On serious note - Yes, you do need to score runs even on flat grounds but tell me honestly, do all players get chance to play on one single flat ground all the time? Not every one gets the chance but if you get an opportunity to play 20+ tests like Jaya on grounds like SSC then even Jaya is going to score heavily. Jaya has 2500+ runs at 80+ avg at SSC. He is not a batsman who can have that kind of stats in any decent track for 25 tests. You are bound to score heavily if you are a good player and play 20-30 tests on the same flat ground. Every country having one such ground and players occasionally getting few tests on those grounds in their entire career is a totally different situation that frequently playing on the same flat ground.
About Lara. I don't remove those runs from his stats but I don't consider him great due to those innings. Anyway, my intention was not to talk about SSC here but it seems that's the only point you picked up from my post despite having a smiley after it.
Last edited by simonlee48; 23-07-2014 at 11:05 AM.
While a lack of opportunities overseas for sangakkara is something I truly believe is unfortunate, I don't buy the excuse of him only getting to play short series with not many warmup matches. Sounds a bit of a cop-out out me. Kohli, Pujara and Rahane all were awesome in South Africa in a short series despite the warmup games being washed out.
It's meaningless to start taking aggregate averages/runs/tons etc to judge players because everyone doesn't get to play the same proportion of tests in similar conditions. For some players it's not even close, they have played too much in conditions where you can score heavily.
Last edited by simonlee48; 23-07-2014 at 11:19 AM.
And smalishah's avatar is the most classy one by far Jan certainly echoes the sentiments of CW
Yeah we don't crap in the first world; most of us would actually have no idea what that was emanating from Ajmal's backside. Why isn't it roses and rainbows like what happens here? PEWS's retort to Ganeshran on Daemon's picture depicting Ajmal's excreta
Imagine if Waqar had a similar home and away records as he has right now but he was playing for SA. He would have been rated bit lower that right now. Clue Vern... If a current pacer from SC had Vern's record then I would have rated him higher than Vern. But that's only one aspect.
Now, If you want to compare Waqar with others then you will compare how well they do in various conditions. Same way I judge Sanga. Let's pick Donald to compare. Donald has great record in most venues and he had a great record even in SC. Clearly, he should be rated higher than Waqar. I am just thinking aloud here because I anyway saw both bowl and I rate Donald higher.
For the same reason, I rate Waqar much lower than Wasim/IK. Wasim/IK had great records in Pakistan but they did well even outside Pakistan. Not as great as in Pakistan but much better than Waqar. Now if some bowler does very well ( let's say sub 25 avg) in almost all conditions then you got to rate them even higher.
It comes down to the same thing. Aggregate stats are not going to tell me who is the best bowler or batsman. Waqar aggregate stats are not worse than IK/Wasim but I don't club Waqar with IK/Wasim. Sanga aggregate stats are not worse than Ponting/Lara but I won't club Sanga with Ponting/Lara. I will always look for performances against various oppositions in different conditions. Yah, for flat surface, I will give more props to a pacer's good performance than a batsman's good performance but that's one aspect while judging a player. Just thinking aloud here and these things are subjective
Last edited by simonlee48; 23-07-2014 at 12:13 PM.
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
For the reasons listed above( giving more props to bowlers than batsmen for performance on flat surface), most fans put Murali in different league than Sanga. Ask yourself one question. The best cricketer from SL and Murali has absolutely no competition.
If I have to look for only one factor then personally for me, the greatness is defined by how well you do in alien conditions. A very few actually do it and most of them are known suspects.
Murali doing well in SSC should be considered a major positive considering how flat that track is but typically people discount his wickets at home as those from rank-turners unfairly. I think this is where smalishah is coming from if I'm not mistaken.
I also think that "greatness" probably has (in many cases) to do with which cricketing country you are coming from than your actual performances (Hadlee and Murali being cases in point).
I don't think it has much to do with being a bowler or batsman. It's not easy to compare bowlers with batsmen but I will take plenty of ATG batsmen over some one like Waqar if we are talking about who is a better player. I don't think that all ATG players can be clubbed together. We have seen great batsmen, great bowlers, great keepers and so on but all ATGs are not at the same level. Sure, it gets subjective but then ATG concept is subjective to begin with.
Agree with the point about about tests and need to get 20 wickets to win. Tests are bowlers game and ODIs are batsmen game to some extent. But when judging players, we normally judge them in each category separately. If you pick an XI then you are going to pick certain number of batsmen and certain number of bowlers. Great batsmen and great bowlers, both need to contribute otherwise you can't really win against good oppositions. Despite having great ATG bowlers, Pakistan is yet to win a test series in WI, Aus or SA. Those bowlers allowed Pakistan to win many away tests but batsmen were not good enough to capitalize on that advantage and win test series.
I get the point about Murali/Hadlee greatness seeming bit higher due to where they come from but even without that factor, their performance has been as good as any other greats.
Last edited by simonlee48; 23-07-2014 at 04:45 PM.
I'd like to see someone delve deeper into the claims that a top tier batsman suffers from playing short series. If that were indeed true, we should see the batting averages for batsmen follow a consistent 5th test > 4th test > 3rd test > 2nd test > 1st test pattern. And what about bowlers? Do they follow a reverse pattern? Are batsmen inherently more gifted than bowlers that they dominate a series the longer it goes on for?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)