India vs England (3rd test)

The problem with statistics is that they are very much of a era. There was a time that every team had some exceptional batsmen. There was a time when every team in the world had an exceptional all rounder. There was a time when true fast bowlers intimidated world class batsmen.

Those players just don;t exist to the same prevalence or calibre nowadays. Plus, players play much more cricket so can rack up much bigger numbers.

Sadly, we can't have Stokes bowling at players like Greenidge, Richards, Gavaskar and Dravid. Or Batting against Garner, Holding, Lillee, Hadlee etc.

So we merely have average players playing against average players and statistics resulting.

The slogfest didn't seem to take long, but I don't judge him on one innings good or bad.

 

Whoops! 10 wickets in your second test match is some going, MOTM imo.

 

Another straight ball another wicket.

 

It shouldn't be so hard to stop the ball hitting you in front of the stumps all the time. Can't be many two day tests ever.

 

I think I'll let the missis watch A Place in the Sun instead of cricket highlights after all

 

Even that is plain wrong. you've listed some fine players but Steve Smith, Kohli, Willimason, Root and and emerging Labuschange are all significantly better batsmen than your list. Cummins and Hazelwood and lyon for example have bowling averages that are comparable with all contemporary's from your list.

you might as well just say it was far better when i was a lad, put the paper down, nod knowingly and strike up another woodbine like my granddad used to !

 

66 -6.

 

You were saying?

next two need to stay in for a good while too...... loose shot... wicket

repeat until lose 10 wickets and the match

 

No point staying in your crease and trying to guess where it's going. May as well start running down the pitch and swinging at it.

 

I'm sorry, but if you can't recognise greats compared to the better players amongst a bang average generation, we can't have a true discussion can we.

And you've justified your position by averages and statistics.... from the modern day pool.

To put my point across. Archer played a low level village game some time ago. He got a 100. If we were to judge him on statistics at that level over a period, he could be one of the greatest batsmen that ever lived, which is obviously a ridiculous notion.

The players you listed are the better ones of this era. But they are facing much much poorer players and more often.

Broad has huge amounts of wickets, but was he any better than say Bob Willis, or even Andy Caddick? I rate him a lot by the way, but it's a completely different era, with much more cricket, and much more slogging than there ever was. More slogging, less technique. Much less ability to deal with a ball when it does the tiniest bit of something.

Sadly, it's completely unable to be proven, but I'd say you could put together a world best XI from any year prior to say 2008-10 ish and play against any best XI after that period and the older team would get more runs and more wickets. Modern fielding has increased and fitness too, considerably (although I still find it amazing that teams of yesteryear easily bowled all their overs in a day at rates over 15 an hour), but skill, quality and mental endurance have diminished greatly.

 

And another one bites the dust!

 

Just bring them home now.

 

That has to be the worst review I've ever seen.

Couldn't be more plum.

 

Yes.

Definitely.

 

Ashwin's 400th wicket.

 

6 for Leach, show em how it's done!

 

And then Jack leach starts hitting sixes... the worlds gone mad.

 

Leachy!!

 

Can we get to 77-7?

 

I could see India knocking off anything below 120 really easily. They'll just send the chancers out in normal t20 mode and with most fielders around the bat, they could get off to a flyer.

I think to have a chance, we'd just have to open the bowling with Root and Leach and try and get through some of the top order very quickly like they did. With such a low total, you only need one average partnership to win.