• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Top 50 Greatest test batters

Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
If it was just statsguru revisionism, I wouldn't have Lara that high would I?
Click to expand...
Lara is someone you have seen so no need for statsguru revisionism, the thing changes when you discuss cricketers where there is very little footage of and it seems like you have to rely on raw numbers which are often deceptive.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
Johan said:
Lara is someone you have seen so no need for statsguru revisionism, the thing changes when you discuss cricketers where there is very little footage of and it seems like you have to rely on raw numbers which are often deceptive.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen Lara play live btw. I was born in 2002.
Secondly for people with very little footages, yes records do matter more than peer rep for me and that's not wrong imo. There are a lot of biases in peer rep ratings. To remain consistent, seeing records with the required context is always better imo
 
sayon basak

sayon basak

International Coach
Johan said:
Lara is someone you have seen so no need for statsguru revisionism, the thing changes when you discuss cricketers where there is very little footage of and it seems like you have to rely on raw numbers which are often deceptive.
Click to expand...
Thala rates Abdul Qadir much higher than you do.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
I haven't seen Lara play live btw. I was born in 2002.
Secondly for people with very little footages, yes records do matter more than peer rep for me and that's not wrong imo. There are a lot of biases in peer rep ratings. To remain consistent, seeing records with the required context is always better imo
Click to expand...
Within context, Compton's average is 53 with 60+ at home and 46 in Aus and 49 in Windies, completely fine.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
Johan said:
Within context, Compton's average is 53 with 60+ at home and 46 in Aus and 49 in Windies, completely fine.
Click to expand...
You can't just fully ignore the rest of the series. The 1950-51 tour can't be a complete write off. Yes he had some knee issues, but that didn't affect him much in the FC games that tour. Only the test series got affected. He was overall the second highest averaging bat on the FC tour after Hutton.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
You can't just fully ignore the rest of the series. The 1950-51 tour can't be a complete write off. Yes he had some knee issues, but that didn't affect him much in the FC games that tour. Only the test series got affected. He was overall the second highest averaging bat on the FC tour after Hutton.
Click to expand...
He legit played without knees and averaged a solid 4, and yet the pressure hardly criticized him. I think there's enough context to give that one a pretty big write off.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
You can't just fully ignore the rest of the series. The 1950-51 tour can't be a complete write off. Yes he had some knee issues, but that didn't affect him much in the FC games that tour. Only the test series got affected. He was overall the second highest averaging bat on the FC tour after Hutton.
Click to expand...
That's a common thing, Hammond had his health issues in 1946-47, didn't affect his FC numbers. Johnston retired due to knee issues in 1953 England and averaged like 17 in FC that tour, north of 50 in Tests I think, completely different level of intensity in games as well as completely different level of difficulty, it's like saying Johnston wasn't affected by his knee problem or Hammond faked arthiritis because they bashed no name FC bowlers/batters a bit, so Yeah I'm completely writing off 1950 unless I see a stronger argument. Your legacy being judged on a series where you are in terrible shape and far from full output is absolutely stupid.
 
Thala_0710

Thala_0710

International Captain
capt_Luffy said:
He legit played without knees and averaged a solid 4, and yet the pressure hardly criticized him. I think there's enough context to give that one a pretty big write off.
Click to expand...
Idk I mean. Maybe the FC games were low intensity. Still, from what I've read, it can't be a full write off. I do agree it wouldn't have been this bad without the injury. So it's not like Kohli's 2014 tour. But it has some bearing on the overall standing.
 
Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
The only way you can really compare the Compton 1950-51 tour to anything in PlayerComparisons is if someone takes a hammer, bashes their knee in and goes and averages 10+ in Australia against current attacks on spicy pitches. If they do that, it's a point for them over him, otherwise, Nah.
 
capt_Luffy

capt_Luffy

Hall of Fame Member
Thala_0710 said:
Idk I mean. Maybe the FC games were low intensity. Still, from what I've read, it can't be a full write off. I do agree it wouldn't have been this bad without the injury. So it's not like Kohli's 2014 tour. But it has some bearing on the overall standing.
Click to expand...
Think in context his Aussie average could be rated 42-43. Pretty Great given he also played some absolutely stacked attacks there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top