On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 4:16 PM robert henderson <anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The assessment does not include one very important factor, the quality of protective equipment especially helmets.

DRS

The other big problems are the quality of the pitches, especially the

The number of days over which Test were played - three day Tests to Timeless Tests

Whether pitches were covered, and if they were how were they covered.

The changes in the LBW law.

The changes in the no ball law

The changes in the height and breadth of the wicket.

The batsman who really excelled is FS "Jacker" Jackson who played all his Tests against Australia in England before WW1 , Tests which were 3 days and played on uncovered pitches. Yet he returned these stats

Format Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100s 50s

Test 20 33 4 1415 144* 48.79 5 6

He was also a decent RFM.

RH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ananth Cricinfo <ananth.cricinfo.comments@gmail.com>
To:
robert henderson

Wed, 23 Mar at 03:11

Dear Mr. Henderson,

My apologies for the delay in replying.

Let me take Mr. F.S. Jackson first.

There is no doubt that he was a very good batsman. His figures are good. 20 Tests, 33 innings, 1415 runs, Avge 48.8 and WBA 43.7. It is also true that he played against one country. But that was his choice. During his career span, England played 49 Tests, including three against South Africa. Jackson played in only 20 of these. I do not know of the reasons for this. Maybe because he was an amateur. In any case, if he played in, say, 45 of these Tests and scored around 3000 runs, his career would have been much fuller.

Not all the bowling attacks that he played against were that powerful. And some of those Australian bowlers were in the initial part of their careers. There are also people who say that playing against fewer countries benefits the batmen. Finally, I analyze only based on the scorecard data. As such, there is no subjective work of any kind. For me the scorecard is king and I stand by that.

His is a somewhat inconsistent career - more than half of his innings can be deemed to be failures - sub-20, to be precise. He has five hundreds and has done well overall.

His True Value of Runs comes to nearly the same as his aggregate of 1415. In other words, he has got almost 100% valuation which is very good.

Finally, would Mr. Jackson be a candidate for an all-time England XI? Positively and resoundingly 'No'. There is a 50+ top-order waiting in the wings. Would he have made it to a Pre-WW2 XI? Maybe not. Would he have made it to a Pre-WW1 XI? Yes, probably.

So, the conclusion is that Mr. Jackson is a very good batsman. But he has not been considered for analysis by me because his aggregate is very low. That is the only reason. I already have over 160 batsmen with 3000+ runs. However, let me say that he has had a very good career, albeit short.

Regarding your other points.

Helmets came on in the 80s. But how can the effect of these be quantified? I will look silly if I say that I apply a factor of 10% for all pre-1977 runs or some such nonsense. And how do I know who played wearing helmets and who played without? And where do helmets come in playing in Asia - on the spinning tracks.

Lbw and No ball laws are what are in force at times. Players adopt. You cannot assign a value to these.

DRS helps both bowlers and batsmen.

Covered pitches. Yes, runs were difficult to score. I could consider a factor based on the average RpW for a period. However, the True Value calculations are done at innings levels and a lot of these effects are evened out.

I am not sure whether wickets have been made taller/shorter or narrower/wider in the past 120 years.

I will close by pointing out that some of the 3000+ run gatherers of the pre-WW2 period, such as Clem Hill and Trumper, have valuations of around 98%.. Batsmen like Hammond who made some cheap runs have lower valuations.

I had a glance at your blogs and am aware of your political and social views. Those are your rights and I will not comment on those. But when I do any analysis, and I have done that very successfully for the past quarter-century, I do not look at anything other than the scorecards and my own analytical abilities. I have readers spread across the globe and not once have I been accused of any bias or favoritism. Half of my readers are outside India..

All the best,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RH

Dear Ananth, I think your system requires fine tuning. Jackson's average of 48 regardless of of the country where it was scored is is wholly exceptional.

Take the averages of the main Australian batsmen who played during Jackson's time as a Test cricketer - for simplicity's sake I give their entire Test records

Hill averaged 39
Trumper 39
Noble 30
Darling 28
Syd Gregory 23

These players had the advantage of playing much of their Test cricket on hard Australian pitches made to last because they were from 1894/5 timeless Tests. Yet despite that their averages are poor compared with Jackson's 48.

Jackson also scored 5 centuries in 20 Tests. No one else of the time matched that, English or Australian Moreover, Jackson scored the centuries in 3 day Tests so his scoring had to fast.

As for Jackson's claims to being in an all-time England XI I would seriously consider him as captain. He would also be a an adequate fourth pace bowler/ Here is an all time England eleven

Hobbs
Sutcliffe
May
Dexter
Jackson RFM
Botham RFM
Knott wk
Verity SLA
Trueman RF
Richardson RF
Lohmann RFM

Here is an England side drawn from those who played during Jackson's Test career

AE Stoddart
Archie McClaren
WG Grace LB
Tom Hayward RoB
Jackson RFM
Dick Lilley wk
Lockwood RF
Bobie Peel SLA
SF Barnes RFM
Lohmann RFM
Richardson RF

A word on Grace. He was already 32 when he played his first Test (in 1880). He played 22 times for England most of which were when he was past 40 He played his last Test in 1899 when he was past 50. He also played much of his Test cricket in England before pitches had attained something approaching modern quality/

Despite all these drawbacks he scored 1098 Test runs at an average of 32, a Test record surpassed by few at the time. His bowling also remained useful although it had nothing like the potency of his bowling in the 1870s

RH

On 23/03/2022 15:44, RH wrote:

-snip-

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ananth Cricinfo <ananth.cricinfo.comments@gmail.com>
> To:
> robert henderson

-snip-

> Let me take Mr. F.S. Jackson first.

-snip-

> His is a somewhat inconsistent career - more than half of his innings can be deemed to be failures - sub-20, to be precise.

That's not right. His median score was 31. Anyway, almost all batsmen
who play more than a handful of innings will score well below their
average in most of their innings. Bradman's median score was 56.5.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RH
>
> Dear Ananth, I think your system requires fine tuning. Jackson's average of 48 regardless of of the country where it was scored is is wholly exceptional.
>
> Take the averages of the main Australian batsmen who played during Jackson's time as a Test cricketer - for simplicity's sake I give their entire Test records
>
> Hill averaged 39
> Trumper 39
> Noble 30
> Darling 28
> Syd Gregory 23
>
> These players had the advantage of playing much of their Test cricket on hard Australian pitches

I dealt with that elsewhere.

> made to last because they were from 1894/5 timeless Tests.

They weren't made to last that much longer.

Of Jackson's 20 Tests, half were drawn, so would have required at least
4 days if they had been played to a finish.

Over half of the Tests in Australia during Jackson's career were
completed within 4 days.

--
David North

On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:44:54 PM UTC, RH wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 4:16 PM robert henderson <anywh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The assessment does not include one very important factor, the quality of protective equipment especially helmets.
>
> DRS
>
> The other big problems are the quality of the pitches, especially the
>
> The number of days over which Test were played - three day Tests to Timeless Tests
>
> Whether pitches were covered, and if they were how were they covered.
>
> The changes in the LBW law.
>
> The changes in the no ball law
>
> The changes in the height and breadth of the wicket.
>
> The batsman who really excelled is FS "Jacker" Jackson who played all his Tests against Australia in England before WW1 , Tests which were 3 days and played on uncovered pitches. Yet he returned these stats
>
> Format Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave 100s 50s
>
> Test 20 33 4 1415 144* 48.79 5 6
>
> He was also a decent RFM.
>
> RH
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ananth Cricinfo <ananth.crici...@gmail.com>
> To:
> robert henderson
>
> Wed, 23 Mar at 03:11
>
> Dear Mr. Henderson,
>
> My apologies for the delay in replying.
>
> Let me take Mr. F.S. Jackson first.
>
> There is no doubt that he was a very good batsman. His figures are good. 20 Tests, 33 innings, 1415 runs, Avge 48.8 and WBA 43.7. It is also true that he played against one country. But that was his choice. During his career span, England played 49 Tests, including three against South Africa. Jackson played in only 20 of these. I do not know of the reasons for this. Maybe because he was an amateur. In any case, if he played in, say, 45 of these Tests and scored around 3000 runs, his career would have been much fuller.
>
> Not all the bowling attacks that he played against were that powerful. And some of those Australian bowlers were in the initial part of their careers. There are also people who say that playing against fewer countries benefits the batmen. Finally, I analyze only based on the scorecard data. As such, there is no subjective work of any kind. For me the scorecard is king and I stand by that.
>
> His is a somewhat inconsistent career - more than half of his innings can be deemed to be failures - sub-20, to be precise. He has five hundreds and has done well overall.
>
> His True Value of Runs comes to nearly the same as his aggregate of 1415. In other words, he has got almost 100% valuation which is very good.
>
> Finally, would Mr. Jackson be a candidate for an all-time England XI? Positively and resoundingly 'No'. There is a 50+ top-order waiting in the wings. Would he have made it to a Pre-WW2 XI? Maybe not. Would he have made it to a Pre-WW1 XI? Yes, probably.
>
> So, the conclusion is that Mr. Jackson is a very good batsman. But he has not been considered for analysis by me because his aggregate is very low. That is the only reason. I already have over 160 batsmen with 3000+ runs. However, let me say that he has had a very good career, albeit short.
>
> Regarding your other points.
>
> Helmets came on in the 80s. But how can the effect of these be quantified? I will look silly if I say that I apply a factor of 10% for all pre-1977 runs or some such nonsense. And how do I know who played wearing helmets and who played without? And where do helmets come in playing in Asia - on the spinning tracks.
>
> Lbw and No ball laws are what are in force at times. Players adopt. You cannot assign a value to these.
>
> DRS helps both bowlers and batsmen.
>
> Covered pitches. Yes, runs were difficult to score. I could consider a factor based on the average RpW for a period. However, the True Value calculations are done at innings levels and a lot of these effects are evened out.
>
> I am not sure whether wickets have been made taller/shorter or narrower/wider in the past 120 years.
>
> I will close by pointing out that some of the 3000+ run gatherers of the pre-WW2 period, such as Clem Hill and Trumper, have valuations of around 98%. Batsmen like Hammond who made some cheap runs have lower valuations.
>
> I had a glance at your blogs and am aware of your political and social views. Those are your rights and I will not comment on those. But when I do any analysis, and I have done that very successfully for the past quarter-century, I do not look at anything other than the scorecards and my own analytical abilities. I have readers spread across the globe and not once have I been accused of any bias or favoritism. Half of my readers are outside India.
>
> All the best,
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RH
>
> Dear Ananth, I think your system requires fine tuning. Jackson's average of 48 regardless of of the country where it was scored is is wholly exceptional.
>
> Take the averages of the main Australian batsmen who played during Jackson's time as a Test cricketer - for simplicity's sake I give their entire Test records
>
> Hill averaged 39
> Trumper 39
> Noble 30
> Darling 28
> Syd Gregory 23
>
> These players had the advantage of playing much of their Test cricket on hard Australian pitches made to last because they were from 1894/5 timeless Tests. Yet despite that their averages are poor compared with Jackson's 48..
>
> Jackson also scored 5 centuries in 20 Tests. No one else of the time matched that, English or Australian Moreover, Jackson scored the centuries in 3 day Tests so his scoring had to fast.
>
> As for Jackson's claims to being in an all-time England XI I would seriously consider him as captain. He would also be a an adequate fourth pace bowler/ Here is an all time England eleven
>
> Hobbs
> Sutcliffe
> May
> Dexter
> Jackson RFM
> Botham RFM
> Knott wk
> Verity SLA
> Trueman RF
> Richardson RF
> Lohmann RFM
>
>
> Here is an England side drawn from those who played during Jackson's Test career
>
> AE Stoddart
> Archie McClaren
> WG Grace LB
> Tom Hayward RoB
> Jackson RFM
> Dick Lilley wk
> Lockwood RF
> Bobie Peel SLA
> SF Barnes RFM
> Lohmann RFM
> Richardson RF
>
>
>
> A word on Grace. He was already 32 when he played his first Test (in 1880). He played 22 times for England most of which were when he was past 40 He played his last Test in 1899 when he was past 50. He also played much of his Test cricket in England before pitches had attained something approaching modern quality/
>
> Despite all these drawbacks he scored 1098 Test runs at an average of 32, a Test record surpassed by few at the time. His bowling also remained useful although it had nothing like the potency of his bowling in the 1870s
>
> RH

Thu, 24 Mar at 09:54

Dear Ananth

All you seem to be saying in the end is that no meaningful comparison can be made between players because you effectively exclude important changes such as helmets, DRS, no ball law and changes to the LBW law as being quantifiable. I would suggest that leaves you with my test which is the degree to which a player performs in comparison in comparison with his contemporaries. That is in effect what I have done with Jackson.

The size of the ball was reduced (making it easier to grip)in 1927

The stumps were enlarged in 1931.

The 1935 LBW law . Until 1935 meant the ball had to pitch in line and be deemed to go on hit the stumps. All a batsman had to do with a ball pitching outside offstump was pad it away. Subsequent expansion of the LBW Law occurred with the inclusion of the no stroke rule. This is a complicated subject see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leg_before_wicket#Alteration_to_the_law

The front foot no ball law meant pace bowlers were further away from the receiving batsman because under the back foot law bowlers could drag their rear foot so it was behind the bowling crease while the other foot could be as far over the popping crease as was physically possible. A shameless dragger like the giant Australian Rourke could gain probably get away with dragging 4 or 5 feet .

Protective equipment. I am old enough to to remember not only the pre-helmet days but the very limited protective equipment which even professional cricketers had. Batting gloves were thin and covered with rubber spikes, batting pads were smaller and less substantial compared with today's pad, thigh pads at best were a towel shoved down the leading thigh. There were no arm guards or body protectors of any sort let alone fully fledged body bras.

The consequence of this lack of protection was twofold: batsmen were much more mobile (improving play against spinners on helpful pitches in particular ) and few batsmen hooked or even pulled any bowler who was FM or faster. (Trevor Bailey deliberately kept his protection to inadequate pads and gloves to keep his mobility high.)

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:53:10 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> All you seem to be saying in the end is that no meaningful comparison can be made between players because you effectively exclude important changes such as helmets, DRS, no ball law and changes to the LBW law as being quantifiable. I would suggest that leaves you with my test which is the degree to which a player performs in comparison in comparison with his contemporaries. That is in effect what I have done with Jackson.

> As for Jackson, he was on stats the pre-eminent batsman of his time. 'nuff said. .

There have been myriads of changes to cricket throughout the years. Laws have changed. Equipment has changed. Pitches have changed. Training/tactics have changed (eg better analysis of player flaws). Health/Fitness has changed.

I think the only way to compare players between eras is by comparing how good they were vs their peers.

On this metric, no one comes close to Bradman.
This Jackson fellow sounds like he also was an outlier, but certainly not to the degree Bradman was.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:24:11 AM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 7:53:10 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > All you seem to be saying in the end is that no meaningful comparison can be made between players because you effectively exclude important changes such as helmets, DRS, no ball law and changes to the LBW law as being quantifiable. I would suggest that leaves you with my test which is the degree to which a player performs in comparison in comparison with his contemporaries. That is in effect what I have done with Jackson.
> > As for Jackson, he was on stats the pre-eminent batsman of his time. 'nuff said. .
> There have been myriads of changes to cricket throughout the years. Laws have changed. Equipment has changed. Pitches have changed. Training/tactics have changed (eg better analysis of player flaws). Health/Fitness has changed.
>
> I think the only way to compare players between eras is by comparing how good they were vs their peers.
>
> On this metric, no one comes close to Bradman.
> This Jackson fellow sounds like he also was an outlier, but certainly not to the degree Bradman was.

Yes, Bradman is the ultimate outlier although there if the intruding question of how he would be viewed if Bodyline had not been effectively outlawed - he averaged less than 60 during Bodyline and most importantly had a top score of only just over 100 . It was the really large hundreds Bradman scored which killed opposing teams. .

RH

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:44:33 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> he averaged less than 60 during Bodyline

Enough said.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:46:13 PM UTC+10, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Trumper (Aus) averaged 45.80 at HOME, in the same era.

Good point.
Maybe that's why I'd never heard of Jackson before RH's rants.

On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 12:07:27 PM UTC, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 8:44:33 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > he averaged less than 60 during Bodyline
> Enough said

I have found a list of Ashes centurions here
https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_hundreds_career.html?id=1;type=trophy

This clearly shows Jackson's superiority to all players, English or Australian, who finished their careers before WW1

For that period 1877-1914 ) Jackson's average is comfortably the highest and his rate of scoring centuries - one every fourth game on average - the best. Trumper has six hundreds but it took him 40 Tests as against Jackson's 5 in 20 Tests.

Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.

RH

..

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.

Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.

What was his FC record like?

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
>
> What was his FC record like?

average 33.83 from 505 innings.

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:30:06 PM UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> > Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.

Moron's grade reasoning. Not outs are a consequence how a player plays. Moreover,. the difference is marginal if not outs are excluded.

Jackson 4 not outs out of 33 innings
Trumper 5 not outs out of 74 innings

Ignoring the not outs, ie dividing the total runs by all innings out and not out

Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87
Trumper 2263 runs divided by 74 = average 30.58.

With not outs excluded to produce a batting average

Jackson average 48.79
Trumper average 32.79

> >
> > What was his FC record like?
> average 33.83 from 505 innings.

Jackson's FC stats
Batting
15,901 runs @ 33
Bowling
774 wickets @ 20.37

Jackson is the classic example of a big match player with a higher Test average than FC batting average

Bear in mind that Jackson was a genuine allrounder good enough to do the double He also played half his county cricket on exceptionally demanding Yorkshire pitches.,

RH

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:05:25 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 6:30 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >>
> >> What was his FC record like?
> >
> > average 33.83 from 505 innings.
> So FS Jackson was just a flash in the pan for 20 "HOME TESTS".

a bit difficult to claim that performance spread over 12 years is a flash in the pan

On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT), Hamish Laws
<hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:05:25 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 6:30 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> >>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
>> >> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
>> >>
>> >> What was his FC record like?
>> >
>> > average 33.83 from 505 innings.
>> So FS Jackson was just a flash in the pan for 20 "HOME TESTS".
>
>a bit difficult to claim that performance spread over 12 years is a flash in the pan

Jackson was undoubtedly an excellent player. But it makes little sense
to compare him directly with players who didn't pick and choose when
to play to the extent that he did, even in so far as it makes any
sense to compare players a century apart, which isn't very much in the
first place, as the illiberal bigot so assiduously points out.

As he says, there have been so many changes in the equipment, pitch
conditions, Laws and lengths of games that the cricket of the pre-WW1
era has very little in common with the game of today. Since they
aren't the same game except in name, it makes no sense to pretend that
they are.

That won't discourage those with no sense, such as the illiberal
bigot, from drawing pointless comparisons between apples and oranges,
even though all it achieves is a demonstration of his own obsession
with hating the modern world and wish to regress to an era when being
a racist, misogynist shit was generally acceptable in so-called polite
society.

Cheers,

Mike

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 2:54:55 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 7:12 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:30:06 PM UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >>>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >>> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >
> > Moron's grade reasoning. Not outs are a consequence how a player plays. Moreover,. the difference is marginal if not outs are excluded.
> >
> > Jackson 4 not outs out of 33 innings
> > Trumper 5 not outs out of 74 innings
> >
> > Ignoring the not outs, ie dividing the total runs by all innings out and not out
> >
> > Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87
> > Trumper 2263 runs divided by 74 = average 30.58.
> >
> > With not outs excluded to produce a batting average
> >
> > Jackson average 48.79
> > Trumper average 32.79
> Who is the LOW IQ MORON, who is COMPARING one batsman's "HOME AVERAGE"
> with the OTHER PLAYER's "OVERALL AVERAGE"?

More moron's logic. Both are overall averages, Next! RH

In message <c08ac436-7fe0-4f75-bb2f-ffaa9a567a31n@googlegroups.com>,
Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> writes
>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 1:05:25 AM UTC+11,
>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 3/25/2022 6:30 AM, Hamish Laws wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> >>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
>> >> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater
>> >>impact on his average.
>> >>
>> >> What was his FC record like?
>> >
>> > average 33.83 from 505 innings.
>> So FS Jackson was just a flash in the pan for 20 "HOME TESTS".
>
>a bit difficult to claim that performance spread over 12 years is a
>flash in the pan

I'd say that Jackson and Trumper were both great cricketers. Jackson was
probably the more consistent, but given the way Trumper played that's no
surprise. But Trumper could win you a Test in a session. The other
pre-eminent batsman of the period (roughly from 1900 to WW1) was
Australia's Clem Hill, who rarely gets a mention nowadays but whose
stats were impressive for the period. And of course Hobbs came on the
scene from 1907-8 onwards.

It's a pity that, as an amateur, Jackson never felt he could spare the
time to tour Australia. In 1905, he captained the England side, won the
toss in all five Tests, comfortably won the series, and topped both the
batting and the bowling averages. You can't get much more dominant than
that.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:29:54 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 7:12 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:30:06 PM UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >>>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >>> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >
> > Moron's grade reasoning. Not outs are a consequence how a player plays. Moreover,. the difference is marginal if not outs are excluded.
> >
> > Jackson 4 not outs out of 33 innings
> > Trumper 5 not outs out of 74 innings
> >
> > Ignoring the not outs, ie dividing the total runs by all innings out and not out
> >
> > Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87
> > Trumper 2263 runs divided by 74 = average 30.58.
> >
> Where the fuck did you get that Trumper's 2263 runs from?
>
> STOP LYING like the genocidal maniac Winston Churchill.
>
>
>
> Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87 (20 HOME TESTS)
> Trumper 2061 runs divided by 49 = average 42.06 (25 HOME TESTS)
>
>
> In fact, when you count the NOT OUTS as innings,
>
> FS Jackson's average WENT DOWN from 48.79 to 42.87
>
> Jackson lost 5.92 points
>
> Trumper's average went down from 45.80 to 42.06
>
> Trumper lost ONLY 3.74 points.
>
> So, Jack Fredricks was RIGHT cuz Jackson's average was INFLATED by 5.92
> points compared to Trumper's 3.74 points, cuz of NOT OUTS.
>
> FS Jackson is NO BETTER than Trumper.
>
>
> Case Closed.
> > With not outs excluded to produce a batting average
> >
> > Jackson average 48.79
> > Trumper average 32.79
> >
> >>>
> >>> What was his FC record like?
> >> average 33.83 from 505 innings.
> >
> > Jackson's FC stats
> > Batting
> > 15,901 runs @ 33
> > Bowling
> > 774 wickets @ 20.37
> >
> > Jackson is the classic example of a big match player with a higher Test average than FC batting average
> >
> > Bear in mind that Jackson was a genuine allrounder good enough to do the double He also played half his county cricket on exceptionally demanding Yorkshire pitches.,
> >
> > RH
> >
> >

SIGH. The comparison is of their Ashes performances, ie, like with like

Taking the Ashes performances with the not outs included as competed innings

Jackson loses about 6 runs per innings on his average
Trumper loses about 3 runs per innings on his average

Ergo, the the effect of not outs is marginal as previously stated. RH

,. RH

The leading Australian bowlers Jackson faced during his Test career included these:

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 3:29:54 AM UTC+11, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 7:12 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:30:06 PM UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >>>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >>> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >
> > Moron's grade reasoning. Not outs are a consequence how a player plays. Moreover,. the difference is marginal if not outs are excluded.
> >
> > Jackson 4 not outs out of 33 innings
> > Trumper 5 not outs out of 74 innings
> >
> > Ignoring the not outs, ie dividing the total runs by all innings out and not out
> >
> > Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87
> > Trumper 2263 runs divided by 74 = average 30.58.
> >
> Where the fuck did you get that Trumper's 2263 runs from?

That'd be his runs versus England

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 3:44:48 AM UTC+11, RH wrote:
> The leading Australian bowlers Jackson faced during his Test career included these:

More accurate than your typical lists...

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:44:48 PM UTC, RH wrote:

The leading Australian bowlers Jackson faced during his Test career included these:

Ernie Jones RF
Tibby Cotter RF
*Monty Nobel RFM
*Charley Turner RM

Spin
*George Giffen RoB/RM
*Hugh Trumble RoB
Jack . Saunders SLA
Warwick Armstrong LB

* Players taking over 100 wickets in Ashes Tests No other Australian players took 100 Ashes wickets until Grimmett and O'Reilly reached the mark in the 1930s, as did Lindwall in the 1950s.

The fact that four bowlers from Jackson's time exceeded he 100 wicket mark that shows how strong the bowling was that Jackson faced
..RH

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 4:40:30 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 3/25/2022 8:00 AM, RH wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 2:54:55 PM UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> >> On 3/25/2022 7:12 AM, RH wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 1:30:06 PM UTC, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >>>>>> Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >>>>> Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >>>
> >>> Moron's grade reasoning. Not outs are a consequence how a player plays. Moreover,. the difference is marginal if not outs are excluded.
> >>>
> >>> Jackson 4 not outs out of 33 innings
> >>> Trumper 5 not outs out of 74 innings
> >>>
> >>> Ignoring the not outs, ie dividing the total runs by all innings out and not out
> >>>
> >>> Jackson 1415 runs divided by 33 = average 42.87
> >>> Trumper 2263 runs divided by 74 = average 30.58.
> >>>
> >>> With not outs excluded to produce a batting average
> >>>
> >>> Jackson average 48.79
> >>> Trumper average 32.79
> >> Who is the LOW IQ MORON, who is COMPARING one batsman's "HOME AVERAGE"
> >> with the OTHER PLAYER's "OVERALL AVERAGE"?
> >
> > More moron's logic. Both are overall averages, Next! RH
> LOW IQ lunatic MORON,
>
> FS Jackson NEVER PLAYED away tests.
>
> So, ONLY HOME averages must be compared.
>
> NEXT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Does't the patient realise that playing just 3 day Tests on uncovered pitches in England makes run scoring so much more difficult than playing timeless Tests on hard , made to last pitches in Australia, doctor...." RH

On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:30:06 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> > > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> > Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater impact on his average.
> >
> > What was his FC record like?
> average 33.83 from 505 innings.

That's not particularly stellar.

Trumper's FC stats;
401 innings, 44.57 average.

I wonder if Jackson's Test average is boosted by a few lucky things; so few Tests, only home Tests, exceptional luck with the toss (won 13, lost 7), only 1 opposition.

Re the toss; Trumper's team's toss result was exactly 50-50 (24 won, 24 lost). Trumper's batting average was higher when they lost the toss. His best average was when they lost the toss and were sent in!
OTOH, Jackson seemed to really benefit from toss wins. Average when winning toss == 66.58. Losing == 23.58.
I'm also not sure how unusual this is, but Jackson's team batted 100% of the time when they won the toss.

I don't know. The more I look into Jackson the less impressed I am. A great player, sure, but not that great. Probably why he's not mentioned much.

In message <5c36e435-07a4-4ca1-b522-435bedc723d7n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:30:06 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> > > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
>> > Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater
>> >impact on his average.
>> >
>> > What was his FC record like?
>> average 33.83 from 505 innings.
>
>That's not particularly stellar.

It isn't. But it's comparable with the mid-thirties f-c average of
Michael Vaughan, for instance.

>
>Trumper's FC stats;
>401 innings, 44.57 average.

I suspect that pitches for Australian domestic cricket may have been
rather better than in England at that period.

>
>I wonder if Jackson's Test average is boosted by a few lucky things; so
>few Tests, only home Tests, exceptional luck with the toss (won 13,
>lost 7), only 1 opposition.

Or, like some of the best Test cricketers, he may have raised his game
or Tests. And having only one opposition, when that opposition is strong
like Australia were, is likely to make your average worse rather than
better.

>
>Re the toss; Trumper's team's toss result was exactly 50-50 (24 won,
>24 lost). Trumper's batting average was higher when they lost the toss.
>His best average was when they lost the toss and were sent in!

That's remarkable. How many such matches did he play in? Is it large
enough for that to be more than a fluke?

>OTOH, Jackson seemed to really benefit from toss wins. Average when
>winning toss == 66.58. Losing == 23.58.
>I'm also not sure how unusual this is, but Jackson's team batted 100%
>of the time when they won the toss.

At that period the prevailing orthodoxy was to almost always bat when
winning the toss, so it's probably not unusual.

>
>I don't know. The more I look into Jackson the less impressed I am. A
>great player, sure, but not that great. Probably why he's not mentioned
>much.
>

That's probably more because he played before WW1, and for those not
fascinated by cricket history there are probably few players from back
then that they could name. But your "a great player but not that great"
may be a fair enough summary. (Though if you take into account his
bowling and his captaincy as well as his batting, it might promote him
to a slightly higher position in the notional league table.)
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:15:05 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
> In message <5c36e435-07a4-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>,
> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:30:06 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
> >> > > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
> >> > Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater
> >> >impact on his average.
> >> >
> >> > What was his FC record like?
> >> average 33.83 from 505 innings.
> >
> >That's not particularly stellar.
> It isn't. But it's comparable with the mid-thirties f-c average of
> Michael Vaughan, for instance.

I'm trying to avoid comparing averages 100 years apart!
Sadly I've always struggled to find good, and free, resources for FC stats "way-back-then".

Looking at Jackson's English peers' FC records;
Ranjitsinhji 24692 runs @ 56.37 average
CB Fry 30886 @ 50.22
Tom Hayward 43551 @ 41.79
Bobby Abel 33128 @ 35.46
Jackson 15901 @ 33.83

NB: no idea if this is a fair representation of Jackson's peers.

> >
> >Trumper's FC stats;
> >401 innings, 44.57 average.
> I suspect that pitches for Australian domestic cricket may have been
> rather better than in England at that period.

See English peers above.
Trumper's Test average in England was significantly lower - 27.83, 34 innings.
I can't tell if this is caused by Away issues (not used to conditions inc the pitches)

Lower away averages are common.

Jackson didn't travel to Aus.
But some of his peers did.
Ranjitsinhji 50.77 average in Australia, vs 40.92 average in England. Tests.
CB Fry - never played in Aus
Tom Hayward 35.62 Aus vs 31.40 Eng.
Bobby Abel 54.25 Aus vs 24.14 Eng

Some of these had so few Tests in Aus though. I guess the lack of airplanes is to blame.
But based on that, yes, it looks like the same batsmen would score more runs in Aus.

> >I wonder if Jackson's Test average is boosted by a few lucky things; so
> >few Tests, only home Tests, exceptional luck with the toss (won 13,
> >lost 7), only 1 opposition.
> Or, like some of the best Test cricketers, he may have raised his game
> or Tests.

Maybe.

> And having only one opposition, when that opposition is strong
> like Australia were, is likely to make your average worse rather than
> better.

True.

> >
> >Re the toss; Trumper's team's toss result was exactly 50-50 (24 won,
> >24 lost). Trumper's batting average was higher when they lost the toss.
> >His best average was when they lost the toss and were sent in!
> That's remarkable. How many such matches did he play in? Is it large
> enough for that to be more than a fluke?
> >OTOH, Jackson seemed to really benefit from toss wins. Average when
> >winning toss == 66.58. Losing == 23.58.
> >I'm also not sure how unusual this is, but Jackson's team batted 100%
> >of the time when they won the toss.
> At that period the prevailing orthodoxy was to almost always bat when
> winning the toss, so it's probably not unusual.

Yeah. Trumper's team's record was 24 toss wins, batted 23 times. They were sent in to bat first 5 of the 24 times they lost the toss, though.

> >I don't know. The more I look into Jackson the less impressed I am. A
> >great player, sure, but not that great. Probably why he's not mentioned
> >much.
> >
> That's probably more because he played before WW1, and for those not
> fascinated by cricket history there are probably few players from back
> then that they could name. But your "a great player but not that great"
> may be a fair enough summary. (Though if you take into account his
> bowling and his captaincy as well as his batting, it might promote him
> to a slightly higher position in the notional league table.)

Yeah, one must acknowledge his other contributions.
Wisden snippet "he went on from strength to strength, until he became one of the finest cricketers ever seen in England". High praise indeed.

In message <f3cd7b37-9688-4038-8ce2-b61c56cb2da6n@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:15:05 AM UTC+10, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <5c36e435-07a4-4ca1...@googlegroups.com>,
>> jack fredricks <jzfre...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:30:06 PM UTC+10, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 11:26:44 PM UTC+11,
>> >>jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> > On Friday, March 25, 2022 at 8:28:55 PM UTC+10, RH wrote:
>> >> > > Turmper also has a poor average of 32 as opposed to Jackson's 48.
>> >> > Jackson only played 20 Tests, so his 4 Not Outs had a greater
>> >> >impact on his average.
>> >> >
>> >> > What was his FC record like?
>> >> average 33.83 from 505 innings.
>> >
>> >That's not particularly stellar.
>> It isn't. But it's comparable with the mid-thirties f-c average of
>> Michael Vaughan, for instance.
>
>I'm trying to avoid comparing averages 100 years apart!
>Sadly I've always struggled to find good, and free, resources for FC
>stats "way-back-then".
>
>Looking at Jackson's English peers' FC records;
>Ranjitsinhji 24692 runs @ 56.37 average
>CB Fry 30886 @ 50.22
>Tom Hayward 43551 @ 41.79
>Bobby Abel 33128 @ 35.46
>Jackson 15901 @ 33.83
>
>NB: no idea if this is a fair representation of Jackson's peers.

Pretty fair, I think. It's possible that Yorkshire's home pitches were
much worse than Sussex's or Surrey's, which would have had a big impact.
It might be interesting to compare his average with the other main
Yorkshire specialist batsmen of the period: JT Brown, Tunnicliffe and
Denton. But as I mentioned, it's possible that Jackson "raised his game"
for Tests. Another possibility is that he might have had a stamina issue
that made it hard for him to play at close to his best through a long
county season. Of course, that's all highly speculative.

<big snip of some interesting analysis>

>
>> >I don't know. The more I look into Jackson the less impressed I am. A
>> >great player, sure, but not that great. Probably why he's not mentioned
>> >much.
>> >
>> That's probably more because he played before WW1, and for those not
>> fascinated by cricket history there are probably few players from back
>> then that they could name. But your "a great player but not that great"
>> may be a fair enough summary. (Though if you take into account his
>> bowling and his captaincy as well as his batting, it might promote him
>> to a slightly higher position in the notional league table.)
>
>Yeah, one must acknowledge his other contributions.
>Wisden snippet "he went on from strength to strength, until he became
>one of the finest cricketers ever seen in England". High praise indeed.

The Yorkshire players who have captained England to a series win against
Australia form a fairly distinguished company: Jackson, Hutton,
Illingworth (though he was ex-Yorkshire by the time he captained
England) and Vaughan.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)