Quote:
Originally Posted by vcs
Negative indices for some players!  |
Haha yep. That's why I wrote that I consider 0.000 to be a very good Test batsman. I think -0.001 to -0.499 are still good test batsman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weeman27bob
Sangakkara seems to be rated far too high.
I mean yes he's a good batsman, but considerably better than Sobers and Lara, and better than Hutton? I, personally, don't think so.
|
Yeah, I know that's why I made two separate lists. Sangakkara and Cook both have good conversion rates and fail less often than most cricketers. Oops just realized that I didn't move Strauss to the current list..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teja.
I for one, approve of this system.
|
Haha good stuff.