• 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.

Rank the 10,000 club

Migara

International Captain
Waqar averaged 27.32 in ODIs which Sachin played. Wasim averaged 27.75 likewise.



Nothing suggests that their averages wouldn't suffer against him and his average would suffer against them. Either way, statistic against an individual bowler is in't a particularly good one as it doesn't tell how they have fared head to head. From what I recall, Abdul Razzaq was better against Tendulkar than these two.
Well played, but Aaqib Javed averaged 24.6, Mushtaq Ahmed 22.9 as well. They did much worse against other countries. Pulling out two Ws stats don't support an argument, because all bowlers would have bowled against Tendulkar.
 

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
Honestly you could throw a net over a dozen bowlers and they'd be good enough for an AT XI. Garner almost certainly is the best proven first change bowler in history and always gets left out of these discussions, despite his ridiculous record.
No different for ATG batsmen really. Hobbs, Hutton, Tendulkar, Lara, Hammond, Sobers, Viv are all interchangeable. A few others too probably. Saying any one of them is definitively better than any other is completely baseless.

Kallis and Ponting had ~50 test streaks of averaging 70. Sanga averages about 70 without the gloves. So even guys in the next tier aren't really any worse.
 

h_hurricane

International Debutant
Well played, but Aaqib Javed averaged 24.6, Mushtaq Ahmed 22.9 as well. They did much worse against other countries. Pulling out two Ws stats don't support an argument, because all bowlers would have bowled against Tendulkar.
Exactly, it is a useless stat. Doesn't hold much water.
 

pardus

School Boy/Girl Captain
Can we do away with the crap average vs bowler stats?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Aussie attack that Tendulkar played at home in 1998 led by Kasper & Fleming is of the same quality as the Aussie attack that Tendulkar played at home in 2001 or 2004 (led by McGrath & Gillespie)? To me, there is no comparison between the 2 attacks. Absence/Presence of bowlers of the caliber of McGrath is a huge deal. Bowlers like McGrath are the only reason why innings against Aus are more valued than innings against Bangladesh. It's a valid stat as long as you have a decent sample size.
 

Flem274*

123/5
smith has done the work to give himself a chance of being #2 but you risk ridicule in 10 years if you say he's there now. there's just too much career left. i don't think he will jimmy adams or develop a stuart broad fear of the ball, but sport is kinda random.

what i'm happy to say is smith is the best batsman i have seen since 2010 but sangakkara, younis khan, abdv and chanderpaul all make compelling cases as well.
 

trundler

Hall of Fame Member
Are you seriously suggesting that the Aussie attack that Tendulkar played at home in 1998 led by Kasper & Fleming is of the same quality as the Aussie attack that Tendulkar played at home in 2001 or 2004 (led by McGrath & Gillespie)? To me, there is no comparison between the 2 attacks. Absence/Presence of bowlers of the caliber of McGrath is a huge deal. Bowlers like McGrath are the only reason why innings against Aus are more valued than innings against Bangladesh. It's a valid stat as long as you have a decent sample size.
No I'm not but it's incredibly misleading generally and almost never has a significant enough sample size. Quality of opposition matters a lot, of course. But because we're talking about such a small sample size a bad lbw decision, declaration batting, dropped catches etc can have way too much impact. There are too many variables so you're better off having watched it and judging the encounter based on the eye test. Average in matches played against X is even more random. The only time it may make any sense is in Ashes tests over a long career.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
You may think you're being fair and even handed but you're actually showing your bias here. "Objective metrics" is so debatable. What does that even mean? Away average? Number of wickets against top 8 sides? Head to head results? All of these are objective metrics which favour Warne.

As I said earlier, I'm not even declaring Warne the better bowler and include him as the better package but to pretend that Murali is clearly better than Warne is simply nonsense.

I almost didn't include the bowling attack because it made no difference to the original point I was making, which is that Tendulkar isn't guaranteed a spot in the all time XI.
Mate there is a very simple metric of how many Man of the Match and Series performances Murali put up. Bowlers are match winners and he was easily a more consistent match winner than Warne. And of course we can do the stats dance but the point is the basic objective metrics all favor Murali. If you wanna put filters and caveats, be my guest but my point obviously is still true - the objective metrics of bowling average, strike rate, wickets per match show Murali is clearly better. The moment you bring in filters and caveats, they are no longer strictly objective. So thanks for proving me right, again. :)

And I am not thinking I am fair or even handed. I am just telling my preference, unlike you, who is just so blinded by bias that you cannot see facts.


I'm not buying into anything else stephen is saying but he's right about this. Saying that objective measures favour Murali is nonsense. We really want to go over all this again? The spinner that played 70% of his cricket in Asia, and a whopping 25 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, is not winning by any objective measures because his career average is a few runs lower.


Once again, objective as in the basic stats. I did leave the room open coz if you want to take a subjective approach, it just depends on your criterion and bias.
 

_00_deathscar

U19 Cricketer
Right - so matches with Sachin involving Glenn McGrath OR Shane Warne (not sure why Warne is being taken out of these equations? Or are we all in agreement now that maybe Warne doesn't deserve Best Spinner Of All Time status because he's only a bully of **** players of spin*?):
14 matches/26 innings
1,279 runs
53.29 average (and higher in Australia, 56.12 in 5 matches, than in India, 51.87)
63.75 S/R (much higher than his average, even away in Australia)

Matches with Sachin involving Dale Steyn OR Shaun Pollock OR Allan Donald OR Glen McGrath OR Shane Warne OR Mutiah Muralitharan OR Curtly Ambrose OR Courtney Walsh OR Waqar Younis OR Wasim Akram (generally considered the 10 best bowlers during his period)
72 matches/119 innings
5,225 runs
47.07 average
52.19 S/R

Shane Warne matches involving Lara OR Sachin:
32 matches/57 innings
104 wickets
35.85 average (well above his career average as you know, and it's 39.64 in West Indies and 47.83 in India in 7 matches each which would actually be a very respectable batting average! That's how bad Warne was vs the two best batsmen of his time)

*Can't have it both ways.

This is only matches involving those players. Anything beyond that starts getting even more silly, like average vs the ACTUAL bowler, and then starting excuses such as "it wasn't the bowler's prime" etc.

Edit:
For the record, between Sachin's 'peak' (1993-2002), his average was 52.80 in matches when involving the above players (obviously Steyn would be out) with 11 hundreds in 40 matches.

Here's a fun fact. When choosing the above players (minus his own countrymen and Steyn), and putting Anil Kumble in there to replace, Lara's average drops to 46.54 in 73 matches involving any of the above players.

In short - even top/ATG batsmen struggle (relatively speaing) vs the top ATG bowlers. And vice versa. And this is a really silly metric and I feel like I've wasted time on it.
 
Last edited:

Coronis

International Regular
It depends on the rest of your side. FWIW, I have always put Warne juz coz most of the ATG batsmen seemed to find it easier to bowl some offies and I would have variety this way. But your wording makes it seem there is an obvious choice and there isn't, unless you are simply going for the better spinner, which by most objective metrics is Murali.
Nah lots of em bowl leggies, Bradman, Smith, Tendulkar, Lara, Hutton, Pollock, Headley, Barrington, Weekes, Chanderpaul.
 

TheJediBrah

Hall of Fame Member
Mate there is a very simple metric of how many Man of the Match and Series performances Murali put up. Bowlers are match winners and he was easily a more consistent match winner than Warne. And of course we can do the stats dance but the point is the basic objective metrics all favor Murali. If you wanna put filters and caveats, be my guest but my point obviously is still true - the objective metrics of bowling average, strike rate, wickets per match show Murali is clearly better. The moment you bring in filters and caveats, they are no longer strictly objective. So thanks for proving me right, again. :)

And I am not thinking I am fair or even handed. I am just telling my preference, unlike you, who is just so blinded by bias that you cannot see facts.

Once again, objective as in the basic stats. I did leave the room open coz if you want to take a subjective approach, it just depends on your criterion and bias.
I think you're completely misusing the term "objective stats". None of those things objectively show anything, they are just numbers. It's like saying that the "objective stats" favor Andy Ganteaume as the best batsman ever. You're ignoring everything that gives the numbers meaning.

If that's what you're saying, then that's fine, but if so it's a bit of a pointless thing to say because it doesn't actually mean anything.

Yeah but of these I would only really want Barrington or Sachin or Smith to be bowling at the ATG level.
Doubt you'd want any of them bowling at the ATG level tbh
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I think you're completely misusing the term "objective stats". None of those things objectively show anything, they are just numbers. It's like saying that the "objective stats" favor Andy Ganteaume as the best batsman ever. You're ignoring everything that gives the numbers meaning.

If that's what you're saying, then that's fine, but if so it's a bit of a pointless thing to say because it doesn't actually mean anything.

Not really, Andy Ganteaume only has the highest average, not the other metrics. Way to miss the point. :laugh:
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Mate there is a very simple metric of how many Man of the Match and Series performances Murali put up. Bowlers are match winners and he was easily a more consistent match winner than Warne. And of course we can do the stats dance but the point is the basic objective metrics all favor Murali. If you wanna put filters and caveats, be my guest but my point obviously is still true - the objective metrics of bowling average, strike rate, wickets per match show Murali is clearly better. The moment you bring in filters and caveats, they are no longer strictly objective. So thanks for proving me right, again. :)

And I am not thinking I am fair or even handed. I am just telling my preference, unlike you, who is just so blinded by bias that you cannot see facts.






Once again, objective as in the basic stats. I did leave the room open coz if you want to take a subjective approach, it just depends on your criterion and bias.
No slicing and dicing involved. Warne had a better away average than Murali, even though Murali had the advantage of playing his eras minnows a ton (taking 170 odd wickets against them). That's not slicing and dicing, that's plain as day.

And there is no doubt that Sri Lanka was far better conditions for spinners. When Warne toured there he took 47 wickets @20 while Murali took 46 wickets @26 against the Australian tourists.

I mean Murali averaged 28 away, which is substantially higher than Warne. Warne's average was dragged down by the fact that Australia is literally the worst country in the world to bowl spin in. He averaged 26 in Australia, a country that Murali averaged 70+ in.

Man of the match awards and 5/10 wicket hauls are stupid stats because they obviously favour the bowler who had less support. There are only 10/20 wickets in an innings/ match after all. And it wasn't like Warne never took a bunch of big hauls either. He took 36 5 wicket hauls and 10 10 wicket hauls against top 8 nations compared to Murali's 50/16. Both were exceptional in that regard.

There's literally nothing objective about Murali being better than Warne. It generally comes down to preference. Do you want someone who is going to consistently perform against everyone at all times or do you want someone who is going to lift for the big occasions to higher peaks but is a bit more inconsistent overall.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Warne was HAMMERED by Bangladesh when he first played them. They were not minnows against spin. And yes, picking and choosing who were minnows and who were not based on your bias is slicing and dicing. FWIW, England were much more of minnows in their career against spin than Bangladesh were. And Zimbabwe were pretty good throughout the 90s. Pretty sure Murray Goodwin tonked Warney around along with Neil Johson in the WC very easily.
 

stephen

Hall of Fame Member
Warne was HAMMERED by Bangladesh when he first played them. They were not minnows against spin. And yes, picking and choosing who were minnows and who were not based on your bias is slicing and dicing. FWIW, England were much more of minnows in their career against spin than Bangladesh were. And Zimbabwe were pretty good throughout the 90s. Pretty sure Murray Goodwin tonked Warney around along with Neil Johson in the WC very easily.
Lol. Taking 11 wickets in 2 tests @27 in the northern territory and cairns is "hammered".
 

Top