Who is Sri Lanka's best ever cricketer?

[Pratters]

Other batsmen not being as good is a terrible argument.. Are we supposed to bump Lara's 52 average to 60 or something?

The truth is that Aravinda just didn't have the patience that Mahela had to thrive in Tests. He was called "mad max" for a reason. He got better after 95 but never as good as Mahela at making huge tons.

Most of the aura Aravinda has is because of ODIs, where I think it's warranted.. there was a time in the late 90s where you could believe that he could win at any scenario.. But that doesn't mean he was better in Tests.

You have not answered my question.

A) DeSilva was better away (shown in previous post)
B) Both were very good at home.

So how was Jayawardene better? Averaging 7 points lower in important away matches cannot be discounted. Also, I mentioned to you how averaging 52 and 59 in 90s and 2000s can be considered some what similar at home. It was far tougher to bat in the 90s. Even averaging 50 was considered a great achievement in the 90s while today it is considered a sort of minimum for a great at times.

 

[viriya]

In Australia, England, South Africa, New Zealand and West Indies:

DeSilva 39.50 in 25 tests.
Jayawardene 32.75 in 39 tests.

If ever there was a home track bully, it was Jayawardene my friend.

I wasn't aware that only Tests in those countries counted.. This is the most obvious news, Mahela wasn't good in seaming conditions. He was great anywhere else. Apparently a 374 in home conditions in an innings win is **** compared to a 100 on a green top.

I'll take a home track bully any day.

 

[viriya]

You have not answered my question.

A) DeSilva was better away (shown in previous post)
B) Both were very good at home.

So how was Jayawardene better? Averaging 7 points lower in important away matches cannot be discounted. Also, I mentioned to you how averaging 52 and 59 in 90s and 2000s can be considered some what similar at home. It was far tougher to bat in the 90s. Even averaging 50 was considered a great achievement in the 90s while today it is considered a sort of minimum for a great at times.

Aravinda was not better away.. you just selected the countries that make your argument work lol.

 

[Pratters]

Aravinda was not better away.. you just selected the countries that make your argument work lol.

No. I have selected countries outside subcontinent and excluded Zimbabwe essentially to show how Aravinda was a much better player outside the subcontinent than Jayawardene.

 

[viriya]

No. I have selected countries outside subcontinent and excluded Zimbabwe essentially to show how Aravinda was a much better player outside the subcontinent than Jayawardene.

Don't those countries count? AFAIK Pak, India, Ban, Zim are test playing countries.

 

[viriya]

Also, I mentioned to you how averaging 52 and 59 in 90s and 2000s can be considered some what similar at home. It was far tougher to bat in the 90s. Even averaging 50 was considered a great achievement in the 90s while today it is considered a sort of minimum for a great at times.

The average batting average in the 90s was 29.45 (Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo)
The average batting average in the 00s was 32.02 (Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo)

A 9% difference. You could argue that Aravinda's home average would be 56.5 over 44 tests.. Still clearly inferior compared to 60 over 81 tests.

 

[Pratters]

Don't those countries count? AFAIK Pak, India, Ban, Zim are test playing countries.

They do but it is to show how Jayawardene was far less equipped in testing conditions outside subcontinent. It is important to assess how good a player is in subcontinent and outside it as well. Both were amazing in friendly conditions, one was better outside subcontinent.

 

[Pratters]

The average batting average in the 90s was 29.45 (Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo)
The average batting average in the 00s was 32.02 (Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo)

A 9% difference. You could argue that Aravinda's home average would be 56.5 over 44 tests.. Still clearly inferior compared to 60 over 81 tests.

From that you can conclude both were great at home. Certainly not a factor which can differentiate who was better between them.

 

[viriya]

They do but it is to show how Jayawardene was far less equipped in testing conditions outside subcontinent. It is important to assess how good a player is in subcontinent and outside it as well. Both were amazing in friendly conditions, one was better outside subcontinent.

Mahela not being great in seaming conditions is the most known fact. I'm not sure what you are trying to point out.

Your point is that you discount subcontinent performances because you consider performances away to be the real test of who's better.

I just plainly disagree. Destroying weaker attacks, bullying teams at home are all positives in my eyes. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.

 

[viriya]

From that you can conclude both were great at home. Certainly not a factor which can differentiate who was better between them.

Do you understand the difference between 44 tests and 81 tests?

 

[Pratters]

The only legitimate argument you could have come up with (which you haven't) Viriya is the records in India. However, DeSilva faced Kumble in India in the 90s who was crazy at that time in India. Jayawardene faced weaker spin attacks I would argue.

Any way, ignore DeSilva. He was madmax and not as good as a batsman who averages more over all obviously as viriya the statsman says so.

 

[viriya]

It's not DeSilva's fault. Will you discount Greg Chappell when you compare him with Allan Border because Border played far more tests? I think not.

I won't, because Greg Chappell performed better in those tests.

 

[Pratters]

I won't, because Greg Chappell performed better in those tests.

Sigh.

 

[Pratters]

I wasn't aware that only Tests in those countries counted.. This is the most obvious news, Mahela wasn't good in seaming conditions. He was great anywhere else. Apparently a 374 in home conditions in an innings win is **** compared to a 100 on a green top.

I'll take a home track bully any day.

Both were great at home. One was far better in testing conditions outside subcontinent. It isn't really that difficult to understand.

 

[Zinzan]

Mahela not being great in seaming conditions is the most known fact. I'm not sure what you are trying to point out.

Your point is that you discount subcontinent performances because you consider performances away to be the real test of who's better.

I just plainly disagree. Destroying weaker attacks, bullying teams at home are all positives in my eyes. If it were that easy, everyone would do it.

Clearly this is where you differ from most cricket fans/assessors then.

A player who doesn't perform well away in the toughest/most foreign conditions does tend to get a huge black mark against their name, regardless of whether they have wonderful powers of concentration and can really make it count in conditions comfortable for them.

So basically there's an invisible multiplier in play here.. and de Silva averaging near-on 40 (par for a top-class batsman in the toughest conditions) in Aust/NZ/Eng/SA & the WI vs Mahela's 32 (below par), gives him a massive advantage when it comes having the skills and abilities to adapt to any conditions. Something that's rated a lot higher than someone who simply really dines out when the conditions are more comfortable for them.

 

[Pratters]

Highest averages in Aus, Eng, NZ, SA and WI for subcontinent players with minimum 10 tests.

Dravid, Gavaskar, Tendulkar. Below that, Amarnath comes as no surprise. Sehwag averages 35, as does Hazare. Ganguly averages 41. Only subcontinent batsman to cross 40 before the 1970s was the great Hanif Mohammed.

 

[Zinzan]

Interesting stuff that. Mahela doesn't feature on the first page and is even behind all-rounders like Imran & Asif Iqbal.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Dravid WAG

 

[Pratters]

The alternate list is interesting too.

Sobers, Amla, Lloyd, AB, Kanhai and then Fleming. Most Australian greats are absent at the top of the list for one reason or the other actually. I love how well Border does. Same for Kirsten.

 

[viriya]

Clearly this is where you differ from most cricket fans/assessors then.

A player who doesn't perform well away in the toughest/most foreign conditions does tend to get a huge black mark against their name, regardless of whether they have wonderful powers of concentration and can really make it count in conditions comfortable for them.

So basically there's an invisible multiplier in play here.. and de Silva averaging near-on 40 (par for a top-class batsman in the toughest conditions) in Aust/NZ/Eng/SA & the WI vs Mahela's 32 (below par), gives him a massive advantage when it comes having the skills and abilities to adapt to any conditions. Something that's rated a lot higher than someone who simply really dines out when the conditions are more comfortable for them.

I'm not saying that's not a black mark on Mahela - and that's why I rate him lower than his peers in general - just not lower than Aravinda.

There's a double standard here - for some reason subcontinent batsmen are evaluated solely on their performances outside, but Ponting's poor India record is just "one of those things".

Subcontinent players might as well ignore home tests - it doesn't matter as long as you do well in England boys.

The equivalent here is when Rahane makes one ton in England, any number of failures in the subcontinent is fine and he is 100x better than that flat-track bully Rohit. Why isn't Rahane dominating flat tracks if it were that easy? Just doesn't make sense.

Mahela is one of the ATG home bullies - in some grounds in SL he was basically Bradman personified. That in itself should be a good thing, not a bad thing.