Best Test opener of the 21st Century?

[TheJediBrah]

There is some seriously bad number crunching going on in this thread. If you don't have complicated data, like game by game quality of opponents, do this:

1 Compare away records of 2 bats, excluding in each others home countries
2 Compare home records by judging how they performed in relation to other bats from their sides, which you need to adjust according to the quality of the other bats. Use step 1.
3 Compare records in each other's countries. You are going to need to use step 2 as well as some idea of quality of each others bowling attacks. This is going to be a very small factor relative to 1 and 2.

There are going to be other factors at play, like era and batting position, but they don't make much difference in this comparison. Obviously there are other factors at play, but this process gets rid of a lot of the waffle in the thread.

You are also going to need to make a call on how much better away record is in assessing quality... the answer can be big or small, but if it's zero or less than zero, give up on numbers and just go with whoever you prefer.

I've long been of the opinion that all the sort of number crunching that goes on in these comparisons (which almost always done in a way chosen to serve an agenda) ends up with a less accurate representation than if you had just compared career averages and left it at that

Unless it's something glaringly obvious like one guy did way more minnow bashing or is completely hopeless away from home etc.

 

[Bolo.]

I've long been of the opinion that all the sort of number crunching that goes on in these comparisons (which almost always done in a way chosen to serve an agenda) ends up with a less accurate representation than if you had just compared career averages and left it at that

Unless it's something glaringly obvious like one guy did way more minnow bashing or is completely hopeless away from home etc.

A certain amount of number crunching is always going to give a better picture than overall averages. Batting position, home/away, and era are chief among them. But, yes, agenda driven crunching does produce worse results than no crunching at all... numbers are not crunched in a consistent way.

For a dumbed down version of home/away, which will definitely produce a better result than overall average I kinda like the idea of (overall average + away average)/2. It is obviously flawed, but is really simple. It clearly gives a better result than overall average... it partially eliminates difficulty of home conditions and uneven splits in number of home/away games, while some giving some credit to players who are beasts at home.

Example: Jadeja. He isnt a 21 average bowler (home), or even a 25 quality bowler (overall average). His away average is 35, and he is better than that. 30 sounds about right for him.

 

[ZK$]

For a dumbed down version of home/away, which will definitely produce a better result than overall average I kinda like the idea of (overall average + away average)/2.

Smith = (48 + 55)/2 = 51.5

Sehwag = (49 + 45)/2 = 47

Hayden = (51 + 43)/2 = 47

Cook = (45 + 46)/2 = 45.5

Warner = (47 + 34)/2 = 40.5

I like it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

For a dumbed down version of home/away, which will definitely produce a better result than overall average I kinda like the idea of (overall average + away average)/2. It is obviously flawed, but is really simple. It clearly gives a better result than overall average... it partially eliminates difficulty of home conditions and uneven splits in number of home/away games, while some giving some credit to players who are beasts at home.

This is literally just giving more weight to scoring runs away from home and rating players who were good at home lower . . . so Cricket Chat will love it

Definitely wouldn't say it's a better result. Great if the guy you want to come out ahead is good away and not so good at home

 

[Bolo.]

This is literally just giving more weight to scoring runs away from home and rating players who were good at home lower . . . so Cricket Chat will love it

Definitely wouldn't say it's a better result. Great if the guy you want to come out ahead is good away and not so good at home

There isn't any doubt that performances is multiple countries is a better refection of overall quality (as opposed to contribution) than performances in a single country.

Home performance counts too, but there is no way you are suggesting that a SC/RSA spinner/quick should be judged in the same way.

 

[Victor Ian]

Some players get to bowl or bat more than others. So what you want do do is take average per test. Then split them by country and take the average of those averages. Then, to see how you are, on average, average those averaged averages, and judge based on that average.

 

[Jayro]

Some players get to bowl or bat more than others. So what you want do do is take average per test. Then split them by country and take the average of those averages. Then, to see how you are, on average, average those averaged averages, and judge based on that average.

Say one has played only one match in Australia, then one in England, made a century in each and only got to bat only once, their average would stand at around 140 in each of these country(given both scores are 140 plus) , that would massively skew their average even if they have played many tests at five other countries and yet only could muster a meagre average of 30.

 

[ankitj]

Find below my detailed working sheet before voting on this poll. This makes the answer obvious tbh.

 

[TheJediBrah]

There isn't any doubt that performances is multiple countries is a better refection of overall quality (as opposed to contribution) than performances in a single country.

Home performance counts too, but there is no way you are suggesting that a SC/RSA spinner/quick should be judged in the same way.

I'm not fully behind the idea that someone should be rated higher for being inferior at home

Also having a higher "away" average isn't necessarily indicative of being better in a wider variety of conditions. They could still be ordinary in a lot of places but really, really good in 1 or 2 that brings the overall average up.

I'll always come back to thinking that performing at home is at least equally important as performing away

 

[Jayro]

I'm not fully behind the idea that someone should be rated higher for being inferior at home

Also having a higher "away" average isn't necessarily indicative of being better in a wider variety of conditions. They could still be ordinary in a lot of places but really, really good in 1 or 2 that brings the overall average up.

I'll always come back to thinking that performing at home is at least equally important as performing away

Drawing analogies, and diverting to another fascinating case in a different sport, how would be Nadal or Sampras for that matter rated in tennis history since we know comparing to other champions - the first is red soil specialist and the latter never fared better there, in fact Sampras never won a single french open in his whole career.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Drawing analogies, and diverting to another fascinating case in a different sport, how would be Nadal or Sampras for that matter rated in tennis history since we know comparing to other champions - the first is red soil specialist and the latter never fared better there, in fact Sampras never won a single french open in his whole career.

I don't remember much about Sampras but I believe Nadal has been more of a threat on non-clay than Sampras was on clay

 

[Victor Ian]

Sampras with modern racquets would have destroyed.

 

[Bolo.]

I'm not fully behind the idea that someone should be rated higher for being inferior at home

(1) Also having a higher "away" average isn't necessarily indicative of being better in a wider variety of conditions. They could still be ordinary in a lot of places but really, really good in 1 or 2 that brings the overall average up.

(2) I'll always come back to thinking that performing at home is at least equally important as performing away

1 Relative to home averages, it is. Home average is definitionally 1 country. Away average may (very rarely in modern cricket) be shifted substantially by performances in 1 or 2 countries, but you are typically looking at a country being max 20%(?) of weighting as opposed to categorically 100%.

2 Playing for a weak team, it likely is more important. Playing for a strong team it isn't. The players we tend to discuss typically played for teams where it isn't. This aside, quality of a player and importance have a fairly weak correlation. Lara monstering it in SL was unimportant, other than in terms of assessing his quality.

How would you assess someone like Murali if you think home performances should count for more than away? I'm a huge fan of his, and wouldn't mind someone calling him the greatest bowler of modern cricket (whether or not I agree with it), but by your logic, he is the greatest by a massive, massive margin. I know you don't think he is that good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

How would you assess someone like Murali if you think home performances should count for more than away? I'm a huge fan of his, and wouldn't mind someone calling him the greatest bowler of modern cricket (whether or not I agree with it), but by your logic, he is the greatest by a massive, massive margin. I know you don't think he is that good.

First of all I don't think home performances should necessarily count for more than away, but they shouldn't count for less. Murali is a poor example because he has other factors affecting his average, like taking 25% of his wickets against Zimbabwe & Bangaldesh at an average of 12. It's not just home dominance.

Jadeja or Anderson are better examples, 2 guys who are chronically underrated because their home performances are seen as "not counting". Though Anderson seems to be starting to get appreciated more lately

 

[Victor Ian]

But home average has a reliable sample size. Away averages, per country don't. Home average is a good indicator of how you might be if you played away a lot lot more.

 

[Victor Ian]

Anderson is like if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

[TheJediBrah]

But home average has a reliable sample size. Away averages, per country don't. Home average is a good indicator of how you might be if you played away a lot lot more.

Also a good point

 

[Bolo.]

First of all I don't think home performances should necessarily count for more than away, but they shouldn't count for less. Murali is a poor example because he has other factors affecting his average, like taking 25% of his wickets against Zimbabwe & Bangaldesh at an average of 12. It's not just home dominance.

Jadeja or Anderson are better examples, 2 guys who are chronically underrated because their home performances are seen as "not counting". Though Anderson seems to be starting to get appreciated more lately

.

I'm not fully behind the idea that someone should be rated higher for being inferior at home

Also having a higher "away" average isn't necessarily indicative of being better in a wider variety of conditions. They could still be ordinary in a lot of places but really, really good in 1 or 2 that brings the overall average up.

I'll always come back to thinking that performing at home is at least equally important as performing away

Above.

Performances against weaker teams count for something. But even if (to humour you) they don't, Murali is still the greatest home bowler by a massive margin. 372 home wickets, the vast majority of which were in the most batting friendly era, at a ridiculous average, SR, and utterly, utterly ridiculous WPM. To use you words, most important bowler ever by an utterly obscene margin.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Performances against weaker teams count for something. But even if (to humour you) they don't, Murali is still the greatest home bowler by a massive margin. 372 home wickets, the vast majority of which were in the most batting friendly era, at a ridiculous average, SR, and utterly, utterly ridiculous WPM. To use you words, most important bowler ever by an utterly obscene margin.

I can see why my earlier comment could be slightly misread if taken in isolation (sort of). But again, I'm not saying playing at home is necessarily more important than away.

Regardless, my opinion is not based on individual players so not sure what you think trying to manipulate it by citing examples you think I won't agree is going to do . . . and (just to speculate) if your continued insistence that away performances are the most important is because you're being sensitive about Graeme Smith in relation to Hayden/Sehwag I'll remind you that I voted for Smith in this thread so it's really not necessary

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think Graeme Smith is better than his average suggests because batting in South Africa, especially opening, was harder during his career than it was in Australia or India. Not because away performances are so much more important.

Same reason Dale Steyn is an overrated hack