Test cricket batting averages: is 55 the new 50?

Times change unfortunately which means the game changes too. As much as I long for the traditions of old and the skills that we values one must acknowledge the skills that are valued today are different. Warner is a freakish talent that will be appreciated in this age and rightly so. I only hope that the incredible and most probably unpassable deeds of the legends of the past (The Don, Sachin, Kallis and Ponting) will not be forgotten in this modern era. Class is class and let's celebrate what we have seen and what we have today.

Its easy to get on the front foot when you are wearing a helmet. Its no wonder the aussies have struggled against the swinging ball. The instinct to go back and play the ball late when the ball swings is gone. Greg Chappell was a very very good bat - god he had to bat against roberts holding garner croft and daniel, and that was just the west indies. His brother Ian tried to take them on at every opportunity and was ultra aggressive - without a helmet. I think the batters these days have it easy - although watching tendulkar scoring at a run a ball in the current MCG test when everyone else toiled, was a joy. I would love to see more hobart type pitches and more like this MCG one. It makes test cricket a true test for the batters. Best batter I ever saw though was Viv Richards. Imagine what he would have done in the last 10 years on the benign pitches that have been presented

Brendon, They may not have trained as hard - as in the gym - but they bowled a hell of a lot more than they do today. So they didn't need to train as much. I'd also be careful about putting McGrath's work in the nets up against a bowler like Tate who would have bowled considerably more in the nets than McGrath, or any modern bowler, had ever considered possible. McGrath, for example, played just 26 matches for NSW in a fourteen year career. He wasn't exactly killed by the workload. I'd be pretty comfortable in thinking Tate bowled a few more balls than Glenn McGrath.

Brendon, What the f... are you actually talking about? Certainly not what I was talking about. It never ceases to fascinate me that you fail to understand that if all those batsmen YOU mentioned were averaging close to, or over 50, then perhaps it was because they could actually play. You seem to think the bowlers were no good. How the hell would you know Brendon? I get the feeling you never even saw Greg Chappell play...or Allan Border...or anyone before Ricky Ponting. Brendon, how about uncovered pitches, old style bats (not the modern cannons), unroped boundaries, protective equipment. It amazes me that you cannot see that these conditions have changed to the benefit of the modern batsmen. Do you really think Hayden would have been marching down the wicket to Larwood without a helmet and the padding......or to Lillee and Thomson.....or to Snow.....or to Griffith and Hall etc. If you do, you're kidding yourself. On reflection, he might have done it once! In future Brendon I suggest you limit yourself to talking about players you've actually seen play because you know jack about the rest.

...and strike rate, on its own, is positively meaningless!

Brendon, You rabbit on and on about "proving" things and all you ever provide is your uninformed, amateur opinion and proof of your monumental ignorance. You may well be impressed by strike rate and God knows what else but it's all irrelevant rubbish. Let's take a random example......today at the MCG. India lose 7 for bugger all and Australia, with two and a half days to play, manage to get to 4/27 and end up with 8 for not much. On a pitch that anybody with any skill would pay to bat on. And for the sake of argument I'll even ignore Hobart and that 47 a month ago. Tell us all once again about those superior modern techniques. And this time justify with something other than strike rate which, apparently, is all you know about cricket. As for your criticisms of masters Sobers, Cowdrey, Sutcliffe and Boycott I can only say...what insight! What depth of analysis? What intelligence? And I mean WHAT insight, depth of analysis and intelligence? All you have done there is embarrass yourself with your ignorance and lack of.....well, anything really. You are a tosser, Brendon, with a seriously inflated opinion of your understanding of the game. Everybody else is an "armchair idiot" to you but it never seems to occur to you that you, yourself, may be one of those "armchair idiots" by virtue of your own contributions to the Roar. Apparently you see yourself as the one true visionary amongst all the dead wood. Sonny, have I got news for you!!! What you know about the game could be written on a postage stamp.....and all it would say is "strike rate". "I’ve explained to you that players ARE much more technically correct and have been so for the past 15 years. Talk to anyone involved in the game TODAY" You have not explained it all, Brendon, you've told us your opinion.....over and over. But without explanation. I presume you equate "explaining" with you telling and expecting us to believe you just because you said it. Unfortunately, since most of us know you know jack we find it difficult to believe you. And Brendon, talk to anyone involved in the game today about what? If I talk to an idiot like Ian Healy I might find that all you have to do is smash bowlers if you're a batsman and bounce batsmen if you're a bowler. If I talk to, say, Matthew Hayden he might say all you've got to do is walk down the pitch and smash bowlers and intimidate them. If I talk to Dale Steyn he might tell me all I've got to do is pitch it up there and the batsman will commit suicide. However, it never seems to occur to you that Hayden and Steyn may succeed because of the weakness at the other end! In the modern game they all might be right. If, however, I talk to commentators and cricket journos (in other words, guys who have seen more than the past five years), I might find there is a distinct opinion that modern batsmen are very limited indeed when it comes to Test cricket. Sure thay can smash T20 bowlers out of the park.....but they have trouble concentrating more than a session. Think Brad Haddin whose time frame seems measured in minutes rather than hours when he's batting. I might take the liberty to ask, Brendon, just who you have talked to in the modern game today. I find it fascinating that you can categorically dismiss criticisms of modern players even if that criticism comes from former Test players - I know, I'm just assuming they know more about the game than you (that's my weakness). Those of us who saw Sobers at least know now that not playing South Africa inflated his average. What a lucky bloke Garry was - not to mention the South Africans. We also know that since Barry Richards only played four Tests he could not have been very good. Ah, that Richards, in only his second Test he just managed to crawl to 96no at lunch on the first day - and Lawry took 20 minutes to bowl the last three overs of the session to deny him his century before lunch. But, as you say, he could not play! Thanks for the insight guru. We may, however, disagree! I would also like to read your thesis on why seeing some players play, and not others, has any bearing on my arguments. It has plenty of bearing on yours, by the way, because you have dismissed those unseen players out of hand. You're right, I did not see Trumper but I am prepared to believe how good he was for no other reason than I have talked to people who did see him play - and saw Bradman, McCabe, Macartney, Miller, Hassett et al - and could make an intelligent comparison. In some cases those people played against him. I'm prepared to accept their judgement on face value given the wealth of supporting information from other sources e.g. England and South Africa. "Colin Cowdrey was fat and EVERY critic points out how meandering he was." This may well go down as one of the most, I'll say uninformed (even if I meant unintelligent), things anybody has ever written about Cowdrey or cricket. I don't see the need to justify Cowdrey since those mysterious "critics" have generally covered it. Suffice to say, one of the great English Test batsmen, and most of those "critics" will agree. Where did you get that opinion other than out of your ar......never mind, I forgot, that's where your brain is! Looking forward to reading many more famous Brendon contributions in the months ahead. In future though just write "Strike rate" since that just about sums up your entire knowledge of the game. P.S. At the "G" today, you must have been impressed with 4/27. All that technique just filling the ground everywhere you looked. Bloody fabulous! If you really believe players of the last fifteen years have superior techniques than those names I mentioned then you are deluded. There's nothing anyone can do about that. You have observed the evolution of cricket but you haven't understood it - nothing can be done.

Shivaji, "And I am not delusional about the decline of test cricket’s popularity. I am only saying there still are some people who would like to watch it. Remember the decline is from its own former glory. It does not mean that its popularity is low from an absolute perspective." Test cricket operates in a marketplace where the best young athletes choose which sport to play professionally. Australia may have found the next Shane Warne, and he plays for Sydney. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/nick-smith-keeps-sydney-in-spin/story-e6frf9jf-1225905060493

Shivagi, You utterley misunderstand me. Here is an example ... "The best innings by an Australian batsman was Kim Hughes' 100 not out against the West Indies at the MCG in 1981-2". With bare statistics, its a hundred, like hundreds of others. In context, it looks better - he got 100 out of 198 all out, and the highest score in the match. Looking beyond the numbers, it was an incredible innings - a century, on a viciously two-paced pitch against the best pace attack the world has ever seen. Going to cricket attendances, in terms of attendances Test cricket gets surprisingly poor crowds in Australia. I will use the MCG as an example. http://www.mcg.org.au/History/Attendances/~/media/Files/Cricket%20Attendances.ashx Let us compare these crowds to a not particularly successful AFL side - Richmond. In 2009, Richmond got three crowds as good or better than that of the first day of a Test match against England or India. Their average crowds destroy that of Test cricket. http://stats.rleague.com/afl/crowds/2009.html Or perhaps to the Melbourne Storm, a rugby league club in Melbourne http://stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/melbourne.html Note the average crowd for *rugby league* in Melbourne is close to the crowds for the fourth day of a Test match. Finally, English cricket grounds are small - Lords only fits 30 000. As a comparison, Goodison Park, home of Everton Football Club, fits 36 000. Saying Test cricket is popular enough to survive is, bluntly, lazy self-delusion - cricket is a very risky career choice for an elite young sportsman, and if Test cricket cannot generate its own income, then it will be further marginalised. Heres a copy of the 2009 ICC report. Things have got worse since then. http://www.lords.org/data/files/mcc-multimarket-study-declining-test-match-attendance-2009-1-10342.pdf

Shivaji, I note you have quoted an acute lack of numbers to support your opinion.

Shivaji, Absolutely - any stat is meaningless without context. I want big-match temprament, and the proven ability to win games. Then I'll look at team balance, and who we need for what role. After that, I'll start weighing up stats :)

Nahh, Any system that values Glenn McGrath's wicket the same as Steve Waughs' is a flawed system. Personally, I value a bowler for five- and ten-wicket hauls most of all.

Bradman certainly thrived in an era (1930s) where batsmen dominated over bowlers. However, with a batting average of 99.94, more than one-third whole better than the next 3 batsmen - Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe - arguments against him, or his era, are useless. We will leave Trott out for the moment, as I suspect he will return to the field eventually. Steyn is one of the finest bowlers of the 2000s, as was Tate for the 1920s. Steyn wins a direct comparison hands-down, not only statistically, but also in terms of domination, individually & for the team. Larwood was as good as any fast bowler to play the game. But he was poorly used by England captains & selectors. Jardine in 1932/33 being the stand-out exception. Larwood showed in bodyline what he was capable of, when used effectively by his captain. Fortunately for Australia, England stuffed up with Larwood on just about every other occasion. This is yet another factor that must be considered when comparing players of different eras. In the pre-fully professional era, there were often other intrigues at play that need to be considered. Again I will emphasize, while today's players are bigger, stronger, faster, fitter, healthier, it would be a huge mistake to automatically assume they are intrinsically more skillful. Sometimes, the reverse is true.

Brendon, No player from the past can compete with today's players - they're either very old or very dead! However, as Bradman himself said, "a champion in one era is a champion in any era". The point is, technology will always tend to improve things, at least until the next "dark age". So from the point of technology, nutrition, etc each succeeding generation will be bigger, stronger, faster, with better equipment, etc. But don't confuse this with being intrinsically superior.....