4 & 5

[Burgey]

I'm glad you're content to rule Tendulkar out of the equation. Bit of common sense is good to see.

As for Smith, sure he spectrums it up whenever he bats and looks a bit odd, but that doesn't detract from his performances. Plainly and easily the best since Bradman.

 

[sunilz]

I'm glad you're content to rule Tendulkar out of the equation. Bit of common sense is good to see.

As for Smith, sure he spectrums it up whenever he bats and looks a bit odd, but that doesn't detract from his performances. Plainly and easily the best since Bradman.

He is the best since Bradman when match is not being played in Asia and SA.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Please see meaningless stats thread

Probably - isn’t it really bizarre though? I’d understand some discrepancy but it’s huge. And it’s not just his average it’s his strike rate too.

 

[ankitj]

Probably - isn’t it really bizarre though? I’d understand some discrepancy but it’s huge. And it’s not just his average it’s his strike rate too.

There may be another confounding factor. Like he played #1 in a particular phase of his career.

 

[subshakerz]

If Steve Smith carries his peak over 100 tests and the next 3-4 years I will happily put him up there as the best since Bradman. But right now its premature, especially since he already shows signs of waning.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He is the best since Bradman when match is not being played in Asia and SA.

Averages more in India than Sachin does

 

[sunilz]

Averages more in India than Sachin does

We will see what happens to that average, when he tours India once more .

Or maybe you want Steve Smith to be declared 2nd best batsman with grand total of 13 tests in Asia. FTR Tendulkar has 20 tests in AUS, 17 in ENG , 15 in SA .

 

[honestbharani]

The point is not that Lara was technically deficient, it is that Tendulkar was more technically sound. Small differences between ATG bats.

That is not what you said though. Like I said, your posts were full of lazy and false stereotypes and yes, I find that triggering in cricket arguments.

 

[stephen]

If Steve Smith carries his peak over 100 tests and the next 3-4 years I will happily put him up there as the best since Bradman. But right now its premature, especially since he already shows signs of waning.

Signs of waning = 1 century and 2 half centuries in his last two tests.

 

[stephen]

To be fair, if Smith averages 40 for the next 55 dismissals (so probably 60 odd innings or around 40 tests) and then retired, he'll have 10k runs at an average of 55.

If he did that I'd probably consider him slightly above Ponting than the second best ever. But that's a lot of caveats.

 

[subshakerz]

That is not what you said though. Like I said, your posts were full of lazy and false stereotypes and yes, I find that triggering in cricket arguments.

Highlighting weaknesses with relevant examples in comparing players is fair game.

 

[honestbharani]

Highlighting weaknesses with relevant examples in comparing players is fair game.

And we are back to lazy false stereotypes.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I find using "technique" in these sort of comparisons is almost always bull****. There's nothing wrong with any if these guys' techniques. Just because Sachin looked more compact, or Lara had a big backlit, or Smith moves around with a closed face, doesn't mean ****. They scored the runs they scored how they did it.

 

[Red]

I find using "technique" in these sort of comparisons is almost always bull****. There's nothing wrong with any if these guys' techniques. Just because Sachin looked more compact, or Lara had a big backlit, or Smith moves around with a closed face, doesn't mean ****. They scored the runs they scored how they did it.

I dont really think technique. It's more who I think is likely to achieve in an atg scenario. For me, that's Sachin. Just think his game was a bit better against all attacks in all conditions. Both pace and spin.

But if others prefer Lara or Smith I wouldn't argue. I think Sachin (and Smith) are more likely to put your team into strong positions to win tests over a series, whereas Lara is more likely to win you one or two almost singlehanded with a monster knock, but perhaps fail a few times too. Someone might discredit this with stats, but it's just my observations over watching them all.

 

[Burgey]

We will see what happens to that average, when he tours India once more .

Gonna be hilarious to see your reaction if he bats like he did over there last time and his average goes up.

 

[_00_deathscar]

To be fair, if Smith averages 40 for the next 55 dismissals (so probably 60 odd innings or around 40 tests) and then retired, he'll have 10k runs at an average of 55.

If he did that I'd probably consider him slightly above Ponting than the second best ever. But that's a lot of caveats.

Which isn't out of the question to be honest - especially as (even better) similar players have had similar runs of form, and no one's going to drop him for averaging ~40, especially not from this Aussie lineup.

 

[Burgey]

especially as (even better) similar players

lol like who?

This just makes the entire discussion circuitous.

 

[subshakerz]

I find using "technique" in these sort of comparisons is almost always bull****. There's nothing wrong with any if these guys' techniques. Just because Sachin looked more compact, or Lara had a big backlit, or Smith moves around with a closed face, doesn't mean ****. They scored the runs they scored how they did it.

No batsman is completely flawless though. But those flaws don't matter much in the grand scheme as ATGs still manage mountains of runs with their strengths. But in such comparisons it is worth bringing out any slight weakness if it means it cost them their wicket in a situation where the other may have survived or thrived.

Otherwise let's just disregard your own observations having watched them played, all the comments from ex-cricketers who played against them, complimenting how adaptive Tendulkar was or how wonderful the way Lara played spin. Let's just assume they were all equally flawless in the way they played and just look only at raw stats to decide everything.

 

[subshakerz]

I dont really think technique. It's more who I think is likely to achieve in an atg scenario. For me, that's Sachin. Just think his game was a bit better against all attacks in all conditions. Both pace and spin.

But if others prefer Lara or Smith I wouldn't argue. I think Sachin (and Smith) are more likely to put your team into strong positions to win tests over a series, whereas Lara is more likely to win you one or two almost singlehanded with a monster knock, but perhaps fail a few times too. Someone might discredit this with stats, but it's just my observations over watching them all.

I agree with you, but why is that the case? Doesn't it have something to do with his technique?

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

48.60 at 91 SR (Sachin’s opening stats in the 90s - ie when he actually got good at this ODI stuff). Pretty big difference.

Some weird **** with Sachin too. In the 90s his average batting #1 was 31, striking at 79. It’s not even a low number of innings - 32. Was he getting out first ball every time he went in as #1? What’s weird is the strike rate is much much much lower than his average overall/90s average etc. Weird

At #2 it’s a staggering 54 at 94 SR from 107 innings

48.60 at 91 SR (Sachin’s opening stats in the 90s - ie when he actually got good at this ODI stuff). Pretty big difference.

Some weird **** with Sachin too. In the 90s his average batting #1 was 31, striking at 79. It’s not even a low number of innings - 32. Was he getting out first ball every time he went in as #1? What’s weird is the strike rate is much much much lower than his average overall/90s average etc. Weird

At #2 it’s a staggering 54 at 94 SR from 107 innings

Lara's best was number 3, 46 at 86.. Had he played 200 innings there instead of 100+, he would have been considered as a greater batsman.