How to define 'best batsman'?

[Manee]

You people have mentioned good points but what about the esteem in which the player is held in by team-mates and opponents. E.g. Tendulkar is a prized wicket - he is a good batsman.

This is by no means the most important criterion but it is up there I think.

 

[neville cardus]

For the most part I agree with you, but I do think there needs to be more of a balance than you suggest. I'm not going to use Viv as an example because I think he's a cut above the rest, but if we go by the stereotype of "dominator" vs "rock", alternatively you will have those who think "well, this guy will give me a chance to get him out, whereas the rock won't"

I refer to Asif's line of thinking in his interview when he talked about Kallis, who he obviously rates highly. Kallis refused to be sucked in, or lose patience with him.

A common misconception about Jacques Henry Kallis is that, because he doesn't dominate, he allows himself to be dominated. Very rarely, however, have I seen that. There is always with Kallis the ineluctable knowledge that he is in total and utter control, and that all the aces lie in his hand. He may not slap them down triumphantly and take the game like a shot, but the hapless bowler can't help but fall under the resigned impression that, bowling to Kallis, he has little or no control over his own fate.

 

[Matt79]

I addressed this in part in the original who's the 2nd best batsman thread, but to me its a combination of things - quantity of runs against quality opposition is the absolute prequisite, however its also a threshold requirement - ie, once you get to a certain level, that's bought you a place at the table and beyond that, barring Bradman like scoring, a bit more or a bit less doesn't define you quality. So if batsman A has scored 5000 runs against good opposition at 51, or even 49, and batsman B has scored 6000 runs against similar opposition at 55, I'm not going to assume batsman B is better. That statistical record confirms that both HAVE succeeded against quality opposition and can rightfully be compared.

Once that's established, I go in large part based on my own judgement of their batting for players I have seen, and the testimony of people who know what they're talking about for players I did not see. Things I look for is an ability to be both defensive and quick scoring as an when the situation calls for it, and ability to play all the shots, and the many intangibles about their game that give an additional influence beyond the runs recorded against their name that for wont of a fuller label we call presence. To reiterate, none of these things mean jack if they haven't met the threshold of runs scored to be considered in a comparison.

 

[Richard]

Well,my opinion is that you don't really have a grasp of the true nature of the game of cricket. It is my opinion, it has been formed over the last couple of years, and I don't think I am alone in thinking that.

Anyway, I can't think of a time when I have said that, other than to you.

Nor can I - there are some people on CW who clearly don't really understand cricket, but most are either rare posters or the sort of people you like so don't patronise. The fact is, though, that you put it accross as fact that I don't "have a grasp of the true nature of cricket", rather than expressing it as your opinion.

Ability to influence games isnt simply down to production though is it?
On a personal level, a few years ago I was opening the batting. My opening partner made 0 in a partnership of 25.
The number three batsman came in and shared in a partnership of 70 with me. His share was 0. He got out and shortly after I got out (for 87), we then collapsed to 111 for 9. Our last wicket then put on 100

Now we just won that game, and in my eyes the fella who scored that 0 in my partnership with him was just as influencial to the result of that game as I was and as the numbers 10 and 11 were. If he had not have stuck around, and if I had no confidenece in him sticking around whilst I am hitting the ball about, I daresay we might have lost that game.

So production isnt actually about runs...the way I see it, its not influence, its contribution that matters

And this sort of situation is common?

No.

This is a one-in-a-million case. You are clearly of a standard above the rest of your side, which doesn't happen once you get to club first-XI level or so.

 

[Richard]

That's the hardest thing about defending this argument - it's easy to think I'm discounting losing efforts. I'm not. What characterises winning innings, or 'hugely honourable' ones, is the ability under pressure; the pressure to obtain the best - realistic - scenario. Shiv's effort (do you mean Old Trafford?) came under the cloud of a record chase, which isn't really viable. He did, though, acquit himself under pressure, and that (for all its subjectivity) is a great innings by my book.

So it does have exceptions. It's just a way of eliminating easy innings and 'making hay' sessions from a batsman's resume, which can defraud the statistically-minded.

Thing is, though, it's easy to work-out, really, who's making hay while the sun shines. I could do that without taking a single look at Matthew Hayden's stats.

 

[Richard]

I just want to quote you from a while back:

'What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority'


Do you still beleive this?

As long as there are enough people foolish (IMO) enough to rate Vivian Richards the 2nd best after Bradman, then yes, clearly he is.

So yes, obviously I believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

 

[Richard]

You people have mentioned good points but what about the esteem in which the player is held in by team-mates and opponents. E.g. Tendulkar is a prized wicket - he is a good batsman.

This is by no means the most important criterion but it is up there I think.

There's a good reason Tendulkar is (or - possibly - was) a prized wicket - it's because his productivity is greater than almost anyone's has ever been.

 

[Richard]

Once that's established, I go in large part based on my own judgement of their batting for players I have seen, and the testimony of people who know what they're talking about for players I did not see. Things I look for is an ability to be both defensive and quick scoring as an when the situation calls for it, and ability to play all the shots, and the many intangibles about their game that give an additional influence beyond the runs recorded against their name that for wont of a fuller label we call presence. To reiterate, none of these things mean jack if they haven't met the threshold of runs scored to be considered in a comparison.

This is something that really frustrates me, TBH. No-one is ever going to become a half-decent player without possessing this.

 

[archie mac]

As long as there are enough people foolish (IMO) enough to rate Vivian Richards the 2nd best after Bradman, then yes, clearly he is.

So yes, obviously I believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have said it.

People who don't agree with you? I think your 'wow factor' foolish but I am too nice to say anything

 

[Richard]

Meh. You're nice, I'm not.

Mind, you use Rolleyes on people who don't agree with you often enough.

 

[Swervy]

Meh. You're nice, I'm not.

Mind, you use Rolleyes on people who don't agree with you often enough.

yeah, because that is how some people use it...its not nasty!!!

 

[NUFAN]

Best (superlative of 'good') having the most positive qualities

Batsman a ballplayer who is batting

 

[The Sean]

Best (superlative of 'good') having the most positive qualities

Batsman a ballplayer who is batting

 

[archie mac]

Meh. You're nice, I'm not.

Mind, you use Rolleyes on people who don't agree with you often enough.

What does MEH stand for?

This has become the worst emotion you can dispay on this forum, even worse than not sure why though?

 

[Richard]

Look mate, when you (or indeed anyone) post the smiley it's pretty obvious there's some "anger" there but also some element of light-heartedness.

The Rolleyes, though, is totally different - it says, basically, "what an idiotic comment". I beg of you to use it more sparingly than you do.

Meh, BTW, is equivalent (at least to me) to a shrug of the shoulders.

 

[Richard]

yeah, because that is how some people use it...its not nasty!!!

And when I use "foolish" it's not nasty, too.

To me, posting a Rolleyes really is a more condemning thing to do (unless it's in jest) than calling something "foolish". There are many worse things I could call something than foolish, it's a pretty light term.

 

[neville cardus]

The Rolleyes, though, is totally different - it says, basically, "what an idiotic comment". I beg of you to use it more sparingly than you do.

Why?

 

[Swervy]

And when I use "foolish" it's not nasty, too.

To me, posting a Rolleyes really is a more condemning thing to do (unless it's in jest) than calling something "foolish". There are many worse things I could call something than foolish, it's a pretty light term.

I dont havea problem wit you saying 'foolish', I do have a problem with you saying
'any fool can....blah blah' and FFS and the like. I can live with it though, because its not that important...however it riles me whenyou have a go at people throwing a in there, because it looks to me like you are the only one who has a serious issue with it, when you are at the same time implying people re fools for not sharing your opinion, and saying FFS, which where I come from isnt a term of endearment

 

[Swervy]

anyway...back to the topic please!!!!!

 

[Treeny]

True, but surely sometimes the task is just too often beyond the one single batsman. Andy Flower is a great example, Sachin of the 90s and Lara of recent times fall under that category too.

There are examples of single handedly winning a game for your team, but sometimes you've done all you can, and the rest of your teammates just let you down.

Just a random example, and I know its a ODI and we're normally talking tests here, but this match had IMO one of the best ODI knocks of recent years. Yuvraj's innings was immense, but India still lost the game. Even yesterday he probably played the best knock of the match vs. Australia, yet India lost.

There's obviously countless examples in test and ODIs, and if it becomes a pattern for a player, surely its more the team surrounding them being no good or failing them rather than that player not being a match winner?

True man of KP'S ODI hundreds have come in a losing cause and Pontings magical and one of the best ever innings in One day cricket scored by Ricky Ponting with 164 of just 105 also didnt win Australia the match. That dosnt mean your not a great batsmen.