The stats do not do him justice!

[rivera213]

People,

Which cricketers that you've seen either live or footage of (surely this subject requires you have seen them! lol) have records which do not do justice to how good they really were/are?

I'll do a couple of my lifetime and wait for others to post Gower and Viv Richards' names. Lol.

----------------

SACHIN TENDULKAR- Simply the best batsman I've seen "live" all things considered. I don't think I need to convince anyone on here of how good he was, and still is (though not the player of the 90's and early 00's).

His talent is deserving of a test average of 60, possibly more so in comparison to the guys of yesteryear based on how great a player of spin he was/is (and the wickets doing more for spin in the uncovered era).

Hopefully he reaches 50 centuries in Tests and ODI's. He deserves to have the highest individual score in both tests and ODI's. A 401* in tests (against Australia. lol) and maybe a double century in the ODI format would be the icing on the cake for him.

-----

MARK WAUGH- 1 of the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen I've ever seen and was Australia's version of Atlas during the early to mid 90's in both forms of the game. His 153* at Bangalore in 1998 following a 400+ innings by India and an awesome century by Sachin Tendulkar with all the pressure was typical Mark Waugh. India weren't going to get him out in a month of Sundays during that test.

I can't think off the top of my head a (realistic) area of the field he couldn't play an elegant stroke for 4 to. His talent was deserving of a test average of 50 IMO.

-----

JONTY RHODES- A few people I've talked to don't see what the fuss is about with Jonty Rhodes. You probably would've had to see him to know how good he was. I'd put him comfortably above the best fielders in the world today- and remember he played at a time when Herschelle Gibbs was at peak.

Jonty probably saved more runs than he scored and is responsible for making awesome fielding mandatory for South African cricketers. Gibbs, de Villiers, Duminy, vd Merwe I'm sure will all point to Jonty being the reason they've taken fielding so seriously and spent time on it.

Batting wise, his record isn't as good as he was a batsman imo. The average should be touching 40 and I'm sure he feels he deserved a few more centuries to his name. Between 1998 and 2000, he averaged 47 in tests and between 2000 and 2002 averaged 57 in ODI's including a run of 4 half-centuries against Australia. That's a better indicator of Rhodes' batting ability than before he altered his technique IMO.


I can go on all night (ask my girlfriend...... maybe not) but I let you peeps have a go.

- Steve

[NUFAN]

Originally Posted by rivera213

MARK WAUGH- 1 of the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen I've ever seen and was Australia's version of Atlas during the early to mid 90's in both forms of the game. His 153* at Bangalore in 1998 following a 400+ innings by India and an awesome century by Sachin Tendulkar with all the pressure was typical Mark Waugh. India weren't going to get him out in a month of Sundays during that test.

I can't think off the top of my head a (realistic) area of the field he couldn't play an elegant stroke for 4 to. His talent was deserving of a test average of 50 IMO.

Mark Waugh was never going to average 50 during the period he played, however if he was around today I think he would. I'm not saying that the standards are over 8 runs per innings different from his retirement to today, but I think the expectations are.

ME Waugh's place in the team was assured for much of his career so he did what he had to do.

The fact that he never pushed on scoring 20 centuries with a H/S of 153, shows that once he got to his century it was time for a bit of fun most of the time.

My favourite Test innings from Junior were his

• 138 vs England on debut
• 115* vs South Africa also at Adelaide - the match where he was close to getting out hit wicket
• 126 vs West Indies - the match Steve Waugh made 200.

He also made 27 scores between 60 and 80, if he had of pushed on to centuries in even half of them the final average would have been far greater, but I'll tell you what I would much rather watch a 60-80 score from MWaugh over a 150 from SWaugh.

[Matt79]

Yeah, I'd dispute that Junior deserved an average of 50. He looked to have the talent to do so, but obviously either lacked the application (the common theory) or else that appearance that he found it easy was misleading (which is his explanation). I think it's more the latter than the former, although obviously he didn't have the ruthless hunger of his brother. Either way, taking into account the era in which he played, I think his average fairly reflects how he was.

Disagree re Sachin as well. At his peak he would deserve an average of 60+, but if we say that should therefore be his career avg. that ignores the fact that for significant chunks of his career he was far below his peak. There were valid reasons for that which means we shouldn't detract from his rep. But neither should we pretend they didn't happen. Injuries, form slumps, having to play in adversity happen to all players if they're around for any amount of time, and that very fact makes averages useful guides.

If we are to nominate people for whom their whole career record doesn't reflect the whole story, Viv Richards and Ian Botham are the two big ones that immediately come to mind. Even then, their records at their peak DO reflect how good they were, but in both cases their overall records suffer because they played so long past their peaks when their bodies were letting them down.

.

[Smith]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Yeah, I'd dispute that Junior deserved an average of 50. He looked to have the talent to do so, but obviously either lacked the application (the common theory) or else that appearance that he found it easy was misleading (which is his explanation). I think it's more the latter than the former, although obviously he didn't have the ruthless hunger of his brother. Either way, taking into account the era in which he played, I think his average fairly reflects how he was.

Disagree re Sachin as well. At his peak he would deserve an average of 60+, but if we say that should therefore be his career avg. that ignores the fact that for significant chunks of his career he was far below his peak. There were valid reasons for that which means we shouldn't detract from his rep. But neither should we pretend they didn't happen. Injuries, form slumps, having to play in adversity happen to all players if they're around for any amount of time, and that very fact makes averages useful guides.

If we are to nominate people for whom their whole career record doesn't reflect the whole story, Viv Richards and Ian Botham are the two big ones that immediately come to mind. Even then, their records at their peak DO reflect how good they were, but in both cases their overall records suffer because they played so long past their peaks when their bodies were letting them down.

.

Valid points regarding tendulkar. But people forget that Tendulkar played an insane amount of cricket due to BCCI's greed in the late 90s which is why he got injured for most part of early 2000s. Plus, the injury management during his time was hardly equivalent to what players are getting today. Also he was overburdened due to his team members' non performance for most of time during his peak. All this combined, it can only be speculated whether what he'd be averaging if he were playing for a much better team like Australia.

[GingerFurball]

Tendulkar's ODI stats do great justice to his greatness.

In terms of openers, he is statistically miles ahead of all his peers.

14 players have scored over 5000 runs as an ODI opener (Greenidge is 15th with 4993).

Tendulkar tops the averages, with an average of 48.11 from 303 innings opening the batting.

Hayden is 2nd in the list, with an average of 44.30, closely followed by Mark Waugh, with an average of 44.06 opening.

If you look at strike rates, of those who have scored over 5000 runs opening, only Sehwag (102), Gilchrist (98.02) and Jayasuriya (92.33) have scored their runs at a faster rate than Tendulkar (87.55) Of those 3, Gilchrist has the highest average - a mere 36.50.

Generally at the top of the innings, a higher SR is traded off by a lower average and vice versa. To average as many runs as Tendulkar does, and score them at the rate Tendulkar does, has proven to be impossible for any other opening batsman in the history of the ODI game.

[Goughy]

I think people pretty much get what they deserve. Even the most talented people have technical issues that would have to be ignored to project them higher.

A guy like Tendulkar plays with an angled bat off the back foot. That isnt an issue when he is 'in form' but it hurts him when he is a little out of form.

Botham had a batting technique well suited to the medium/quicks but he didnt get properly into line against the express bowlers and consequently he never knew where his off stump was.

Rhodes was a technical mess and a substandard Test cricketer until he was properly tutored.

etc

I think it is often too easy to overlook the deficiencies in certain players and then revise history as to what our expectations should have been.

For example Andy Caddick, on his day, was unplayable. Fast, bounce, swing, venom: he could have averaged low 20s in Test cricket. However, his failings meant that was not possible.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Smith

Valid points regarding tendulkar. But people forget that Tendulkar played an insane amount of cricket due to BCCI's greed in the late 90s which is why he got injured for most part of early 2000s. Plus, the injury management during his time was hardly equivalent to what players are getting today. Also he was overburdened due to his team members' non performance for most of time during his peak. All this combined, it can only be speculated whether what he'd be averaging if he were playing for a much better team like Australia.

For me, the reasons why he got injured are a completely separate reason to how highly I rate him. I said that he had valid reasons for much of the time he was below his peak, but all players have issues to deal with. Those things can be taken into account in a detailed specific examination of a player, but in terms of the merits or otherwise of a career batting average as an indication of their quality, it becomes self-defeating to start tinkering with what an average should be, and unfair if you only give that treatment to favourites.

Equally, some of the points that you cite as adversely affecting Tendulkar could also be argued to have benefitted him. Yes, he played a stack of cricket at times - some of those times were when he was in the very peak of his form, and that's probably helped his career record - in career terms he got to extract maximum benefit out of the times he was at his peak. It almost certainly did contribute to a degree of burn out later on, but he definitely got to make hay while the sun shined.

If he'd played for Australia, he would have been a very different player, so its a bit speculative to say he would have definitely been better. And guys like Lara, Steve Waugh and Allan Border all dealt with periods where their team mates let them down badly.

[Noble One]

Carl Hooper

Mid 30's batting average does this man no justice.

Behind maybe only Mark Waugh as the most stylish batsman of the 90's, early 00's. Played some of the more memorable destructive innings of recent cricketing history, yet let down countless times by his own lack of application.

Feel that in 50 years time when someone is searching through the batting averages of the cricketers of the 90's and will simply write Carl Hooper off as a nothing special batsman. Those averages can never explain how incredible watching a Carl Hooper innings could be.

[fredfertang]

Farokh Engineer - a wonderful batsman and wicketkeeper - as Goughy says if you look at them objectively (which I can't) then his figures are doubtless an accurate measure of his ability but they say nowt about the way he played the game

[GIMH]

Freddie, obv

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Freddie, obv

Didnt we just lose the WI with him and beat them without him? Just saying

[fredfertang]

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Freddie, obv

indeed - in fact off hand I can think of 347 Lancashire cricketers who fit this particular profile

[Langeveldt]

Without wanting to stir the pot, I'm not sure how you can look back on a guys career, say someone who averaged 28-30, and go, "actually he was way better than that"... Don't think so, I'll take the ones who averaged 45 and weren't so good..

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Goughy

Didnt we just lose the WI with him and beat them without him? Just saying

He was the only one to put up a fight in jamaica, and was injured thereafter

[G.I.Joe]

India didn't play too many tests against Pakistan, Australia and SA when Tendulkar was at his peak. Definitely missed out there big time. IMO with England's traditional 'we don't care about ODI cricket' policy, Tendulkar would have been better off playing for them.