• 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.

Harry brook era

Johan

Johan

Hall of Fame Member
Burgey said:
They aren’t. I know they aren’t because no one’s are. These things are always subjective, even if it’s the standardised weighting you give to some or all of the inputs you rely on to rank players.

And even if they were consistent, why do you see that as some kind of strength? It’s like ranking music - it’s all in the eye of the beholder and it just isn’t important really. Cricket stats and ratings, like music, are background noise to the important things in life.

Don’t be hung up on being wha you think of as consistent or “functionally static”, as you call it. You’ll end up sounding like one of those weirdo libertarians who take pride in being “consistent” even when their ideas are nothing but consistently stupid (in their case that’s all the time).
Click to expand...
Cricket certainly has more objectivity to it than music, I mean, at the end of the day you put X amount of runs or you take Y amount of wickets for X amount of runs conceded, Let me give you an example, I enjoyed watching Chris Gayle bat, thought he had an interesting approach and was a good player against fast bowling. I hated watching Shivnarine Chanderpaul bat, thought it was ugly as sin, slow, selfish and yada yada yada, yet I have to concede Chanderpaul was better simply because he made more runs in the same era.

there are exceptions, those who get dropped a lot, short career or so forth but that kind of objectivity that I mentioned doesn't exist with music.

Smh why do libertarians like that.
 
StephenZA

StephenZA

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Burgey said:
Not all of them. These things are relative.

Kallis was a boring stats padder. Really never feared him with bat or ball against us, and we were, are and always will be the benchmark. “Ho hum, Jacques made a slow fifty. Whoop de do. We still rolled them for 250 etc etc”

Dravid is one of my favourites so I’m biased wrt him and respect him enormously. Terrific team player too - opened when the side needed him and gave no thought to his own stats. Unlike the bloke who usually batted one spot below him who was a selfish ****

Sanga dined out on massively flat home tracks. Stats flatter him imo. Atvg sees him out.

Ponting struggled in India and only average in England. Is the best of these players though. Batted in the prime spot in the line up, captained as well and made his runs fast.

All of these guys are a tier below Lara and Tendulkar from that era, yet they’re still all better players than Root. He inspires no fear in me. At all. Basically a thinner, pastier, less effective Kallis when it comes to playing Aus. Have watched Root for a long time and genuinely can’t recall any innings he’s played as being remotely out of the ordinary for wha you expect for a serviceable or better test player - they’re decent but certainty nothing out of the box.

As I said, he’s a trier. And that’s ok, good on him. But the idea he’s a great is laughable. You need better standards than “Joe Root ATG” if you’re going to lift your collective game and be considered a decent test nation for a change
Click to expand...
Let's take this stuff to the player comparison forum...
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Johan said:
Cricket certainly has more objectivity to it than music, I mean, at the end of the day you put X amount of runs or you take Y amount of wickets for X amount of runs conceded, Let me give you an example, I enjoyed watching Chris Gayle bat, thought he had an interesting approach and was a good player against fast bowling. I hated watching Shivnarine Chanderpaul bat, thought it was ugly as sin, slow, selfish and yada yada yada, yet I have to concede Chanderpaul was better simply because he made more runs in the same era.

there are exceptions, those who get dropped a lot, short career or so forth but that kind of objectivity that I mentioned doesn't exist with music.

Smh why do libertarians like that.
Click to expand...
Yeah but for example if you are ranking players you must inherently put varying weight on where they scored runs, when and against whom.

So for example when the Aus selectors were picking blokes in the 80s and 90s, they decided Shield runs at Adelaide were worth squat because it was so flat, but they put a premium on runs scored in early season Brisbane or in Perth. So it goes rating players, innings, bowling spells etc. You factor in conditions and the opposing sides and weight things accordingly.

but someone else will put a different value on one of those variables than you do in their ratings. I mean there are idiots on here who put two spinners in ATG sides. Embarrassing. Or people who rate SC records as somehow important when for 60 years the cricket and cricketers there were second rate. Those people are obviously idiots but they could well have a consistent set of metrics as well, just ones which place a higher emphasis on stupid **** like finger spin which is the poor, special-needs, red-headed stepchild of cricketing skills.

each to their own
 
SillyCowCorner1

SillyCowCorner1

Moooo
Johan said:
Cricket certainly has more objectivity to it than music, I mean, at the end of the day you put X amount of runs or you take Y amount of wickets for X amount of runs conceded, Let me give you an example, I enjoyed watching Chris Gayle bat, thought he had an interesting approach and was a good player against fast bowling. I hated watching Shivnarine Chanderpaul bat, thought it was ugly as sin, slow, selfish and yada yada yada, yet I have to concede Chanderpaul was better simply because he made more runs in the same era.

there are exceptions, those who get dropped a lot, short career or so forth but that kind of objectivity that I mentioned doesn't exist with music.

Smh why do libertarians like that.
Click to expand...
See: Chanderpaul at Bourda, 2003 against the best team in the world.
 
govinda indian fan

govinda indian fan

International Debutant
Burgey said:
Not all of them. These things are relative.

Kallis was a boring stats padder. Really never feared him with bat or ball against us, and we were, are and always will be the benchmark. “Ho hum, Jacques made a slow fifty. Whoop de do. We still rolled them for 250 etc etc”

Dravid is one of my favourites so I’m biased wrt him and respect him enormously. Terrific team player too - opened when the side needed him and gave no thought to his own stats. Unlike the bloke who usually batted one spot below him who was a selfish ****

Sanga dined out on massively flat home tracks. Stats flatter him imo. Atvg sees him out.

Ponting struggled in India and only average in England. Is the best of these players though. Batted in the prime spot in the line up, captained as well and made his runs fast.

All of these guys are a tier below Lara and Tendulkar from that era, yet they’re still all better players than Root. He inspires no fear in me. At all. Basically a thinner, pastier, less effective Kallis when it comes to playing Aus. Have watched Root for a long time and genuinely can’t recall any innings he’s played as being remotely out of the ordinary for wha you expect for a serviceable or better test player - they’re decent but certainty nothing out of the box.

As I said, he’s a trier. And that’s ok, good on him. But the idea he’s a great is laughable. You need better standards than “Joe Root ATG” if you’re going to lift your collective game and be considered a decent test nation for a change
Click to expand...
Come on man. Root is class but its extremely unfortunate that he couldn't get ton on his arch rival's home ground
 
SillyCowCorner1

SillyCowCorner1

Moooo
ashley bach said:
Chanderpaul boshes a six to bring up 123-5 @SillyCowCorner1
Click to expand...
At the iconic Bourda Cricket Ground. I’ve only played at that ground once, when I was 14 years old in an under-15 National final.

Coming from the countryside and experiencing the city of Georgetown…i remember stepping into the ground for the first time and was amazed at the stands and the commentary box. But, the one that stood out was the player’s pavilion. It had that look and feel of an old ground like Lord’s and SCG. Spikes making beautiful sound on the hardwood floors. Being in the same dressing room former greats. That what Bourda meant to me— so much history there.

I went there to play this match 2 years after this Chanderpaul knock.
 
Coronis

Coronis

Hall of Fame Member
Fun Root stat: When DoG did his 5 year/40 innings peak thread, only two players who average over 50 in their careers had peaks below 55. Root and Hussey. Every other 50 averaging batsman had a peak averaging over 60.

I believe at some point Root may have surpassed this in recent times, but not by a significant amount. I know Kane had improved upon his.
 
centurymaker

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Prediction-

I think Root will definitely score a century in Australia, even two. He will end up having a good series. And in due time he will become the leading run scorer in test cricket. By 2028 or 2029, it will become less clear cut as to who's been the best batter of the generation. Some people will say Smith. Some will say Root (as he will outlast everyone and surprise people with his unending consistency, along with holding certain big world records to his name).
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Burgey said:
Pat Cummings is father of Joe Roots. 14 dismissals already and counting.
Click to expand...
Well you are more likely to get the middle order when you’re the supposed best fast bowler in the world and you hide at first change
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top