Sachin. Sobers. Smith.

[Bolo.]

This might have truth to it from a collective perspective but genuinely, not really applicable when rating the ability of a singular batsman, that moreso speaks to the ability of the overall unit, I bet Kane Williamson has won more games against subpar sides at home than Lara did in his career in general but that doesn't say much.

OFC it's a team game. In general, don't you rate the players who give their team the best chance of winning the higher?

No by giving up against greater opposition.

Nobody is giving up. You think players are preselecting what games they perform in? Impact on results is only clear when the game is over.

Would you prefer someone in your team perform well in a loss against a great team, or in a win against a good one?

 

[Johan]

OFC it's a team game. In general, don't you rate the players who give their team the best chance of winning the higher?

Personally? I think Skill level is the most important thing and is connected to chances someone can give you of victory, performance against McGrath/Warne is naturally above performance against Streak/Strang even if the team wins the latter and loses the prior, the idea of a Cricketer who fails against B teams with a good sample size but performs against the best is so, so rare that I don't pay it much mind.

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Hammond or Sachin as a Cricketer?

Hammond the better player if we are purely going by the how good both of these two were.Sachin had arguably the better career. If I had to choose a player for a series I probably would take Hammond tbh. He didn’t bowl enough tho. Either way is respectable opinion imho.

 

[Johan]

Hammond the better player if we are purely going by the how good both of these two were.Sachin had arguably the better career. If I had to choose a player for a series I probably would take Hammond tbh. He didn’t bowl enough tho. Either way is respectable opinion imho.

don't forget Hammond's slip fielding.

 

[Bolo.]

Personally? I think Skill level is the most important thing and is connected to chances someone can give you of victory, performance against McGrath/Warne is naturally above performance against Streak/Strang even if the team wins the latter and loses the prior, the idea of a Cricketer who fails against B teams with a good sample size but performs against the best is so, so rare that I don't pay it much mind.

An underperformance vs Streak and Strang is also worse than one vs McWarne. I'm not sure that higher highs aand lower lows is better. A performance vs a stronger team does indicate a higher ceiling, which I would take in a vacuum, but what I really want to see is results.

 

[Johan]

An underperformance vs Streak and Strang is also worse than one vs McWarne. I'm not sure that higher highs aand lower lows is better. A performance vs a stronger team does indicate a higher ceiling, which I would take in a vacuum, but what I really want to see is results.

if they are actual minnows, they'd lose any way regardless of if a singular player underperforms. Anyway, Yeah underperformance against worst bowling sides is worse, but someone who bashes the elites underperforming against lower end sides can just be a result of poor form or some bad luck. but someone who bashes poor opposition but goes missing against the elites, is likely just not that able against high class bowling, and that's more reflective of a player's limitations.

 

[subshakerz]

Would you prefer someone in your team perform well in a loss against a great team, or in a win against a good one?

You are assuming they lose against a great team beforehand. Thats the defeatism. Unless you are talking about a minnow, a regular team can and should punch about their weight.

 

[subshakerz]

An underperformance vs Streak and Strang is also worse than one vs McWarne.

It's worse in that it's less expected and he has less excuses.

Its not worse when it comes to assessing the capabilities of a player since there are less doubt about whether he can perform against Streak Strang level cricketers if you regularly perform against better ones and it's easier to write off as a blip.

Don't make this conflation.

 

[subshakerz]

but someone who bashes poor opposition but goes missing against the elites, is likely just not that able against high class bowling, and that's more reflective of a player's limitations.

Exactly. There are odd cases of mediocre players punching above their weight but generally if you are doing well against strong opp it's a better testament to your abilities.

 

[Bolo.]

if they are actual minnows, they'd lose any way regardless of if a singular player underperforms. Anyway, Yeah underperformance against worst bowling sides is worse, but someone who bashes the elites underperforming against lower end sides can just be a result of poor form or some bad luck. but someone who bashes poor opposition but goes missing against the elites, is likely just not that able against high class bowling, and that's more reflective of a player's limitations.

I'm not talking about actual minnows here.

Form and luck happen against all teams, even the best, for better and worse.

A player also has limitations if they are not able to consistently perform against the tier below great. And these limitations are more likely to negatively impact the team.

 

[Johan]

I'm not talking about actual minnows here.

Form and luck happen against all teams, even the best, for better and worse.

A player also has limitations if they are not able to consistently perform against the tier below great. And these limitations are more likely to negatively impact the team.

Again, if that's the case it's very likely the player who constantly bombs against the low tier opposition just punched above his weight against the elites and was not that good at the first place.

what's the technical flaw of a Hypothetical Batsman who dominated Australia and South Africa in their backyards but ended up averaging 20 in high scoring draws in Pakistan?

 

[Bolo.]

You are assuming they lose against a great team beforehand. Thats the defeatism. Unless you are talking about a minnow, a regular team can and should punch about their weight.

You are assuming they lose against a great team beforehand. Thats the defeatism. Unless you are talking about a minnow, a regular team can and should punch about their weight.

We are discussing completed careers. There is no beforehand.

Would you rather a player was good against a team they lost to anyway, or against a team when their performances carried them to a win.

 

[Johan]

Would you rather a player was good against a team they lost to anyway, or against a team when their performances carried them to a win.

First is Brian Lara, second is Kane Williamson .

 

[Bolo.]

Again, if that's the case it's very likely the player who constantly bombs against the low tier opposition just punched above his weight against the elites and was not that good at the first place.

what's the technical flaw of a Hypothetical Batsman who dominated Australia and South Africa in their backyards but ended up averaging 20 in high scoring draws in Pakistan?

Warner.

It's not all about technical flaws anyway. You can get a player like AB who just didn't buckle down and score except when he really felt like it.

 

[Rob Wesley]

Didn’t saw Sobers so hard to say but between Sachin and Smith, Smith was a tougher batter to get out and had a greater peak than Sachin in Tests. So, Smith is my choice.

Sobers batted down at 5-6 and cashed on weaker opponents too as visible by his performance against opponents. I will pick Smith as the winner here.

 

[Johan]

Warner.

It's not all about technical flaws anyway. You can get a player like AB who just didn't buckle down and score except when he really felt like it.

Warner is just a classical HTB.

De Villiers was pretty prolific against poor bowling though, averages in the 80s against the West Indies I think

 

[Bolo.]

First is Brian Lara, second is Kane Williamson .

This is a false equivalence of 2 players in very differing tiers who played for 2 teams of differing strengths.

 

[Johan]

This is a false equivalence of 2 players in very differing tiers who played for 2 teams of differing strengths.

How about a middle ground? The one who bashes elite bowling but falls short against underwhelming bowling is a more skilful Batsman in comparison to the one who bashes underwhelming bowling but falls short to elite bowling, but the latter had a better career overall because he led to more wins overall even if they were against inferior sides.

 

[Bolo.]

Warner is just a classical HTB.

De Villiers was pretty prolific against poor bowling though, averages in the 80s against the West Indies I think

Warner averages over 60 in RSA and AUS.

AB averages stuff all in Zim and Bang, and except for a period in the middle of his career when he really felt like focussing and scoring, really did not score heavily, even when runs were there for the taking.

 

[Johan]

Warner averages over 60 in RSA and AUS.

AB averages stuff all in Zim and Bang, and except for a period in the middle of his career when he really felt like focussing and scoring, really did not score heavily, even when runs were there for the taking.

Yeah, but Australia in his career was extremely flat and he was a genuinely good player of HTD pace bowling, it was on softer greener wickets and turning wickets where he genuinely looked hopeless and like a tailender.

If that is true as naturally you'd know more about South African Cricket than me, that's a mental flaw and explains why he underachieved against not only them but every side bar Australia and West Indies.