Sachin. Sobers. Smith.

[Bolo.]

How about a middle ground? The one who bashes elite bowling but falls short against underwhelming bowling is a more skilful Batsman in comparison to the one who bashes underwhelming bowling but falls short to elite bowling, but the latter had a better career overall because he led to more wins overall even if they were against inferior sides.

Ya, I'm mostly happy with that. There is so much variance across small sample sizes that I'm not sure it's completely true, but it's arguing hypotheticals.

Yeah, but Australia in his career was extremely flat and he was a genuinely good player of HTD pace bowling, it was on softer greener wickets and turning wickets where he genuinely looked hopeless and like a tailender.

If that is true as naturally you'd know more about South African Cricket than me, that's a mental flaw and explains why he underachieved against not only them but every side bar Australia and West Indies.

Yup, it's a mental flaw. Doesn't matter to me if a player had a mental/technical/whatever shortcoming in assessing how they performed.

 

[subshakerz]

We are discussing completed careers. There is no beforehand.

Would you rather a player was good against a team they lost to anyway, or against a team when their performances carried them to a win.

Good against higher quality opposition of course regardless of result

 

[subshakerz]

latter had a better career overall because he led to more wins overall even if they were against inferior sides.

We shouldn't judge a bat based on results in the first place unless we are talking specific match situations.

 

[Bolo.]

Good against higher quality opposition of course regardless of result

I don't think I've seen anyone say they prefer match losing performances to match winning ones. Plenty of 'team game, can't really attribute results to a single player', but your perspective stands alone.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think I've seen anyone say they prefer match losing performances to match winning ones. Plenty of 'team game, can't really attribute results to a single player', but your perspective stands alone.

If a batsmen is scoring against McWarne, is he engaged in the process of trying to lose the game or win the game?

Unlike you want to point to specific circumstances, bats don't really win or lose games the way bowlers do. They can just contribute to the result but more dependent on team strength.

If we just go by match result we would rate Ponting ahead of Lara.

 

[Johan]

Sobers away numbers with World XI tours of England/Australia 1970/71 updates

In Australia: 1,268 runs @ 47 with 5 hundreds in 29 innings.
In England: 2,408 runs @ 58 with 7 hundreds in 45 innings.
Collective: 3,676 runs @ 54 with 12 hundreds in 74 innings.

Overall: 4,886 runs @ 53 with 15 hundreds in 102 innings

 

[Bolo.]

If a batsmen is scoring against McWarne, is he engaged in the process of trying to lose the game or win the game?

Unlike you want to point to specific circumstances, bats don't really win or lose games the way bowlers do. They can just contribute to the result but more dependent on team strength.

If we just go by match result we would rate Ponting ahead of Lara.

Teams get match results. Players of any discipline contribute positively or negatively to results. The closer teams are in strength, the more likely a player's good or bad contributions are going to be to swinging results.

A mismatch (like a lot of Ponting and Lara games), if often going the same way despite their performances. It's a bad example.

Kapil is a good example of why this is the case. Excellent vs WI. 1 win in 19 games besides the WSC era. If he'd been that good vs other opposition and poor against WI, India would have won a ton more and been the number 2 team of the era. You prefer a player with this kind of record that loses more?

 

[subshakerz]

Teams get match results. Players of any discipline contribute positively or negatively to results. The closer teams are in strength, the more likely a player's good or bad contributions are going to be to swinging results.

A mismatch (like a lot of Ponting and Lara games), if often going the same way despite their performances. It's a bad example.

Kapil is a good example of why this is the case. Excellent vs WI. 1 win in 19 games besides the WSC era. If he'd been that good vs other opposition and poor against WI, India would have won a ton more and been the number 2 team of the era. You prefer a player with this kind of record that loses more?

First Kapil is a bowler who more directly contributed towards winning games. We are talking bats.

Second, your mindset basically means no average team should even bother to take the field against great teams and save their best for other average opposition, because you treat a defeat against great teams as a foregone conclusion. All it takes is 1-2 other performers to put their hands up to pull off an upset.

Third, if a bat never does well against strong opposition and only against medium opposition, he automatically has a lower ceiling in his ability than a player who saves his best for the best. The former may be consistent but he will be seen as limited soft performer whereas the latter may be inconsistent but definitely more dangerous and likely better rated.

 

[Bolo.]

First Kapil is a bowler who more directly contributed towards winning games. We are talking bats.

Second, your mindset basically means no average team should even bother to take the field against great teams and save their best for other average opposition, because you treat a defeat against great teams as a foregone conclusion. All it takes is 1-2 other performers to put their hands up to pull off an upset.

Third, if a bat never does well against strong opposition and only against medium opposition, he automatically has a lower ceiling in his ability than a player who saves his best for the best. The former may be consistent but he will be seen as limited soft performer whereas the latter may be inconsistent but definitely more dangerous and likely better rated.

''Players of any discipline contribute positively or negatively to results.''

There is no need to discuss them separately, even if bowlers contribute more to individual match results.

You think analysing what happened in matches completed decades ago impacts results? The 1980s time travelling internet users will be definitely be changing their game based on what we are posting.

Ive already made that point about ceiling. A player with a higher ceiling is not necessarily a better one. See Mitch Johnson.

I don't think a player who performs at the right times for win record is necessarily a better one either, but I would rather have someone in my team with a record of doing it. You can't seriously suggest that you would.

 

[subshakerz]

''Players of any discipline contribute positively or negatively to results.''

There is no need to discuss them separately, even if bowlers contribute more to individual match results.

Ive already made that point about ceiling. A player with a higher ceiling is not necessarily a better one. See Mitch Johnson.

I don't think a player who performs at the right times for win record is necessarily a better one either, but I would rather have someone in my team with a record of doing it. You can't seriously suggest that you would.

Yes there is because matching match results to bats who arent major contributors like bowlers doesn't make sense.

Mitch Johnson would be rated ahead of a bowler with comparable overall stats who doesn't have his topline spells of destruction.

And your last comment at least clarifies you aren't assessing them as players based on this criteia. If he performs against top opposition he plays well when the team needs it. That's all we should care about when assessing.

 

[MasterBlaster24]

Didn’t saw Sobers so hard to say but between Sachin and Smith, Smith was a tougher batter to get out and had a greater peak than Sachin in Tests. So, Smith is my choice.

Sobers batted down at 5-6 and cashed on weaker opponents too as visible by his performance against opponents. I will pick Smith as the winner here.

But Sobers didn't fail when he batted up the order. Therefore, I think it's a little harsh to criticise him for the batting position.

 

[Johan]

Sobers averages 63 from 3-5

 

[capt_Luffy]

But Sobers didn't fail when he batted up the order. Therefore, I think it's a little harsh to criticise him for the batting position.

It's fair to not question his capability up the order, but it's also fair to mark him down a little for batting lower, as doing so is simply easier, especially behind a strong unit.

 

[Coronis]

Sobers @ 2-4

35 matches 49 innings 2834 @ 61.60 10 tons 6 fifties (3 no)

Sobers @ 5-7

68 matches 107 innings 5119 @ 56.87 16 tons 24 fifties (17 no)

 

[Bolo.]

Yes there is because matching match results to bats who arent major contributors like bowlers doesn't make sense.

Mitch Johnson would be rated ahead of a bowler with comparable overall stats who doesn't have his topline spells of destruction.

And your last comment at least clarifies you aren't assessing them as players based on this criteia. If he performs against top opposition he plays well when the team needs it. That's all we should care about when assessing.

Performing against top opposition does not equate to performing when your team needs you. Your team needs you when you are chasing a few hundred to win, not a million, and this is true regardless of opposition.

I rate players on:

1 Value added to their team
2 Value that would have been added if they played under different circumstances.

Under 1, a player like Kapil is adding value, but this value is not helping at all in terms of winning. He has performed in the wrong games. I don't particularly hold that against him, cos it's a team game, and 2, but rewarding a player for performances at the wrong times and losing more is just wrong.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't particularly hold that against him, cos it's a team game, and 2, but rewarding a player for performances at the wrong times and losing more is just wrong.

You are completely contradicting yourself here because in effect you do hold it against him.

And as usual, you are confusing yourself with your own criteria by conflating a) retroactively preferring cricketer of same standing in a team who would have led to more won games against normal opposition with b) cricketers who are better against stronger teams being qualitatively worse.

 

[Bolo.]

You are completely contradicting yourself here because in effect you do hold it against him.

And as usual, you are confusing yourself with your own criteria by conflating a) retroactively preferring cricketer of same standing in a team who would have led to more won games against normal opposition with b) cricketers who are better against stronger teams being qualitatively worse.

[QUOTE="subshakerz, post: 5465166, member: 13161] If he performs against top opposition he plays well when the team needs it. That's all we should care about when assessing.
[/QUOTE]
Explain what you meant by this. I'm not sure you have a point at all in your last post with this in mind.

 

[subshakerz]

Explain what you meant by this. I'm not sure you have a point at all in your last post with this in mind.

I meant that if a bat scores when the pressure is on, that's what I will rate him on regardless of if the team loses or wins. And pressure is more against stronger teams.

He will lose points for scoring less against average teams but not as many for me if he simply is incapable of delivering against top opposition.

Now can you address my recent post?

 

[akilana]

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

you're quick to point out that others had easy home conditions. Didn't sachin also have easy home conditions?

 

[akilana]

Sachin also barely played against 90s ATGs during his prime.

he played but he came second against most of them.