Sachin. Sobers. Smith.

[Sliferxxxx]

Sachin is easy.

He didn’t have an ATG series like Sobers, Smith or Viv

Sobers is easy, for whatever reason he sucked vs NZ and was a bit of a home basher (his away record is still great fwiw).

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin is easy.

He didn’t have an ATG series like Sobers, Smith or Viv

Sobers and Smith to an extent had very easy home conditions which accounts for their boosted averages.

Sobers has a minor sore spot against NZ.

Smith can't compare on longevity and is a distance behind. Also frankly I don't think his technique was as tested against quality pace variety. I would have loved to see how he would handle Ambrose

 

[DrWolverine]

It’s shocking that Sobers failed against NZ and that too in 3 different series.

Also, NZ was such a weak team.

NZ played 52 Tests from 1930-1960 and surprisingly the only test they won was against WI in 1956.

1956(Away) : 27. 25. 27. 1. 1.

1968(Away) : 11. 0. 20. 39. 0

1972(Home) : 13. 19. 35. 142. 5. 28. 2.

Overall : 12 matches. 404 runs. Avg of 23

Away : 7 matches. 151 runs. Avg of 15.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

It’s shocking that Sobers failed against NZ and that too in 3 different series.

Also, NZ was such a weak team.

NZ played 52 Tests from 1930-1960 and surprisingly the only test they won was against WI in 1956.

1956(Away) : 27. 25. 27. 1. 1.

1968(Away) : 11. 0. 20. 39. 0

1972(Home) : 13. 19. 35. 142. 5. 28. 2.

Overall : 12 matches. 404 runs. Avg of 23

Away : 7 matches. 151 runs. Avg of 15.

Again like wtf? Even a middling record vs NZ and Sobers would've ended up with a 60+ average overall. Which was easily doable.

 

[Bolo.]

Again like wtf? Even a middling record vs NZ and Sobers would've ended up with a 60+ average overall. Which was easily doable.

It's not a question of having an issue vs a bowler or a quirk of having a single series at the wrong time. Just an example of how variance can come into play over way more games than people acknowledge.

 

[Coronis]

Again like wtf? Even a middling record vs NZ and Sobers would've ended up with a 60+ average overall. Which was easily doable.

Being able to score against weak teams is also important. This is why I have Sobers below Bradman, Hobbs and Tendulkar.

Smith needs to fix his record against Bangladesh next year to break free from the Lara/Hammond tier and join them

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Being able to score against weak teams is also important. This is why I have Sobers below Bradman, Hobbs and Tendulkar.

Smith needs to fix his record against Bangladesh next year to break free from the Lara/Hammond tier and join them

His record vs NZ is a legitimate demerit, no arguments there. Atgs are supposed to destroy minnows.

 

[Coronis]

His record vs NZ is a legitimate demerit, no arguments there. Atgs are supposed to destroy minnows.

Obviously I’m being a bit sarcastic there, but in my mind a failure against a weaker team is a bit of a black mark. In most cases you can chalk it up to a small sample size or something similar but not here.

Its worse to me than if he say, failed against a great team. People don’t see it that way, but how is failing against a bad/weak team not worse than failing against a good/great team?

 

[Sliferxxxx]

Obviously I’m being a bit sarcastic there, but in my mind a failure against a weaker team is a bit of a black mark. In most cases you can chalk it up to a small sample size or something similar but not here.

Its worse to me than if he say, failed against a great team. People don’t see it that way, but how is failing against a bad/weak team not worse than failing against a good/great team?

It is bad. What saves Sobers is that he was good to great vs some good to great attacks that he did face.

 

[Bolo.]

Obviously I’m being a bit sarcastic there, but in my mind a failure against a weaker team is a bit of a black mark. In most cases you can chalk it up to a small sample size or something similar but not here.

Its worse to me than if he say, failed against a great team. People don’t see it that way, but how is failing against a bad/weak team not worse than failing against a good/great team?

I don't think it matters too much who who are failing against, just the average quality of opponents you face.

I might be more inclined to forgive weak performances vs minnows if the result is a forgone conclusion and there is nothing at stake. Not everyone finds the motivation to bully, and it doesn't matter that much if they do when the game is only going 1 way. Possibly somewhat the case with Sobers?

Performing vs great teams is a funny one. It's nice to know a player can do it, but as aloose rule of thumb, you would rather have your players perform against the good teams rather than the great ones, and overvaluing performances against great teams is going to be rewarding players for helping their team win less.

 

[subshakerz]

Again like wtf? Even a middling record vs NZ and Sobers would've ended up with a 60+ average overall. Which was easily doable.

It's a minor blemish since his poor form did cost WI some victories.

 

[subshakerz]

Performing vs great teams is a funny one. It's nice to know a player can do it, but as aloose rule of thumb, you would rather have your players perform against the good teams rather than the great ones, and overvaluing performances against great teams is going to be rewarding players for helping their team win less.

What a defeatist mindset.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I might be more inclined to forgive weak performances vs minnows if the result is a forgone conclusion and there is nothing at stake. Not everyone finds the motivation to bully, and it doesn't matter that much if they do when the game is only going 1 way. Possibly somewhat the case with Sobers?

Not quite. NZ actually won a couple of those tests and WI only managed to win one of the three series Sobers played vs them.

 

[Bolo.]

What a defeatist mindset.

Prioritising winning more tests is a defeatist attitude? Interesting theory.

 

[Johan]

Not quite. NZ actually won a couple of those tests and WI only managed to win one of the three series Sobers played vs them.

the 1969 test is fair, the 1956 Test can't be blamed on Sobers, Garfield Sobers was a nobody in 1956, he was a Nobody until that Pakistan series in 1958. I think it also is a bit on luck, he got one series with New Zealand when he was practically nobody (1956) and the next one only came when his peak was behind him (1969), the final series (1972) was a 0-0 draw even though all five games were played and other than the eternally underrated Bruce Taylor, no bowler had a good time remotely, I think Sobers saved a game their but still a bit underwhelming, but I won't say the 1956 New Zealand defeat had anything to do with Sobers failing the side.

 

[Johan]

Performing vs great teams is a funny one. It's nice to know a player can do it, but as aloose rule of thumb, you would rather have your players perform against the good teams rather than the great ones, and overvaluing performances against great teams is going to be rewarding players for helping their team win less.

This might have truth to it from a collective perspective but genuinely, not really applicable when rating the ability of a singular batsman, that moreso speaks to the ability of the overall unit, I bet Kane Williamson has won more games against subpar sides at home than Lara did in his career in general but that doesn't say much.

 

[subshakerz]

Prioritising winning more tests is a defeatist attitude? Interesting theory.

No by giving up against greater opposition.

 

[Coronis]

the 1969 test is fair, the 1956 Test can't be blamed on Sobers, Garfield Sobers was a nobody in 1956, he was a Nobody until that Pakistan series in 1958. I think it also is a bit on luck, he got one series with New Zealand when he was practically nobody (1956) and the next one only came when his peak was behind him (1969), the final series (1972) was a 0-0 draw even though all five games were played and other than the eternally underrated Bruce Taylor, no bowler had a good time remotely, I think Sobers saved a game their but still a bit underwhelming, but I won't say the 1956 New Zealand defeat had anything to do with Sobers failing the side.

You’d think Sobers would’ve scored heavily then.

 

[Johan]

You’d think Sobers would’ve scored heavily then.

the 1969 test is fair, the 1956 Test can't be blamed on Sobers, Garfield Sobers was a nobody in 1956, he was a Nobody until that Pakistan series in 1958. I think it also is a bit on luck, he got one series with New Zealand when he was practically nobody (1956) and the next one only came when his peak was behind him (1969), the final series (1972) was a 0-0 draw even though all five games were played and other than the eternally underrated Bruce Taylor, no bowler had a good time remotely, I think Sobers saved a game their but still a bit underwhelming, but I won't say the 1956 New Zealand defeat had anything to do with Sobers failing the side.

 

[Johan]

Anyway, Sobers is leagues above Sachin as a cricketer. The difference between the two as a cricketer is more than the difference between someone like Sachin and every batsman ever averaging over 45, maybe 40 tbh.

Hammond or Sachin as a Cricketer?