Sehwag1830 Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Despite him playing in the bowler- friendly era he faced only 1 bowler who took more than 50 wickets and had average of below 25. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;spanmax1=20+aug+1930;spanmin1=01+jan+1908;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling Whereas Sehwag despite playing in a batsman-friendly era faced 9 bowlers who had average of below 25 and taken more than 50 wickets http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_average;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;spanmin2=03+nov+2001;spanval2=span;template=results;type=bowling So is there a bias against modern-era batsman ?
Cricket Tragic Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Do you have a daily quota of comparison threads that you absolutely must get through?
BERGKAMP Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 Do you have a daily quota of comparison threads that you absolutely must get through? :giggle:
mishra Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=267498 Check that... Most definitive guide to identifying a cricketing great till date... It has only one major drawback. It ignores the quality of cricket.....
King Posted June 27, 2011 Posted June 27, 2011 What do you reckon J Hobbs should have done? Should he have asked for bowlers of more calibre to bowl to him? Perhaps he should fast forward and play against top bowers of the current era to prove himself? Similarly Sehwag to prove his greatness somehow should go back in future with the help of S Spielberg and play the West Indies bowliing of the 70s or face Waz/Waqar/Imran, Lillee/Thommo or Hadlee in their prime? I cannot find a conclusive answer to the question you have asked to be honest despite trying hard enough.
mishra Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 The whole ranking and all time great system is bogged with favouritism. But then again what does anyone expect. If ECB and CA are making the initial list and then asking people to vote on it, Then what anyone expects? They have kept the top spots for themselves..... Its as simple as that. I have never seen his playing footage. I am definite, qualitatively this guy must be poorer than Bradman... Its will be waste of my time.... And the argument that there were no bowlers of Warne standard is pathetic..... How come Warne tops all time bowlers list when he wasnt even best bowler during his career. Murali beat him, fair and square....
Maundy Gregory Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 There were far fewer Tests played in that era, so the majority of bowlers took less than 50 wickets. Plenty of them did have averages under 25
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now