Originally Posted by Spark
The quality of the attacks, the nature of the pitches, the timeframe across which the runs were scored (and hence how many "form windows" the sample size actually captures).
I mean otherwise if you're silly you end up with statements such as Samaraweera > Ponting, and, well...
We know Samaraweera is not better than Ponting and stats confirm it. Samaraweera stats outside subcontinent are horrible, and only slightly improving after the SA series. So once again stats confirm that point.
If nature of pitches counts, then can we safely Kallis should be rated way higher than most batsmen since he played 50% of his matches in South Africa - statistically the best bowling conditions in the world?
Does anybody have a view on why Donald is rated higher than Steyn?