)? Or are you neutral on that question?Pies4shaw wrote:I don’t accept that. ...
If it's a bee in my bonnet, it's because it's an existential threat to the game. It goes hand in hand with deliberately making Test pitches dead, so the incompetent batsmen don't vanish within three days. Anyone who cares about the game should care about this problem.
So if, in the worst case, the art of Test batting is simply lost forever, you'd be totally happy as long as the game still exists and there's slogging and slogathons to make up for it. Amazing.
I assume that this worst case is not yet upon us, because stuff goes in cycles, so in the future there may be a rebirth of skills that are virtually nonexistent now.
I assume that this worst case is not yet upon us, because stuff goes in cycles, so in the future there may be a rebirth of skills that are virtually nonexistent now.
^ Statistically, he is better than all of them. He's not in my top 20 favourite batsmen of all time to watch - but that's not the issue.
He may not, in your opinion, be the most elegant or stylish or powerful or whatever else you like since Bradman but his numbers put everyone else completely in the shade. He's the single greatest batsman any of us have ever seen.
He may not, in your opinion, be the most elegant or stylish or powerful or whatever else you like since Bradman but his numbers put everyone else completely in the shade. He's the single greatest batsman any of us have ever seen.
You're going to have to provide some statistical basis for this stuff if you want me to continue to engage. There is, in my respectful opinion, absolutely no basis for your contention that pitches are "better" now than they were at other times in the last 60 years. There have always been "roads" rolled out for particular purposes. Or pitches prepared to suit the home team's strengths. In a way, it's much less problematic now than it was formerly, because there is so much more cricket actually played in each Test (I don't know what the precise average is but there's probably an extra 50 to 60 six-ball overs available in every modern Test) that a good team can get a result that in the 60s or 70s would have been a draw.
That's not a reason to belittle the efforts of the top batsmen who scored heavily on wickets in past eras. Nor is it a reason to belittle the efforts of the top batsmen of the modern era. Where I do think some modern averages have been inflated is where some players get to play disproportionately-often against spud teams or disproportionately-often on docile home pitches that suit them (eg, some of the sub-continental players). Smth, of course, isn't one of those.
That's not a reason to belittle the efforts of the top batsmen who scored heavily on wickets in past eras. Nor is it a reason to belittle the efforts of the top batsmen of the modern era. Where I do think some modern averages have been inflated is where some players get to play disproportionately-often against spud teams or disproportionately-often on docile home pitches that suit them (eg, some of the sub-continental players). Smth, of course, isn't one of those.
We know Neil Harvey reckons everything was better in his day, but he has a point about covered vs. uncovered pitches.
In more modern times, the stuff rolled out nowadays we used to associate only with Adelaide Oval just a few decades ago. Then it was obvious starting in the 00s (and getting worse and worse) that all pitches were going that way, and they started rolling out excuses. Drought, they said. Has there been unending drought in the cricketing world for the whole of this century? Whatever the excuses or their validity, they wouldn't need excuses if there were nothing to excuse.
In more modern times, the stuff rolled out nowadays we used to associate only with Adelaide Oval just a few decades ago. Then it was obvious starting in the 00s (and getting worse and worse) that all pitches were going that way, and they started rolling out excuses. Drought, they said. Has there been unending drought in the cricketing world for the whole of this century? Whatever the excuses or their validity, they wouldn't need excuses if there were nothing to excuse.