The Debate.

[Benny2k1]

Every time i log into Cricket web theres usualy a debate going on about who the greatest batsmen in the moder era is, now they doing it on Cricinfo!

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/co...ry/268732.html

Sanjay Manjrekar asks John Wright, Tony Greig, Ian Chappell and Ravi Shastri go for Lara.

[tooextracool]

i found this snippet to be quite amusing:
Guys like Geoffrey Boycott couldn't keep me awake at night, in fact he put me to sleep during the day. I figured that if he got 150 he took so long that it made our chances of saving the game much better. 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. I heard Bill Lawry call him a great batsman one day, and I said to Bill as he came off the field, "that's rubbish Bill, he wasn't a great player". He hemmed and hawed and I said, "Bill, Gary Sobers averaged bloody 58 and he played every second for the game of cricket and not for himself. Boycott played every single second of his career as a batsman for himself and he averaged only 47. What are you talking?"

[Jono]

Haha I swear I just watched the video of that that an hour ago and planned on posting that exact same bit TEC. I love Chappelli, what a gun.

The Roundtable, and Cricinfo Talk in general is a great aspect of Cricinfo.

[TT Boy]

Originally Posted by Jono

Haha I swear I just watched the video of that that an hour ago and planned on posting that exact same bit TEC. I love Chappelli, what a gun.

The Roundtable, and Cricinfo Talk in general is a great aspect of Cricinfo.

Agree and the quote that Tooextra highlighted is more than fair game IMO.

[Jono]

Chappell makes these talks that much better. What he said about Lara was spot-on regarding if he had to choose between Lara and Sachin for the best in the modern era. The proviso of Lara having to have his head on right is so true, and it shows in his fluctuating record where he went from awesome, to fairly ordinary, to awesome again.

[superkingdave]

lol at the random bolding of the SM in batsmen/batsman. some using find/replace by any chance

[Jono]

The amazing thing about the Roundtable is, if you watch/listen/read the 3 part-series they've held based around the topic of how good modern-day batsmen are, its amazing how much the experts' views echo the thoughts that are frequently mentioned here on CW by its senior Cricket Chat members. Particularly Ian Chappell and Ravi Shastri.

SM: So the dip in the quality of the bowling has been the reason for these batting performances?


IC: I don't think it's the sole reason, no. I did a thing with Matthew Hayden for example. He came into the Australian side around '93-94 and in that period he averaged 23-24 and he couldn't push past Mark Taylor and Michael Slater. But then he came back into the side around the period we're talking about and he averaged in that period - about 60 odd. You weren't talking about an 18-year-old Matthew Hayden. You were talking about a 24- year-old Matthew Hayden when he first came into the side and a Matthew Hayden who had made a pile of runs in first-class cricket. If I'm picking the best Australian side in the last ten years I've got Slater and Taylor opening the batting and not Hayden and Langer because Taylor and Slater faced much better bowling, I mean, Slater belted the crap out of bloody-good attacks. I don't think Hayden and Langer could belt the crap out of that standard of attacks.

RS: Yes, when the attacks were better and it had an impact on the series. India won that series against Australia. Now Lara, playing in a weak West Indian side, I mean this is the weakest West Indian attack in along time; yet he has still gone out and dominated strong sides like Australia or any other country. Now like Tony mentioned about Murali, I mean to bat that way with such consistency. He batted for long periods to get those runs and he was looking to attack Murali. So that ability to dominate is perhaps the reason why Viv Richards will be the greatest ever.

SM: Is that why there is still perhaps a little question mark over Ponting, his ability to dominate a Murali, or say have a very good series in India on turning tracks?

RS: Yes, if he has to reach that level, he has to play better in the subcontinent in test matches on turning tracks.

You'd think there was TEC, Richard and SilentStriker talking on the roundtable themselves.

[Perm]

It seems these guys must have been reading our debates.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Jono

You'd think there was TEC, Richard and SilentStriker talking on the roundtable themselves.

That would be quite cool actually. You know what would be a good idea? If CW did something similar...like do a phone conference between 3-4 people with a host and ask these questions.

James or any of the mods? What do you think? We can do it over the web if people have a mic, or over the phone. There are a couple of services available I think.

I'd be willing to act as a host, if no one else does and I can also provide online hosting space for the MP3.

PS. I am glad you consider me a 'senior' cricket chat member considering I only joined in Febuary.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

i found this snippet to be quite amusing:
Guys like Geoffrey Boycott couldn't keep me awake at night, in fact he put me to sleep during the day. I figured that if he got 150 he took so long that it made our chances of saving the game much better. 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. I heard Bill Lawry call him a great batsman one day, and I said to Bill as he came off the field, "that's rubbish Bill, he wasn't a great player". He hemmed and hawed and I said, "Bill, Gary Sobers averaged bloody 58 and he played every second for the game of cricket and not for himself. Boycott played every single second of his career as a batsman for himself and he averaged only 47. What are you talking?"

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.

[silentstriker]

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.

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

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 doesn't matter. What was being reffered to with regards to Boycott was his selfish style of play. If you score a slow innings when your team is looking for the win, then obviously that matters. But just as often in Test cricket you'll be in a situation in which you have to bat for time. In that situation SR goes out the window, and the only thing that matters is how many balls you can face before you get out. In the situation in which you're pushing for a win, SR would be very important, whereas in the situation in which you're trying to hold for the draw, balls/per inning would be most important. Average takes into account strike rate and balls/per innings, but is indiscriminate in the application of both those stats. You'd have to analyze batsmen in each situation to get a real indication of which batsmen are match-winners/match-savers, a simple stat like SR isn't going to tell you that, and thus that statistic without any context is useless.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by shortpitched713

SR doesn't matter. What was being reffered to with regards to Boycott was his selfish style of play. If you score a slow innings when your team is looking for the win, then obviously that matters. But just as often in Test cricket you'll be in a situation in which you have to bat for time. In that situation SR goes out the window, and the only thing that matters is how many balls you can face before you get out. In the situation in which you're pushing for a win, SR would be very important, whereas in the situation in which you're trying to hold for the draw, balls/per inning would be most important. Average takes into account strike rate and balls/per innings, but is indiscriminate in the application of both those stats. You'd have to analyze batsmen in each situation to get a real indication of which batsmen are match-winners/match-savers, a simple stat like SR isn't going to tell you that, and thus that statistic without any context is useless.

Of course, its a very situational stat. However, it does give you a general indication of the type of player. Viv Richards was destructive and instilled fear in bowlers because he could get on top of them and end their careers. Guys like Boycott, Gavaskar inspire respect, but not fear.

Imran Khan said of Viv (I think): "You need a helmet bowling to him."

[Turbinator]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Of course, its a very situational stat. However, it does give you a general indication of the type of player. Viv Richards was destructive and instilled fear in bowlers because he could get on top of them and end their careers. Guys like Boycott, Gavaskar inspire respect, but not fear.

Imran Khan said of Viv (I think): "You need a helmet bowling to him."

And then someone, I can't remember who, repeated that for Tendulkar

[shortpitched713]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

Of course, its a very situational stat. However, it does give you a general indication of the type of player. Viv Richards was destructive and instilled fear in bowlers because he could get on top of them and end their careers. Guys like Boycott, Gavaskar inspire respect, but not fear.

Imran Khan said of Viv (I think): "You need a helmet bowling to him."

But you do understand that SR does not measure the effectiveness of an attacking batsman. It just gives runs per 100 balls, so Gilly's higest ever(?) strike rate doesn't mean he's a more effective attacking batsman than say Richards or Bradman, because there's no context. It just means that he's played in that attacking mode more often than they did.

BTW, how have people calculated Bradman's strike rate? I though they usually didn't keep balls faced statistics in his era.