Best After The Don

[Prince EWS]

Yeah there's a possible (okay a dim one, but still) that Bevan himself might've been on this poll if he had a slice of luck or was from a country with less competition for places. Freak cricketer.

 

[Jono]

I disagree because conversely it makes you easier to stand out. Cricket, unlike other team sports, is a game of 1v1 duels. If Tendulkar was Australian, he would never have been debuted at 16 years old. If Murali was Australian, he'd might not get to bowl till he changed his action, let alone for 50-something overs per match. But cricket gives us a decent gauge in the ratios to compare them regardless of their team. Not perfect, but a good tool. I've even argued that bowling in a poor side, for an all-time great, is statistically even more advantageous.

As for your other points:

- I think Tendulkar's technique was more textbook and he relied far less than Ponting on his hand-eye coordination. On the other hand, Ponting's technique, where he'd rock back to pull or get forward and drive, may have been simple but extremely effective because of his hand-eye coordination. It did make his ageing in the game difficult though. And although I'd agree that Tendulkar would be a handy bowler, that's all he'd be. Ponting is arguably the greatest fielder the game has seen - definitely in the discussion. One of the most successful captains ever as well. For Australia, he was leader on several fronts; whereas I always got the impression that Tendulkar would rather just be responsible for himself.

- Sobers may have been picked for his bowling...but the truth is he sucked at it bar a decent period in the 60s. He is one of the greatest batsmen of all time - the best #6 - and also in the discussion as one of the greatest fielders ever, but I just don't have much time for the argument that he was far and away the best all-rounder. Surely one of them, but for me the period where he was lethal with both bat and ball considering the length of his career is just not enough. I've argued before that in an all-time side Sobers is my easy pick for #6, but I'd never let him bowl. I also think the game is better suited for bowling all-rounders - because all bowlers have to bat, but not vice-versa.

I hate engaging you when you go Ponting vs. Sachin, but I'm going to do it anyway.

The "if so and so was Australian" theory is endless. If Sachin was Australian he arguably wouldn't be so introverted at times as he wouldn't have to hide in a box all his life.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In a world where Sobers never existed and you had Kallis at number 6, would you let him bowl?

Nope, he can carry the drinks. Gilchrist at 6, Miller or Imran at 7.

 

[harsh.ag]

Not in an all-time XI - both are a huge drop-off in quality relative to the bowlers I'd already have. As for the Tendulkar comment; look I don't know the guy personally, but you got the impression that Ponting would stand in front of a moving bus for the sake of the team whereas Tendulkar has never even batted at #3. Didn't want the captaincy. Tendulkar not being a nice/helpful guy isn't my contention.

You can only be part of that culture of success if you maintain those incredible standards - similarly, it is harder to stick out in a team full of great individuals. In a side like Australia's...one bad series and you could lose your spot. Look at the state Shield teams in the 90s...littered with batsmen who could've been amongst the best in the world if they were eligible to play for other teams. Someone like Hussey had to wait a long damn time to even get into the team. Look at Hayden, an all-time great, but a few bad performances and he was banished for years. Langer, similar. Bevan dropped never to return. Love, Lehmann, Hodge, etc.

I know you didn't Tendulkar as not being a nice/helpful guy. What I was saying was that he realized that, personally, he could do a better job of being a leader in his own way within the team if he wasn't captain.

This exactly explains my stand on the issue. You had so many excellent players in the reserve, and only when a country produces a lot of good players, do some go on to become great ones. It is difficult to find those kind of players in India. Much more difficult to succeed, even though we have a billion more people than you.

P.S. Success for me means reaching a level of excellence, not being selected for the national side.

 

[Prince EWS]

This exactly explains my stand on the issue. You had so many excellent players in the reserve, and only when a country produces a lot of good players, do some go on to become great ones. It is difficult to find those kind of players in India. Much more difficult to succeed, even though we have a billion more people than you.

I find this a strange way to look at it. You're as good as you are; how likely or otherwise it was for you get that good shouldn't really change how highly you're rated as a player.

Furthermore, you'd surely have to rate Andy Flower second to Bradman based on this logic, no? Bart King the greatest bowler of all time.

You probably feel like I'm picking on you a bit because I keep arguing with your points and not Ikki's, so I feel I should point out that I actually rate Tendulkar ahead of Ponting by quite some distance; I just find some of your reasoning a bit questionable. I find a lot of Ikki's reasoning questionable too and I disagree with his conclusion but I've done that dance with him before so I'm not going to repeat myself with him.

 

[Jarquis]

Replace the word Tendulkar with the word Ponting and the word spinners with the word seamers and that sentence still applies.

And Indian with Australian ofc

 

[harsh.ag]

I find this a strange way to look at it. You're as good as you are; how likely or otherwise it was for you get that good shouldn't really change how highly you're rated as a player.

Furthermore, you'd surely have to rate Andy Flower second to Bradman based on this logic, no? Bart King the greatest bowler of all time.

You probably feel like I'm picking on you a bit because I keep arguing with your points and not Ikki's, so I feel I should point out that I actually rate Tendulkar ahead of Ponting by quite some distance; I just find some of your reasoning a bit questionable. I find a lot of Ikki's reasoning questionable too and I disagree with his conclusion but I've done that dance with him before so I'm not going to repeat myself with him.

No, it's good to have your theories questioned. No way to learn better otherwise. What I am saying is something like this - assume player A has a certain level of intrinsic ability. In country A, which has a developed structure and rich past of cricket (plus more money being spent on the sport), it is easier to get nurtured, get the required training and become a better player, and maybe go on to become great (which depends mostly on you from then on)

I am not applying this to Tendulkar. He was lucky. Had talent, supportive family, got good coaching from an early age, got selected early.

But until a few years back (when BCCI got rich, and the Indian structure began to develop), it was far more difficult to get that kind of training for regular people. Even now, it is unthinkable for the large majority to even think of adopting cricket as a career.

On top of all this, my further point was that in a culture not used to winning, it can be a difficult thing to reach your zenith. Why do we want to work at better companies, and have intelligent friends? You become better with better company.

 

[Ikki]

I know you didn't Tendulkar as not being a nice/helpful guy. What I was saying was that he realized that, personally, he could do a better job of being a leader in his own way within the team if he wasn't captain.

This exactly explains my stand on the issue. You had so many excellent players in the reserve, and only when a country produces a lot of good players, do some go on to become great ones. It is difficult to find those kind of players in India. Much more difficult to succeed, even though we have a billion more people than you.

P.S. Success for me means reaching a level of excellence, not being selected for the national side.

But that is a reason for Indians to laud him, and I understand his significance to them. For others, why should it matter? And who says it is any easier to grow up in a system where there is more competition? It may be easier to get the requisite attention/facilities, but that also goes for your competition.

I hate engaging you when you go Ponting vs. Sachin, but I'm going to do it anyway.

The "if so and so was Australian" theory is endless. If Sachin was Australian he arguably wouldn't be so introverted at times as he wouldn't have to hide in a box all his life.

Your reply is not really in conflict with mine, even though I am not sure it actually matters. My point re "if so and so was Australian" is that a large part of Tendulkar's legacy stems from his prodigious beginnings. That, almost certainly, wouldn't have happened in Australia and it would have also meant that he'd not play as long either. He'd also definitely have to share the attention and plaudits amongst his teammates more. Of these things I am of little doubt.

Whereas, I don't really know if whether being an extrovert would have helped Tendulkar one way or another.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, it's good to have your theories questioned. No way to learn better otherwise. What I am saying is something like this - assume player A has a certain level of intrinsic ability. In country A, which has a developed structure and rich past of cricket (plus more money being spent on the sport), it is easier to get nurtured, get the required training and become a better player, and maybe go on to become great (which depends mostly on you from then on)

Yeah I get that. I just don't think we should say that one player is better than another when he's not just because it was less likely for him to become as good. You're as good as you are; some players are more likely to have their talents developed to a high standard than others, but that's life.

We don't say Sean Williams is a better batsman than Ed Cowan because he's better by Zimbabwean standards than Cowan is by Australian standards given Zimbabwe's limitations in player refinement and development.

I absolutely agree with that two players with the same raw talent will have very different chances of developing into world class players if you bring them up in two different countries; I just don't see how it's relevant in determining how good they are. Talent and quality are not the same thing.

 

[harsh.ag]

Yeah I get that. I just don't think we should say that one player is better than another when he's not just because it was less likely for him to become as good. You're as good as you are; some players are more likely to have their talents developed to a high standard than others, but that's life.

We don't say Sean Williams is a better batsman than Ed Cowan because he's better by Zimbabwean standards than Cowan is by Australian standards given Zimbabwe's limitations in player refinement and development.

I absolutely agree with that two players with the same raw talent will have very different chances of developing into world class players if you bring them up in two different countries; I just don't see how it's relevant in determining how good they are. Talent and quality are not the same thing.

I am not, and will never be, asking the person from a less developed structure to be rated better than the one who came from a better one. My only point in all this was, even if you have reached your potential (or near that) and are selected in the national team of the weaker country, from then on too it is much more difficult to maintain that level in a culture which is not used to victory. It can have a huge impact on the player. When in such a culture, reaching your peak performances, regardless of your ability (raw and coached included) becomes difficult. People in better structures reach highs more easily, as they are working in a culture in which highs are expected and commonplace. It is easier to succeed in doing something big when working at NASA rather than ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization).

Hope I make a little sense.

 

[Prince EWS]

I am not, and will never be, asking the person from a less developed structure to be rated better than the one who came from a better one. My only point in all this was, even if you have reached your potential (or near that) and are selected in the national team of the weaker country, from then on too it is much more difficult to maintain that level in a culture which is not used to victory. It can have a huge impact on the player. When in such a culture, reaching your peak performances, regardless of your ability (raw and coached included) becomes difficult. People in better structures reach highs more easily, as they are working in a culture in which highs are expected and commonplace. It is easier to succeed in doing something big when working at NASA rather than ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization).

Hope I make a little sense.

You just can't make that final leap.

Is it harder? Yes.
Does it make you better because it was harder? No.

 

[harsh.ag]

You just can't make that final leap.

Is it harder? Yes.
Does it make you better because it was harder? No.

How about looking at it from a "finite pool of energy" view? The more energy you have to divert into overcoming the "harder" part, the less you do in utilizing it elsewhere.

 

[Prince EWS]

How about looking at it from a "finite pool of energy" view? The more energy you have to divert into overcoming the "harder" part, the less you do in utilizing it elsewhere.

.. and it still doesn't make you a better player. It just makes your quest in become a better player more difficult. At the end of the day, as a captain I'd much rather have a bloke hit me a ton once every four innings than have one hit me a ton once every five innings but overcome greater personal adversity in doing so.

 

[harsh.ag]

.. and it still doesn't make you a better player. It just makes your quest in become a better player more difficult. At the end of the day, as a captain I'd much rather have a bloke hit me a ton once every four innings than have one hit me a ton once every five innings but overcome greater personal adversity in doing so.

But why are we just talking about selection here? This is not just about that. And what if both of them hit a ton once every four innings. Then?

 

[Prince EWS]

But why are we just talking about selection here? This is not just about that. And what if both of them hit a ton once every four innings. Then?

Then they're equal.

 

[harsh.ag]

Then they're equal.

Not for me.

 

[Burgey]

AB

/thread

 

[Burgey]

You don't score 11,000 plus test runs with three shots unless you're amazing.

 

[Jono]

Thought you weren't a fan of AB de Villiers?

 

[Burgey]

Don't you ever, ever compare that bloke with the One, True AB.