Rank the 10,000 club

[Coronis]

India is no longer mediocre. We are very proud of our bowling these days. Smith lucky to be banned when India last visited with Bumrah-Ishant-Shami trio.

Nah Bumrah would’ve been exposed against Smith and you know it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Nah Bumrah would’ve been exposed against Smith and you know it.

As if he needs Smith for that to happen

 

[Bolo.]

To be fair Tendulkar never achieved peak ICC rating points that Smith has. He has had the greatest peak of any batsman bar Bradman. That's hard to dispute. What that means for rating a batsman is a different matter.

How you rate rate his peak really depends on how long you consider appropriate to judge off. The comparable averages issue that someone else raised notwithstanding, cos I rate his well above, I reckon (without much knowledge on the issue) that it is likely the best 50ish (non-cheat code) test streak.

It might also be the best in term of specific number of years, although I wouldnt be surprised if someone from an earlier era could challenge it (Hobbs/Headley?).

Overall, its definitely a fair shout for best streak of its length, possibily a lock. But to accept that it is the best test streak means to accept that for some unknown reason the length of his peak is exactly the magic number.

If we prioritise absurdly low numbers (153* for example), he clearly loses. Similarly true for much higher numbers.

Personally I reckon Sachins 18 year steak is a couple of classes above. 18 years at 59 is better than 5ish at 70 and a bit, and when you consider the fact that Sachin managed a comparable away average (possibly my single biggest yardstick) over nearly 4 times as long, the comparison borders on silly if you have similar priorities to me.

 

[pardus]

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.

This is going to be a super-long post, but let me go anyways.
By nature the sample size becomes small when you do a countrywide split of performance analysis, but people do it all the time. And a single good/bad innings can significantly affect country-wise stat as well. If Tendulkar hadn't scored 241* in the final Test in 2004 against Aus (he had pretty much failed that entire series until that knock), his career average in Australia would have fallen "great" to "good".

Despite that, on this forum as well as everywhere else, I often see people quoting how much a player averages in Australia to determine his quality. Even you do that, don't you?
Moreover when discussions get deep, it can get get more nuanced, and that's when these micro-filters (performance against certain bowlers etc.) can be applied, and for good reason.

For instance, let's take performance of Lara and Tendulkar in Australia. They both played in the same era, and Australian team was easily the best team of their era, and batting performance in Australia in that era is often used by many here as a yardstick for rating a batsman's greatness, because batting against that side in their backyard was genuinely tough.

Lara scored 1469 runs in 35 innings @41 runs per innings in Australia from 1992/93 to 2005/06
Tendulkar scored 1809 runs in 38(34) innings @53 runs per innings in Australia from 1991/92 to 2011/12

On paper, Tendulkar is clearly ahead, and if you exclude Tendulkar's last series in Australia because he was past his best (which also further overlaps Lara-Tendulkar's years of play in Australia) Tendulkar becomes way ahead. Tendulkar then has 1522 runs in 30(26) innings @58 runs per innings in Australia from 1991/92 to 2007/08. So Tendulkar was clearly a much better batsman than Lara in Australia. Not just Tendulkar, when you tighten the era overlap, you will find that many other Indian batsmen - Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid - were all much better batsmen than Lara in Australia.

At least that is what the blanket stat of "performance in Australia" says.

But this blanket stat of performance of Lara and Tendulkar (and other Indian batsmen) in Australia is extremely misleading. It misses a factor, that, in my opinion, for sure would have changed things in a big way.
Of the 35 innings that Lara played in Australia, McGrath played in a whopping 27 of those.
Of the 30 innings that Tendulkar played in Australia (till 2008), McGrath played in just 6 of those.
And not just that, Tendulkar never once faced McGrath on genuinely fast bowler friendly Australian pitches (like Perth & Gabba of 90s) while Lara did it several times.

For example, If you look at the Australian fast bowling lineup that Lara faced in Test match at Perth in 2000-01, it reads McGrath, Gillespie and Lee. Combine the attack with the pitch, Tendulkar (and other Indian batsmen) never faced such a testing situation in Australia in his career.
In fact McGrath, Gillespie & Lee never ever bowled together to India even once, either in Australia or in India.

To me there is no comparison in average quality of Aussie attacks they faced in Australia. For me these factors are impossible to ignore when we talk about an "average in Australia" or "average vs Australia" comparison. That's the reason why I bring up "vs bowler" stats. BTW, this isn't just about Lara vs Tendulkar in Australia, this can also be said to some extent about several other batsmen of that era vs Tendulkar as well.

Because the moment you introduce McGrath into the equation, averages of Tendulkar and every Indian batsman come crashing down. To me it would be absurd not to factor in presence/absence of McGrath in any comparison from that era. He was easily the greatest fast bowler of Tendulkar-Lara era. Without McGrath's presence - in that era - the Aussie attack became half of what it was. Warne was a non-factor for both Lara & Indian batsmen. If anything they all licked their lips when playing Warne (as Lara called him "lollipop bowler" whom he looked forward to playing). Even in 2005 Ashes that Australia lost, they never lost a single match in which McGrath participated.

McGrath's presence clearly made a good Aussie attack into a formidable one. BTW, the same applies to Wasim & Waqar in early to mid 90s as well. That's the reason - to me - vs bowler stat is a pretty big deal.

So even though Lara (or Kallis or Inzamam) & Tendulkar played in the same era, to me, it's like they played two completely different Aussie attacks when they visited Australia. Either a "stat-on-paper" comparison cannot be made because of the difference in quality of attacks and conditions, or McGrath factor has to be included in some way.

 

[ankitj]

Those are interesting facts you point out; I hadn't noticed those. Although in whatever little opportunities Tendulkar got against McGrath, he did fine apart from lacking a dominant series.

Tendulkar in Donald's presence was weaker. I don't give too much weight to against Akram because it never looked to me like Akram was going to put Tendulkar in much trouble whenever they met including many limited over games.

 

[trundler]

This is going to be a super-long post, but let me go anyways.
By nature the sample size becomes small when you do a countrywide split of performance analysis, but people do it all the time. And a single good/bad innings can significantly affect country-wise stat as well. If Tendulkar hadn't scored 241* in the final Test in 2004 against Aus (he had pretty much failed that entire series until that knock), his career average in Australia would have fallen "great" to "good".

Despite that, on this forum as well as everywhere else, I often see people quoting how much a player averages in Australia to determine his quality. Even you do that, don't you?
Moreover when discussions get deep, it can get get more nuanced, and that's when these micro-filters (performance against certain bowlers etc.) can be applied, and for good reason.

For instance, let's take performance of Lara and Tendulkar in Australia. They both played in the same era, and Australian team was easily the best team of their era, and batting performance in Australia in that era is often used by many here as a yardstick for rating a batsman's greatness, because batting against that side in their backyard was genuinely tough.

Lara scored 1469 runs in 35 innings @41 runs per innings in Australia from 1992/93 to 2005/06
Tendulkar scored 1809 runs in 38(34) innings @53 runs per innings in Australia from 1991/92 to 2011/12

On paper, Tendulkar is clearly ahead, and if you exclude Tendulkar's last series in Australia because he was past his best (which also further overlaps Lara-Tendulkar's years of play in Australia) Tendulkar becomes way ahead. Tendulkar then has 1522 runs in 30(26) innings @58 runs per innings in Australia from 1991/92 to 2007/08. So Tendulkar was clearly a much better batsman than Lara in Australia. Not just Tendulkar, when you tighten the era overlap, you will find that many other Indian batsmen - Sehwag, Laxman and Dravid - were all much better batsmen than Lara in Australia.

At least that is what the blanket stat of "performance in Australia" says.

But this blanket stat of performance of Lara and Tendulkar (and other Indian batsmen) in Australia is extremely misleading. It misses a factor, that, in my opinion, for sure would have changed things in a big way.
Of the 35 innings that Lara played in Australia, McGrath played in a whopping 27 of those.
Of the 30 innings that Tendulkar played in Australia (till 2008), McGrath played in just 6 of those.
And not just that, Tendulkar never once faced McGrath on genuinely fast bowler friendly Australian pitches (like Perth & Gabba of 90s) while Lara did it several times.

For example, If you look at the Australian fast bowling lineup that Lara faced in Test match at Perth in 2000-01, it reads McGrath, Gillespie and Lee. Combine the attack with the pitch, Tendulkar (and other Indian batsmen) never faced such a testing situation in Australia in his career.
In fact McGrath, Gillespie & Lee never ever bowled together to India even once, either in Australia or in India.

To me there is no comparison in average quality of Aussie attacks they faced in Australia. For me these factors are impossible to ignore when we talk about an "average in Australia" or "average vs Australia" comparison. That's the reason why I bring up "vs bowler" stats. BTW, this isn't just about Lara vs Tendulkar in Australia, this can also be said to some extent about several other batsmen of that era vs Tendulkar as well.

Because the moment you introduce McGrath into the equation, averages of Tendulkar and every Indian batsman come crashing down. To me it would be absurd not to factor in presence/absence of McGrath in any comparison from that era. He was easily the greatest fast bowler of Tendulkar-Lara era. Without McGrath's presence - in that era - the Aussie attack became half of what it was. Warne was a non-factor for both Lara & Indian batsmen. If anything they all licked their lips when playing Warne (as Lara called him "lollipop bowler" whom he looked forward to playing). Even in 2005 Ashes that Australia lost, they never lost a single match in which McGrath participated.

McGrath's presence clearly made a good Aussie attack into a formidable one. BTW, the same applies to Wasim & Waqar in early to mid 90s as well. That's the reason - to me - vs bowler stat is a pretty big deal.

So even though Lara (or Kallis or Inzamam) & Tendulkar played in the same era, to me, it's like they played two completely different Aussie attacks when they visited Australia. Either a "stat-on-paper" comparison cannot be made because of the difference in quality of attacks and conditions, or McGrath factor has to be included in some way.

Quality of opposition obviously matters as I said. But as you said, 6/30 innings isn't a lot at all and certainly not enough of a sample size to draw a conclusion from the numbers alone. Fwiw average in X country can be misleading too. Border played 3 tests in SA in 1992 and averaged in the 30s. Does it mean anything? Not at all. It's the same with average vs x bowler unless we're talking something like Anderson vs Warner where they face off regularly. What makes it even more flawed is that a major part of batting is playing out the tough bowler and getting runs at the other end. Also I recall Lara getting dropped very early on in that 213 off McGrath. In a 6 innings sample size that can blow up the numbers significantly. It's just a crap stat in general that tells you nothing.

McGrath made the Australian attack what it was though. There's absolutely no question about that.

Have no reason to disagree with all the facts you've put forward re: Tendulkar v Lara though. It's just the particular average v x bowler stat I dislike.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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

No your point was completely meaningless, and you missed the point. If you don't allow qualification of the statistics then there's no point bringing them up because you will find no truth in them.

And you're really still doing the laugh react thing? Come on mate you're not a child

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 @ not realizing they played in Bangladesh and he basically loaded up on tailenders after being hammered. Best of 5/113 sure does imply match winner against minnows...

Based on 2 matches. Meaningless.

Murali took an incredible 89 wickets at 13 against Bangladesh, much better than his career stats. So yeah they were still minnows against spin.

 

[Flem274*]

are you guys done yet?

 

[Coronis]

are you guys done yet?

You new here?

 

[stephen]

are you guys done yet?

Never!

 

[stephen]

The entire Indian batting lineup have inflated averages in Australia because since the turn of the century the ACB have ordered nothing but pancakes and superhighways for India. Hell, the BCCI did a special deal to ensure they didn't have to play at the Gabba last tour.

I mean you only need to look at the three grounds India always play at - the MCG, SCG and Adelaide (day games). Most of the class of 02/03 feasted on these ridiculous roads against the worst bowling attack Australia had put up side 1990.

Truth be told, the ACB want games to last 5 days against India for the revenue and they can't do that if they give Australian bowlers any assistance at all. So really if you want to compare Lara and Tendulkar's performances in Australia you need to factor that in. To be fair, the batsmen who benefited most from this policy were the batsmen who played in 2014. Those pitches were the most docile pitches in living memory and Kohli and Smith both averaged around 100 for that series.

The West Indies were good enough in bouncy and pacy conditions that the ACB never needed to order flat pitches for them (though I'm sure Australian batsmen of the 80s and 90s would have really liked to not face Ambrose and Marshall on the WACA and at the Gabba).

 

[Flem274*]

true, the indian people do appear to believe a blade of grass is against the spirit of the game.

we all know what happens to indian all time great batsmen in good real bowling conditions. you can set your watch to kohli chasing a wide one.

 

[trundler]

I found it surprising how both McGrath and Lillee have relatively unspectacular records at the WACA.

 

[trundler]

While we're on the subject Gavaskar's record in Australia is way more of a myth

 

[stephen]

I found it surprising how both McGrath and Lillee have relatively unspectacular records at the WACA.

McGrath also didn't do quite as well in South Africa as you might expect.

 

[TheJediBrah]

McGrath also didn't do quite as well in South Africa as you might expect.

Average of 23 is only like a couple of runs over his career average tbf, and SA have been a strong team

 

[Migara]

McGrath also didn't do quite as well in South Africa as you might expect.

That is because SAffers were super good playing pace. It was Warne they had issues with.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That is because SAffers were super good playing pace. It was Warne they had issues with.

However, McGrath has a better average against SA than Warne did

 

[honestbharani]

No your point was completely meaningless, and you missed the point. If you don't allow qualification of the statistics then there's no point bringing them up because you will find no truth in them.

And you're really still doing the laugh react thing? Come on mate you're not a child

Qualification of stats is subjectifying the objective. And I said by objective metrics, Murali is better. You still find it THIS hard to wrap your head around facts and reality? And since you love it so much,

 

[TheJediBrah]

Qualification of stats is subjectifying the objective. And I said by objective metrics, Murali is better. You still find it THIS hard to wrap your head around facts and reality? And since you love it so much,

So, yes, by "objective stats" you really are just referring to "meaningless numbers", which again begs the question as to why you bothered even saying it. I'm assuming to get a rise out of stephen but a very clumsy attempt.