Player A vs Player B

[Matt79]

Lovely work from Pickup.

 

[bagapath]

I dont know what to do here.

Player A's bowling SR is far superior to B's between Nov3rd, 1994 and Jan7th 1997. But B was averaging 5.32 wickets per tests, 0.048 more than A during that period.

And between March 14th, 1998 and April 7th, 2000 (considered to be B's peak) Player B took wickets at an average 19.72 compared to A's average of 20.78. but if you remove the minnows from the oppsition the respective numbers are 20.11 and 20.22. A has done better against bigger teams than minnows. B has done better than A against bigger teams and feasted more on minnows as well.

The clincher has to be a comparison of their stats in fourth innings figures in away matches in which their team has not lost (either wins or draws). A and B average 17.44 and 18.47 with respective strike rates of 45.4 and 42.5. It is still a close call for me.

I've extrapolated the existing stats and figured that in all test matches A will have to bowl 4.2 deliveries more than B to take the same number wickets as B. but the bowling average (directly connected to his economy and strike rate) will go up by 0.6 runs. It is still less than B's average by 0.0173.

A also would have taken 3 catches more than him if he had played as many matches as B.

I am voting for A since all the evidence we have proves he is a better cricketer.

 

[SJS]

I dont know what to do here.

Player A's bowling SR is far superior to B's between Nov3rd, 1994 and Jan7th 1997. But B was averaging 5.32 wickets per tests, 0.048 more than A during that period.

And between March 14th, 1998 and April 7th, 2000 (considered to be B's peak) Player B took wickets at an average 19.72 compared to A's average of 20.78. but if you remove the minnows from the oppsition the respective numbers are 20.11 and 20.22. A has done better against bigger teams than minnows. B has done better than A against bigger teams and feasted more on minnows as well.

The clincher has to be a comparison of their stats in fourth innings figures in away matches in which their team has not lost (either wins or draws). A and B average 17.44 and 18.47 with respective strike rates of 45.4 and 42.5. It is still a close call for me.

I've extrapolated the existing stats and figured that in all test matches A will have to bowl 4.2 deliveries more than B to take the same number wickets as B. but the bowling average (directly connected to his economy and strike rate) will go up by 0.6 runs. It is still less than B's average by 0.0173.

A also would have taken 3 catches more than him if he had played as many matches as B.

I am voting for A since all the evidence we have proves he is a better cricketer.

 

[weldone]

I voted for B. Reasons are as follows -

Though A is a no. 3 batsman and scored 10000 runs at an average of 59 in test matches which is slightly better than 49 runs @3.23 of B, but see the context....B batted at number 6, and his SR is a staggering 139...Can you believe it? 139! ...An ideal attacking number 6 batsman I would say...

And don't say childish things like longevity...See A made those 10000 runs against poor bowling attacks of last 15 years, but B faced all-time great bowlers in the early 20th century on uncovered wickets, and it always rained before he came in to bat...And if A played for 15 years, B too played for 11 long years, though he played only 8 tests in those 11 years...But that's because selectors didn't give him enough chance in spite of his amazing performances in FC matches...

And A scored those runs against poor bowling attacks as I said earlier...The best bowler in last 15 years was Mr. Coo who is miles behind the worst bowler in B's time Dr. Zoo, who in spite of being fat and short bowled amazing bouncers pitching at leg stump and going towards third slip...It's another matter that he never picked up any wicket at any level, but that's a different story for a different day...

And let's not compare between their FC records...A made 5000 more runs@64 in FC, but B played only 2 FC matches except his tests...one against the deadly 'Holland Belly-dancers' who were the 2nd best FC side in their village then...B was wrongly given out for 0 in the first inning but scored a boundary before being out for 4 in the 2nd...And that stylish boundary, according to his peers, was much better than any shot played by any batsman ever produced in this world...In his other FC match, he retired in the first inning after being hurt by a deadly bouncer from Mr. Zoo (Now you know why I called him a better bowler than Mr. Coo) when he was only 99 runs away from his first FC hundred and never played any cricket any more...

And the last reason for my voting, B's peers rated him very highly...His captain Mr. Soo said he was the best runner between the wickets...It's heard that he was such a good fielder in those days that captain allowed other 8 fielders to take rest on the ground itself when he was there...Because he was better than those 8 combined...His opposition captain (from Seamland) Mr. Moo wrote in his autobiography that he was better in both batting and fielding than any other player he has ever seen, and he also wrote that he saw player B bowling to him in his nightmares, and it gave him shivers...It's another matter that B never bowled at any level because 'he never needed it'...And those 250 wickets @27 that A picked in test matches with his leg-spin came in an age when, according to Mr. Soo people can't even play leg-spin (Mr.Soo made this comment after observing their style of play closely on his 137th Birth anniversary, just before he became blind).

Now, could I vote for A over B?

 

[SJS]

What's this about? How do you know who to vote? I need to see stats or profiles etc.

 

[honestbharani]

I voted for B. Reasons are as follows -

Though A is a no. 3 batsman and scored 10000 runs at an average of 59 in test matches which is slightly better than 49 runs @3.23 of B, but see the context....B batted at number 6, and his SR is a staggering 139...Can you believe it? 139! ...An ideal attacking number 6 batsman I would say...

And don't say childish things like longevity...See A made those 10000 runs against poor bowling attacks of last 15 years, but B faced all-time great bowlers in the early 20th century on uncovered wickets, and it always rained before he came in to bat...And if A played for 15 years, B too played for 11 long years, though he played only 8 tests in those 11 years...But that's because selectors didn't give him enough chance in spite of his amazing performances in FC matches...

And A scored those runs against poor bowling attacks as I said earlier...The best bowler in last 15 years was Mr. Coo who is miles behind the worst bowler in B's time Dr. Zoo, who in spite of being fat and short bowled amazing bouncers pitching at leg stump and going towards third slip...It's another matter that he never picked up any wicket at any level, but that's a different story for a different day...

And let's not compare between their FC records...A made 5000 more runs@64 in FC, but B played only 2 FC matches except his tests...one against the deadly 'Holland Belly-dancers' who were the 2nd best FC side in their village then...B was wrongly given out for 0 in the first inning but scored a boundary before being out for 4 in the 2nd...And that stylish boundary, according to his peers, was much better than any shot played by any batsman ever produced in this world...In his other FC match, he retired in the first inning after being hurt by a deadly bouncer of Mr. Zoo (Now you know why I called him a better bowler than Mr. Coo) when he was only 99 runs away of his first FC hundred and never played any cricket any more...

And the last reason for my voting, B's peers rated him very highly...His captain Mr. Soo said he was the best runner between the wickets...It's heard that he was such a good fielder in those days that captain allowed other 8 fielders to take rest on the ground itself when he was there...Because he was better than those 8 combined...His opposition captain (from Seamland) Mr. Moo wrote in his autobiography that he was better in both batting and fielding than any other player he has ever seen, and he also wrote that he saw player B bowling to him in his nightmares, and it gave him shivers...It's another matter that B never bowled at any level because 'he never needed it'...And those 250 wickets @27 that A picked in test matches with his leg-spin came in an age when, according to Mr. Soo people can't even play leg-spin (Mr.Soo made this comment after observing their style of play closely on his 137th Birth anniversary, just before he became blind).

Now, could I vote for A over B?

weldone indeed.

 

[Richard]

Ah, but is it wel done or weld one?

 

[honestbharani]

Ah, but is it wel done or weld one?

weldone sounded more apt in this instance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Neil worthy of a Lifetime Achievement Skull for that effort alone.

 

[Ikki]

I dont know what to do here.

Player A's bowling SR is far superior to B's between Nov3rd, 1994 and Jan7th 1997. But B was averaging 5.32 wickets per tests, 0.048 more than A during that period.

And between March 14th, 1998 and April 7th, 2000 (considered to be B's peak) Player B took wickets at an average 19.72 compared to A's average of 20.78. but if you remove the minnows from the oppsition the respective numbers are 20.11 and 20.22. A has done better against bigger teams than minnows. B has done better than A against bigger teams and feasted more on minnows as well.

The clincher has to be a comparison of their stats in fourth innings figures in away matches in which their team has not lost (either wins or draws). A and B average 17.44 and 18.47 with respective strike rates of 45.4 and 42.5. It is still a close call for me.

I've extrapolated the existing stats and figured that in all test matches A will have to bowl 4.2 deliveries more than B to take the same number wickets as B. but the bowling average (directly connected to his economy and strike rate) will go up by 0.6 runs. It is still less than B's average by 0.0173.

A also would have taken 3 catches more than him if he had played as many matches as B.

I am voting for A since all the evidence we have proves he is a better cricketer.

Alright, alright... I get it, I'll stop.

 

[bagapath]

Alright, alright... I get it, I'll stop.

yeah, kazo. it was dedicated to you...