Langer a great cricketer

[tooextracool]

If there is a greater chance of winning than losing, a team should back itself and go for the win. The ultimate goal is to win the series. So if a team is winning 1-0 with one test to go, it can go for a draw series.

precisely

 

[Sudeep]

A defensive opener is no less significant that an agressive one. It all depends on the 'role' the team has figured for him. An opener may be asked to wear the new ball off so that the latter batsmen can play the old ball and win ultimately. Richardson suits well in a lesser talented kiwi team where wearing the new ball early on is very vital for the middle order batsmen.

Langer is vital in the Australian side as an agressive player. Both are openers but totally different and it will be completely simplistic to say one is better than the other. In a specific team one player will be better while in another that player may not be that useful.

In an ideal team though, who'd be of more value? And my answer will be Langer.

 

[tooextracool]

Langer's career:

unfiltered            81  5750 250   43.89  19  22   0   -       -    0  52  0

Langer, when Australia won:

filtered              52  3761 250   47.60  12  13   -   -       -    -  39  0

Langer, when Australia drew:

filtered              14  1290 162   58.63   6   5   -   -       -    -   7  0

Richardson's career:

unfiltered            37  2751 145   45.85   4  19   1  1/16   21.00  0  25  0

Richardson, when New Zealand won:

filtered              12   763 143   44.88   2   3   0   -       -    0  10  0

Richardson, when New Zealand drew:

filtered              14  1058 145   50.38   1   9   1  1/16   16.00  0  12  0

Pretty much my point...

2 things that those completely ignores....
1) langer plays for australia, richardson plays for NZ.
2) the difference in pitches on which the 2 play on....

 

[Sudeep]

2 things that those completely ignores....
1) langer plays for australia, richardson plays for NZ.
2) the difference in pitches on which the 2 play on....

So, if Richardson played for Australia, would his stats be similar to Langer's?

 

[tooextracool]

In an ideal team though, who'd be of more value? And my answer will be Langer.

you seem to make it out as though langer is a batsman capable of turning matches on its head with his bothamesque innings. langer himself isnt a considerably quick scorer.
regardless whatever way you look at it, even in an ideal team both defensive and offensive players are just as valuable.

 

[Sudeep]

2 things that those completely ignores....
1) langer plays for australia, richardson plays for NZ.
2) the difference in pitches on which the 2 play on....

And the more important part is the draws.

Just one question, because I'm confused what you're arguing about.

Would you prefer Richardson over Langer, or are you just arguing over Langer being a perfect opener?

 

[tooextracool]

So, if Richardson played for Australia, would his stats be similar to Langer's?

well no one can say for certain, but yes it is expected for any batsman to be able to score more runs at a higher average in aussie conditions than it is for the same batsman in NZ conditions.

 

[Sudeep]

you seem to make it out as though langer is a batsman capable of turning matches on its head with his bothamesque innings. langer himself isnt a considerably quick scorer.
regardless whatever way you look at it, even in an ideal team both defensive and offensive players are just as valuable.

He does set up some awesome victories...

 

[tooextracool]

And the more important part is the draws

no but if you have a player capable of saving lossed by batting through for a draw, id say you've got someone just as effective as someone capable of winning a game.

Just one question, because I'm confused what you're arguing about.

Would you prefer Richardson over Langer, or are you just arguing over Langer being a perfect opener?

no i just dont see what makes langer better. IMO they're both just as good as each other.

 

[Sudeep]

well no one can say for certain, but yes it is expected for any batsman to be able to score more runs at a higher average in aussie conditions than it is for the same batsman in NZ conditions.

I'll frame it another way - If Richardson played for Australia, would he be able to win/save as many matches for Australia, as Langer has?

 

[Sudeep]

no but if you have a player capable of saving lossed by batting through for a draw, id say you've got someone just as effective as someone capable of winning a game.




no i just dont see what makes langer better. IMO they're both just as good as each other.

What makes Langer better is that he's capable for setting up wins, while Richardson is capable of saving matches. I'm not saying I don't like Richardson's style of play. He's a valuable player. But I'd rather go for a win first, before considering saving a match.

 

[tooextracool]

I'll frame it another way - If Richardson played for Australia, would he be able to win/save as many matches for Australia, as Langer has?

who says that langer has saved/won more games on average than richardson has? the average just shows tha langer does a better job in the games that have resulted in that way but it doesnt show anything about whether hes won or saved those games.

 

[tooextracool]

What makes Langer better is that he's capable for setting up wins, while Richardson is capable of saving matches. I'm not saying I don't like Richardson's style of play. He's a valuable player. But I'd rather go for a win first, before considering saving a match.

and slow innings are quite useful in winning games too.....

 

[Sudeep]

who says that langer has saved/won more games on average than richardson has? the average just shows tha langer does a better job in the games that have resulted in that way but it doesnt show anything about whether hes won or saved those games.

And that didn't contribute to a win/save?

 

[Pratters]

In an ideal team though, who'd be of more value? And my answer will be Langer.

There is no such team as an ideal team. Australia is an above average team. In an average team, a defensive player is just as important.

 

[tooextracool]

And that didn't contribute to a win/save?

well if langer got 2 40s in 2 games and richardson got 1 80 and a 0 in the other, assuming they were both trying to win the game, then i would say that richardson's 80 was a lot more valuable in winning the game.
of course when trying to save a game whats important is the number of balls survived rather than the number of runs. so if langer scored 100 off 170 balls while richardson scored 98 off 250 balls, obviously richardson has done the better job.

 

[Sudeep]

There is no such team as an ideal team. Australia is an above average team. In an average team, a defensive player is just as important.

Australia - above average? That's it?

 

[Sudeep]

well if langer got 2 40s in 2 games and richardson got 1 80 and a 0 in the other, assuming they were both trying to win the game, then i would say that richardson's 80 was a lot more valuable in winning the game.
of course when trying to save a game whats important is the number of balls survived rather than the number of runs. so if langer scored 100 off 170 balls while richardson scored 98 off 250 balls, obviously richardson has done the better job.

Not if Langer's 40 was in a 100 partnership, and Richardson's duck in a 0 partnership...

 

[tooextracool]

Not if Langer's 40 was in a 100 partnership, and Richardson's duck in a 0 partnership...

yes and richardson's 80 could have been in a 200 run match winning partnership.

 

[Sudeep]

yes and richardson's 80 could have been in a 200 run match winning partnership.

Two 100 run partnerships = One 200 run partnership + One zero run partnership, if we're considering winning a game, which can be decided by the total number of runs scored by a team in their two innings.