Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

[Cabinet96]

If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
then
Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

Yeah taste them apples!

 

[smash84]

If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
then
Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

Yeah taste them apples!

 

[smash84]

Dude, I am agreeing with you about Sobers! What are you on about? Now look at what I wrote:



What would be your views on this.

I don't get your point? Why wouldn't you choose Imran over Hadlee or Marshall. He brings about bowling skills pretty close to the other two and is a significantly better batsmen than Marshall and better Hadlee too (despite the ok Imran-batsman showing up)

 

[centurymaker]

You really need to cut down on the condescension, mate. The law of diminishing returns is a concept of utility (satisfaction), it cannot be applied to raw numbers.

After the resumption of Bradman's career following WWII, he averaged 105.72 in his last 15 tests. The law was conspicuous by its absence. Some people defy laws.

And why do you think that was? Well it's highly likely that the standards had dropped due to such a long gap! (Im sure they did particularly in England, who the **** is going to play cricket when your country is having a immense war)

NOOOO you have misinterpreted!!!

It's not only applied to satisfaction- maybe you haven't done economics recently or forgotten about it. It's mostly used for productivity...
Let's say someone plays just 3-4 tests in a year, but now they have to play 12+ a year so they are basicaly playing all year around (if you take into account first class cricket too). This is when diminshing productivity would come in properly.

 

[centurymaker]

I hope you never "explain" that again too.

Because you've "explained" nothing. You've speculated a lot.

You've done so ridiculously inconsistently. Bradman is laughably marked down for not "easily" averaging 120 in FC cricket because of his Test average against India, but apparently gets no credit for actually performing at his best at the highest - Test match - level.

And yet again you've applied that negative speculation to Bradman - and ONLY Bradman - in order to mark him down.

Dude the guy had the ability to avg anything due to his immense concentration! The fact he couldn't sustain a higher FC avg illustrates my point (which is NO fault of his own). I am only trying to bring some rationality into raw figures!

If I wanted to bring down Bradman, I would be saying he was only 20/30% better than other batsman. I am not saying that at all here. If he had played 150 tests+ in the years he played and was busy playing cricket all year around like modern day players, I think he would've avg'd lesser. He wouldn't be able to sustain the same level of performance because he'd be playing too much all his career! and eventually his performances would take a hit, if not over a gradual period of time later in his career.

Ponting went from avging 60 to 51 and Dravid likewise. The point I am making here is that if you avg an extraordinary amount in a extremely comptetitive age where you play all year around, you wouldn't be able to sustain that avg till the end of your career unless you retire early or something...

 

[Quaggas]

Drake was said to be playing cricket when the Armada hove into view...

 

[Coronis]

Dude the guy had the ability to avg anything due to his immense concentration! The fact he couldn't sustain a higher FC avg illustrates my point (which is NO fault of his own). I am only trying to bring some rationality into raw figures!

If I wanted to bring down Bradman, I would be saying he was only 20/30% better than other batsman. I am not saying that at all here. If he had played 150 tests+ in the years he played and was busy playing cricket all year around like modern day players, I think he would've avg'd lesser. He wouldn't be able to sustain the same level of performance because he'd be playing too much all his career! and eventually his performances would take a hit, if not over a gradual period of time later in his career.

Ponting went from avging 60 to 51 and Dravid likewise. The point I am making here is that if you avg an extraordinary amount in a extremely comptetitive age where you play all year around, you wouldn't be able to sustain that avg till the end of your career unless you retire early or something...

Yes, players like Kallis, Sanga, and Chanders haven't averaged better as they've gotten older, have they? You can say what you think would've happened if the Don played as much cricket as players do today, but the facts are, Bradman averaged even better as he got older. Other great players throughout history have done this (e.g Hobbs). There are always exceptions to every law/rule.

 

[harsh.ag]

And why do you think that was? Well it's highly likely that the standards had dropped due to such a long gap! (Im sure they did particularly in England, who the **** is going to play cricket when your country is having a immense war)

NOOOO you have misinterpreted!!!

It's not only applied to satisfaction- maybe you haven't done economics recently or forgotten about it. It's mostly used for productivity...
Let's say someone plays just 3-4 tests in a year, but now they have to play 12+ a year so they are basicaly playing all year around (if you take into account first class cricket too). This is when diminshing productivity would come in properly.

Dude, I know the law of diminishing marginal returns (econ 101 was drilled into my head) which states that given a constant of one input, raising the other input inevitably leads to decrease in the marginal productivity of the input. But I really don't understand how that can apply to Bradman in a real sense.

You just cannot say that the diminishing returns would kick in for him. How can you? Maybe he would have done better. It is just a hypothesis. Since he kicked more ass as he got older (like Hobbs and Kallis), maybe he would averaged better than 100 had he finished with 80 tests. I have no basis for doubting him. He was above every other common sensical thing I think I know about batting. So why apply this rule?

Btw, what exactly are we holding constant here to get the diminishing returns?

 

[Coronis]

Too lazy to go find the actual stats, but in the second halves of their career, chronologically, Chanders/Kallis have averaged close to 60, and Sanga, as we all know, has been getting close to 70. 3 very notable exceptions to your rule there. Not to mention Hobbs, we all know how well he did at 40+

 

[Burgey]

This guy....

Could do it all.

 

[Jono]

You've just been bowled in that photo. Interesting choice.

 

[Burgey]

Burge. Bowled Exhaustion 425

 

[Jono]

Looks like you've got some tatts too.

 

[Burgey]

Had them done at the lunch break. Was getting bored dominating the attack.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I voted other. Based solely on all around ability the answer would be Ian Botham. Unfortunately his unwillingness to hone his skills through practice left his batting in particular short of what it should have been despite 14 Test Centuries.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Imran of course. A giant statue of him should be erected at Lords for cricket followers to marvel at until the end of times and Smali should be made the custodian. The sport should from now be known as imranball instead of cricket.

 

[hendrix]

No way imo. Many many people consider Sobers to be the second greatest batsman ever. To my knowledge, Imran's name doesn't ce up as often as Marshall, Barnes, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Lillee in the best bowler ever debate. Think the greatest bowler thread would provide evidence for this too. Amazing though he was I don't have Imran in the top 5 bowlers ever, Sobers is in my top 3 batsmen.
It's silly to compare bowling and batting anyway

You are joking, right? Sobers is widely acknowledged as one of the best batsmen after Bradman. For 90% of people, I'd say Sobers would be among their top 10 batsmen of all time, and ditto for Imran with his bowling.

Imran averaged a bit below 40 with the bat, and his bowling was most definitely not the equivalent to a 60+ batting average, which would be required to equal Bradman on this daft statistical premise.

Maybe I'm underrating Sobers' batting.

Imran is definitely one of the top 5 pace bowlers of all time, IMO. TBH I'd only put him behind Marshall.

 

[Coronis]

I'd have Marshall, McGrath, Lillee, Hadlee and Ambrose ahead of him, personally.

 

[centurymaker]

Yes, players like Kallis, Sanga, and Chanders haven't averaged better as they've gotten older, have they? You can say what you think would've happened if the Don played as much cricket as players do today, but the facts are, Bradman averaged even better as he got older. Other great players throughout history have done this (e.g Hobbs). There are always exceptions to every law/rule.

when did I say the performance always gets worse as someone gets older?

Please read carefully.

"Ponting went from avging 60 to 51 and Dravid likewise.
The point I am making here is that if you avg an extraordinary amount in a extremely comptetitive age where you play all year around, you wouldn't be able to sustain that avg till the end of your career unless you retire early or something... "

60 to 51 is a massive drop, almost equivalent of Bradman going from 100 to 80-85.

 

[uvelocity]

This guy....

Could do it all.

quality submission