The Ashes
-
Of the batsmen who have played most of their team's tests in the calendar years 2016 and 2017
Kohli 21 tests, average 70.75, 8x100s
Smith 19 tests, average 68.60, 8x100s
Pujara 21 tests, average 63.46, 7x100s
Taylor 12 tests, average 61.38, 3x100s
Williamson 15 tests, average 55.50, 4x100s
{then Faf, Azhar Ali, Rahul)
Root 25 tests, average 51.63, 5x100s -
@mariner4life said in The Ashes:
Smith is rewriting test batting. Why play in the v when you can bat like it's the back yard and average 60? Guck he's fun to watch. And unflappable as well. The poms bowled out of his areas for ages so he just waited. What a career turnaround
Best batsman in the world. No doubt.
Still looks like a dick with the headband though.
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better. -
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better. -
@nta did they talk about how all of the Indians were able to inflate their batting averages by playing at home on roads and generally didn't do nearly so well abroad surprise surprise?
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
Does the fern still have a broken record award?
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
-
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
I'd love to know the 'numerous' players who've surpassed him.
-
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
I'd love to know the 'numerous' players who've surpassed him.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
I'd love to know the 'numerous' players who've surpassed him.
Probably all Indian...
-
For @MN5 's interest - that pic of Crowe was from an article discussing over/under rated cricketers:
They get to a section on how Crowe, Fleming, and Paddles were all generally underrated because they were New Zealanders.
But I highlight that article because its a screaming subcontinental orgy of hometown worship, kicking off with this gem:
Overrated : Donald Bradman - By far the most overrated cricketer because although his average was impressive, he played most of his matches against the same team in an era when international cricket was still in its infancy. It is not possible to replicate his average nowadays because the game has become much more professional and harder, there have been numerous players who have in many ways surpassed his records yet some still claim he is better.Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
Fuck Indians are stupidly myopic. I remember an article claiming Tendulkar was better than him. I'd argue he wasn't even the best batsman of his generation let alone being close to the Don.
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
I must have missed this as it has clearly been bought up numerous times before - and is a meaningless stat as he played those 12 tests - but what is the answer?
-
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
-
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
I must have missed this as it has clearly been bought up numerous times before - and is a meaningless stat as he played those 12 tests - but what is the answer?
56 I think. @Virgil ?
-
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
Again, pretty irrelevant when Bradmans average is compared to his peers. Not many others of that era averaging 50 or 60 let alone 80 or 90.
-
You know if you discard Crowe’s first 7 tests and his last 5 his average...
I must have missed this as it has clearly been bought up numerous times before - and is a meaningless stat as he played those 12 tests - but what is the answer?
56 I think. @Virgil ?
-
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
The rule change is the amount of fielders, not the ability to bowl at the body.
@antipodean said in The Ashes:
Absolute horseshit. Bradman is THE most dominant individual in any sport. The only player who could touch him would be a bowler averaging 10 per wicket or an All rounder averaging 20 and 50 respectively. To have a go at his average and claiming it was down to the era he played is insulting to a genuine great like Walter Hammond who averaged 'only' 58 during the same period.
To a degree the point is correct. Bradman played during a period when it was considered unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score. His average during the bodyline series shows what happens when that courtesy is removed.
He's still the best batsman ever.
"unsporting to not present batsmen with an opportunity to score."
Really? The "courtesy" was removed by bowling at the body and head with multiple players behind square on the leg-side. You're not allowed to do that any more and therefore all modern players are getting an easy ride.
Again, pretty irrelevant when Bradmans average is compared to his peers. Not many others of that era averaging 50 or 60 let alone 80 or 90.
Which is why his position as the best ever batsman should be unquestioned.
