Best cricketers in the world since the turn of the century

[Deja moo]

Exactly. Ganguly and Yuvraj's overall averages are almost identical which reflects there non-century average. Gayle's average is 39 compared to Yuvraj's 41 which reflects the 2 run difference in non-century average. So clearly there is a pattern.

So then, if Lara and Sahcin's non-century average's are almost identical why is it that Sachin's overall average is about 4 runs higher? Its certainly not just because he has 4 more hundreds. Its because 28% of his tons (the big scores which really effect average ) are not out compared to 6% of Lara's. Lara makes bigger hundreds yet his century average is 187 compared to Sachin's of 212. There's the reason for your difference in average, not consistency.

I was just pointing out that it was a wasteful exercise evaluating players based on their sub-100 averages, since they all seem manage to average the same irrespective of whether their overall averages are 60 or 40.
Also, could be argued that Sachin has not had the advantage of Antigua, the featherbed where Lara has scored 775/1 in just 2 innings.

 

[Boofra]

I was just pointing out that it was a wasteful exercise evaluating players based on their sub-100 averages, since they all seem manage to average the same irrespective of whether their overall averages are 60 or 40.
Also, could be argued that Sachin has not had the advantage of Antigua, the featherbed where Lara has scored 775/1 in just 2 innings.

Lara took advantage of that featherbed. Sachin has just played a series on some of the great featherbeds of all-time but didnt take advantage. But the pitches they have played most of their careers on is another argument.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It's a close second to the hilarious time we had a little under a year ago when someone suggested the concept of sub-10 averages

 

[Deja moo]

Lara took advantage of that featherbed. Sachin has just played a series on some of the great featherbeds of all-time but didnt take advantage. But the pitches they have played most of their careers on is another argument.

Lara at Road, I mean Antigua:

13 matches 1632 runs HS: 400* Ave: 85.89 4 100s 6 50s

 

[Top_Cat]

13 matches 1632 runs HS: 400* Ave: 85.89 4 100s 6 50s

That's almost poor to average under a hundred there when he's got 4 100's, one of the an unbeaten quadruple. When you think about it, I mean.

 

[Deja moo]

That's almost poor to average under a hundred there when he's got 4 100's, one of the an unbeaten quadruple. When you think about it, I mean.

I did , It means he didnt take advantage of 11 games on a featherbed. So I figure it this way, since Sachin not taking advantage of 2 featherbeds recently when hes on the wane is apparently a negative for him, how pathetic must Lara be for not taking enough advantage of Antigua at his peak

 

[Francis]

However, it should be noted that whilst Lara did make 400*, his total runs for not-out centuries is 553*. Thats because he only has two not out scores of over 100. Sachin on the other hand, whilst he doesnt have a 400* to his name does have 10 not out scores of over 100 which total 1660*. And that is the main reason for the average difference.

And the reason for the non-century average was to show the major reason in discrepancy of average, whcih isnt consistency but rather because almost 1/3 of Sachin's hundreds have finished not out (which isnt his fault). So im not criticisng Sachin, just pointing out how silly and unfair it is that despite the fact that Lara makes bigger hundreds (58% of Lara's tons are 150+ scores and 26% are 200+ compared to 42% and 11% for Sachin respectively) Sachin's average is inflated moreso than Lara's by century scores.

I think the person who showed Ganguly's non century average had a very valid point. It was like I said, batting is about centuries... no cricketer hits 56 runs every innings. The closest is Allan Border during a weird period where he didn't get a century for like 61 innings, yet didn't average below 50.

There's an interesting complex here. On one hand, one can say Sachin has so many not outs. On the other hand, one can say Brian Lara's average is there because of big scores. in some matches... which is taken down by sub-par performances. I think it's a bit odd that both could be chastised. I think the scale is balanced there. Both have something there.

For me, personally, I think the rate at which Tendulkar raced up the century ladder during the 90s makes him the clear pick. But I tell you, it took him ages to get past the Gavaskar record once he got close.