Sachin. Sobers. Smith.

[akilana]

Trying to pre emptively write off justified counters. Loser behaviour than would put Sachin to shame.

i'm calling out your loser behaviour.

 

[akilana]

Lol it's still a great innings.

lol... not an ATG innings and did not lead to a win. he has played 200 tests but we can't find a marquee series nor an ATG innings where he really put the team on the back and led them to a win.

 

[akilana]

This seems like one, they won, he didn't "choke", got MOTM and broke Warne in the process

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-india-1997-98-61431/india-vs-australia-1st-test-63794/full-scorecard

He came out to bat with a 50 runs lead. Its a very good innings but unlikely to feature in top 100 or even 200 ATG innings ever. I don't doubt his ability to play a great innings when team is in a decent position but he hasn't proven much in digging the team out of a hole and leading them to wins.

 

[subshakerz]

lol... not an ATG innings and did not lead to a win. he has played 200 tests but we can't find a marquee series nor an ATG innings where he really put the team on the back and led them to a win.

What's your definition of an ATG innings. Pretty sure Tendulkars top innings would make the top 30 or so. Might struggle to have a Smith innings there. This isn't a hard criteria.

 

[subshakerz]

He came out to bat with a 50 runs lead. Its a very good innings but unlikely to feature in top 100 or even 200 ATG innings ever. I don't doubt his ability to play a great innings when team is in a decent position but he hasn't proven much in digging the team out of a hole and leading them to wins.

That wasn't the match context. Warne had dismissed him in the 1st innings and bowled well. It was around 30 odd for 2 lead, pitch was spinning, Sidhu gone, and basically it was between him and Warne who would win that game. The match was in the balance before he destroyed Warne. Many consider it one of the finest exhibitions of pre match planning ever.

It definitely is in the top 100.

 

[Bolo.]

Could you summarize your argument please? I'm having a hard time keeping track of the arguments, sorry.

The crux of my argument is that performances vs a team of a similar level to yours is likely to generate more favourable results than performances vs great teams. Performances vs teams of a similar level should be preferred to maximize win rate. And if you use 'matchwinning' ability (the ability to swing game results) as a means of assessing how good a player is, it will tell you that a player who performed against teams of a similar level is better.

Not much of use recently in the converstation. I'm arguing that closer matches generate more pressure. Subz is arguing that better bowling generates more pressure. Both points are pretty much self-evidently correct.

 

[sayon basak]

The crux of my argument is that performances vs a team of a similar level to yours is likely to generate more favourable results than performances vs great teams. Performances vs teams of a similar level should be preferred to maximize win rate. And if you use 'matchwinning' ability (the ability to swing game results) as a means of assessing how good a player is, it will tell you that a player who performed against teams of a similar level is better.

Not much of use recently in the converstation. I'm arguing that closer matches generate more pressure. Subz is arguing that better bowling generates more pressure. Both points are pretty much self-evidently correct.

By that argument, are you proposing a criticism towards "matchwinning" ability being a criteria, Or do you really subscribe to the idea that one should value performance against teams of similar level more than performance against greater teams?

 

[Bolo.]

By that argument, are you proposing a criticism towards "matchwinning" ability being a criteria, Or do you really subscribe to the idea that one should value performance against teams of similar level more than performance against greater teams?

Neither, exactly. Like most other people, I want to reward both performances against quality opposition and carrying your team over the line. But they are contradictory. I know which one I prefer in the real world, but not which one makes a better player in these type of discussions.

I think performances against a single team and performances in tight games can both be highly subject to chance. You can mostly eliminate the issue for quality opposition performances by looking at a group of the best countries instead of one. But there's always going to be an issue with getting your team to victory.

 

[akilana]

What's your definition of an ATG innings. Pretty sure Tendulkars top innings would make the top 30 or so. Might struggle to have a Smith innings there. This isn't a hard criteria.

in your world, all of sachin's innings make top 100.

sachin was known for shrinking at the important moments of the matches.

 

[subshakerz]

in your world, all of sachin's innings make top 100.

sachin was known for shrinking at the important moments of the matches.

No I am more objective that you suggest.

For example, I consider Lara's 213 the most underrated innings perhaps ever and better than any of Tendulkars innings. I likely wouldn't have Tendulkar in the top 20 innings too.

For too long you have been arguing with your own caricature of me and it's more productive that we deal with our actual views.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No I am more objective that you suggest.

For example, I consider Lara's 213 the most underrated innings perhaps ever and better than any of Tendulkars innings. I likely wouldn't have Tendulkar in the top 20 innings too.

For too long you have been arguing with your own caricature of me and it's more productive that we deal with our actual views.

Nothing is productive with him.

 

[subshakerz]

Nothing is productive with him.

I don't get why he is crabby all the time. Must get tiring.