Best Batsman

[honestbharani]

People without an understanding of fundamental statistical concept do make a hash of statistical comparisons and criterions. However, statistics is THE benchmark when used properly. Period.
Rest is nothing more than overglorified fanfare and media slant.

No cricket match between no two teams has EVER been played in EXACTLY the same circumstances, situations, conditions, pitches etc... There is one reason why going by stats alone is a big big mistake.

 

[honestbharani]

They're your sentiments mate, and I respect that. I have a different take on the Murali issue. If anything, I never called him a cheat and I always hold him in high-regard despite a few issues. We're all going to have our favourites. The records don't even matter, they'll all be broken eventually, it's this feeling that is most important (at least I think so).

Actually, what I meant to say was that I have the same amount of respect for both these guys, because both have faced BIG BIG problems and have yet come out and put it all behind them and bowled like champions. That is why I said the word "same" over there.

 

[honestbharani]

so, let me just go by stats then...

Punter averages a meagre amount IN India, over 8 tests spread over a time frame of 8 years. Soz for an all time great.

 

[Ikki]

I still dont think you quite get it Kaz?
As has been mentioned numerous times, stats of a tour, or a year, or a short period of time, can easily be abused and has been abused by just about every person in this forum. You mention stats being used to rebutt against me. Have a look. Just about every argument used against me has been guilty of exactly what you are saying. SELECTIVE stats.

I do NOT use selective stats.

How can CAREER statistics be abused?
They are FACTS that are a full sample?
They cannot be abused.

Ok, let's say you're judging a bowler by statistics that show his whole career, yet you have never seen this person bowl. Now if someone who has gives you intricacies based on observing that go beyond your stats, better yet statistics cannot quantify, how do you battle such a hypothesis. I'm not talking specifics here, but general. I quoted you and rebutted that assumption you made as for me, specifically, I think it's a naive notion.

In short, all stats can be abused. You just need the right person...if you catch my drift.

 

[honestbharani]

plus, how will the state of pitch EVER be quantified by stats? You will obviously then be going by the word of mouth and basing it on how the others played on that particular track but if you go by that route.... Lara's 400 was on a pretty good bowling wicket, seeing as only one other person from his team got a 100.

 

[Ikki]

plus, how will the state of pitch EVER be quantified by stats? You will obviously then be going by the word of mouth and basing it on how the others played on that particular track but if you go by that route.... Lara's 400 was on a pretty good bowling wicket, seeing as only one other person from his team got a 100.

Yes, HB, there are certain variables at play. I didn't go through them because I'd rather not get into contesting THEM as well (as is the often situation of digression in these threads, which we've already done now ). With more technology there may even be some more variables. Who knows? How do you evaluate them?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Without arguing about specific names in that list above, we need to understand what we are saying.

- of the 391 batsmen who have played for Australia over a century and a quarter, the possible ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- of 185of pakistan, over half a century, the undisputed ALL TIME number 1 is playing today
- of 252 for India, over three quarters of a century, all time undisputed ALL TIME number 1 and number 3 are playing today
- Of 298 that played for SAfrica, across well over a century, ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- Of the 263 that have played for Windies over three quarters of a century, one of the ALL TIME top three is playing today.

We need to ask ourselves what a great blessing that is for us....or....what a great coincidence

Consider the fact that we currently live in the most batting-dominated period in test cricket for a long time, though. If you were to look at bowlers, outside of Australia and Sri Lanka I don't think any other nation has their best ever playing, or even particularly close. Bond could be second for New Zealand, and perhaps Pollock could be fairly high for South Africa. Kumble for India is one of their best as well. That's all.

 

[Beleg]

^


I think you took SJS's post a bit too seriously.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

^


I think you took SJS's post a bit too seriously.

Possibly. I got the impression he was saying that people were overrating current batsmen compared to past batsmen in a serious way, though.

 

[C_C]

Therein, statistics are a tool, and are not decisive, nor will the other route be. I think you're kidding yourself if you think one way is BETTER than the other. Yes, one is built on more solid ground, but can be abused just as bad as heresay.

Contradictory statements - if one is built on more solid ground, then it IS a better guage than the other.
Stats can be abused and go unnoticed by the unknowing......but statistical double-take is pretty easy to expose if you know what you are talking about.

 

[C_C]

No cricket match between no two teams has EVER been played in EXACTLY the same circumstances, situations, conditions, pitches etc... There is one reason why going by stats alone is a big big mistake.

Correct- the issue here isnt whether statistics is the flawless tool to measure a player but rather, if its a better tool than heseray, media hype(or lack of it) and impressions.
My answer is, it unequivocally is.

 

[Sanz]

Without arguing about specific names in that list above, we need to understand what we are saying.

- of the 391 batsmen who have played for Australia over a century and a quarter, the possible ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- of 185of pakistan, over half a century, the undisputed ALL TIME number 1 is playing today
- of 252 for India, over three quarters of a century, all time undisputed ALL TIME number 1 and number 3 are playing today
- Of 298 that played for SAfrica, across well over a century, ALL TIME number 2 is playing today
- Of the 263 that have played for Windies over three quarters of a century, one of the ALL TIME top three is playing today.

We need to ask ourselves what a great blessing that is for us....or....what a great coincidence

And you should also understand that :-

1. And among all bowlers that have played for Australia, the possible top 2 are playing today-

2. Among all SA Bowlers, the possible No.1 played in this era and no. 2 is playing today.

3. Among All Pakistani bowlers - the possible No.2 (or no. 1) No. 3, No. 4 playe din this era and no. 5 is playing today

4. Among all Indian bowlers - the possible No. 1 is playing today.

5. Among all English attacks, the possible no. 2/3 attack is playing today

 

[steds]

2. Among all SA Bowlers, the possible No.1 played in this era and no. 2 is playing today.

Nicky Boje is not #2.

 

[PY]

5. Among all English attacks, the possible no. 2/3 attack is playing today

And you'll see averages plummet if they stay together.

 

[Sanz]

Nicky Boje is not #2.

Alan Donald played in this era, Shaun Pollock is playing today.

 

[steds]

Alan Donald played in this era, Shaun Pollock is playing today.

Ohhh. I'd misread and thought you were discounting Donald because he isn't still playing.

 

[Sanz]

And you'll see averages plummet if they stay together.

It may, but Jones+Harmison+Flintoff+Hoggard has got to be one of the best English attacks of all time. At least it is the best English attack of last 20 years.

 

[steds]

It may, but Jones+Harmison+Flintoff+Hoggard has got to be one of the best English attacks of all time. At least it is the best English attack of last 20 years.

I'm not so sure...

 

[opc10]

Ok, let's say you're judging a bowler by statistics that show his whole career, yet you have never seen this person bowl. Now if someone who has gives you intricacies based on observing that go beyond your stats, better yet statistics cannot quantify, how do you battle such a hypothesis. I'm not talking specifics here, but general. I quoted you and rebutted that assumption you made as for me, specifically, I think it's a naive notion.

In short, all stats can be abused. You just need the right person...if you catch my drift.

Kaz, i agree to a certain extant that even career stats can be abused.
But i'm specifically talking about MY take(and also C_C's). We are basically saying that stats over a long period, that have a diverse sample are better than subjective interpretations.

I will only use long term career stats on a player who has played a lot of tests, in a variety of conditions and environments. IE: Ponting, Lara, Sachin, etc. And you could include bowlers in that. IE: Pollock, McGrath, Lillie, Marshall, Donald, etc.etc.

Sure, you may get someone who has a dis-proportionate number of tests against say Bangladesh, but generally nowadays, players play in all countries, in all conditions.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm not so sure...

<Richard>

That England team was one of the greatest ever, but their luck quotient stood at 7.384%, the lowest ever recorded of any statistics ever made up.

The biggest problem was bringing Hick on to bowl fourth change when the batsmen were set, seventeen minutes before a drinks break when there was a 'D' in the day of the week. If Stewart had been wicket-keeper then that would have allowed them the luxury of playing Craig White, and he would surely have spearheaded the attack far better than Angus Fraser could ever have hoped to. This would have allowed Ramprakash - surely the greatest and unluckiest player to play for South Afr I mean England, the freedom to play up to his first chance average which is the highest of all time if you exclude all tests when he bats at three or four or five or against anyone good or where he got out early drone zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



Any fool knows that.

</Richard>