by Arthur Crabtree » Fri Feb 19, 2016 2:23 pm
Great golfer, they say.
Murali got a couple of votes in the spinner- only vote, and Deadly none. Might just be different people voting.
I was going to flesh this out into a touring party, based on votes. So I'll just take both. Gibbs got one vote earlier, so misses out.
I looked up more about runs per decade, but couldn't draw any reasonable conclusions. Runs came easier in the forties, and harder in the fifties, generally. There was a run glut in Australia in the twenties (Bradman?). Certainly within this period, differences in stats shouldn't matter. Runs are just scored faster now. There wasn't a sudden spike in runs per wicket after the introduction of the helmets or covered pitches, or a dip after bringing in drs. Most cricket after WWI is played at 29.5-32.5 runs per wicket at the extremes. Maybe someone will tell me that's a huge range, but it doesn't seem it. Is 2.5 runs per wicket between the nineties and the noughties meaningful? I guess it matters a bit more to the bowlers than the batters, as it is only 4-5 bowlers dividing those extra runs.
I always say that everybody's right.