Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: Best cricketers in the world since the turn of the century

  1. #16
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    You're right, I should have added Gilly. *edits him in*

    Yeah I agree with your overall view on Lara. Without a doubt in my mind, Lara, Sachin and S Waugh are the 3 best batsman in the 90s. They all had different strengths and characteristics which is what made all 3 so great. However without getting into a Lara vs. Sachin debate, what Sachin has over Lara is general consistency. Or at least he's had it over the general period of his career. Since 2003, Sachin hasn't been consistent, so Lara would probably edge him there. None the less my point is, whilst Lara scores amazingly brilliant knocks often consisting of 200+, 250+, and of course his 375 and 400, he is also likely to get out cheaply due to his flashy nature which whilst making him absolutely awesome to watch, can get him in trouble early. That'd be the obvious reason as to despite his 375 and 400 not out, his average still isn't as high as Sachin, Dravid, Ponting and Kallis. Of course, what Lara has over Sachin is that after the turn of the century he's still managed to dominate. Sachin was consistent from his debut all the way to 2002, whilst Lara had a break and spots of failure. However since his return after the 'cricket is ruining my life' fiasco, he's been great. Neither are the best since 2000 though I'd agree. But they both own the 90s, that's for sure.
    .
    That's a very interesting debate you bring up, something i argued on another forum. So without having to repeat anything, here's a few stats which prove that Lara is just as consistent as Sachin and the only reason for the discrepancy in average is the fact that Sachin has 10 not out scores of 100+ compared to only 2 from Lara. Here's a few extracts of a few things i wrote on the debate on another forum:

    ...is Sachin better because he has, for example, scores of 240*, 248*, 201* and 194*as opposed to scores of 277, 226, 221 and 213 by Lara? Lara as we know has 400* but not much after that. Infact, the difference in average can almost entirely be put down to the fact that Tendulkar has 10 not out scores of 100+ whereas Lara (even though he makes bigger hundreds) only has 2 not out scores of over 100. So Sachin's average is better for making scores of 130 odd not out compared to Lara making 200 dismissed.

    Here are a few more interesting stats regarding consistency...

    % of scores over 20:

    Lara - 58.88%
    Sachin - 60.12%
    Kallis - 64.34%
    Dravid - 67.09%
    Ponting - 66.87%

    I then decided to determine what exactly qualifies as a contribution, i.e. consistent contributions. And i though that 30+ runs was a reasonable qualification as a contribution. So i did the same for scores of over 30:

    % of scores over 30:

    Lara - 54.20%
    Sachin - 52.74%
    Kallis - 54.14%
    Dravid - 55.06%
    Ponting - 50.00%

    % of scores of 50+ runs:

    Lara - 36.00%
    Sachin - 37.81%
    Kallis - 37.58%
    Dravid - 37.34%
    Ponting - 34.38%

    Amount of time on my hands:

    Alot.

    So as you can see, there really is very little between them all. The notion that Lara gets 200 followed by 5 failures and then 200 followed by another 5 failures is obviously BS.

    While Lara reaches 30 more often than Sachin, Sachin reaches 50 more often. But both by margins of less than 2%. So the notion that one is much mroe consistent than the other is more than probably false. IMO the difference in average isnt due to more conistent scores, but as i said - 10 not out scores of 100+ for Sachin compared to 2 for Lara. Lara may score bigger hundreds but funnily enough as averages go, i reckon Sachin's average is improved more than Lara's due to him having 5 times as many not out scores of 100+.

    And finally, here's the king of all stats regarding this issue. Below are the non-century averages for Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. So what this basically is, is the average for both players not including all century scores. The purpose of this is to determine consistency and to see what effect 100's have had on average.

    Non-century average:

    Lara - 32.25
    Sachin - 32.10

    What this proves to me is that Lara's average is not inflated at all by his big scores. On the contrary, as i suspected, it is Sachin's average that is inflated because of the not outs next to alot of his hundreds. So inspite of the fact that Lara makes bigger hundreds than anyone since Bradman, his average is not helped as much as Sachin's through century scores...which is why i encourage caution when comparing players purely on average.

    This also proves that once again, as with all the other stats, they are inseperable. Nothing between them.


    Long winded, in know. But it was a debate over a few days...and a pretty interesting one too i thought as it dispelled the consistency myth, i.e. that Lara will score a double hundred and follow it up with 5 single figure scores.
    Last edited by Boofra; 02-02-2006 at 01:38 AM.

  2. #17
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    What happened to my avatar?
    Posts
    1,251
    ...is Sachin better because he has, for example, scores of 240*, 248*, 201* and 194*as opposed to scores of 277, 226, 221 and 213 by Lara? Lara as we know has 400* but not much after that. Infact, the difference in average can almost entirely be put down to the fact that Tendulkar has 10 not out scores of 100+ whereas Lara (even though he makes bigger hundreds) only has 2 not out scores of over 100. So Sachin's average is better for making scores of 130 odd not out compared to Lara making 200 dismissed.

    Firstly, I have to say that a very good reply. Well researched stuff. I suppose the first thing I'd bring up is that Sachin has only made three double centuries by my reckoning... add two of them together, leaving one, and you have a score that's similar to Lara's 400*. His 400* shouldn't be just thought of as one innings while Sachin's three are skewering. His 400* holds the same not out value of two of Sachin's innings combined. Over a long career Sachin's not out aren't skewering.

    % of scores over 20:

    Lara - 58.88%
    Sachin - 60.12%


    The first question I have regarding this stat is - does this percentage mean any score over 20 runs, or all scores inbetween 20 and 30 runs? Because if Tendulkar is getting 45 and Lara 25 and so on, then it becomes a skewering fact. If

    % of scores of 50+ runs:

    Lara - 36.00%
    Sachin - 37.81%


    Again, I ask the same question, because there's a difference between making 60 and 95.

    The best stat is averages because they show how often one gets out. Of course it's not fool-proof because there's not out innings. Perhaps the best stat would be what each batsman innings average is, not batting average. Maybe batsmen getting not out should be applauded since they were good enough not to get out. Stats are a wierd thing. There are different ways to read them...

    % of scores of 50+ runs:

    Lara - 36.00%
    Sachin - 37.81%

    Non-century average:

    Lara - 32.25
    Sachin - 32.10


    Consider this stat one could argue Sachin gets higher scores once he gets past 50. But probably the most important fact is that the longer a career goes, the difference in percentage becomes bigger. For instance, Adam Gilchrist had an avergae close to 55 earlier in 2005, then it dropped below 50 for one week. Why the sudden drop in figures? It wasn't just bad form, it was the fact that Gilchrist, at number #7, doesn't have that many innings under his belt as compared to Ponting. It's harder for Ponting's average to drop because he has so many innings behind him, 28 of them, centuries.

    If both Lara and Tendulkar have an average close to equal in terms of making centuries, that small difference means a lot in a long career. It's been said that an average over 50 after a long career means more than a high fifty in a short caeer. Allan Border himself went about 60 innings without making a century, yet his average never dropped below 50 because he was co consistent.

    I personally thin avergae, in spite of not outs, are a more telling facts because they can be more concise.

    So as you can see, there really is very little between them all. The notion that Lara gets 200 followed by 5 failures and then 200 followed by another 5 failures is obviously BS.

    This is why average is so important. There's no mathematical way someone can have such an average after making 400* without going out. Kallis and Martyn were the best batsmen of 2004 because they made the most runs. We can tinker with averages though and pretend the 400 and all Sachins doubles were out innings.

    While Lara reaches 30 more often than Sachin, Sachin reaches 50 more often. But both by margins of less than 2%. So the notion that one is much mroe consistent than the other is more than probably false. IMO the difference in average isnt due to more conistent scores, but as i said - 10 not out scores of 100+ for Sachin compared to 2 for Lara. Lara may score bigger hundreds but funnily enough as averages go, i reckon Sachin's average is improved more than Lara's due to him having 5 times as many not out scores of 100+.

    To be honest, one could argue since Lara clearly has the bigger ability to make double centuries (he's made 8 I think) his average is only close to Tendulkar's because he makes big scores. I know that sounds silly that one should chastise a cricketer because he makes big scores. But Tendulkar is a more prodigious century maker. After a few bad years with the bat, Sachin has 35 (36?) centuries off 206 innings. Lara 31 off 5 more innings. So Tendulkar was quite a way ahead before his drop in form.

    I'd also argue Tendulkar was more consistent for a longer time. His consistentcy stats might be skewered by the fact he hasn't been that great since 2003. While Lara remains hit and miss... Tendulkar is more miss after a long period of greatness.

    Non-century average:

    Lara - 32.25
    Sachin - 32.10


    This was the most solid stat of them all. Definitely better than the others. The ironic thing about it though is that no batsman has an average of above 50 without making centuries, I know you know that. My point is that if Tendulkar has a better average because he makes more centuries. His not outs really aren't that much more skewering than one huge Lara innings of 400*. Centuries are really what it's about because centuries are the defining batting contribution in cricket. Nobody's going to be remembered as a great for having a non century average below 35.

    Most importantly, in a long career, although double centuries do and always will have a good impact on score, without them, Tendulkar would still probably average over 55. Stats become harder to skewer over long careers.


    I might go more in depth on your stats later... it's just important to know how to read stats. And especially considering that before 2003, Tendulkar was actually quite a way in front of Lara... and this was before his double hundreds, it's important to remember that Tendulkar probably has had a longer period of not being so great while Lara may be hit and miss for a longer time.

    As I mentioned in my very first post. I'm not as big a believer in stats as others. Viv Richards, on stats, isn't comparable. Yet all who saw him rank among, if not the, single most impacting batsman or his era... in fact the best batsman not named Bradman.

    Consider Lara in Australia last, he made a huge double century... but that was after a string of low scores... I know he got some terrible decisions, but I'm sure people don't count the ammount of bad Tendulkar decisions. How many MOTS awards have each men won, that would measure their impact on game. The two Lara series that stick as with him as the best in the series were in 1999 - against the Aussies. And Sri Lanka in 2001 - and I'm not sure if he got MOTS... though he probably did.

    Whereas, Tendulkar may have more MOTS. Then again, it may be hard for Lara to get MOTS when his team is floundering.

    There are just so many different ways to read facts. As someone who's seen both men for their entire career, by my eyes alone, I'd say it's clearly Tendulkar, but not by a great margin.

  3. #18
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Boofra

    And finally, here's the king of all stats regarding this issue. Below are the non-century averages for Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. So what this basically is, is the average for both players not including all century scores. The purpose of this is to determine consistency and to see what effect 100's have had on average.

    Non-century average:

    Lara - 32.25
    Sachin - 32.10

    What this proves to me is that Lara's average is not inflated at all by his big scores. On the contrary, as i suspected, it is Sachin's average that is inflated because of the not outs next to alot of his hundreds. So inspite of the fact that Lara makes bigger hundreds than anyone since Bradman, his average is not helped as much as Sachin's through century scores...which is why i encourage caution when comparing players purely on average.

    This also proves that once again, as with all the other stats, they are inseperable. Nothing between them.[/I]

    Ganguly's non-hundred average .......31.27.
    Gayle's non-hundred average........28.28.
    Yuvraj's non-hundred average......30.57.

    All that proves is that if you take away any players hundreds, they all average pretty much the same. It is the actual scoring of those hundreds, and their averages when those are taken into account that counts for anything.
    Millhouse: you know when your dog ate my goldfish bart and you told me i never had a goldfish, then why did i have the bowl bart! why did i have the bowl!!!!
    Karthik_moo@hotmail.com
    Member of the MSC and the AAAS
    Wanna Search ?
    Waughney : We are well taken care of here at the Rehab centre.

  4. #19
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Francis[I
    ]...is Sachin better because he has, for example, scores of 240*, 248*, 201* and 194*as opposed to scores of 277, 226, 221 and 213 by Lara? Lara as we know has 400* but not much after that. Infact, the difference in average can almost entirely be put down to the fact that Tendulkar has 10 not out scores of 100+ whereas Lara (even though he makes bigger hundreds) only has 2 not out scores of over 100. So Sachin's average is better for making scores of 130 odd not out compared to Lara making 200 dismissed.[/I]

    Firstly, I have to say that a very good reply. Well researched stuff. I suppose the first thing I'd bring up is that Sachin has only made three double centuries by my reckoning... add two of them together, leaving one, and you have a score that's similar to Lara's 400*. His 400* shouldn't be just thought of as one innings while Sachin's three are skewering. His 400* holds the same not out value of two of Sachin's innings combined. Over a long career Sachin's not out aren't skewering.


    Non-century average:

    Lara - 32.25
    Sachin - 32.10


    This was the most solid stat of them all. Definitely better than the others. The ironic thing about it though is that no batsman has an average of above 50 without making centuries, I know you know that. My point is that if Tendulkar has a better average because he makes more centuries. His not outs really aren't that much more skewering than one huge Lara innings of 400*. Centuries are really what it's about because centuries are the defining batting contribution in cricket. Nobody's going to be remembered as a great for having a non century average below 35.

    Most importantly, in a long career, although double centuries do and always will have a good impact on score, without them, Tendulkar would still probably average over 55. Stats become harder to skewer over long careers.
    Good reply.

    However, it should be noted that whilst Lara did make 400*, his total runs for not-out centuries is 553*. Thats because he only has two not out scores of over 100. Sachin on the other hand, whilst he doesnt have a 400* to his name does have 10 not out scores of over 100 which total 1660*. And that is the main reason for the average difference.

    And the reason for the non-century average was to show the major reason in discrepancy of average, whcih isnt consistency but rather because almost 1/3 of Sachin's hundreds have finished not out (which isnt his fault). So im not criticisng Sachin, just pointing out how silly and unfair it is that despite the fact that Lara makes bigger hundreds (58% of Lara's tons are 150+ scores and 26% are 200+ compared to 42% and 11% for Sachin respectively) Sachin's average is inflated moreso than Lara's by century scores.

    Lara's century average is 187. Sachin's is 212.2. So once again, inspite of the fact that Lara makes much bigger tons, Sachin's average is helped more by his hundreds because 28% of them finish not out compared to 6% of Lara's. So it really is ironic how the main argument for Lara being better than Sachin (big hundreds) is pretty much the main reason why Sachin's average is higher.
    Last edited by Boofra; 02-02-2006 at 04:46 AM.


  5. #20
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja moo
    Ganguly's non-hundred average .......31.27.
    Gayle's non-hundred average........28.28.
    Yuvraj's non-hundred average......30.57.

    All that proves is that if you take away any players hundreds, they all average pretty much the same. It is the actual scoring of those hundreds, and their averages when those are taken into account that counts for anything.
    Exactly. Ganguly and Yuvraj's overall averages are almost identical which reflects there non-century average. Gayle's average is 39 compared to Yuvraj's 41 which reflects the 2 run difference in non-century average. So clearly there is a pattern.

    So then, if Lara and Sahcin's non-century average's are almost identical why is it that Sachin's overall average is about 4 runs higher? Its certainly not just because he has 4 more hundreds. Its because 28% of his tons (the big scores which really effect average ) are not out compared to 6% of Lara's. Lara makes bigger hundreds yet his century average is 187 compared to Sachin's of 212. There's the reason for your difference in average, not consistency.

  6. #21
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Boofra
    Exactly. Ganguly and Yuvraj's overall averages are almost identical which reflects there non-century average. Gayle's average is 39 compared to Yuvraj's 41 which reflects the 2 run difference in non-century average. So clearly there is a pattern.

    So then, if Lara and Sahcin's non-century average's are almost identical why is it that Sachin's overall average is about 4 runs higher? Its certainly not just because he has 4 more hundreds. Its because 28% of his tons (the big scores which really effect average ) are not out compared to 6% of Lara's. Lara makes bigger hundreds yet his century average is 187 compared to Sachin's of 212. There's the reason for your difference in average, not consistency.
    I was just pointing out that it was a wasteful exercise evaluating players based on their sub-100 averages, since they all seem manage to average the same irrespective of whether their overall averages are 60 or 40.
    Also, could be argued that Sachin has not had the advantage of Antigua, the featherbed where Lara has scored 775/1 in just 2 innings.

  7. #22
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Deja moo
    I was just pointing out that it was a wasteful exercise evaluating players based on their sub-100 averages, since they all seem manage to average the same irrespective of whether their overall averages are 60 or 40.
    Also, could be argued that Sachin has not had the advantage of Antigua, the featherbed where Lara has scored 775/1 in just 2 innings.
    Lara took advantage of that featherbed. Sachin has just played a series on some of the great featherbeds of all-time but didnt take advantage. But the pitches they have played most of their careers on is another argument.

  8. #23
    Cricket Web Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    27,205
    It's a close second to the hilarious time we had a little under a year ago when someone suggested the concept of sub-10 averages
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  9. #24
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Boofra
    Lara took advantage of that featherbed. Sachin has just played a series on some of the great featherbeds of all-time but didnt take advantage. But the pitches they have played most of their careers on is another argument.
    Lara at Road, I mean Antigua:

    13 matches 1632 runs HS: 400* Ave: 85.89 4 100s 6 50s

  10. #25
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Marburg, Germany
    Posts
    27,072
    13 matches 1632 runs HS: 400* Ave: 85.89 4 100s 6 50s
    That's almost poor to average under a hundred there when he's got 4 100's, one of the an unbeaten quadruple. When you think about it, I mean.

  11. #26
    International Captain Deja moo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Navi Mumbai , India
    Posts
    5,974
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat
    That's almost poor to average under a hundred there when he's got 4 100's, one of the an unbeaten quadruple. When you think about it, I mean.
    I did , It means he didnt take advantage of 11 games on a featherbed. So I figure it this way, since Sachin not taking advantage of 2 featherbeds recently when hes on the wane is apparently a negative for him, how pathetic must Lara be for not taking enough advantage of Antigua at his peak

  12. #27
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    What happened to my avatar?
    Posts
    1,251
    However, it should be noted that whilst Lara did make 400*, his total runs for not-out centuries is 553*. Thats because he only has two not out scores of over 100. Sachin on the other hand, whilst he doesnt have a 400* to his name does have 10 not out scores of over 100 which total 1660*. And that is the main reason for the average difference.

    And the reason for the non-century average was to show the major reason in discrepancy of average, whcih isnt consistency but rather because almost 1/3 of Sachin's hundreds have finished not out (which isnt his fault). So im not criticisng Sachin, just pointing out how silly and unfair it is that despite the fact that Lara makes bigger hundreds (58% of Lara's tons are 150+ scores and 26% are 200+ compared to 42% and 11% for Sachin respectively) Sachin's average is inflated moreso than Lara's by century scores.

    I think the person who showed Ganguly's non century average had a very valid point. It was like I said, batting is about centuries... no cricketer hits 56 runs every innings. The closest is Allan Border during a weird period where he didn't get a century for like 61 innings, yet didn't average below 50.

    There's an interesting complex here. On one hand, one can say Sachin has so many not outs. On the other hand, one can say Brian Lara's average is there because of big scores. in some matches... which is taken down by sub-par performances. I think it's a bit odd that both could be chastised. I think the scale is balanced there. Both have something there.

    For me, personally, I think the rate at which Tendulkar raced up the century ladder during the 90s makes him the clear pick. But I tell you, it took him ages to get past the Gavaskar record once he got close.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Its a small world after all!
    By Armadillo in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 25-01-2006, 09:30 PM
  2. Replies: 65
    Last Post: 19-08-2005, 03:12 AM
  3. World Cup Umpires Announced!
    By Eyes_Only in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 15-12-2002, 06:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •