View Poll Results: Who is the best "Cricketer" ever

Voters
75. You may not vote on this poll
  • Keith Miller

    1 1.33%
  • Imran Khan

    7 9.33%
  • Gary Sobers

    16 21.33%
  • Jacques Kallis

    15 20.00%
  • Don Bradman

    28 37.33%
  • WG Grace

    5 6.67%
  • Other

    3 4.00%
Page 6 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 725

Thread: Who is the Best "Cricketer" Ever?

  1. #76
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    It's the law of diminishing returns, god! There's no way he would've sustained an average that high if he'd had played at least 3 times as much cricket in his career!

    Although he avg'd 95 over a really long FC career, you have to consider that a guy who can avg 100 in tests should be averaging easily120+ in FC against worse attacks, given his unrelenting style of batting. The fact that he didn't illustrates diminishing returns! (look at his avgs against the likes of India to get an idea of how he fared against worse attacks)

    I hope I don't have to explain this again.

    (I haven't even brought up any difference in era and stuff this time...)
    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.
    If you were that old, and that kind, and the very last of your kind, you couldn't just stand back and watch children cry.

  2. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    if imran = batsman with avg: 100
    then
    manoj prabhakar > batsman with avg: 55

    deal with that

  3. #78
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,527
    Quote Originally Posted by sobers no:1 View Post
    if imran = batsman with avg: 100
    then
    manoj prabhakar > batsman with avg: 55

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

    Yeah taste them apples!
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  4. #79
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
    then
    Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

    Yeah taste them apples!
    PEWS in Vader mode Love it.


  5. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    india
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
    then
    Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

    Yeah taste them apples!
    batsman with avg: 100 in modern era >>>> procter

    that is a different issue.

  6. #81
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,508
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
    then
    Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

    Yeah taste them apples!

  7. #82
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    If Prctr > batsman with avg. 100
    then
    Vusi Sibanda > Sunil Gavaskar

    Yeah taste them apples!
    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

  8. #83
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend smalishah84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakistan
    Posts
    21,623
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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)

  9. #84
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by harsh.skm View Post
    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.
    Last edited by centurymaker; 27-03-2013 at 12:30 PM.
    Proud Supporter of All Blacks

  10. #85
    International Vice-Captain centurymaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,825
    Quote Originally Posted by The Sean View Post
    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...
    Last edited by centurymaker; 27-03-2013 at 01:01 PM. Reason: I felt I hadn't explained the last point

  11. #86
    International 12th Man Quaggas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,683
    Drake was said to be playing cricket when the Armada hove into view...

  12. #87
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,288
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    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.

  13. #88
    International Debutant harsh.ag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    India
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by centurymaker View Post
    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?

  14. #89
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    NSW
    Posts
    1,288
    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+

  15. #90
    Cricket Web Staff Member Burgey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    41,442
    This guy....



    Could do it all.
    WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
    "People make me happy.. not places.. people"

    "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson

    "Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn

Page 6 of 49 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •