• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Best cricketers in the world since the turn of the century

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I thought I'd compile a list of the best cricketers in the world since the year 2000.

2005: Shane Warne (Hon. Flintoff, Inzamam, Ponting, McGrath)
2004: Damien Martyn (Hon. Kallis, Langer)
2003: Ricky Pointing (Hon. Matthew Hayden)
2002: Michael Vaughn (Hon. Shane Warne)
2001: Muttiah Muralitharan (Hon. Brian Lara, Matthew Hayden, VVS Laxman)
2000: Muttiah Muralitharan (Hon. Inzamam, Andy Flower, Steve Waugh)

Warne is my pick for 2005 because he striked a wicket every 45 balls, that's comparable to the best fast bowlers strike-rate. Martyn made six centuries in the sub-continent and those were against consistent marathon bowlers. Ponting averaged 100 for 2003, enough said. Vaughn was a run making machine in 2002 and made six centuries. The best English batsman against Australia since Graeme Gooch I’d say.

Murali, for me, despite not getting as many wickets per test, was better in 2001 because he had a better strike rate, whereas he bowled more overs in 2001. It was tempting to say Lara because of his three centuries against Murali and Sri Lanka. 2000 is Murali as well and what prevented Inzamam from coming close was how Pakistan did in Sri Lanka.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I've thought of making a similar thread in the past, but rather than just discussing who has been the best cricketer of each year since 20002, I thought about discussing who has been the best batsman and bowler since the turn of the century.

I think you were a bit stiff on Dravid in 2003. He should have at least received an 'honourable' mention. He had a superb 2003 and 2004 resulting in him getting Test cricket and Cricketer of the year in the ICC awards.

It is interesting though, who has been the best batsman since 2000? Lara, Kallis, Inzy, Ponting, Hayden, Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar? Its known that since 2002 Kallis, Ponting and Dravid have been leading from the front, Lara too has been excellent. But I don't think I've seen too many stats or discussions as to who has been the best batsman in this millenium.

Bowlers is generally easier, with Murali, McGrath and Warne being the only bowlers off the top of my head to be consistently dominant over the 5-6 year period.

If someone were to pick a cricketer of the century so far, who would you pick? I'd probably go Murali, but its a tough one.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I recently had a dicussion with a lad on who the best batsman since the turn of the century was and he said Matthew Hayden since he's had four years in a row making over 1000 runs. So he's a contender.

That's a good question and I'd have to really think about it. Without thinking about it I'd probably say Ponting just because if you blinked, he went from 20 centuries to 28.

In the bowling department it's easy, Murali. Warne's 2000 and 2001 (31 wickets in the 2001 Ashes aside) weren't his best years. People forget that Warne got the most wickets in 2002 and anybody saying he needed that years rest is wrong because he was great that year... but still, 2002, 2004 and 2005 aren't enough to compare to Murali and McGrath. McGrath is actually a strong contender and might be closer than one thinks. Murali's strike-rate in 2000 was in the high fifties and 2001 was his better year for me. While McGrath strikes at around 50 and has the economy of the best spinners and an average to back it up.

I'm not a big believer in stats compared to others, but if you are, McGrath is up there with Murali. Here's a study I did somewhere else that compares the best period I ever saw McGrath bowl in (Perth December 2004 to Lords Sep 2005)

It's a mathemactical fact: If somebody is taking more wickets than McGrath, and McGrath averaged inbetween the Perth test to the point where he stepped on the ball, 16.11, and Hadlee's average in six matches against Australia is 16.08 that means both men had the same average of runs taken off them per ball. Now I refused to believe that someone renound for economy like Hadlee bowled the same number of over overs as McGrath and could get far more wickets. For Hadlee to bowl the same number of overs as McGrath and get far more wickets at the same average means he went for runs quickly... which we know wouldn't happen. So what I did, is I went to cricinfo again and counted the ammount of over Hadlee bowled in just six matches. Then I counted the ammount of overs McGrath bowled in the nine tests inbetween Perth and Lords. Here were the results...

In the 1986 season, Sir Richard Hadlee bowled a whopping 327.2 overs in six tests. And in one test Hadlee didn't get to bowl in a second innings due to rain. So that's 11 innings.

In the nine tests inbetween Perth and Lords, three tests more than Hadlee, McGrath bowled 335 overs!

So not only did Hadlee nearly bowl more overs... McGrath played three more tests. So it's not the matches... it's the overs bowled! So insted of saying "wicket's per match," which is misleading, lets say, "wickets per balls" which is how bowling strike-rates are calculated.

Glen McGrath Perth to Lords:

52 wickets off 2010 balls (335 overs) had a bowling strike-rate of 38.65 (rounded off) at an average of 16.11.

Sir Richard Hadlee in his famous six tests against Australia in the 1985/86 season:

49 wickets off 1964 balls (327.2 overs) had a bowling strike-rate of 40.08. (rounded off) with a bowling average of 16.08.

So both had an average you can call the same. McGrath, however, took wickets faster (not by much), while Hadlee kept his average low by bowling far more economical than McGrath... but if both have the same average, teams are taking the same ammount of runs off them meaning McGrath is getting the wickets faster.

I wont even bother comparing it to his 1985 season... although that season might be better than his 1986 simply because he took so long to get wickets... although he economy is applaudable. This isn't even mentioned Warne taking wickets off McGrath, which he did at Lords when McGrath was heading for a 10fer.

I also was thinking of one-dayers when I said Hadlee never had a period as good as McGrath's Perth to Lords. I didn't bother doing a study on their one-day figures, though I think McGrath would win.



But I'd give it to Murali.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
Excuse me.

I forgot to mention that I was comparing McGrath's hot period of Perth to Lords against Hadlee's period in 1986 when he played six consecutive games against Australia. That's seen as his best hot period.

And I also forgot to mention that I should have mentioned Dravid, yes, as a Hon. mention.

As far as Lara goes. I believed Tendulkar would have continued being the best batsman in the world when the new century turned around. It didn't happen. Of course he's brilliant, no question... I just expected more success.

Brian Lara's a weird one. Somebody who scores so many high centuries should be averaging around 70-80 a year like Inzamam did last year. He's a bit too hit and miss for me to be a contender. Lara at his best, is the best batsman I'm ever likely to see... but remember, to average something like 50 and get 400 not out means you have to go out around 8 times to bring that average down. Yes I know Lara averaged much more in 2004, but he should have averaged more. When Gary Sobers made 365 not out, he went on to average around 144 for that year.

People forget that when Lara started out, people thought, and I did too... that Lara would go on to be the second best batsman of all time. He went, in the 90s, to averaging over 60 to averaging below 50 for a period. So for somebody who's made eight double centuries in his career, he needed to go out a bit to bring that down.

Sorry to babble, I'm saying this because I'd have Lara over Tendulkar since the turn of the century... but neither would be my pick.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
No. Inzamam didn't score big runs on that tour... I didn't bother checking who dismissed him... but regardless, I'm rating individual performance, not team performance.

I also forgot to mention who's cricketer of the century... so far I don't know. I'm sort of an advocate that Murali gets wickets because he doesn't have a lot of competition for wickets. Also he's bowled marathon spells over 70 overs in some games. Plus his strike-rate isn't that much better with the aid of spin friendly pitches.

(Please note: I do not want to start a Murali debate in this thread. If you want me to debate it, tell me to post in the Murali vs. Warne thread. In my experience, mentioning Murali, for some weird reason, starts firey debate. The only reason I'm writing about him now is that he's the first obvious contender for player of the century._

I also think crickets become more of a batters game since the turn of the century with big 400 scores. I cry at watching what happened to the Pakistan vs. India series. Hopefully we'll get a result this time.

I think the only people I could consider for player of the century are:

Murali
McGrath
Dravid
Ponting
Kallis

There are other contenders, but these are the strongest.
 

Francis

State Vice-Captain
I am really sorry to double post. I don't know how to edit on this forum since it's a bit different. It turns out Inzamam did have a great tour of Sri Lanka as far as individual performance go, I was wrong. But I'll stick with Murali.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Interesting, some excellent posts there Francis. Welcome to Cricket Web by the way. :) There should be an edit button under your post, so you can edit your posts by clicking that.

On your first point, yeah Hayden is a very strong contender. He's not exactly the most popular member of CW you'll soon find out (:p), and I'm far from his biggest fan, but statistically he has been absolutely amazing since the turn of the century. Whether his sudden rise has a lot to do with pitches generally flattening out and the amount of sheer world class bowlers falling, or just a huge improvement in his game (or even both) is up for debate I guess, and its been debated on CW a lot.

Here are the stats of 10 contenders I've chosen for best batsman since the turn of the century (In order of highest average). Of course stats aren't the be all end all, but they'll show a pretty interesting comparison. If I've missed anyone who is a real contender, than just post their stats as well. I haven't included players like Graeme Smith and Virender Sehwag who have debuted since 2000, and despite scoring plenty of runs, haven't played out the full 'century'. Their average since 2000 hence is their overall average anyway.

Jaques Kallis
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered            96  7613 189*  57.24  23  38 189  6/54   31.64  4  94  0
filtered              64  5764 189*  65.50  18  28 136  6/54   32.88  3  66  0
Ricky Ponting
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered           100  8253 257   57.71  28  32   5  1/0    44.80  0 116  0
filtered              67  6161 257   64.17  22  22   1  1/9   143.00  0  84  0
Rahul Dravid
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered            96  8239 270   58.43  22  39   1  1/18   39.00  0 130  0
filtered              62  5541 270   63.68  16  23   1  1/18   33.00  0  91  0
Inzamam Ul Haq
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered           107  8172 329   51.72  25  42   0   -       -    0  76  0
filtered              49  4455 329   61.87  17  19   -   -       -    -  26  0
Matthew Hayden
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered            79  6988 380   54.17  25  24   0   -       -    0  97  0
filtered              72  6727 380   57.49  24  24   0   -       -    0  89  0
Brian Lara
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered           121 11204 400*  53.86  31  46   0   -       -    0 148  0
filtered              56  5631 400*  56.31  18  17   -   -       -    -  62  0
Sachin Tendulkar
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered           128 10337 248*  56.48  35  41  37  3/10   49.78  0  78  0
filtered              55  4496 248*  56.20  13  18  24  3/10   56.54  0  28  0
VVS Laxman
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St


unfiltered            71  4401 281   44.01   9  24   1  1/32  100.00  0  78  0
filtered              55  3775 281   51.01   9  19   1  1/32   33.00  0  59  0
Adam Gilchrist
Code:
                     Mat  Runs  HS   BatAv 100  50   W    BB  BowlAv 5w  Ct St

unfiltered            80  4918 204*  50.18  15  22   -   -       -    - 304 33
filtered              75  4478 204*  49.20  14  19   -   -       -    - 287 31
As expected, Kallis, Ponting, Dravid and Inzy have dominated the most. They're the only ones averaging 60+, which is quite frankly freakish. Hayden and Lara have scored more runs however, but I guess the number of test matches played must be taken into account. Hayden scoring 1000+ runs for 4 years running is an absolutely amazing feat, but Australia play more test matches than Pakistan for example, so Inzy is disadvantaged there.
 
Last edited:

Francis

State Vice-Captain
It should be mentioned that Tendulkar scores a massive double century against Bangldesh, and more importantly for the stats. It was a not out innings. So Tendulkar really isn't a contender for me. Laxman, despite playing perhaps the best innings I've ever seen in my life in 2001, really isn't close either for me.

I'd put Gilchrist above both of them. We cricket fans have short memories. Despite his loss of form and poor Ashes, he finished 2005 with an average above 50. I don't know how many times I've seen Australia in trouble and he'd just score a century, fast and within a session it was Australia's game. He's sort of a Viv Richards pick, you might not pick him on stats, you'd pick him on impact.

Those were some interesting stats. Kallis and Ponting have played close to the same ammount of tests since 2000, Kallis has a higher average, Ponting's made more centuries. Hayden's made the most centuries. Dravid's average is what I expected it to be... but I expected him so have more centuries.

I think I'll pick Ponting... but it's weird. I'd never rate Ponting as great as Tendulkar, or even close... but he'll probably pass his 35 centuries at the rate he's going. Lara might too... but as a far as I know, Lara will retire in a year so I doubt it.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
You're right, I should have added Gilly. *edits him in*
Francis said:
Excuse me.

I forgot to mention that I was comparing McGrath's hot period of Perth to Lords against Hadlee's period in 1986 when he played six consecutive games against Australia. That's seen as his best hot period.

And I also forgot to mention that I should have mentioned Dravid, yes, as a Hon. mention.

As far as Lara goes. I believed Tendulkar would have continued being the best batsman in the world when the new century turned around. It didn't happen. Of course he's brilliant, no question... I just expected more success.

Brian Lara's a weird one. Somebody who scores so many high centuries should be averaging around 70-80 a year like Inzamam did last year. He's a bit too hit and miss for me to be a contender. Lara at his best, is the best batsman I'm ever likely to see... but remember, to average something like 50 and get 400 not out means you have to go out around 8 times to bring that average down. Yes I know Lara averaged much more in 2004, but he should have averaged more. When Gary Sobers made 365 not out, he went on to average around 144 for that year.

People forget that when Lara started out, people thought, and I did too... that Lara would go on to be the second best batsman of all time. He went, in the 90s, to averaging over 60 to averaging below 50 for a period. So for somebody who's made eight double centuries in his career, he needed to go out a bit to bring that down.

Sorry to babble, I'm saying this because I'd have Lara over Tendulkar since the turn of the century... but neither would be my pick.
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.
Francis said:
No. Inzamam didn't score big runs on that tour... I didn't bother checking who dismissed him... but regardless, I'm rating individual performance, not team performance.

I also forgot to mention who's cricketer of the century... so far I don't know. I'm sort of an advocate that Murali gets wickets because he doesn't have a lot of competition for wickets. Also he's bowled marathon spells over 70 overs in some games. Plus his strike-rate isn't that much better with the aid of spin friendly pitches.

(Please note: I do not want to start a Murali debate in this thread. If you want me to debate it, tell me to post in the Murali vs. Warne thread. In my experience, mentioning Murali, for some weird reason, starts firey debate. The only reason I'm writing about him now is that he's the first obvious contender for player of the century._

I also think crickets become more of a batters game since the turn of the century with big 400 scores. I cry at watching what happened to the Pakistan vs. India series. Hopefully we'll get a result this time.

I think the only people I could consider for player of the century are:

Murali
McGrath
Dravid
Ponting
Kallis

There are other contenders, but these are the strongest.
Those would be my contenders as well.

And yes, Murali debates can be sparked quite easily on this board (and many other cricket ones I imagine) but hopefully this thread stays clear of them because its a very interesting one. Particularly because I pretty much 'matured' as a cricket fan, due to my age, at around 1997-98 and hence my memories from 2000 onwards are strong and not quite as patchy as some of the 90s years.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
1000 runs in a year

Getting 1000 runs 4 years in a row is a fantastic achievement, and I believe Marcus Trescothick will follow Hayden this year in doing it, having gone past the 1000 run mark for the 3rd year running against Pakistan last November, one of the most underrated batsman in world cricket if you ask me, as he seems to be sparsely appreciated outside England
 

howardj

International Coach
Without doubt, Kallis is the cricketer of the century.

Best batting average: 65

Batting Average versus Australia: 50

Batting Average in Australia: 57

Bowling Average: 136 wickets @ 32.

And what a team player! :laugh:
 

TIF

U19 Debutant
Before talking about the players of the century, you must first know when the century actually started:p The century started on 1st January 2001 and not on 1st January 2000 as opposed to popular belief.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
TIF said:
Before talking about the players of the century, you must first know when the century actually started:p The century started on 1st January 2001 and not on 1st January 2000 as opposed to popular belief.
Man I was waiting for that reply from someone. I was hoping it wouldn't come, but deep down knew it would.
 

Boofra

Cricket Spectator
Jono said:
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:

Francis

State Vice-Captain
...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.
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Boofra said:
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.
 

Boofra

Cricket Spectator
Francis[I said:
]...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:

Boofra

Cricket Spectator
Deja moo said:
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.
 

Top