• 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.

Best Batsman

Which batsman would you choose and why?

  • Lara

    Votes: 22 21.2%
  • Tendulkar

    Votes: 21 20.2%
  • Ponting

    Votes: 30 28.8%
  • Dravid

    Votes: 14 13.5%
  • Kallis

    Votes: 3 2.9%
  • Inzamam ul Haq

    Votes: 7 6.7%
  • Hayden

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 4.8%

  • Total voters
    104

oz_fan

International Regular
Having said that Ponting has been the best batter from 2000 onwards and even though he hasn't faced the bowling attacks of the 90's he has been consistent and as an Aussie I expect him to make a hundred every time he goes out to bat as he has tremendous ability and by the end of his career will be in the top group of batsmen of all time.
To score centuries in both innings three times is a remarkable feat and to do it in one summer is even better.
I expect it to be just one of the many records Ponting will pick up on his way to cricketing greatness.
 

opc10

Cricket Spectator
SJS said:
People also get entangled in statistics. No Viv's greatness does not lie in his flair though he had oodles of it. BTW, did you see him bat?

We dont know but are you aware of the quality of bowlers around the world when Viv was playing? Do you think Ponting gets to face anyone like Lillee, Imran, Hadlee ?

The quality of bowling, particularly pace bowling, around the world is the lowest one has seen in a very very long time. The exception is in the Aussie attack who also have one of the all time great spinners playing for them (and most would call that an understatement of great magnitude). The difference between Aussie bowling of the last decade and more and the rest of the world is too glaring.

Yes Windies had a better fast attack then any other team in the world and that was NOT BECAUSE other countries did not have quality fast bowlers but because they did not have Windies QUANTITY and seemingly inexhaustible supply !


No they dont but without clear perspective of the context they can be (mis)used to draw completely misleading conclusions

So the greatest innings ever played in test cricket are :
1. Lara - 400*
2. Hayden - 380
3. Lara - 375
4. Sobers - 365
5. Hutton 364.....blah blah blah


The past few threads have highlighted and proved my point exactly as i knew they would.
As I said, we can all take snippets of a career and disect it (IE: Pontings "Failure" in ONE series). I Bet i could dig up a series or 20 of Lara's and make an outlandish statement that proves he's a hack.

Here's a sample of taking a snippet for your own gain
...Ponting has only been dismissed once by the "one day to be Best Bowler? in history" (Murili of course). So wow! He must be good...Funny thing is, someone could twist that around and make the argument look like ponting isn't very good...Selective Statistics!

And as for the above absurdity of the greatest innings based on score alone...another example of ONE snippet to suit...More Selective Statistics!
I assume that was a joke.
If you read my posts i mention Stats do not lie over a PERIOD of time. They can lie for one innings, one series, one year, or even a few years. They do not lie over a Career...


Another post said did i see Viv play. I did...and he was a cool dude... So by SEEING someone who looks cool, doesn't wear a helmut, has an arrogant swagger, that means it makes him a better batsman?
FYI...Viv's Avereage against Australia(Lillie, Thomo)....44...
The last half of his career Viv played against the MIGHT of "...Lawson, Alderman, Tuffnell, McDermott, Matthews, Whitney, Hughes, Pringle..." He didnt even play against Pakistan in his last 30 Tests!
More selective stats

As for Ponting early in his career not performing against 'quality bowling' (BTW...Someone mentioned Hogg!!!! I'll ignore any future posts from them)
You'll note that Steve Waugh failed badly early in his career. So I assume we'll all downplay his achievements?...
Viv averaged 30 after 12 Tests.....Even more Selective Statistics!

Your Logic would dictate that Alan Border runs rings around anyone now...He faced them all...

Oh...I'm about to mount a case for the Don being overated (Have you seen the footage. Those blokes are bowling half trackers that dont get over **** high! I could have averaged 100 playing then).
I assume i'd get full support???

The posts just re-iterate my point. Opposition, snippets of careers, Selective Statistics,
looks, technique are ALL subjective, and no-one is right or wrong.
If you delve deep enough you can always find something to 'Prove' your point.

STATS over a period of time are NOT selective...People are.


BTW...Is Andre Nel the biggest Tosser ever to play the game?
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
KaZoH0lic said:
As for the appreciation thing - I feel thankful everytime I see Warne bowl. I feel a swelling in my throat when I think he'll retire. He's just a bloody legend, I know the day he retires I'll be fighting the tears.
To be honest, I feel the same way about Murali as well. What the guy has done against so much odds is nothing short of mind boggling. You can think he is a chucker, a cheat or whatever, but if you cannot appreciate the man's dedication, single mindedness and resolve, you are not even a person.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
opc10 said:
The past few threads have highlighted and proved my point exactly as i knew they would.
As I said, we can all take snippets of a career and disect it (IE: Pontings "Failure" in ONE series). I Bet i could dig up a series or 20 of Lara's and make an outlandish statement that proves he's a hack.

Here's a sample of taking a snippet for your own gain
...Ponting has only been dismissed once by the "one day to be Best Bowler? in history" (Murili of course). So wow! He must be good...Funny thing is, someone could twist that around and make the argument look like ponting isn't very good...Selective Statistics!

And as for the above absurdity of the greatest innings based on score alone...another example of ONE snippet to suit...More Selective Statistics!
I assume that was a joke.
If you read my posts i mention Stats do not lie over a PERIOD of time. They can lie for one innings, one series, one year, or even a few years. They do not lie over a Career...


Another post said did i see Viv play. I did...and he was a cool dude... So by SEEING someone who looks cool, doesn't wear a helmut, has an arrogant swagger, that means it makes him a better batsman?
FYI...Viv's Avereage against Australia(Lillie, Thomo)....44...
The last half of his career Viv played against the MIGHT of "...Lawson, Alderman, Tuffnell, McDermott, Matthews, Whitney, Hughes, Pringle..." He didnt even play against Pakistan in his last 30 Tests!
More selective stats

As for Ponting early in his career not performing against 'quality bowling' (BTW...Someone mentioned Hogg!!!! I'll ignore any future posts from them)
You'll note that Steve Waugh failed badly early in his career. So I assume we'll all downplay his achievements?...
Viv averaged 30 after 12 Tests.....Even more Selective Statistics!

Your Logic would dictate that Alan Border runs rings around anyone now...He faced them all...

Oh...I'm about to mount a case for the Don being overated (Have you seen the footage. Those blokes are bowling half trackers that dont get over **** high! I could have averaged 100 playing then).
I assume i'd get full support???

The posts just re-iterate my point. Opposition, snippets of careers, Selective Statistics,
looks, technique are ALL subjective, and no-one is right or wrong.
If you delve deep enough you can always find something to 'Prove' your point.

STATS over a period of time are NOT selective...People are.


BTW...Is Andre Nel the biggest Tosser ever to play the game?
yeah, but what did he average against them? There were people who averaged more than Border did against those excellent attacks that they faced. You seem to think you are the only one who knows about cricket and the rest here are idiots. It is one thing to challenge a point, but it is another to assume the rest of us don't know as much as you. Actually, there are quite a few here at CW who do that, to be honest.
 

opc10

Cricket Spectator
honestbharani said:
yeah, but what did he average against them? There were people who averaged more than Border did against those excellent attacks that they faced. You seem to think you are the only one who knows about cricket and the rest here are idiots. It is one thing to challenge a point, but it is another to assume the rest of us don't know as much as you. Actually, there are quite a few here at CW who do that, to be honest.
I find it funny how you are debating my point about Border. I PUT it in there to show how easy it is to put a subjective argument in, and how ridiculous it is...and you took the bait!!! Hilarious!

And I did not indicate in any way that i'm the only one who knows about cricket.
In fact, the reason I rate Statistics that have a large enough sample, as high as i do, is exactly the opposite. I am not so full of myself that I can judge, in a subjective way, on who is a better batsman.
So how does relying on Statistics suggest that I know more about cricket than anyone else?
Your logic defies logic...
Your wrong about the first point (Im the only one who knows about cricket).
As for the next point. Well, maybe not ALL of you......
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
To be honest, I feel the same way about Murali as well. What the guy has done against so much odds is nothing short of mind boggling. You can think he is a chucker, a cheat or whatever, but if you cannot appreciate the man's dedication, single mindedness and resolve, you are not even a person.
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).
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
opc10 said:
I find it funny how you are debating my point about Border. I PUT it in there to show how easy it is to put a subjective argument in, and how ridiculous it is...and you took the bait!!! Hilarious!

And I did not indicate in any way that i'm the only one who knows about cricket.
In fact, the reason I rate Statistics that have a large enough sample, as high as i do, is exactly the opposite. I am not so full of myself that I can judge, in a subjective way, on who is a better batsman.
So how does relying on Statistics suggest that I know more about cricket than anyone else?
Your logic defies logic...
Your wrong about the first point (Im the only one who knows about cricket).
As for the next point. Well, maybe not ALL of you......
Statistics that we hold will not give you a whole image in terms of performance or game. The few variables we revise after games still don't give a whole indication. They give us a clue, but that's it. It's also naive to assume people are not subjective in their search for statistics. They claim it's objective reasoning. What a crock...
 

C_C

International Captain
KaZoH0lic said:
Statistics that we hold will not give you a whole image in terms of performance or game. The few variables we revise after games still don't give a whole indication. They give us a clue, but that's it. It's also naive to assume people are not subjective in their search for statistics. They claim it's objective reasoning. What a crock...
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.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
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.
I disagree, there are variables we can quantify and some we cannot. This is flawed if you're relying on statistics to paint yourself a hypothesis. Now, even IF we could quantify everything, there is still the matter of bias on which statistic weighs more value. As I said, to think statistics makes you objective and astute, you're fooling yourself.
 

C_C

International Captain
KaZoH0lic said:
I disagree, there are variables we can quantify and some we cannot. This is flawed if you're relying on statistics to paint yourself a hypothesis. Now, even IF we could quantify everything, there is still the matter of bias on which statistic weighs more value. As I said, to think statistics makes you objective and astute, you're fooling yourself.
Statistics makes you FAR more consistent than non-statistical sources.
As such, OPINIONS are irrelevant. Whether the batsman gets a boundary through a thick edge or a silken drive, its a boundary. Period.
One cannot quantify everything but in cricket, statistics does quantify the most important aspects of performance - raw wickets/runs/centuries/five-fers etc. That has to be tempered with situations ( such as any pacer bowling well in the subcontinent getting higher marks than a pacer bowling well in England or OZ, etc.) but statistics make a consistant argument when used properly, while the other side of the coin is anything but consistent - riddled with personal opinions and nationalistic bias.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
Statistics makes you FAR more consistent than non-statistical sources.
As such, OPINIONS are irrelevant. Whether the batsman gets a boundary through a thick edge or a silken drive, its a boundary. Period.
One cannot quantify everything but in cricket, statistics does quantify the most important aspects of performance - raw wickets/runs/centuries/five-fers etc. That has to be tempered with situations ( such as any pacer bowling well in the subcontinent getting higher marks than a pacer bowling well in England or OZ, etc.) but statistics make a consistant argument when used properly, while the other side of the coin is anything but consistent - riddled with personal opinions and nationalistic bias.
You're arguing this at one very rigid side and rebutting to the opposing rigid side. I'm not saying statistics are useless, far from that. I'm saying to give it that much prime is dangerous and can be misleading. Statistics are good for seeing who got more wickets. You can't quantify which player is better in a comparison. There are too many variables and as aforesaid, some are inquantifiable. Even at attempt, it would be a subjective process in one person putting emphasis on one variable and another person on another such variable. Each to prove themselves right. Defeating the purpose in attempting to be 'objective'.
 

C_C

International Captain
You can't quantify which player is better in a comparison
There is no absolute quantification - be it statistical or impressional.
A statistical quantification is simply a better quantification when used properly - because it is consistent.
The consistency of a system is FAR more important than how erroneous it is.
A system with known but consistent flaws that spits out 2+2 =5 everytime is a FAR better and prefferable system than a system with inconsistency or no real verifiable consistency in results. Simply because a consistent system can be applied for comparison accurately while an inconsistent system cannot be.

There is no empricial objective quantification to who is the better cricketer ( unless you are comparing the Don with Keith Arthurton) but a statistical quantification based on the same criterias and applied properly is a more objective quantification than simple opinions.
a better system doesnt have to be 100% infallible.
Better simply means that- better.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Uh, did you see the point I was rebutting against?

opc10 said:
And I did not indicate in any way that i'm the only one who knows about cricket.
In fact, the reason I rate Statistics that have a large enough sample, as high as i do, is exactly the opposite. I am not so full of myself that I can judge, in a subjective way, on who is a better batsman.
So how does relying on Statistics suggest that I know more about cricket than anyone else?
Your logic defies logic...
Your wrong about the first point (Im the only one who knows about cricket).
As for the next point. Well, maybe not ALL of you......
See how misleading it can be? Get it? Can you concede that point, or any point for that matter?
 

C_C

International Captain
KaZoH0lic said:
Uh, did you see the point I was rebutting against?



See how misleading it can be? Get it? Can you concede that point, or any point for that matter?

The point you were thrusting at largely was how statistical comparison is 'no more valid' than your impressional one.
I am disputing that. Statistical comparisons, when done properly ( read: someone who actually understands basic statistics) is a far more consistent comparative scale than impressional opinionated ones.
 

opc10

Cricket Spectator
C_C said:
The point you were thrusting at largely was how statistical comparison is 'no more valid' than your impressional one.
I am disputing that. Statistical comparisons, when done properly ( read: someone who actually understands basic statistics) is a far more consistent comparative scale than impressional opinionated ones.
Thank you C_C...Finally someone who uses real logic...
 

oz_fan

International Regular
Where does everyone rate these particular batsmen on the all time list of their countries?
I would say that:
Tendulkar - Definitely number 1 Indian batsman.
Lara - Top 3 WI batsmen
Ponting - Top 3 by the end of his career. How much he acheives up until his retirement will influence whether or not he takes number 2 before Waugh, Border, Harvey, etc.
Dravid - Top 2 - 3 after Tendulkar and Gavaskar. Could overtake Gavaskar if his good form continues.
Inzy - Possibly number 1 Pakistan batsmen.
Hayden - Doubt he would make the top 7 - 8 Australian batsmen but still a class player.
Kallis - 2nd after Graeme Pollock by the end of his career.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
The point you were thrusting at largely was how statistical comparison is 'no more valid' than your impressional one.
I am disputing that. Statistical comparisons, when done properly ( read: someone who actually understands basic statistics) is a far more consistent comparative scale than impressional opinionated ones.
It seems you keep missing the point. I'm not advocating anything of the sort in which you're implying. I have a problem with the assumption that those who DO have the know-how in anaylsing statistics are going to give a level-headed opinion. As Opc was basically saying "Don't blame me, the statistics are there to support me" which is naive. You can also use statistics to rebutt against him. 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.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
oz_fan said:
Where does everyone rate these particular batsmen on the all time list of their countries?
I would say that:
Tendulkar - Definitely number 1 Indian batsman.
Lara - Top 3 WI batsmen
Ponting - Top 3 by the end of his career. How much he acheives up until his retirement will influence whether or not he takes number 2 before Waugh, Border, Harvey, etc.
Dravid - Top 2 - 3 after Tendulkar and Gavaskar. Could overtake Gavaskar if his good form continues.
Inzy - Possibly number 1 Pakistan batsmen.
Hayden - Doubt he would make the top 7 - 8 Australian batsmen but still a class player.
Kallis - 2nd after Graeme Pollock by the end of his career.
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 :dry:
 

opc10

Cricket Spectator
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.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
opc10 said:
I find it funny how you are debating my point about Border. I PUT it in there to show how easy it is to put a subjective argument in, and how ridiculous it is...and you took the bait!!! Hilarious!

And I did not indicate in any way that i'm the only one who knows about cricket.
In fact, the reason I rate Statistics that have a large enough sample, as high as i do, is exactly the opposite. I am not so full of myself that I can judge, in a subjective way, on who is a better batsman.
So how does relying on Statistics suggest that I know more about cricket than anyone else?
Your logic defies logic...
Your wrong about the first point (Im the only one who knows about cricket).
As for the next point. Well, maybe not ALL of you......
sorry mate. Was in a bad mood yesterday. It was harsh to single you out when there are quite a few here at CW who do similar stuff. BTW, my point still stands, though.
 

Top