Langer a great cricketer

[tooextracool]

I think you missed my point Tooextracool, Dravid has a higher average than Tendulkar but when you look at games played it changes things.

no it does not,IMO dravid is a better batter than tendulkar anyways and its not because of averages, its because of performances in every country on every type of pitch and under pressure.

 

[tooextracool]

So no George Headley then?

its a completely messed up rating, how sobers isnt no 2, let alone below tendulkar and gavaskar is beyong me. how hutton makes it ahead of hammond and hobbs is ridiculous and what lara is doing so high is outright stupid.

 

[tooextracool]

Players playing today who would be considered for alltime great status:

AUS:

Matty Hayden

err no, if anyone has benefitted from flat tracks and poor bowling its that man right there....

Ricky Ponting

we've been over this 100000 times, no one with an average of 12 in india after 8 games can be considered an all time great

ENG: Nobody

hayden makes it but no flintoff?

PAK:

Inzamam Ul-Haq

look out for the significant drop in averages when he plays australia, SA and india.....

RSA:
Shaun Pollock

err smith anyone?

ZIM:

Nobody

hard to believe that you can put inzy there, and yet not put andy flower, i mean after all , he only played for the worst test side in the world for most of his career and yet came out with a better average.

 

[tooextracool]

being the best batsman of the 90s behind the likes of Tugga,Sachin and Lara.
Being a much better pressure player than either three.

inzy a better player under pressure than waugh? you must be out of your mind.

 

[viktor]

hayden makes it but no flintoff?






err smith anyone?



hard to believe that you can put inzy there, and yet not put andy flower, i mean after all , he only played for the worst test side in the world for most of his career and yet came out with a better average.

Currently Flintoff has a batting average of 32.98 and bowling avg of 37.40
I would say he has to improve his bowling average to be considered great.
Graeme Smith hasn't yet played in Aus, WI and India (just one match). Not enough data to prove he can be a "great".

Andy Flower should definitely be in there and not just for his on-field exploits

 

[tooextracool]

Currently Flintoff has a batting average of 32.98 and bowling avg of 37.40
I would say he has to improve his bowling average to be considered great.
Graeme Smith hasn't yet played in Aus, WI and India (just one match). Not enough data to prove he can be a "great".

of course neither of them should be considered great already, but i presume what the original poster was trying to convey was that certain players at the moment if they continue to perform the way they have been will be greats in the future. i think the same canbe applied to the above 2.

 

[Scallywag]

no it does not,IMO dravid is a better batter than tendulkar anyways and its not because of averages, its because of performances in every country on every type of pitch and under pressure.

Hayden is every bit the equal of dravid.

 

[tooextracool]

Hayden is every bit the equal of dravid.

and the world is flat.....

 

[Scallywag]

I cant see to much difference between the players, what Dravid has is 30 odd extra innings, but Hayden has a faster scoring rate. Head to head in series Hayden has a slight advantage and even though Hayden scored his 380 against Zim Dravids ave against Zim is 423. A very close call in my books.



Hayden 60 104 8 5311 380 55.32 63.08 20 16 73 0
Dravid 83 142 17 7076 270 56.60 41.85 17 34 112 0

 

[viktor]

of course neither of them should be considered great already, but i presume what the original poster was trying to convey was that certain players at the moment if they continue to perform the way they have been will be greats in the future. i think the same canbe applied to the above 2.

I interpreted it as players who are already great. Flintoff and Smith definitely have the potential to be greats in the future, esp. Flintoff

 

[tooextracool]

I interpreted it as players who are already great. Flintoff and Smith definitely have the potential to be greats in the future, esp. Flintoff

and hayden and ponting are both not great yet either.....

 

[C_C]

its a completely messed up rating, how sobers isnt no 2, let alone below tendulkar and gavaskar is beyong me. how hutton makes it ahead of hammond and hobbs is ridiculous and what lara is doing so high is outright stupid.

You have your opinion and i have mine.
Tendy and Gavaskar gets in ahead of Sobers as they faced superior attacks than Sobers did and Gavaskar gets compensated a bit for being an opener( toughest spot to bat in Test cricket). Hutton makes it ahead of hammond because he faced mucho better bowling.
Lara is too high ? some would say he is too low. I dont think there is a single player outside the ones i've rated above Lara who can successfully match Lara in batting terms.

I base my ratings on these two guages:

1. In depth statistical analysis that involves home average, away average, average against the top teams, consistency and delivery in crunch situations. The one who does better cumulatively in all those scenarios gets rated higher

2. Peer player opinion of the said player.

I cant think of a SINGLE aussie i would pick before Lara, apart from Bradman and Greg Chappell by a whisker. I cant think of a single Englishman i would pick before Lara, a single pakistani, a single Kiwi, a single Saffie, a single lankan and a single Indian apart from Tendulkar and Gavaskar.
-----------------------------------------------------------

inzy a better player under pressure than waugh? you must be out of your mind.

The most pressure intensive and technically demanding situation in cricket is to bat in the fourth innings. Inzy does HELL OF A LOT better than Waugh in that situation, where Waugh is downright mediocre. Inzy has also rescued Pakistan just as frequently as Waugh has rescued Australia in the first innings.

err no, if anyone has benefitted from flat tracks and poor bowling its that man right there....

yes he has benifitted extensively. However, you cannot ignore the sheer avalanche of runs from him. If you keep scoring at a 55+ average against mediocre bowling, you are ATLEAST on par with a player who keeps scoring at a mid-30s average against a good bowling attack.

we've been over this 100000 times, no one with an average of 12 in india after 8 games can be considered an all time great

he may not be in the highest of the high echelons, the top 10 alongside lara,tendy,tugga,greg chappel, etc. but he is a great. Even achilees had his heel and one shocking record in a particular country CAN be overlooked if you have performed stupendously everywhere else. For by the same guage, Warne isnt a great either.

hayden makes it but no flintoff?

Flintoff is in great FORM. so far his OVERALL career has been mediocre. he is just beginning to offset his earlier disappointments. If he keeps going like this for another 30-40 matches, he will be in contention for greatness.

look out for the significant drop in averages when he plays australia, SA and india.....

Inzy has a healthy average against IND and a poor one against AUS/RSA. again, he is not the greatest of the greats, but does merit inclusion into the top 25-30 batsmen of alltime.

err smith anyone?

hasnt played the strongest team of his era or other decent teams like IND. More time is needed. He can vault into contention after he has as much experience as Haydos.

hard to believe that you can put inzy there, and yet not put andy flower, i mean after all , he only played for the worst test side in the world for most of his career and yet came out with a better average.

you'd notice that i've also left off Steve Waugh. The reason being, i restricted my list to players who are currently active. Flower is retired, thus it rules him out of my list. however, he is one of the greats, no doubt about it.

To scully:

I cant see to much difference between the players, what Dravid has is 30 odd extra innings, but Hayden has a faster scoring rate. Head to head in series Hayden has a slight advantage and even though Hayden scored his 380 against Zim Dravids ave against Zim is 423. A very close call in my books.

I must compliment you for your ludicrous imagination. Please, let me know where you get your stats from, as last time i checked crickinfo, Dravid's average against Zimbabwe is 100.50 , having scored 804 runs from 8 dismissals.

As per Haydos being Dravid's equal, please dont insult Haydos.
He never had to face the bowling of Warne-McGrath-Gillespie callibre.
And he got routed by Ambrose-Walsh-Bishop, unlike Dravid.
Simply put, Dravid has faced much better bowling attacks and STILL manages to outdo Hayden in terms of average.

 

[tooextracool]

I cant see to much difference between the players, what Dravid has is 30 odd extra innings, but Hayden has a faster scoring rate. Head to head in series Hayden has a slight advantage and even though Hayden scored his 380 against Zim Dravids ave against Zim is 423. A very close call in my books.



Hayden 60 104 8 5311 380 55.32 63.08 20 16 73 0
Dravid 83 142 17 7076 270 56.60 41.85 17 34 112 0

please show me 1 test, 1 test is all i ask from you where hayden has succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket....the only time he got over 50 in england was(surprise surprise) at the oval. in SA on the only wicket that offered any amount of assistance for the pace bowlers in durban he failed against in both innings. against SL on that disaster of a pitch in the first test at home, he failed yet again. how anyone whos never succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket can even be considered better than someone who has on several occasions is quite beyond me.

 

[Scallywag]

please show me 1 test, 1 test is all i ask from you where hayden has succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket....the only time he got over 50 in england was(surprise surprise) at the oval. in SA on the only wicket that offered any amount of assistance for the pace bowlers in durban he failed against in both innings. against SL on that disaster of a pitch in the first test at home, he failed yet again. how anyone whos never succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket can even be considered better than someone who has on several occasions is quite beyond me.

Against England Hayden ave 48 to Dravids 75
Against S Africa Hayden ave 51 to Dravid 35

Go figure

 

[Scallywag]

please show me 1 test, 1 test is all i ask from you where hayden has succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket....the only time he got over 50 in england was(surprise surprise) at the oval. in SA on the only wicket that offered any amount of assistance for the pace bowlers in durban he failed against in both innings. against SL on that disaster of a pitch in the first test at home, he failed yet again. how anyone whos never succeeded on a seamer friendly wicket can even be considered better than someone who has on several occasions is quite beyond me.

Haydens highest score in England against 197, out of three centuries against England

 

[Scallywag]

Scully-


There are several factors that influences runs/tests, many of which are out of a batsman's control.

For one, if you play in a weak team, you are forced to bat twice in a test match far more often than if you were in a stronger team ( contrast WI of recent years to that of 20 years ago for my point).





As per your Greg Chappell vs Brian Lara goes, it is difficult to compare cross-era wise, but i hold Lara to be marginally better than Greg Chappell.
He's scored more runs against an attack of comparable strength and he's been the mainstay in a very weak batting lineup.
Plus Chappell cannot match Lara's stupendous appetite for humongous scores.

Chapple faced the likes of Croft, Gibbs, Garner, Roberts,Hadlee, Khan, Botham, Quadir, Snow, Lever, Old, Underwood and you say that is an attack of comparable strength to todays bowlers. Earlier you posted that the bowlers of the 60's (re Hunte) made todays bowlers look club grade which you now say is comparable to the bowlers of the 70's.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have allways thought how many many matches you play and the amount of runs you score were the only things that mattered in test cricket.

Well thats why you will find yourself diagreeing with a lot of people!

There is no doubt that lets say, Tatenda Taibu, will play a lot of tests, and probably score a lot of runs. But ifd he only averages 22, thats not very good, is it? He could well go on to play more matches, and score more runs than Bradman, but that doesnt make him better than him.

I really dont think the amount of matches you play matters AT ALL. I dont rate that criteria one bit. Its a rediculous way to measure a batsman's career.

 

[C_C]

Chapple faced the likes of Croft, Gibbs, Garner, Roberts,Hadlee, Khan, Botham, Quadir, Snow, Lever, Old, Underwood and you say that is an attack of comparable strength to todays bowlers. Earlier you posted that the bowlers of the 60's (re Hunte) made todays bowlers look club grade which you now say is comparable to the bowlers of the 70's.

TODAY's bowlers arnt comparable.
Hayden has been playing in the TODAY'S bowling setup, as he has been around for only the past 5 years.
However, Lara and Tendy played through the 90s.....and the 90s bowling is comparable to the 70s bowling definately.

the likes of Imran Khan,Wasim,Waqar,Qadir,Mushie, Saqlain, Akhtar,McGrath,Warne,Gillespie,Murali,Donald,Pollock,deVilliers, Ambrose,Walsh,Bishop,Kumble etc. compare very well with the list of names you provided.

I am not basing Lara-Tendy's greatness on the past few years where there has been a paucity of quality bowlers.
Incase you've forgotten, Tendy and Lara have been around for 15 and 12 years respectively.......not 5-odd like haydos.

 

[Scallywag]

Well thats why you will find yourself diagreeing with a lot of people!

There is no doubt that lets say, Tatenda Taibu, will play a lot of tests, and probably score a lot of runs. But ifd he only averages 22, thats not very good, is it? He could well go on to play more matches, and score more runs than Bradman, but that doesnt make him better than him.

I really dont think the amount of matches you play matters AT ALL. I dont rate that criteria one bit. Its a rediculous way to measure a batsman's career.

Averages is a combination of both matches played and runs scored and you need to see the two to understand the average.

Two players can have an average of 45 but if one player has played 78 innings compared to 14 you would give more credit to the player with 78 innings. Its not allways that black and white and its not to say one player is better than the other but it gives more perspective to what they have done.

Players can only score runs against the bowlers they face and its what you do when you play that matters.

 

[marc71178]

Who? Sinclair? Richardson?

And Langer just scored a double ton.

Richardson.