The Debate.

[FaaipDeOiad]

I've made this argument on CW before, but it's ridiculous to sit there and say "Slater played in an era with more good bowlers, thus he made his runs against better players and is better than Hayden". That's not the way cricket works.

Slater scored 14 test centuries, and 7 of them were against England, who were fairly average throughout the 90s. Gough and Caddick were good bowlers but certainly not great, and no better than most of those Hayden has faced. He scored three centuries against Pakistan when they included Wasim. One of those was in Wasim's final tour of Australia in a side which included Gilchrist, Langer and other players accused of inflating their averages against weak bowling, and one of them was in Pakistan on a road on which two teams scored over 500. The other one is one of his best knocks, and was against Wasim, Saqlain, Azhar Mahmood, Mushtaq Ahmed and part-timers. A handy attack, but certainly not great.

Two of the other four are against New Zealand... not the best attack of the 90s, and one is against Sri Lanka circa 1995. The other one was against Walsh and Ambrose in a very low scoring match, and is probably his best test century. Still wasn't against them at their peak though (1999), and that's only one out of 14.

That's not to say that Slater was a poor batsman or had bad averages against South Africa, Pakistan or the West Indies during the 90s, because he didn't, but I don't know who these great bowlers he supposedly smashed around were, according to the cricinfo roundtable. Just like every other good batsman in every era, he worked his way through against the best bowlers of his era and occasionally made runs, struggled on the toughest wickets and usually failed on them, and against the weak bowlers and on the flat pitches he cashed in and made runs while they were easier to make. The only reason people have a go at current players about it is because there's a general higher number of flat wickets and average attacks currently, and because people remember the easy innings more clearly.

 

[tooextracool]

Yup, I was listening to that too. I was arguing with C_C I think a while back when he said that strike rate doesn't matter in test cricket. It bloody hell does, and every captain you ask will tell you that between two batsman averaging 55, they'll almost always hate to face the one who can do it at S/R of 80 than S/R of 40.

SR only matters when there is a considerable difference. In Pontings case the panel really is exaggerating his aggressiveness as a player. If any bowler in world cricket is quaking in his boots bowling to Ponting(SR 58) he doesnt deserve to play league cricket IMO. And any argument that Ponting is a better player than Dravid because of his superior SR is equally inane.
Viv is another story. His SR i presume is probably nearly twice as much as most players. Further he was capable of completely murdering a bowler on a consistent basis. Certainly the last thing any bowler making his debut(or a bowler like Gillespie whos fighting time and his place in the side) would want is to be bowling to Viv, because its quite likely that he might get caned all over the park and would probably never recover from it. The only player remotely similar in world cricket at the moment is Kevin Pietersen, who its quite clear doesnt settle for just hammering a bowler but also looks to take the mickey out of them and we saw that against Murali over the summer.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Er, Gilchrist? He does strike at 82 and average close to 50, and is probably the most destructive batsman in test history alongside Viv. Certainly scores quicker than Richards did, albeit in a quicker scoring era in general.

 

[tooextracool]

I've made this argument on CW before, but it's ridiculous to sit there and say "Slater played in an era with more good bowlers, thus he made his runs against better players and is better than Hayden". That's not the way cricket works.

Slater scored 14 test centuries, and 7 of them were against England, who were fairly average throughout the 90s. Gough and Caddick were good bowlers but certainly not great, and no better than most of those Hayden has faced. He scored three centuries against Pakistan when they included Wasim. One of those was in Wasim's final tour of Australia in a side which included Gilchrist, Langer and other players accused of inflating their averages against weak bowling, and one of them was in Pakistan on a road on which two teams scored over 500. The other one is one of his best knocks, and was against Wasim, Saqlain, Azhar Mahmood, Mushtaq Ahmed and part-timers. A handy attack, but certainly not great.

Two of the other four are against New Zealand... not the best attack of the 90s, and one is against Sri Lanka circa 1995. The other one was against Walsh and Ambrose in a very low scoring match, and is probably his best test century. Still wasn't against them at their peak though (1999), and that's only one out of 14.

That's not to say that Slater was a poor batsman or had bad averages against South Africa, Pakistan or the West Indies during the 90s, because he didn't, but I don't know who these great bowlers he supposedly smashed around were, according to the cricinfo roundtable. Just like every other good batsman in every era, he worked his way through against the best bowlers of his era and occasionally made runs, struggled on the toughest wickets and usually failed on them, and against the weak bowlers and on the flat pitches he cashed in and made runs while they were easier to make. The only reason people have a go at current players about it is because there's a general higher number of flat wickets and average attacks currently, and because people remember the easy innings more clearly.

Slater IMO is quite overrated. He was a good opener, but thats basically it. He consistently failed in India and against the better sides where his aggressive approach rarely paid dividends. Like you mentioned already most of his centuries came against England which really isnt that much of an accomplishment.
However the flat pitches scenario is a valid point. I maintain that both Hayden and Gilchrist would not have averaged more than the high 20s in test match cricket if they played their entire careers in the early-mid 90s. Both of them have clearly benefitted from the poor standards of bowling as well as the flatness of wickets- Gilchrist more so than Hayden. At least Hayden has runs in the subcontinent, Gilchrist is nothing more than hit or miss in the subcontinent. Both however have rarely been faced with a quality pace attack, in fact the one time they were, they not only failed miserably but ended up being made bunnies for the opposing side and had their techniques completely exposed.

 

[tooextracool]

Also, though I rate Tendy as the better batsman, I'd have to agree with them that 'Lara with his head on' is better because then the consistency problem (main issue against Lara) goes away. Unless you take ODI's into factor that is (which I don't), then Sachin would come out ahead.

Lara is better than almost every player when he has his head on. If you were to give him a challenge and tell him to go out there and score a 100 to win a game that would make his team qualify for the WC, Lara would be the one most likely to do it out of all the names including Ponting and Dravid. Tendulkar would almost certainly choke and fail in that situation. However if you told him to average 50 for 2 series in a row, he probably wouldnt do it. That sums up Lara for me. Always a player capable of individual flashes of brilliance but when it comes to consistency hes always been one step behind.

 

[tooextracool]

Er, Gilchrist? He does strike at 82 and average close to 50, and is probably the most destructive batsman in test history alongside Viv. Certainly scores quicker than Richards did, albeit in a quicker scoring era in general.

Gilchrist is old news. Hes 35 now, and his best years are behind him. Back in the day he was pretty destructive as well on a flat pitch against a poor bowling attack, but recent form suggests hes not going to be doing too much.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Gilchrist is old news. Hes 35 now, and his best years are behind him. Back in the day he was pretty destructive as well on a flat pitch against a poor bowling attack, but recent form suggests hes not going to be doing too much.

His ODI form has been fine for the last 12 months, far above his career average, and he made one of the best centuries of his career two tests ago. Certainly his test form hasn't been great, but he's still perfectly capable of tearing apart an attack on his day. His leadup to the Ashes has been okay as well, with a 69 ball century a few days ago against Johnson, Bichel, Hopes and Watson.

 

[jot1]

SR only matters when there is a considerable difference. In Pontings case the panel really is exaggerating his aggressiveness as a player. If any bowler in world cricket is quaking in his boots bowling to Ponting(SR 58) he doesnt deserve to play league cricket IMO. And any argument that Ponting is a better player than Dravid because of his superior SR is equally inane.
Viv is another story. His SR i presume is probably nearly twice as much as most players. Further he was capable of completely murdering a bowler on a consistent basis. Certainly the last thing any bowler making his debut(or a bowler like Gillespie whos fighting time and his place in the side) would want is to be bowling to Viv, because its quite likely that he might get caned all over the park and would probably never recover from it. The only player remotely similar in world cricket at the moment is Kevin Pietersen, who its quite clear doesnt settle for just hammering a bowler but also looks to take the mickey out of them and we saw that against Murali over the summer.

I agree.
Very interesting thread.
An award, someone?

 

[silentstriker]

Lara is better than almost every player when he has his head on. If you were to give him a challenge and tell him to go out there and score a 100 to win a game that would make his team qualify for the WC, Lara would be the one most likely to do it out of all the names including Ponting and Dravid.

Yea.

Tendulkar would almost certainly choke and fail in that situation.

And yet, he still averages 64 in tests won (compared with 61 for Lara).


I agree that when he has his head on straight, Lara is pretty much better than anyone.

 

[tooextracool]

His ODI form has been fine for the last 12 months, far above his career average, and he made one of the best centuries of his career two tests ago. Certainly his test form hasn't been great, but he's still perfectly capable of tearing apart an attack on his day. His leadup to the Ashes has been okay as well, with a 69 ball century a few days ago against Johnson, Bichel, Hopes and Watson.

I was referring to test matches clearly, otherwise Lance Klusener edges out everyone by miles in my mind. Regardless Gilchrist has been quite poor in ODIs lately, his last 2 non bangles series have been very ordinary. Gilchrist hasnt quite been anywhere near the same batsman after Flintoff worked him out last summer, and to be honest even in the CT it didnt look like hes sorted out the problem.

 

[tooextracool]

And yet, he still averages 64 in tests won (compared with 61 for Lara). .

I couldnt care less what his average is. it has no meaning except that hes scored runs in largely winning situations. Im sure you and everyone else knows that tendulkar has been very ordinary in pressure situations. When his team needs him most, hes almost guaranteed to fail. And please dont give me that 'pressure of a nation' crap

 

[silentstriker]

I couldnt care less what his average is. it has no meaning except that hes scored runs in largely winning situations. Im sure you and everyone else knows that tendulkar has been very ordinary in pressure situations. When his team needs him most, hes almost guaranteed to fail. And please dont give me that 'pressure of a nation' crap

Then he wouldn't have that average. But no, he doesn't have as many match winning knocks as a Dravid or Lara.

 

[tooextracool]

Then he wouldn't have that average.

Why not?its quite possible that all of his runs have come in situations where he already got a good start or where he got a fair bit of support.

 

[silentstriker]

Why not?its quite possible that all of his runs have come in situations where he already got a good start or where he got a fair bit of support.

So if you discount those knocks, you have to count the knocks where he did great job but his other batsman and bowlers let him down, right?

 

[Benny2k1]

Another thing that people say about sachin being better is he is more consistent than lara.

Since 2001
M R AVG 100 50
Lara 55 5618 57.32 18 18
Sachin 53 4053 52.63 11 17

Thats over 50 tests, and nearly 6 years!

 

[silentstriker]

Whats consistency got to do with average?

If you score:

200, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 200, your average is 50, and you can score big but you aren't consistent.

If you score 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, your average is 50 then you are consistent (but you can't carry on your innings).

 

[SA]

Another reason why I don't classify Geoffrey Boycott as great was that he was a selfish bastard; he never played for the team, he always played for himself.

Same holds true for Javed Miandad,Sunil Gavaskar,Gary Sobers & Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[silentstriker]

Same holds true for Javed Miandad,Sunil Gavaskar,Gary Sobers & Sachin Tendulkar.

Gary Sobers? Are you actually an idiot or just pretending to be one?

 

[Anil]

Gary Sobers? Are you actually an idiot or just pretending to be one?

what about the others? other than maybe gavaskar, you can't make a case for any of the others being selfish players and even sunny wasn't as selfish as boycott....the guy obviously doesn't have a clue what he is talking about....

 

[Jono]

Same holds true for Javed Miandad,Sunil Gavaskar,Gary Sobers & Sachin Tendulkar.