David Gowers's 50 best cricketers-evaluation

[sage]

no dravid? what a joke

[Vijy]

Comparing Lohmann to Sydney Barnes is ridiculous. Bowling averages from 1900-1930: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax1=20+Aug+1930;spanmin1=15+Mar+1900;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Bowling averages from 1930-1960: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax2=20+Aug+1960;spanmin2=20+Aug+1930;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling Bowling averages from 1960-1990: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmax3=20+Aug+1990;spanmin3=20+Aug+1960;spanval3=span;template=results;type=bowling Bowling averages from 1990-Present: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=overall;orderby=wickets;spanmin2=20+Aug+1990;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling The gradual increase in bowling averages is mostly caused by having more teams and therefore more players (which leads to there being more mediocre bowlers). George Lohmann's case is different. He played from 1886-1896 and in that time there was not a single batsman averaging over 50 (with a minimum of 10 innings). http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=10;qualval1=innings;spanmax1=20+Aug+1896;spanmin1=15+Mar+1886;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting Most of the bowlers who took at least 25 wickets also had bowling averages below 20. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=wickets;qualmin1=25;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=20+Aug+1896;spanmin1=15+Mar+1886;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling In Barnes' time bowling averages of most bowlers were not completely different to how they are now. However when Lohmann played Cricket was still not a very well developed sport and it was a bowling-dominated era. So his statistics should not be taken at face value (and his statistics should also not be used to undermine Barnes).

Thanks for the stats. This pretty much matches with what I'd speculated above regd Lohmann and Barnes. Even putting stats aside, everyone agrees that Barnes was one of a kind: a fast-medium bowler with superb command of swing, seam and spin

[Vijy]

Some of the reasons are: 1. Size of bats. Better equipment - The game of cricket played in earlier days needed the batsman to time the ball properly in order to score runs. These days, with brute force, a batsman can clear the ropes even if he hasn't timed the ball well or the ball hasn't come off the middle of the bat. 2. Flatter pitches even in countries like Australia - did any losing visiting team manage to get 400+ in Australia so consistently as India did recently? Not even a team with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman managed to do this in the past. Even in England, batting is a lot easier than in the past. 3. Batsman friendly rules like restriction on the number of bouncers per over. 4. Probably weaker bowling units - I am not 100% sure whether this is true though. How would former bowling greats perform in 2015? I don't know... 5. Bowlers have come under the scanner for chucking and some big names have been thrown out, but batsmen are under no such scrutiny so they are flourishing. ----- Just an example: In the past, fourth innings used to be unusually difficult to bat. That has significantly eased out now - the proof lies here - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=start;runsmin1=350;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team;view=innings Out of forty nine 350 scores for the 4th innings in the entire history of Test cricket, 21 have been scored since 2006. Basically means that about 43% of the highest fourth innings scores have been made in the last nine years!! Something that used to happen once every four years is now happening twice an year!

I would agree with all of these reasons, but HippoSucks also has a valid point in that the quality of batsmanship has gone down to an extent. But, I'd argue that this drop of quality is more than offset by all the advantages that have sprung up over the years, favouring batsmen. Rating Thommo and Steyn so close together is not something I'd agree with. If you want a genuinely fast bowler who was also a consistent wicket taker, one would have to go with someone like Tyson, not Thommo.

[HippoSucks]

Some of the reasons are: 1. Size of bats. Better equipment - The game of cricket played in earlier days needed the batsman to time the ball properly in order to score runs. These days, with brute force, a batsman can clear the ropes even if he hasn't timed the ball well or the ball hasn't come off the middle of the bat. 2. Flatter pitches even in countries like Australia - did any losing visiting team manage to get 400+ in Australia so consistently as India did recently? Not even a team with Sachin, Dravid, Laxman managed to do this in the past. Even in England, batting is a lot easier than in the past. 3. Batsman friendly rules like restriction on the number of bouncers per over. 4. Probably weaker bowling units - I am not 100% sure whether this is true though. How would former bowling greats perform in 2015? I don't know... 5. Bowlers have come under the scanner for chucking and some big names have been thrown out, but batsmen are under no such scrutiny so they are flourishing. ----- Just an example: In the past, fourth innings used to be unusually difficult to bat. That has significantly eased out now - the proof lies here - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;innings_number=4;orderby=start;runsmin1=350;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=team;view=innings Out of forty nine 350 scores for the 4th innings in the entire history of Test cricket, 21 have been scored since 2006. Basically means that about 43% of the highest fourth innings scores have been made in the last nine years!! Something that used to happen once every four years is now happening twice an year!

I was asking in the context that Steyn should be rated higher as he bowls in a batsman friendly era. So #4 and #5 are invalid as they do not affect Steyn’s bowling. The other three are valid reasons but I would think that they are offset by the lack of quality batsman this era (relative to the past). As for the statistic you posted, that may be due to the lack of quality bowlers nowadays.

[Vijy]

I was asking in the context that Steyn should be rated higher as he bowls in a batsman friendly era. So #4 and #5 are invalid as they do not affect Steyn’s bowling. The other three are valid reasons but I would think that they are offset by the lack of quality batsman this era (relative to the past). As for the statistic you posted, that may be due to the lack of quality bowlers nowadays.

Lack of quality bowlers is intimately tied to the quality of pitches, cricketing rules, etc. If the game is predisposed towards batsmen, it immediately follows that bowlers lose their effectiveness and their importance. Similarly, if we go to the 19th and early 20th century, bowling was so dominant that there exists high paucity of quality batsmen - apart from Hobbs, Trumper, Grace, Sutcliffe and the two Singhs (Ranji and Duleep), it is hard to find such greats. Hence, I don't think "quality bowlers" carries a definitive meaning in itself; it must be judged in conjunction with the cricketing landscape of that time. Someone like Thommo, it seems to me, thanks to factors stated by Marut would become more of a Brett Lee (or perhaps even a Tait) focusing more on ODIs, and thus failing to make the cut as a "great" Test bowler, regardless of the quality of batting that he faces.

[Marut]

I was asking in the context that Steyn should be rated higher as he bowls in a batsman friendly era. So #4 and #5 are invalid as they do not affect Steyn’s bowling. The other three are valid reasons but I would think that they are offset by the lack of quality batsman this era (relative to the past). As for the statistic you posted, that may be due to the lack of quality bowlers nowadays.

Let us take the West Indian bowlers of the 80s. Among other bowling strategies, they relied a lot on intimidating batsmen by bowling short pitch deliveries. I have seen entire overs of intimidatory bowling of this kind by the likes of Marshall, Holding and Garner. But under modern rules, you can bowl only two bouncers an over. These bowlers would essentially be defanged. A bowler like Garner would be no balled very often if he bowled the way he did during the 80s. How would these bowlers fare in 2015? I am 100% sure they will not be as threatening as they were in the 80s. Modern batsmen don't have very sound technique like their predecessors, but still Steyn is a genius for averaging 22 in this era. He is almost looking like Bradman compared to his peers. His nearest rivals average in the region of 30. No bowler has dominated his peers like Steyn has - I think this fact is completely missed by his critics. If batsmen all over the world have become weaker, then other bowlers must be having a field day as well - but only Steyn is so successful, not every bowler. So some people conclude that current batsmen and bowlers are both rubbish so that they can belittle the achievements of both batsmen and bowlers. When a batsman makes runs he is told that the bowlers he faced are rubbish. When a bowler takes wickets, he is told the batsmen are rubbish. It is a win-win for the critic either way. :giggle:

[Marut]

Lack of quality bowlers is intimately tied to the quality of pitches, cricketing rules, etc. If the game is predisposed towards batsmen, it immediately follows that bowlers lose their effectiveness and their importance. Similarly, if we go to the 19th and early 20th century, bowling was so dominant that there exists high paucity of quality batsmen - apart from Hobbs, Trumper, Grace, Sutcliffe and the two Singhs (Ranji and Duleep), it is hard to find such greats. Hence, I don't think "quality bowlers" carries a definitive meaning in itself; it must be judged in conjunction with the cricketing landscape of that time. Someone like Thommo, it seems to me, thanks to factors stated by Marut would become more of a Brett Lee (or perhaps even a Tait) focusing more on ODIs, and thus failing to make the cut as a "great" Test bowler, regardless of the quality of batting that he faces.

Thommo was a bad ODI bowler as well. He averaged 35 in an ODI era where other good bowlers averaged around 25. Thomo was one of the worst bowlers to have played cricket - he and his fans always love to claim he bowled at 165 kph every time, but if bowling at that speed yielded such career returns imagine what his bowling quality was? How accurate was he? I guess he must have been one hell of a poor bowler depending entirely on pace to get wickets. No wonder he was taken apart in the subcontinent.

[rkt.india]

Lack of quality bowlers is intimately tied to the quality of pitches, cricketing rules, etc. If the game is predisposed towards batsmen, it immediately follows that bowlers lose their effectiveness and their importance. Similarly, if we go to the 19th and early 20th century, bowling was so dominant that there exists high paucity of quality batsmen - apart from Hobbs, Trumper, Grace, Sutcliffe and the two Singhs (Ranji and Duleep), it is hard to find such greats. Hence, I don't think "quality bowlers" carries a definitive meaning in itself; it must be judged in conjunction with the cricketing landscape of that time. Someone like Thommo, it seems to me, thanks to factors stated by Marut would become more of a Brett Lee (or perhaps even a Tait) focusing more on ODIs, and thus failing to make the cut as a "great" Test bowler, regardless of the quality of batting that he faces.

Who do you think is better Brett lee or Thomson?

[rkt.india]

Thommo was a bad ODI bowler as well. He averaged 35 in an ODI era where other good bowlers averaged around 25. Thomo was one of the worst bowlers to have played cricket - he and his fans always love to claim he bowled at 165 kph every time' date=' but if bowling at that speed yielded such career returns imagine what his bowling quality was? How accurate was he? I guess he must have been one hell of a poor bowler depending entirely on pace to get wickets. No wonder he was taken apart in the subcontinent.[/quote'] Don't think he really bowled at 160 kph all the time. 160 kph is too quick. Batsmen even now find it difficult to even touch the ball at that pace.

[Raghav_12]

no dravid? what a joke

had not noted that..should have been there, definitely.

[rkt.india]

How does Wilfred Rhodes make it? He has such an ordinary record test or FC.

[MechEng]

Ponting gets massive promotion from 34 to 31 . :hysterical:

[rkt.india]

gN1UAhYPByQ Here is Frank Tyson. Richie Benaud said he was the fastest bowler he had ever seen.

[rkt.india]

THE TEN: FLEETING QUICKS http://www.alloutcricket.com/cricket/features/the-ten-fleeting-quicks Atul Sharma is mentioned here. :haha:

[Shivaji bhonsle]

Sachin doesn't deserve to be there at no.3. Lara, Ponting have played more match winning innings compared to the midget.

[Raghav_12]

Sachin doesn't deserve to be there at no.3. Lara' date=' Ponting have played more match winning innings compared to the midget.[/quote'] Poting would not even be in the same galaxy as Sachin. Lara atleast challenged him a bit though flickered away eventually like a shooting star. I would say he put Sachin as low as 3 just because English can't accept superiority of Indians. English people defintely owe some reparations to India in Cricket if not outside.

[sage]

Sachin doesn't deserve to be there at no.3. Lara' date=' Ponting have played more match winning innings compared to the midget.[/quote'] undercover pakistani spotted

[HippoSucks]

Lack of quality bowlers is intimately tied to the quality of pitches, cricketing rules, etc. If the game is predisposed towards batsmen, it immediately follows that bowlers lose their effectiveness and their importance. Similarly, if we go to the 19th and early 20th century, bowling was so dominant that there exists high paucity of quality batsmen - apart from Hobbs, Trumper, Grace, Sutcliffe and the two Singhs (Ranji and Duleep), it is hard to find such greats. Hence, I don't think "quality bowlers" carries a definitive meaning in itself; it must be judged in conjunction with the cricketing landscape of that time. Someone like Thommo, it seems to me, thanks to factors stated by Marut would become more of a Brett Lee (or perhaps even a Tait) focusing more on ODIs, and thus failing to make the cut as a "great" Test bowler, regardless of the quality of batting that he faces.

Not necessarily. How well do you think current bowlers (with a few exceptions like Steyn) would have done if flat pitches were made less prominent? They still wouldn't be remotely comparable to the bowlers of past eras. Yes you have to consider context like the cricketing rules when judging bowlers nowadays. However interdependent of that, you can just watch a bowler and then realize how good they are.

[HippoSucks]

Let us take the West Indian bowlers of the 80s. Among other bowling strategies' date=' they relied a lot on intimidating batsmen by bowling short pitch deliveries. I have seen entire overs of intimidatory bowling of this kind by the likes of Marshall, Holding and Garner. But under modern rules, you can bowl only two bouncers an over. These bowlers would essentially be defanged. A bowler like Garner would be no balled very often if he bowled the way he did during the 80s. How would these bowlers fare in 2015? I am 100% sure they will not be as threatening as they were in the 80s. Modern batsmen don't have very sound technique like their predecessors, but still Steyn is a genius for averaging 22 in this era. He is almost looking like Bradman compared to his peers. His nearest rivals average in the region of 30. No bowler has dominated his peers like Steyn has - I think this fact is completely missed by his critics. If batsmen all over the world have become weaker, then other bowlers must be having a field day as well - but only Steyn is so successful, not every bowler. So some people conclude that current batsmen and bowlers are both rubbish so that they can belittle the achievements of both batsmen and bowlers. When a batsman makes runs he is told that the bowlers he faced are rubbish. When a bowler takes wickets, he is told the batsmen are rubbish. It is a win-win for the critic either way. :giggle:[/quote'] That’s because it is almost circular logic. It is practically a fact that there are lower quality bowlers and batsman this generation compared to the past. So it is naturally that the good batsman are benefited by the weak bowlers. And the good bowlers are benefited by the mediocre batsman. Steyn is the best bowler by far right now and that is uncontested. But why should Steyn be given more credit just because he played in an era where his contemporaries are mediocre? Bradman played in a time where there were good batsman averaging in the 50s and despite that he was so ahead of his peers. For the most part that isn’t the case with Steyn. Other bowlers are not doing as well as Steyn because they are simply good enough

[HippoSucks]

Thommo was a bad ODI bowler as well. He averaged 35 in an ODI era where other good bowlers averaged around 25. Thomo was one of the worst bowlers to have played cricket - he and his fans always love to claim he bowled at 165 kph every time' date=' but if bowling at that speed yielded such career returns imagine what his bowling quality was? How accurate was he? I guess he must have been one hell of a poor bowler depending entirely on pace to get wickets. No wonder he was taken apart in the subcontinent.[/quote'] One of the worst bowlers of all time? :haha: Thomson wasn't an ATG but with his pace he was a perfect foil to Lillee and his variations. Before 1977 he was an amazing bowler with brilliant spells in the 1975 England or 1975-1976 West Indies series. After the collision in the 1976-1977 Pakistan series he wasn't the same (but still showed occasional signs of brilliance) because obviously he relied mostly on his pace.