centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Seriously you need to cut it out with disparaging crap.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Best After The Don
- Thread starter kyear2
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Er, doesn't that article basically put Lara amongst the most inconsistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs? Same with Tendulkar. Surprisingly, Ponting is amongst the most consistent for batsmen with 5000+ runs. For the top 8 runs scorers of all time he is the #1 consistent batsman. Viv Richards is also amongst the most consistent batsmen.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Without checking I'm sure the same can be said for Tendulkar and Ponting who have both been mediocre in recent years.
Anyway, I didn't say that Lara wasn't inconsistent because all batsman apart from Bradman have their lean periods. I just said that his 'inconsistency' has been (unfarely) exaggerated because it happens to be similar to other ATGs like Steve Waugh.
watson
Banned
You may be impressed by an attack consisting of: Sreenath-Sharma-Unadkat-Harbhajan
I'm not, especially when Harbhajan was well past his best.
akilana
International 12th Man
Lara didn't do as well as he could have. Was average against south africa and pkistan in 90s when donald, akram, waqar etc were gunning. His batting average was in the range of 35-40 against both countries till those bowlers retired. Dont think he had a hundred against them. India and NZ are two other countries where he wasn't successful. His best came against australia, especially in WI. He played few good knocks in australia but blew hot and cold overall.
ATG batsman but had his limitations too.
ATG batsman but had his limitations too.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
People need to get some perspective here. One 3 Test-series makes up about 2% of a modern great's career.
yeah 2%.
yeah 2%.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
List of innings-
1) 201*
2) 10 - run out backing up
3) 17 - http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/126400/126465.jpg
4) 161- In bowler friendly conditions
5) 109* - under pressure and while being injured
What more could he have possibly done!!!!!!!
Satyanash89
Banned
Yeah just checked that out and frankly I find it ridiculous that the study somehow found Ponting to be more consistent than Kallis and Tendulkar. CBF doing some calculation to find the standard deviation and whatnot, but all it does is prove that such statistical studies can project something which isn't necessarily the truth.
To me, consistency is performing at a high level of quality over a long period without suffering too many lean patches which could hurt the team. By those parametwrs, there is no way Ponting can be called one of the most consistent batsmen in history. Certainly not more than Kallis pr Tendulkar anyway.
EDIT: Ok just saw the date of the article and it's January 2008.We all know what happened to Ponting after that... Makes sense now
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Either the ability of a batsman (or bowler for that matter) to dominate a series, and win it almost 'single-handedly' is a criterion for greatness, or it isn't.
I think that it is because cricket is more about winning a Test match series rather individual averages at the end of a season. But I'm happy to be wrong.
Satyanash89
Banned
Awta.
watson
Banned
Do something similar against Glenn McGrath.Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
List of innings-
1) 201*
2) 10 - run out backing up
3) 17 - http://p.imgci.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/126400/126465.jpg
4) 161- In bowler friendly conditions
5) 109* - under pressure and while being injured
What more could he have possibly done!!!!!!!
Lara dominated McGrath and Warne, Greg Chappell dominated Holding and Roberts, Hobbs dominated Gregory and Mailey, and so forth - show me something similarly impressive re Kallis and I'll be happier than I am now.
Satyanash89
Banned
Tendulkar got a mountain of runs against Steyn n Co in the same series. And this was Steyn at his unplayable best too... Kinda hope Tendulkar doesn't get another hundred just so we can say his final one in tests was an epic.
Kallis against England in 04/05 has already been mentioned, but that's the one for him. England's attack was superb.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
2009*. I wonder what it would be now. At the time it was written Tendulkar had himself a renaissance two years prior, and has been in a bit of a trough in the last two.
Kallis is also amongst the least consistent when it was written. Besides 08, you have to go a decade prior to have him average under 40 runs for a year, so it is a bit surprising. The method is spelt out in the introduction.
Last edited:
watson
Banned
Cool.
Incidently, just been through Hobb's 1926 Ashes series. He averaged 81 over 5 Tests and scored a century in the second innings of the last Test. This is significant because the first 4 Tests were drawn and England were under pressure to build a decent total for Australia to chase. In the end England won by 289 runs as the Aussies collapsed on the 5th day.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62553.html
It's these sort of runs made under pressure, and against bowlers of a similar calibre to Gregory, Grimmett, and Mailey that help define greatness IMO
Last edited:
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
Sutcliffe's 161 doesn't count?
Coronis
Cricketer Of The Year
No, but you are using making a century, like Hobbs and Sutcliffe both did, under those circumstances as an example of greatness.
doesitmatter
U19 Cricketer
Tendulkar may not have dominated a complete series but he has dominating innings against some great bowlers
1) 169 -- Donald, Pollack
2) 136 -- Wasim Waqar Saqlain
3) 119 -- Melbourne..148 sydney..114 Perth (In Aus he has scored in all grounds except Brisbane/Hobart)
4) 2002 series against England some good bowlers ( Gough / Caddick / Flintoff)
5) SA -- Steyn and co (not really dominating)
6) India -- Warne
I think one more important factor is his away record in all countries is phenomenal for a guy who has played lot in the Indian dust bowls and for that alone he is No.2.
I am not making this as an excuse but India played very less test matches robbing more great Tendulkar innings when he was at his peak. Bcci was more interested in unwanted ODIs to make money off of SRTs popularity..
1) 169 -- Donald, Pollack
2) 136 -- Wasim Waqar Saqlain
3) 119 -- Melbourne..148 sydney..114 Perth (In Aus he has scored in all grounds except Brisbane/Hobart)
4) 2002 series against England some good bowlers ( Gough / Caddick / Flintoff)
5) SA -- Steyn and co (not really dominating)
6) India -- Warne
I think one more important factor is his away record in all countries is phenomenal for a guy who has played lot in the Indian dust bowls and for that alone he is No.2.
I am not making this as an excuse but India played very less test matches robbing more great Tendulkar innings when he was at his peak. Bcci was more interested in unwanted ODIs to make money off of SRTs popularity..
Last edited:
kyear2
Cricketer Of The Year
I think no doubt he has had the best career of any batsman ever, longevity, quality of bolwers faced, consistentcy, but that doen't mean he was the best batsman, or the second best. Others have had higher peaks and taken over games and series and inpacted victories and dynasties more than he has. I still think from his own era, Lara was the better batsman, just didn't always apply himself or had himself in the right mindset or focus. But when he was on, he was probably better than anyone, same can be said for Sobers and Viv with Sobers also having consistency to add to that mix.
With regards to being a tier with Bradman and then the rest, I disagree, Tendulkar has had an amazing and un-paralled career, Sobers once he became a batsman first and for the next ten years averaged over 70 in tougher conditions and againts better bowlers, Viv and Lara faced significantly better bolwers and much longer careers and much more varied environs and had hit some amazing highs and were as capable match winners as anyone. Pollock, Headley and Chappell too deserves a place in that pantheon and it's hard to argue againts the peak of Ponting, the challenges and bowlers faced by Hutton, and the again incomparable career of Kallis, especially considering that he (and Sobers) were living a separate life as bowlers. That doesn't even include the original Master, the imcomparable Jack Hobbs who dominated in a bowers era and played on some awful pitches in a totally different time.
Bradman was the best, and with a little daylight, his consistentcy and determination were unmatched, but not in a different tier to those gentlemen and it would be to disrespect the different challenges that they had to overcome in a more modern, global and compeditive sport.
With regards to being a tier with Bradman and then the rest, I disagree, Tendulkar has had an amazing and un-paralled career, Sobers once he became a batsman first and for the next ten years averaged over 70 in tougher conditions and againts better bowlers, Viv and Lara faced significantly better bolwers and much longer careers and much more varied environs and had hit some amazing highs and were as capable match winners as anyone. Pollock, Headley and Chappell too deserves a place in that pantheon and it's hard to argue againts the peak of Ponting, the challenges and bowlers faced by Hutton, and the again incomparable career of Kallis, especially considering that he (and Sobers) were living a separate life as bowlers. That doesn't even include the original Master, the imcomparable Jack Hobbs who dominated in a bowers era and played on some awful pitches in a totally different time.
Bradman was the best, and with a little daylight, his consistentcy and determination were unmatched, but not in a different tier to those gentlemen and it would be to disrespect the different challenges that they had to overcome in a more modern, global and compeditive sport.
Last edited: