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