Garry Sobers v Imran Khan,Test Cricket:Poll

[ataraxia]

And that is yours. I at least try to justify mine.

But you didn't try to justify yours.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

And that is yours. I at least try to justify mine.

And? There are people who try to justify stuffs like Astrology, Psychoanalysis and Homeopathy. But that doesn't make it right.

 

[subshakerz]

This is Lara's mid career slump. He averaged 39 across 47 tests, beginning with his humiliation by McGrath in 96 and ending just before his 2001 series in SL. His 99 series is pretty much the only highlight in those five years.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

For any ATG to average less than 40 for a prime part of their career is frankly a shocker.
Also worth pointing out that his early career peak was only 32 tests, so until that point that majority of his career was spent in this mediocrity. Thankfully he salvaged his reputation.

Is it wrong to demerit him for this? I don't think so.

 

[subshakerz]

But you didn't try to justify yours.

What about all the prior posts explaining how bad his lows were?

 

[ataraxia]

This is Lara's mid career slump. He averaged 39 across 47 tests, beginning with his humiliation by McGrath in 96 and ending just before his 2001 series in SL.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

For any ATG to average less than 40 for a prime part of their career is frankly a shocker. Is it wrong to demerit him for this? I don't think so.

Note to all who, like me, strongly disagree with this: it makes more sense than analysis by checklist, for which people use the same gimmick.

What about all the prior posts explaining how bad his lows were?

So I see, your answer to "Highs carry more value than lows" is 'but look at how bad these lows are!'

 

[Adorable Asshole]

How do you even define prime part? Prime is different for different people. Some people hit their prime early while others late? While some people prime is a long stretch while others are a series of few years.

For any ATG to average less than 40 for a prime part of their career is frankly a shocker. Is it wrong to demerit him for this? I don't think so.

 

[subshakerz]

How do you even define prime part? Prime is different for different people. Some people hit their prime early while others late? While some people prime is a long stretch while others are a series of few years.

Vast majority of cricketers have an early career phase in which they are getting their feet wet and a late career phase in which they lose their physical prowess. In between are their prime years as a player, not the same as peak years which can happen any time in the career.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Vast majority of cricketers have an early career phase in which they are getting their feet wet and a late career phase in which they lose their physical prowess. In between are their prime years as a player, not the same as peak years which can happen any time in the career.

And? Just because Lara didn't followed the career template of other cricketers doesn't make him worse than them

 

[subshakerz]

And? Just because Lara didn't followed the career template of other cricketers doesn't make him worse than them

It doesn't though. 47 tests is a very long period, it's more than 1/3rd in the middle of his career when he was basically subpar by worldclass standards.

And he doesn't have the usual excuses for mid career slumps, like sustained injuries for Warne and Tendulkar, or just a normal physical decline like Viv and Ponting which are more excusable.

His was technical issues plus a plain bad unprofessional attitude towards his cricket like Botham post-peak somewhat.

Yes, he improved 2001 to 2006 but sinking this low precludes him from being top 5 ever material.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

It doesn't though. 47 tests is a very long period, it's more than 1/3rd of his career when he was basically subpar by worldclass standards.

And he doesn't have the usual excuses for mid career slumps, like injuries for Warne and Tendulkar, or just a normal physical decline like Viv and Ponting which are more excusable.

His was technical issues plus a plain bad unprofessional attitude towards his cricket like Botham post-peak somewhat.

If that's a good excuse then Lara should get more points for his record near the end of his career

 

[subshakerz]

If that's a good excuse then Lara should get more points for his record near the end of his career

He does get credit for ending on a high but that late career peak can't repair all that damage. Top tier ATGs never let themselves get THAT bad in their prime where you question if they even belong in the ATG bracket.

In those five years, he only averaged over 50 in two out of 11 series and less than 40 in six of them. He averages 30 (!) away from home and failed against McGrath in Australia, Donald in SA and the 2Ws in Pakistan. His career average dropped 12 points.

Again, please find anything remotely as bad in the records of Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Tendulkar/Smith.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah that's just your opinion

And as usual completely wrong one.

 

[subshakerz]

And as usual completely wrong one.

Are you committed to never adding anything of substance to the conversation?

 

[The Sean]

Richards' slump was his last 19 tests and like Tendulkar, Pointing, etc. when his powers had waned but his ATG status had already been solidly confirmed. That is much more forgiveable than a longer mid career slump in which you struggle across series against the world's best and your entire professionalism and ATG status is questioned.

He does get credit for ending on a high but that late career peak can't repair all that damage. Top tier ATGs never let themselves get THAT bad in their prime where you question if they even belong in the ATG bracket.

In those five years, he only averaged over 50 in two out of 11 series and less than 40 in six of them. He averages 30 (!) away from home and failed against McGrath in Australia, Donald in SA and the 2Ws in Pakistan.

Again, please find anything remotely as bad in the records of Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Tendulkar/Smith.

Viv did have an end of career slump where he averaged just 34 from his last 17 Tests.

However he also had a longer slump mid-career (in his "prime" years) where in 27 Tests from 1981-1984 he averaged just 36, including 31 away from home.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Viv did have an end of career slump where he averaged just 34 from his last 17 Tests.

However he also had a longer slump mid-career (in his "prime" years) where in 27 Tests from 1981-1984 he averaged just 36, including 31 away from home.

Tbh Viv isn’t in that discussion for me. Smith,Hobbs,Sobers and Sachin are the only 4 that should be in the discussion imho with mentions to Hutton,Lara,Viv and Hammond.

 

[subshakerz]

Viv did have an end of career slump where he averaged just 34 from his last 17 Tests.

However he also had a longer slump mid-career (in his "prime" years) where in 27 Tests from 1981-1984 he averaged just 36, including 31 away from home.

Fair enough though I see that as a portion of his mid career phase from 81 to 88 where he was still generally seen as the best batsman in the world, just not as dominant as before but fairly consistent.

 

[honestbharani]

Are you committed to never adding anything of substance to the conversation?

When said "conversation" is dumbass fan fiction without zero facts, yes.

 

[subshakerz]

When said "conservation" is dumbass fan fiction without zero facts, yes.

Great then just stay silent then.

 

[Slifer]

I was watching the same Lara you were. Posters here though generally define him based on his career highlights. They ignore the times when he didn't look ATG level, when he threw his wicket away needlessly and when he got owned by the best bowlers.

Tendulkar from the early 90s onwards always look destined to be an ATG and even during his dip 2003 to 2006, when some thought he should retire, he was still a fairly productive bat and there wasn't a doubt he would end his career as a top tier ATG.

In Lara's case, if he retired in 2000, he probably would end up being rated below Dravid/Kallis by many here.

You really need to give the anti-Lara bs a rest. You keep on with the ifs and what could've been, but the fact of the matter is Lara was great, an atg and runs Tendulkar close. We've gone over the getting owned stuff before. He may have come up short vs Donald/WWs (in terms of test 100s only) but production wise ie in terms of average, he was there about with his great rival. That other bowlers dismissed Sachin or he looked more comfortable doesn't change that fact. He genuinely got owned by McGrath in 1997 but thereafter he gave McGrath as good as he got.

Funny how Sachin gets excused for his slump but Lara goes through his slump and all of a sudden this is held unreasonably against him because of hypotheticals. And after all is said and done, both ended up with very similar records in terms of averages and conversions: 53.86 vs 53.14 (I disregard the world xi circus match). Only difference for me, is that Sachin was a little more effective away.

 

[subshakerz]

You really need to give the anti-Lara bs a rest. You keep on with the ifs and what could've been, but the fact of the matter is Lara was great, an atg and runs Tendulkar close. We've gone over the getting owned stuff before. He may have come up short vs Donald/WWs (in terms of test 100s only) but production wise ie in terms of average, he was there about with his great rival. That other bowlers dismissed Sachin or he looked more comfortable doesn't change that fact. He genuinely got owned by McGrath in 1997 but thereafter he gave McGrath as good as he got.

Funny how Sachin gets excused for his slump but Lara goes through his slump and all of a sudden this is held unreasonably against him because of hypotheticals. And after all is said and done, both ended up with very similar records in terms of averages and conversions: 53.86 vs 53.14 (I disregard the world xi circus match). Only difference for me, is that Sachin was a little more effective away.

There are no hypotheticals.

I just said that Lara had a worse career low than the other top tiers and it put his ATG status at risk. Do you deny that? His average had dropped 12 points, he was getting owned everywhere he toured, etc.

We still count Tendulkar's slump but it was objectively not as bad as Lara and was induced by injuries, not a bad attitude.

Btw, Lara is a top tenner for me. I loved watching him bat but I am not biased against him.