Rank the 10,000 club

[honestbharani]

I am not sure I get what @pardus s point here is. If he is trying to prove that Sachin has just as many holes in his record as most of the others who are considered in the "only next to Bradman" bracket, then sure. But I dont think anyone ever seriously argued against it. When people bring out reasons why Sachin is no lesser to Smith, of course they are going to bring the number of years they played etc. I do not see @pardus pointing out that Smith's record in England is inflated coz he did not play Anderson, for instance, in a series. Literally every player in that bracket has holes in their resume, which is why they are all in the same bloody bracket. Seems @pardus is confusing SC fans behaviour from FB or YouTube with their behaviour here, where it is obvious even the most biased Indian poster here at least accepts the reasonings that put blokes like Smith, Richards, Pollock, Lara etc. in the same bracket as him. There maybe some back and forth as we keep chipping down in terms of granularity of the argument, but overall, I feel that point is well taken. So not sure what @pardus agenda here really is, as he is arguing a straw-man, at best.

And all this from one of the oldest proponent of Lara > Sachin as a test batsman here and an Indian.

 

[Migara]

Drop the victim complex if you want to have a discussion. As I said before, spend more time here and your will find this is not your YouTube or Facebook comments kinda forum. It's the popular and uncontested opinion on this forum that Tendulkar is not a clear number 2 batsman ever for instance, something you are unlikely to find elsewhere.

You explicitly mentioned rest of Indian batting didn't have skill which basically implies that your teammates skill set determines how you must be rated. Don't know what to make of that. It's interesting nonetheless that McGrath dismissed Tendulkar in only a fraction of innings and yet has a lower average similar to Lara. I would attribute that to what mental state facing a tough spell might put a batsman or to how tightly opposition is able to execute their strategy with a good pack or a good lead bowler. I don't know about correlating it to performance of others in the team.

So this means averaging 50 for a minnow is better than averaging 50 for a team with another six guys doing the same?

Wow, my appreciation of Flower and Aravinda just went few levels up.

 

[ankitj]

So this means averaging 50 for a minnow is better than averaging 50 for a team with another six guys doing the same?

Wow, my appreciation of Flower and Aravinda just went few levels up.

Yeah, that's the logical conclusion from this. Apparently Tendulkar for all his ability would score very few runs if he was playing for a weaker team. And Flower apparently should be in conversation for best after Bradman!

I will just go back to my earlier assertion. Influence of batting partners on a batsman's performance is minimal if not non-existent.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Yeah, that's the logical conclusion from this. Apparently Tendulkar for all his ability would score very few runs if he was playing for a weaker team. And Flower apparently should be in conversation for best after Bradman!

I will just go back to my earlier assertion. Influence of batting partners on a batsman's performance is minimal if not non-existent.

agree 100%

 

[ataraxia]

Influence of batting partners on a batsman's performance absolutely is a factor in tests.

If someone is with Sehwag at the crease, they can score at their natural rate no matter what is. Hanif does the opposite.
If they are with Bradman in full flow, then they can get more relaxed and less scared due to the solidity of the other end.
If they are with Inzamam at the crease, then they will score less runs due to the aforementioned's horrible running skills. Dhoni does the opposite.
If they are with Chris Martin at the crease, then they will start smashing (or edging, or missing) the ball.

Of course there's a big influence on a batter by their partner. Obviously these are edge-case scenarios, but these all still apply at a lesser extent to all people -- and they are often big indicators of how a specific batsman will perform.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Doesn't necessarily mean it's always a positive influence though, when it comes to statistical output. Someone like a Steve Waugh or a Steve Smith I'd say the opposite. Stronger the side/easier the position the team is in their output would go down. Sure maybe you feel more comfortable and are not under as much pressure, but that doesn't mean your average is going to be higher, which is what we are comparing.

 

[stephen]

Haha, pretty sure Stephen didn't mean that when he initially said India were lucky Warne didn't play. Far more likely that Stephen just meant India were lucky because Warne would've done well/ok against them.

He's just shifted his argument slightly once he realised the statement was pretty iffy.

It would be a bit odd to say a team is lucky that they didn't get to face a guy they historically dominated just because his replacement was poorer too. I mean it may be technically correct, but a very bizarre thing to say.

Except I've been consistent in what I've said and your interpretation of it has been extremely silly. Right from the beginning of this thread period were using "average in Australia" as a differentiating factor between batsmen and I made the point that the Indian batsmen were lucky to have dodged McGrath and Warne in 03 since that likely helped them out.

Since then people have been trying to argue bullshit like Warne wouldn't have made a difference at all, despite his replacement averaging 50.

I mean look at hb argue stupid stuff like "Warne's average without McGrath against India" as a meaningful stat. The closest indicators to what kind of impact Warne would have made are a) the series played a year later in which Warne averaged 30; b) the series Warne played against India two years before in which he averaged 42 while in the worst form of his life; and c) the quality difference between Warne and MacGill over their careers which was around 4 runs per wicket (And it would likely have been more if MacGill had have played on more pitches than his beloved SCG).

Trying to argue that Warne wouldn't have made a difference to how well the Indian batsmen did in 03 is as silly as someone suggesting that Warner wouldn't have helped against India in 2018. Sure, his impact might not have been what it was in other series', but Warne would have done a better job than SCG MacGill and to argue otherwise is nonsense.

 

[h_hurricane]

There are actually a few good reasons to rate Lara over Tendulkar. Wierdly, Pardus hasn't come up with any of them so far.

 

[ataraxia]

Influence of batting partners on a batsman's performance absolutely is a factor in tests.

Doesn't necessarily mean it's always a positive influence though, when it comes to statistical output. Someone like a Steve Waugh or a Steve Smith I'd say the opposite. Stronger the side/easier the position the team is in their output would go down. Sure maybe you feel more comfortable and are not under as much pressure, but that doesn't mean your average is going to be higher, which is what we are comparing.

So then it has a negative influence on their average? That's still an influence. Not sure what you're arguing here.

 

[Daemon]

Except I've been consistent in what I've said and your interpretation of it has been extremely silly. Right from the beginning of this thread period were using "average in Australia" as a differentiating factor between batsmen and I made the point that the Indian batsmen were lucky to have dodged McGrath and Warne in 03 since that likely helped them out.

Since then people have been trying to argue bull**** like Warne wouldn't have made a difference at all, despite his replacement averaging 50.

I mean look at hb argue stupid stuff like "Warne's average without McGrath against India" as a meaningful stat. The closest indicators to what kind of impact Warne would have made are a) the series played a year later in which Warne averaged 30; b) the series Warne played against India two years before in which he averaged 42 while in the worst form of his life; and c) the quality difference between Warne and MacGill over their careers which was around 4 runs per wicket (And it would likely have been more if MacGill had have played on more pitches than his beloved SCG).

Trying to argue that Warne wouldn't have made a difference to how well the Indian batsmen did in 03 is as silly as someone suggesting that Warner wouldn't have helped against India in 2018. Sure, his impact might not have been what it was in other series', but Warne would have done a better job than SCG MacGill and to argue otherwise is nonsense.

Hand on heart, you were thinking of MacGill when you made that lucky post?

If so then I apologise.

 

[stephen]

Hand on heart, you were thinking of MacGill when you made that lucky post?

If so then I apologise.

Yes. Cricket isn't played in a vacuum and while MacGill was good, he was a step down from Warne. Likewise, Brad Williams was a giant leap down from McGrath. Australia were literally missing their two best/ most experienced bowlers that series. And it showed, particularly in Adelaide.

 

[ankitj]

So then it has a negative influence on their average? That's still an influence. Not sure what you're arguing here.

Whatever influence may be there is too contextual for each innings and so any generalizable conclusion can't be drawn probably.

 

[Daemon]

Yes. Cricket isn't played in a vacuum and while MacGill was good, he was a step down from Warne. Likewise, Brad Williams was a giant leap down from McGrath. Australia were literally missing their two best/ most experienced bowlers that series. And it showed, particularly in Adelaide.

Ok, sorry then.

I still think it's weird that you would single out a player who's done badly against a particular team and say it's lucky for that team that he missed out, mind.

Bit like saying Australia are lucky in a hypothetical scenario where Anderson got injured before he could play an Adelaide Test.

 

[honestbharani]

If anything, in that scenario, Australia would be unlucky.

 

[Flem274*]

Influence of batting partners on a batsman's performance is minimal if not non-existent.

agree 100%

it's like you don't understand cricket

 

[stephen]

Ok, sorry then.

I still think it's weird that you would single out a player who's done badly against a particular team and say it's lucky for that team that he missed out, mind.

Bit like saying Australia are lucky in a hypothetical scenario where Anderson got injured before he could play an Adelaide Test.

I never singled out Warne, others did. I grouped McGrath and Warne initially.

 

[ankitj]

it's like you don't understand cricket

As I said before I don't think you can make a case for adjusting career batting averages based on whatever influence it may have had. Do you disagree?

 

[Flem274*]

As I said before I don't think you can make a case for adjusting career batting averages based on whatever influence it may have had. Do you disagree?

i don't care tbh

my only statement is anyone who thinks everyone bats in isolation has never played cricket. chanderpaul-esque compartmentalisation is limited to...chanderpaul.

 

[srbhkshk]

Players, especially ATG players are very much capable of adjusting their game according to the situation they are in and doing just as well, if someone doesn't believe that then he should also concede that Andy Flower is the second greatest batsman of all time.

 

[Flem274*]

Players, especially ATG players are very much capable of adjusting their game according to the situation they are in and doing just as well, if someone doesn't believe that then he should also concede that Andy Flower is the second greatest batsman of all time.

so you admit batting in partnerships influences batsmen. thaaaank you.

and yes that absolutely means we should deal in absolutes as seen in your second sentence.