He just doesn't get the same amount of opportunities as many others. He debuted over 10 years ago and has played every SA test since. Yet he's only played two more tests in England and Australia than Virat Kohli, who started three and a half years ago for example. Michael Clarke debuted around the same time and has played 30 tests against England and 22 v India, compared to 16 and 13 respectively for AB, etc. So of course he's likely to have more iconic moments we remember.
Last edited by Cabinet96; 03-01-2015 at 01:28 PM.
RIP Philip Hughes - 1988-2014
The Wheel of Mediocrity | Compton, Root, Carberry, Robson, Trott, Lyth, Moeen, Hales | The wheel is forever
Founder and Grand Wizard of the CW Football Thread Statluminati. Potential hater of abilities. Blocked on twitter by Michael Vaughan, Brad McNamara and AtlCricket for my hard hitting truths.
Personally I never really got on board with the downhill skier tag per se but I definitely thought his stats flattered him in 2011-2012, especially because I was noticing he was coming in at 3/lots and absolutely murdering attacks and ending up 70* off 50 or something. So it wasn't so much a case that he wasn't necessarily any better or worse under pressure than comparable batsmen, just that he was putting up incredible-looking numbers without really putting up the sorts of innings and distinct performances that Amla, Smith, Kallis etc were putting up. The last series down in Aus epitomised this - he did not a whole lot right until the very end where he carted around an attack that was frankly already consigned to an absolute flogging, and as a result of that innings his series figures looked fine whereas up til then they looked fairly ****. Ironically, the 30 he scored in Adelaide was a far, far more significant innings in terms of winning the team the series.
He's rectified all this to some extent in 2013-4, particularly with the way he batted against us and his innings in the Steyn-bopping-Shami-for-six chase (and to be honest I always thought he would once he got the opportunities), but I definitely felt that he was a rung below Clarke, Amla, Sanga etc etc for that reason, because they were playing seriously memorable, series-defining innings. The Amla comparison is particularly telling because to an extent it nullifies the "he doesn't play enough" point - Amla has played just as many Tests in that same period and pulled off some ****ing amazing knocks and series-winning/defining performances along the way (vs us in 2011, vs England the next year in particular). And I know this is getting off-track, but this is why I was so surprised that so many people would take ABdV over Amla in that other thread; it's very clearly the other way around for me.
TL;DR be careful when you rate batsmen based on raw stats, because samplesizelol and quality > quantity.
Last edited by Spark; 03-01-2015 at 01:46 PM.
do you think people will be allowed to make violins?
who's going to make the violins?
On evaluating bowling attacks, mine is based on each bowler's current rating weighted to how much the bowler actually bowled in the innings. The best attacks would have 3-4 very good bowlers.
"Cricket is an art. Like all arts it has a technical foundation. To enjoy it does not require technical knowledge, but analysis that is not technically based is mere impressionism."
- C.L.R. James
What I was saying is that.. lets say McGrath played a series against England in England in 2001 and Australia hammered them. If you determine the quality of his opposition by looking at how England did overall in 2000-2002 period with more emphasis put on their home games, then fact that McGrath had a good team around him would count against him as those overall England stats would be disproportionately affected by Australia's dominance. If Australia consistently dominated batting lineups then this would affect his end rating quite a bit, as the system would consistently think the teams he was playing against were worse than they were, simply because their stats in periods he played them would disproportionately include matches against McGrath's team.
The way you've done it should make that effect negligible though, and that's good.
As an aside my system ranks Masakadza at #117 based on "current form" / "current ability" / whatever you want to call current rankings. It takes domestic cricket, tour games, A-team games etc into account for that too though which probably puts him more in his rightful place. There are a bunch of players ahead of him who haven't played Tests at all.
I don't want to reveal too much because the secrecy of the actual ratings is vital for a few things outside of CW, but they're all close together in the 55-65 range; Rohit is still marginally rated the best of the lot.Just out of interest - where are Rohit Sharma, Badrinath and Manoj Tiwary now?
Shakib Al Hasan greater than Imran Khan and Keith Miller.
I think you might be slightly over rating Shakib with your criteria
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
While Shakib might be slightly overrated, I do think he deserves to be in the top 10. After just 37 tests he has already made 100 runs + 5 wkts in a match (cumulative in both innings) 5 times. The most it's ever been done is 7 times by Sobers and Botham which he is almost certainly going go past easily.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)