Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Dr Robert wrote:

D/L wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:...Boycott used to refer to his record of going past 50 once every three innings as a badge of his consistency, which KP has matched...

Almost matched, to be accurate, although I don't think Boycott ever faced Bangladesh or the type of bowling recently served up by the West Indies. Pietersen played 28 innings against these two teams.

But Pakistan were not as good, definitely in the bowling department anyway. India? Not sure, tbh. Even the Kiwi's have a good pace attack these days. Difficult to compare a solid oening bat, and a strokeplaying number four. Comparing Boycott to Cook would be better.

Too true. Boycott had the Packer years, and weak attacks from India, NZ etc. And he dodged the best bowling. Decent opener though.

D/L wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Well written, both articles, Arthur.

D/L, your abuse of KP is getting a little tiresome. We get it, you hate him.

Answer me this, though: if the task of batsmen is so much easier now, how come no-one has averaged over 50 for England since the 1950's? Has England really produced not a single batsman in 50 years as good as any they produced in the first half of the century? And if batting is so much easier now, how come the batting averages for teams have shown very little difference by decade? Statistically speaking the 1940s were the easiest era to bat in:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

England has statistically been one of the harder places to bat since the war
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;view=host

Yet KP averages over 50 in England in that time.

It seems hard to justify an assertion that on the field he is not one of England's finest batsmen since the war.

There is a difference between abuse and justifiable criticism which, it seems, some are unable to understand. If you find my comments tiresome, then tough.

Justify it then. 'Many would say that Pietersen isn't that good' isn't justifiable criticism, it's unsubstantiated speculation. Who are these 'many'?

D/L wrote:There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but it is a no-brainer, that with protective gear, better bats etc., batting has become easier.

If batting has gotten easier, explain why batting averages have not gone up significantly. It's all very well saying 'damn lies and statistics', but without justification as to why the statistic is wrong/misleading/irrelevant, it's a meaningless comment. It sounds like 'I don't care what the evidence says, I've got my opinion and I'm sticking to it'.

D/L wrote:Of course, it can be said that Pietersen is “one of” England’s finest batsman but that is meaningless with no idea of the number we are considering.

I thought I qualified that when I said that I'd have him in my England 'post-war XI'. I'd rank him in the top 5 batsmen (and top 3 middle order) for England since then (for the record, I'd have Hutton, Boycott, Compton, KP, Barrington as my top five). I note that most of the top batsmen (heck, most of the top players) for England since the war were playing in the 1950s and 60s. Certainly since 1980 only KP and Botham would be in contention for 'great England players since the war'.

You clearly disagree, which is naturally your prerogative, but I'm asking that you substantiate your comments. Who did better than him in more difficult circumstances, and how consistently?

Clearly KP gave his wicket away playing stupid shots sometimes, but what batsman hasn't? Was he suspect against the very best bowling? Yes, but again, what batsman wasn't (I refer to, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loYyJllsj68 - top quality bowling, Boycott absolutely clueless. Yet I still rate Boycott as a great, and another of our best since the war).

Batsmens average in this era has negated by some great catches nowadays.Even the U-19 fielders are much better than those below average (by fielding standards as of now) international level fielders of that era.There maybe be a couple at international level above average at that time but nowadays you see those kind of fielders even in U19 level today.And not just more agile, or less errors but more versatile,more smarter and new techniques as far as fielding is concerned.Fielding has got 100 times better and now bad fielding has become a enough criteria for cricketers being dropped.Offcourse there is no statistic on cricinfo to match up with that.Imagine Jontys,Pontings,Dhonis and Bevans average batting against fielders of that era.They would have converted ones into threes and would average much better or even a no runs would go for a four .

bigfluffylemon wrote:

D/L wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Well written, both articles, Arthur.

D/L, your abuse of KP is getting a little tiresome. We get it, you hate him.

Answer me this, though: if the task of batsmen is so much easier now, how come no-one has averaged over 50 for England since the 1950's? Has England really produced not a single batsman in 50 years as good as any they produced in the first half of the century? And if batting is so much easier now, how come the batting averages for teams have shown very little difference by decade? Statistically speaking the 1940s were the easiest era to bat in:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;type=team

England has statistically been one of the harder places to bat since the war
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... ;view=host

Yet KP averages over 50 in England in that time.

It seems hard to justify an assertion that on the field he is not one of England's finest batsmen since the war.

There is a difference between abuse and justifiable criticism which, it seems, some are unable to understand. If you find my comments tiresome, then tough.

Justify it then. 'Many would say that Pietersen isn't that good' isn't justifiable criticism, it's unsubstantiated speculation. Who are these 'many'?

D/L wrote:There are lies, damned lies and statistics, but it is a no-brainer, that with protective gear, better bats etc., batting has become easier.

If batting has gotten easier, explain why batting averages have not gone up significantly. It's all very well saying 'damn lies and statistics', but without justification as to why the statistic is wrong/misleading/irrelevant, it's a meaningless comment. It sounds like 'I don't care what the evidence says, I've got my opinion and I'm sticking to it'.

D/L wrote:Of course, it can be said that Pietersen is “one of” England’s finest batsman but that is meaningless with no idea of the number we are considering.

I thought I qualified that when I said that I'd have him in my England 'post-war XI'. I'd rank him in the top 5 batsmen (and top 3 middle order) for England since then (for the record, I'd have Hutton, Boycott, Compton, KP, Barrington as my top five). I note that most of the top batsmen (heck, most of the top players) for England since the war were playing in the 1950s and 60s. Certainly since 1980 only KP and Botham would be in contention for 'great England players since the war'.

You clearly disagree, which is naturally your prerogative, but I'm asking that you substantiate your comments. Who did better than him in more difficult circumstances, and how consistently?

Clearly KP gave his wicket away playing stupid shots sometimes, but what batsman hasn't? Was he suspect against the very best bowling? Yes, but again, what batsman wasn't (I refer to, for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loYyJllsj68 - top quality bowling, Boycott absolutely clueless. Yet I still rate Boycott as a great, and another of our best since the war).

“Great” is a term used to describe the very best, the few at the top, and that’s how it should be or it becomes meaningless. Clearly, Pietersen does not fit into this category. I’m afraid I don’t know the names of everyone who would share that opinion so I will have to pass on the question of who they are.

Batting averages not having risen, despite batting becoming easier, is almost certainly due to a number of factors, too many to list, but all of which have changed the game and not least of which will be the different approach taking to batting in more modern times, examples of which would be an increased willingness to take on riskier shots and less determination to stay at the crease at all costs.

The question of who did better than Pietersen, in more difficult circumstances and how consistently, is another rather silly one and not worth doing the research for because it would take more time than it was worth and could never be proved. There would, however, be plenty of examples of batsmen playing the situation, in many matches, better than Pietersen.

I could turn the question on its head and ask for evidence that Pietersen consistently did better in difficult circumstances than any of his peers. I won’t though, because, like yours, it would be too onerous a task and completely pointless.

clubcricketeradi wrote:Batsmens average in this era has negated by some great catches nowadays.Even the U-19 fielders are much better than those below average (by fielding standards as of now) international level fielders of that era.There maybe be a couple at international level above average at that time but nowadays you see those kind of fielders even in U19 level today.And not just more agile, or less errors but more versatile,more smarter and new techniques as far as fielding is concerned.Fielding has got 100 times better and now bad fielding has become a enough criteria for cricketers being dropped.Offcourse there is no statistic on cricinfo to match up with that.Imagine Jontys,Pontings,Dhonis and Bevans average batting against fielders of that era.They would have converted ones into threes and would average much better or even a no runs would go for a four .

That is a startling exaggeration of the effect of an improvement in ground fielding over the years.

It would be counter-intuitive to say that catching had improved.

Perhaps batsmen did better in earlier times because they liked their captains? I read somewhere that Pietersen went on to make a very good score against South Africa because at that time he liked Cook and that, if he hadn’t, he would have deliberately posted a lower score.

England great? No doubt but on an overall basis a very good batsman.

There is opinion that " a true great in an era would be great in any era

I have my doubts that Pietersen would overcome the likes of 1. Roberts Marshall Garner Holding 2. Lindwall Miller Johnston 3. Bedi Prassana Chandresaker Venkatragavan on uncovered wickets with an old fashioned bat and no helmet.


It was posted earlier that ""he was a player of great innings but not a great player" In all the arguments about Petersen I think this is the most summary possible.

I missed out the word ASTUTE at the end of the post --- Sorry

Not saying KP is an all time great which he isn't but how many could overcome the Windies foursome fearsome? Maybe one? Border?

So KP has done well against ATGs like McGrath, Warne, Murali, Steyn, against mystery spin, and very fast bowlers like Lee, Shoaib, Johnson... but may not have done well against random greats of the past. Maybe SRT would have done poorly against SF Barnes. Maybe Lara would have been undone by Lindwall and Miller.

We've established that he's consistent (a fifty every three innings), doesn't throw it away (one of he best ever conversion rates) with a good average (more or less equal best for 50 years) and longevity (among our top run scorers). But now he might have struggled against an attack from the past. Or (like every batter who's ever breathed) might not do as well against the very best bowlers.

I obviously have sympathy for KP. And this demonstrates why.

greyblazer wrote:Not saying KP is an all time great which he isn't but how many could overcome the Windies foursome fearsome? Maybe one? Border?

Don't forget Allan Lamb

Gower and Botham did badly against that team, as did Boycott when he wasn't dodging them. So they're out. Gooch couldn't score runs against Australia.

Alderman, not Australia. He done ok in 1985 when Terry was banned.

Yes, not too many got the better of the windies quicks. Boon done well from memory.

Averaged 33 against Aus, with 4 hundreds in 43 Tests.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Averaged 33 against Aus, with 4 hundreds in 43 Tests.

Sounds about right. He was done in by Alderman in 81 & 89. He only toured Australia in the 90's didn't he? I remember him and Gatting going in 1995. Both were well past their best by then.