Cricket Thread

robbieh said:
You do realize Hammond only played 82 tests compared with Root's 159. When you take into account exactly half of Hammond's tests were against Australia, then as now the best team in the world, and that he averages 8 more than Root then your dismissal of him shows rather a lot of recency bias.
Click to expand...

If you really want to get into the weeds of comparing players 100 years apart then you need to do it properly, and look at how the average for all batsmen in test cricket was 10 higher than it is today and stuff like that. Hammond played in the most batsmen friendly 20 year period in test history. So his average being 8 higher than Root's isn't actually something in his favour when Hammond's average of 58 was only 13 higher than the average of all players, and Roots is more like 25 higher.

1764861040664.png

Obviously Australia were the best team in the world back then, they were only 3 test teams when he made his England debut. It was a completely different sport. Hammond didn't have to juggle ODI's and T20 and swapping between them. He didn't have to go into test series with 0 warm up games because it's the 5th series of the year and there's no time.

When Hammond would pad up for his first test in Australa he'd have played 10 warm up matches and been in the country 2 months getting used to conditions. Root will have flown in 2 weeks before and he'll play 5 test matches on the spin and then play an ODI series and fly somewhere else he'll play with no prep. Hammond never even faced proper spin bowling, back in his day almost no one did it, and proper turning the ball with drift and spin didn't come about until the 50's, before that it was basically just bowling slowly enough that you could relaibly aim for the cracks in a pitch and only used defensively.

Anyway I honestly find all this stuff tedious which why I generally choose not to bother comparing. Different sports. Also how do you compare someone with a player you've never even seen play. Live or on video? I'm personally never going to be able to say player X from 100 years ago was better than Joe Root, who I've seen play incredible cricket live 20+ times and most of his innings on TV just because a scorebook said he had a slightly higher average.
 
Last edited:
domalino said:
If you really want to get into the weeds of comparing players 100 years apart then you need to do it properly, and look at how the average for all batsmen in test cricket was 10 higher than it is today and stuff like that. Hammond played in the most batsmen friendly 20 year period in test history. So his average being 8 higher than Root's isn't actually something in his favour when Hammond's average of 58 was only 13 higher than the average of all players, and Roots is more like 25 higher.

View attachment 176644

Obviously Australia were the best team in the world back then, they were only 3 test teams when he made his England debut. It was a completely different sport. Hammond didn't have to juggle ODI's and T20 and swapping between them. He didn't have to go into test series with 0 warm up games because it's the 5th series of the year and there's no time.

When Hammond would pad up for his first test in Australa he'd have played 10 warm up matches and been in the country 2 months getting used to conditions. Root will have flown in 2 weeks before and he'll play 5 test matches on the spin and then play an ODI series and fly somewhere else he'll play with no prep.

Anyway I honestly find all this stuff tedious which why I generally choose not to bother comparing. Different sports. Also how do you compare someone with a player you've never even seen play. Live or on video.
Click to expand...
I take your point and I wasn't saying that Hammond was better than Root. He did however score those runs against O'Reilly and Grimmett, 2 of the greatest spinners ever, which is a feather in his cap.

The ICC ratings take quite a lot into account and Root comes out as 17th best of all time, whilst Wally is only 36th. However there are 3 English batsman higher. Hutton, Hobbs and May.
 
Another great day of cricket. Three days of ashes cricket and whilst the first test didn't go the way we wanted it to, it's been full of drama.

England can win this series. But it's still an issue we're making so many silly decisions. Cummins and Hazlewood coming back in, and Lyon of course and that's a bowling attack that are going to be hard to get after. The fact it's only Starc we need to be consistently concerned by and we've gifted him so many wickets already is alarming. Brook in particular needs to step up and show his ability, because he's world class if he can temper his batting more.

Huge credit to Root. What an innings, and fantastic his century has not only finally arrived but means so much in the context of the match with so many others failing. A great last wicket partnership has put us well and truly in this.

Just for some context, the first session is the hardest to bat in with the pink ball both at the Gabba and in Adelaide. The final session is the 2nd hardest and it's the 2nd session that's easiest. So bowling at them in the first session tomorrow is the best time to be bowling statistically. In an ideal world you get the third session and following day's first session to go at them - but we will probably time that just right on day 3!
 
robbieh said:
I take your point and I wasn't saying that Hammond was better than Root. He did however score those runs against O'Reilly and Grimmett, 2 of the greatest spinners ever, which is a feather in his cap.

The ICC ratings take quite a lot into account and Root comes out as 17th best of all time, whilst Wally is only 36th. However there are 3 English batsman higher. Hutton, Hobbs and May.
Click to expand...

Root's the greatest for me. To do it over such a long period of time is an incredible achievement. He's been part of some very good England sides and some horrific ones. He's had the burden of captaining a side that he couldn't fire and then still remained a key part of the side under new leadership. Look at all of those England players who have crumbled in Oz. The pressure is absolutely immense. This England side have had it from our media as much as the Aussies too. Root has had all the chat about his lack of a century for a long time leading into this series. He struggled in Perth. But he comes in with us in desperate trouble and hits the century he deserved. For me that's testament to why he's the greatest. Others have better averages, more centuries in Australia too but Root's done it for longer and scored so many more runs overall.

The only caveat for me is the fact he's never scored a century in Bangladesh or the UAE which he really needs to be considered an all-time great. ;)
 
Meanwhile I see that NZ are giving the WIndies a hammering in Christchurch. The tourists won't even have the raucous backing of their fans that they get in England, just the gentle murmurings of the mild-mannered Kiwi crowd in the Hagley Oval - must be one of the most bucolic grounds on which international Test cricket is played.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Yup. Pope's for example.

It seems to me as if there has been a huge explosion of being bowled playing onto the stumps. Some are just bad luck (e.g. a cut to one that keeps a bit low) or chasing quick runs for a declaration, but many seem to be a swing at a wide ball with absolutely no foot movement.

I suggest that this is a result of Sloggit cricket leading to a reliance on the eye to track, but primarily for white ball cricket. Red and pink balls behave differently and are often bowled at a different length.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the lack of foot movement is poor.
 
domalino said:
If you really want to get into the weeds of comparing players 100 years apart then you need to do it properly, and look at how the average for all batsmen in test cricket was 10 higher than it is today and stuff like that. Hammond played in the most batsmen friendly 20 year period in test history. So his average being 8 higher than Root's isn't actually something in his favour when Hammond's average of 58 was only 13 higher than the average of all players, and Roots is more like 25 higher.

View attachment 176644

Obviously Australia were the best team in the world back then, they were only 3 test teams when he made his England debut. It was a completely different sport. Hammond didn't have to juggle ODI's and T20 and swapping between them. He didn't have to go into test series with 0 warm up games because it's the 5th series of the year and there's no time.

When Hammond would pad up for his first test in Australa he'd have played 10 warm up matches and been in the country 2 months getting used to conditions. Root will have flown in 2 weeks before and he'll play 5 test matches on the spin and then play an ODI series and fly somewhere else he'll play with no prep. Hammond never even faced proper spin bowling, back in his day almost no one did it, and proper turning the ball with drift and spin didn't come about until the 50's, before that it was basically just bowling slowly enough that you could relaibly aim for the cracks in a pitch and only used defensively.

Anyway I honestly find all this stuff tedious which why I generally choose not to bother comparing. Different sports. Also how do you compare someone with a player you've never even seen play. Live or on video? I'm personally never going to be able to say player X from 100 years ago was better than Joe Root, who I've seen play incredible cricket live 20+ times and most of his innings on TV just because a scorebook said he had a slightly higher average.
Click to expand...
What we can say is that Root is far and away the best English batsman of his generation. That’ll do for me. Like all players he has his failures but when he gets going he is sublime. See today!
 
The score could be competative who knows.I have come to accept the brainless shots from Pope who should never play for England again and Brook,more annoyed at Stokes and Jacks did the hard work and then gave it away.The T20ers in the top order maybe could be told to leave Starc alone as thier other bowlers are not up to it.
 
In defence of Brook he has played 60 FC matches since 2017, excluding Tests.
On the other hand he has played shedloads of both one dayers and T20s.
The likes of Thorpe and Atherton played way more 3 day games and played Test innings built on that foundation. Brook is playing the way he knows how and currently only a couple of English players have ever had a higher career average.
 
madloaf said:
He's 26 years old and averages 56 in tests. These next 7 innings shouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
Click to expand...

You give a guy like Brook licence to do that. He so talented it will come off enough times, his natural game is playing every ball. What you can't afford to do is have the entire top 6 doing that.

This is also in general, on a day like today when it's clear as day Starc was the only threat, put your ego in check, see him out and feast on the other bowlers.

I see the risk:reward when Cummins and Hazlewood are bowling from the other end, you can't just ignore scoring opportunities then because you won't get many.
 
robbieh said:
In defence of Brook he has played 60 FC matches since 2017, excluding Tests.
On the other hand he has played shedloads of both one dayers and T20s.
The likes of Thorpe and Atherton played way more 3 day games and played Test innings built on that foundation. Brook is playing the way he knows how and currently only a couple of English players have ever had a higher career average.
Click to expand...

The frustration with Brook is that he has the talent to play an innings like Root does. He has an excellent defensive game, he can dig in. He doesn't need to attack every ball. No one wants to see him completely change his game, just make that subtle adaptation so he isn't losing his wicket chasing deliveries he can leave.

If he dropped his strike rate by 10 he would be scoring even more runs. His batting average is excellent undoubtedly but he is in a side that needs him to score lots and lots of runs. It isn't a side that has won 5 test series. It isn't a side that has won the ashes. For those things to happen he needs to show a bit more nous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top