Tests: Best ever Opening batsman

[zaremba]

No I wasn't really accusing you of using equations quite as preposterous as that - a bit of exasperated hyperbole on my part. The point I was making was that however many angels you can make dance on a statistical pin-head, you're not going to prove that Langer was in a different class as a batsman or opener to the rest, because he wasn't. We can exclude Bang/Zim, we can exclude matches v Australia (because JL never had to play them), we can exclude matches v England (because the others never had the chance to fill his boots against them), and weirdest of all given that JL never opened before 2001, we can play down matches played in the 2000s because batting was easier then. And on and on and on. And if at the end of this balls-aching process one batsman averages in the high 40s and another in the mid-40s, it doesn't seem to me to come close to proving that they're in different ball-parks.

And I have read enough of your posts about Australian players to know that you're not likely to be open to persuasion that their supremacy can be questioned, which is why I proposed moving on.

 

[zaremba]

No I wasn't really accusing you of using equations quite as preposterous as that - a bit of exasperated hyperbole on my part. The point I was making was that however many angels you can make dance on a statistical pin-head, you're not going to prove that Langer was in a different class as a batsman or opener to the rest, because he wasn't. We can exclude Bang/Zim, we can exclude matches v Australia (because JL never had to play them), we can exclude matches v England (because the others never had the chance to fill his boots against them), and weirdest of all given that JL never opened before 2001, we can play down matches played in the 2000s because batting was easier then. And on and on and on. And if at the end of this balls-aching process one batsman averages in the high 40s and another in the mid-40s, it doesn't seem to me to come close to proving that they're in different ball-parks.

And I have read enough of your posts about Australian players to know that you're not likely to be open to persuasion that their supremacy can be questioned, which is why I proposed moving on.

In fairness to you, Ikki, the bold part referred to what I think you wrote in your post but have now wisely edited out.

 

[Ikki]

No I wasn't really accusing you of using equations quite as preposterous as that - a bit of exasperated hyperbole on my part. The point I was making was that however many angels you can make dance on a statistical pin-head, you're not going to prove that Langer was in a different class as a batsman or opener to the rest, because he wasn't. We can exclude Bang/Zim, we can exclude matches v Australia (because JL never had to play them), we can exclude matches v England (because the others never had the chance to fill his boots against them), and weirdest of all given that JL never opened before 2001, we can play down matches played in the 2000s because batting was easier then. And on and on and on. And if at the end of this balls-aching process one batsman averages in the high 40s and another in the mid-40s, it doesn't seem to me to come close to proving that they're in different ball-parks.

And I have read enough of your posts about Australian players to know that you're not likely to be open to persuasion that their supremacy can be questioned, which is why I proposed moving on.

You make a post to say that you weren't insulting me, and then you go and insult me again in the end.

Did I not say that I think Pietersen is better than Langer in this very thread? Did I not vote for Hobbs, in this very poll? What are you missing here?

I hold no opinion of an Australian being superior to another player with it being anything near ridiculous. You're certainly not going to persuade me that Strauss and Trescothick are in the same class. The very fact that you think they are is more an indicator of your bias, not mine. The debates I visit frequently are between close contestants; Ponting and Tendulkar, Warne and Murali, Lillee and Hadlee. So your "I've seen you argue before" is rubbish, insinuating I cheer for the Aussie always. Any opinion I hold would be a non-issue if I weren't Aussie; so you can stop playing the bias card as if I am saying Hayden is better than Hobbs, Clarke is better than Viv or anything of that nature.

If you're going to say Strauss and Trescothick were as good as Langer, what stops you from saying they were as good as Hayden? Between Hayden and Langer as openers is very little, really. Maybe then you'll argue they should be in this poll.

 

[zaremba]

Ok mate, if it's not welcome I will certainly desist. I don't want to cause any unnecessary friction, particularly with a high class poster. I've been here for a little while now and am certainly familiar with your style; and yes I do genuinely think that your tendency (not invariable, obviously) is to cheerlead for your Australian favourites, and given your self-assured and occasionally combative style I didn't figure I'd cause offence by posting what I did. But if I have, I apologise.

With regard to bias, yes I admit I am biased and I can't imagine that there are many human beings, let alone sports fans, who aren't. I do try to make allowances, but I often fail.

 

[Ikki]

Ok mate, if it's not welcome I will certainly desist. I don't want to cause any unnecessary friction, particularly with a high class poster. I've been here for a little while now and am certainly familiar with your style; and yes I do genuinely think that your tendency (not invariable, obviously) is to cheerlead for your Australian favourites, and given your self-assured and occasionally combative style I didn't figure I'd cause offence by posting what I did. But if I have, I apologise.

With regard to bias, yes I admit I am biased and I can't imagine that there are many human beings, let alone sports fans, who aren't. I do try to make allowances, but I often fail.

Well I thank you for this post and your compliment humbles me. If anything upset me it was a person of your class making those comments about me.

With regards to bias, I reiterate, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it as long as it does not descend the debate into inane comparisons. Yes, I freely admit I am biased. I've been privy to the best cricketing nation in the world for almost 2 decades, and they just happen to represent the country I grew up in. But I would not make myself look like an idiot trying to argue something outlandish. For even when I do argue for an Aussie against truly comparable players, I always hold that it can come down to a whim. Bar Bradman, there really is no player you can really make a definitive claim about. I never get upset about people saying Tendulkar is better than Ponting or Murali is better than Warne; they are entitled to those opinions and, they frankly, have strong cases.

Usually when I get into a debate - and I mention this purely so maybe you will notice this rather than my arguing simply for an Aussie - it is usually about a misunderstanding or a misconception or some reasoning I do not agree with: Hayden would be rubbish if it were not for flat tracks; Ponting never faced high quality bowling like Tendulkar or Lara; Warne is inferior statistically to Murali; Lillee for his lack of playing or success in the sub-continent can't compare with the best bowlers; Sobers is the best all-rounder by a mile... you get the idea.

These are the debates I usually frequent and it is my poor habit that I get sucked into them. I rarely have a problem with anyone saying the non-Aussie is better than the Aussie. It's always because one of those arguments in the above that just rubs me the wrong way until I argue the crap out of it and everybody is pissed off that they have to read me for pages .

Sorry for the long post, but I had to get that off my chest so people realise I am not jingoistic. The reason I am frequently in debates featuring Aussies is because the grand majority of my cricket watching involves them and I know much more about them.

And with that I also extend my apologies. Something tells me I am much your junior, in age and maturity. But don't worry, I am working on it

 

[zaremba]

Thanks for your post Ikki. Pleased we've cleared the air. Not sure about the maturity bit...

 

[NZTailender]

graham thorpe >>>>> justin langer.

....and you can take that to the bank.

I did but the conversion rate was inferior.

 

[GIMH]

You had me until the last parts of the last paragraph where you descended into GIMH-type non-sense.

Awww

 

[Richard]

There is not one English batsman who played in the same era as Langer who had half the success as him. I think it is just sour grapes from Richard.

Very few who've stuck around here long have not realised before long that I don't have nationalistic bias, so you'll probably grow out of that.

 

[Richard]

Uh oh...

At number 3: 61 innings
At number 4: 5 innings
At number 7: 1 innings
As opener: 115 innings

Would probably put that somewhere in the vicinity of 'the majority' of his Test career, just personally.

Should probably have said "the overwhelming majority" TBH, because the amount of time he spent at three is significant - over one-third, in fact.

 

[Richard]

As for your second question; it's Richard, he doesn't need a sane reason.

You might recall you were told to stop making comments of this nature a while back - it'd be adviseable to do so.

 

[Burgey]

Blair Pocock criminally under-rated here.

 

[Days of Grace]

Blair Hartland didn't even get a look in. Absurd.

 

[Days of Grace]

Should probably have said "the overwhelming majority" TBH, because the amount of time he spent at three is significant - over one-third, in fact.

And meanwhile, Trumper played one-third of his innings as a non-opener.

Cue someone going to statsguru and coming back with "actually, it was only 25%".

Whatever, the fact was that Trumper, was probably wasted as an opener against the new ball and fresh bowlers. I can only think that his average might have been 5 runs higher had he always batted at no.4 or no.5.

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't disagree with that, but there's no shortage of others who the same could be said about.

 

[morgieb]

Tempted to vote Hayden to piss Richard off, but went with Hobbs.

 

[Richard]

Don't worry, I don't give a damn who you vote for, so whoever it was it would neither piss me off nor invoke any other emotion in me.

 

[Athlai]

Don't worry, I don't give a damn who you vote for, so whoever it was it would neither piss me off nor invoke any other emotion in me.

Would you care if I voted Hayden Rich?

 

[Richard]

I'm not massively bothered who votes for who on most polls, but suffice to say I'd come closer to giving a damn about who you voted for than ol' morgie.

 

[Athlai]