no i've based my opinions on having watched him play and seeing him score considerably less away from home.Sanz said:Unfortunately people who base their opinions after looking at averages @howstat.comwont understand why Aravinda is a great batsman.
Your subjective definition of 'good' or 'bad' is irrelevant to the objective benchmark set by statistical analysis.tooextracool said:
rubbish, the one who scores higher doesnt always have to be better, and we've seen that plenty of times. you have to score in different conditions against different types of bowlers. someone who has his stats inflated against the poor bowlers does not make him a better player than someone who scores prolifically against the best, simply because one scores more runs at a higher average.C_C said:
which is exactly my point. aravinda is often rated a better player than he actually was, particularly in ODI cricket.C_C said:
And who the hell said it was otherwise ?
He was an excellent ODI player IMO.
and its a very important criteria, especially when you separate the good players from the great.C_C said:
and almost all his runs came in the subcontinent. he averaged 28 in australia, 18 in england, 27 in SA and 21 in NZ. either way there are far too many people who think of him as a great ODI player when he was infact very ordinary.C_C said:
It is an important criteria but by your same logic, you should think that Tendulkar is way way better than Lara.
He wasnt ordinary- he was an excellent ODI player and coupled with his excellent strike rate he is in the top 20 ODI batsmen in history of this game - that is a pretty elite crew.
nope a great player generally has a good record in all the categories. as such lara averages 47 away from home,which is pretty good. tendulkar's record in pace bowler friendly conditions however is pathetic, and its where he loses out(and lets not get into this argument again).C_C said:
no you cant have such poor averages in countries around the world and still be an excellent ODI player. you have to score all over the world or almost all over the world. its glaringly obvious that he was significantly better in the subcontinent and unreliable outside nad it was visible when you watched him play.C_C said:
Which is why almost all the pacers rate him as the toughest they've bowled in their lifetimes,dont they ?
Look. You can average 12.00 all over the place and still be considered the best if you are better than the rest.
which of course proves that the runs hes scored came on bowler friendly wickets doesnt it? i couldnt care less what the bowlers thought of him, because its quite conceivable that after scoring bucket loads of runs against them on flat wickets they were convinced into thinking they had no chance against him.C_C said:
oh heres the person who tells me that i shouldnt go with the common opinion and find statistics that prove my point.C_C said:
looks like its already been done. you still have failed to provide me with a reason why he was amongst the best, because i dont see why he should be. the overall average or runs scored isnt the be all and end all and seldom do they ever mean anything.C_C said:
I am sorry but YOU dont define what match conditions were pacer friendly and what wernt.
Given that you think that Ambrose and McGrath are bigtime seamers of the ball, i dont expect anything else.
he is amongst the best because there are very few batsmen who are better than him ( and 20 constitute as very few). You can score 40 in your mid term and still be amongst the best because best means how you do relative to others!
and of course aravindas record is oh so brilliant against the top countries isnt it? considering how much his average is inflated against bangladesh and kenya. and yet he average less than 35.C_C said:
Hick was an absolute waste of space and i never said Aravinda's record was excellent against top teams - just that overall he is a better batsman than Fairbrother and his record against top teams is better.
howardj said:
