• 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.

Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

Who is the better bat?


  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .

subshakerz

International Captain
We absolutely should when comparing him to blokes who played 12 years and under though.
You can, but all you would have deduced is that peak Ponting was better than overall Chappell.

You won't have an accurate picture of Ponting the overall batsman though, which is the point of the exercise of comparison.
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
You can, but all you would have deduced is that peak Ponting was better than overall Chappell.

You won't have an accurate picture of Ponting the overall batsman though, which is the point of the exercise of comparison.
Nah, I'd have deduced that Ponting was better than Chappell for longer than the entire length of Chappell's career. That includes everything Ponting did including his early years and he still comes out on top.

If one guy's peak lasts longer than another guy's whole career than yeah that first guy is better.
 
Last edited:

subshakerz

International Captain
Nah, I'd have deduced that Ponting was better than Chappell for longer than the entire length of Chappell's career. That includes everything Ponting did including his early years and he still comes out on top.

If one guy's peak lasts longer than another guy's whole career than yeah that first guy is better.
So Botham is a better bowler than Shoaib by virtue of playing more tests and being better in his peak?

Anyways, let's compare Ponting to guys like Kallis etc. who also had long careers. Will you agree then that putting Ponting 2007 against overall Kallis is unfair?

How would you compare Ponting to Sanga who played 30 less tests and a couple less years?
 

Gob

Cricketer Of The Year
So Botham is a better bowler than Shoaib by virtue of playing more tests and being better in his peak?

Anyways, let's compare Ponting to guys like Kallis etc. who also had long careers. Will you agree then that putting Ponting 2007 against overall Kallis is unfair?

How would you compare Ponting to Sanga who played 30 less tests and a couple less years?
One advantage Ponting always had over others is his hairy arms
 

trundler

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So Botham is a better bowler than Shoaib by virtue of playing more tests and being better in his peak?
No because Pakistan play fewer tests per year and career length is a better indicator than just number of tests. They're not that far apart though.
Anyways, let's compare Ponting to guys like Kallis etc. who also had long careers. Will you agree then that putting Ponting 2007 against overall Kallis is unfair?
Well yes, because both had equally long careers. It's only a thing to be mindful of when comparing guys who have a big difference in career span.
How would you compare Ponting to Sanga who played 30 less tests and a couple less years?
Ponting's clearly ahead for me.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I agree with the general theory here, but this is a pretty random example to introduce. Barrington and Ponting retired at almost exactly the same age. Barrington took longer than most greats to get good, but then he played on late, and definitely past the age Ponting declined.

In terms of the perception of Sanga, @Bolo. made the point in another thread that he'd be rated higher in general consensus if his peak had come earlier in his career. There's definitely an effect where, if someone dominates for a bit and establishes themselves as a 'great', they are viewed as a great from then on, however long they play. Whereas if someone starts slower they get pigeon holed as a lower tier of player and it's hard for them to shake that even if they get great later.

In 'hypothetical player' speak, if Player X averages 60 for 7 years then 40 for 7 years they will likely be heralded as a great for their entire career. Meanwhile at the same time Player Y averages 40 for 7 years and then 60 for 7 years and they will be seen as 'competent', then 'reliable', then a 'veteran' but they will be viewed as being a level below Player X (initially correctly, but ultimately not) in a way that does take some late- or even post-career re-evaluation to correct.

Or, to work in my own random Barrington analogy, none of Barrington's peers nor the pundits of his time rated him as highly as Peter May. Because May got great early and was hailed as a prodigy whereas Barrington was a late bloomer who wasn't seen on his level. But looking back now, most would say that Barrington achieved more than May over their careers.
I think the difference is the quality of bowling and pitches between 90s and 00s plays a role there. It is not a simple consideration of first half of the career Vs second half IMO.


Still think centurymaker is just @Himannv :p
 

Flem274*

123/5
There's a nuanced discussion to be had here about retirement and usefulness to the team that no one is having.

Posting shouldn't be penalized for being good enough to play tests while being a bit mediocre. Equally it's not uncommon for legacy players to be selected far beyond their use by date and impede the side.

It's case by case for me. If Punter averaged 20 rather than 38 or whatever it was for a few years it wouldn't detract from his achievements but it sure as hell wouldn't count towards them either.

Likewise Anderson gets massive respect for being a gold card fast bowler but that doesn't mean we revise his early career as remotely useful. He's a 2008 - present bowler for me I'm terms of being useful to a test side.
 

ataraxia

International Captain
There's a nuanced discussion to be had here about retirement and usefulness to the team that no one is having.

Posting shouldn't be penalized for being good enough to play tests while being a bit mediocre. Equally it's not uncommon for legacy players to be selected far beyond their use by date and impede the side.

It's case by case for me. If Punter averaged 20 rather than 38 or whatever it was for a few years it wouldn't detract from his achievements but it sure as hell wouldn't count towards them either.

Likewise Anderson gets massive respect for being a gold card fast bowler but that doesn't mean we revise his early career as remotely useful. He's a 2008 - present bowler for me I'm terms of being useful to a test side.
Agree but there's a major downside in that recognising this leads to PEWSian longevity weightings, contrary to how everyone else views cricketers. Sadly logical, I think.

How I've been looking at this is value to the team above an average test cricketer (say 35 bat avg). If a bat averages 40 for 12 years they get rated 5 * 12 = 60, while if one averages 60 for 4 years e.g. Labuschagne they get 25 * 4 = 100. It's not perfect by any means – how should Crawleys be rated? – but it is fairly interesting IMO.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Agree but there's a major downside in that recognising this leads to PEWSian longevity weightings, contrary to how everyone else views cricketers. Sadly logical, I think.

How I've been looking at this is value to the team above an average test cricketer (say 35 bat avg). If a bat averages 40 for 12 years they get rated 5 * 12 = 60, while if one averages 60 for 4 years e.g. Labuschagne they get 25 * 4 = 100. It's not perfect by any means – how should Crawleys be rated? – but it is fairly interesting IMO.
This is actually like the basics of how I think too.

Like, I'd love to go through and see how far above the average career (expected career, if you will) each player was and how scarce they are as a player. I think if anything we underrate how special the likes of Bradman and Sobers are compared to a standard ATG and how far above ATGs are compared to your average player.

Great openers in particular are scarce since WWII relative to bowlers and middle order batsmen. Steve Smith would be off the charts if you compare his results to what the average middle order batsman of his time is achieving.

Contrary to the meme I do value longevity (I'm years) but I think it has been massively overvalued in the 10 years since PEWS rightly dragged this forum away from multi quote warrior princess checklists.

I think how we think of greats in general needs a massive overhaul though. These discussions bear no resemblance to how we select and value sides/players in tour threads.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
There's a nuanced discussion to be had here about retirement and usefulness to the team that no one is having.

Posting shouldn't be penalized for being good enough to play tests while being a bit mediocre. Equally it's not uncommon for legacy players to be selected far beyond their use by date and impede the side.

It's case by case for me. If Punter averaged 20 rather than 38 or whatever it was for a few years it wouldn't detract from his achievements but it sure as hell wouldn't count towards them either.

Likewise Anderson gets massive respect for being a gold card fast bowler but that doesn't mean we revise his early career as remotely useful. He's a 2008 - present bowler for me I'm terms of being useful to a test side.
I don't get the part. Why won't you penalize someone for being mediocre?

Again, he decided to continue to play, he couldn't maintain his consistency, and that reflects on him as an overall player.

And who was Anderson before 2008, someone else?

If Anderson before 2008 gets factored in then Ponting post 2007 should get factored in.
 

ataraxia

International Captain
I don't get the part. Why won't you penalize someone for being mediocre?

Again, he decided to continue to play, he couldn't maintain his consistency, and that reflects on him as an overall player.

And who was Anderson before 2008, someone else?

If Anderson before 2008 gets factored in then Ponting post 2007 should get factored in.
What we're saying is that neither should be factored in. So Ponting's career is revised to 1995–2007 + a little bit of decent post-that, and Anderson's career is revised to 2008–2023.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
It depends on who you’re comparing Ponting and Anderson to.

If Ponting is being compared to Kallis, then his performances after 2007 should be factored in.

If Anderson is being compared to Roberts, then his performances before 2014 should not be factored in.
I understand your criteria. I don't agree with it but I don't think that's what the others are talking about.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
Being rewarded for retiring the moment you aren't at your peak anymore even if you'd continue to contribute above replacement value is just ****ing stupid. There's no other way to describe it.
That's the wrong way to look at it. Rather, every cricketer has the challenge of maintaining some performance level post peak.

Look at the those who are rated highest and you will see why it makes sense.

Marshall, Hadlee and McGrath, the best three ever, even if they weren't peak efficiency at the end, they were still averaging below 25 post peak till the end while taking around 4 wickets a game. Ambrose, Steyn and Imran though suffered comparatively in their post peak and hence got downgraded a bit.

Tendulkar, unlike Ponting, was good enough for second peak which solidified his legacy. Same with Lara. Sobers had one long high streak until the end.

So yeah, how you handle post-peak matters in how you are rated. We all do it anyways. Nobody here is treating Ponting like a bat who averages 59.99.
 

subshakerz

International Captain
It really is, I think.

We're not saying we should only take into account a player's peak and ignore what they did either side of it no matter what. We're just saying we should do that when their peak is longer than someone else's entire career.
I think this point is being conflated with a separate one that players shouldn't be penalized by performances post peak which to me is wrong.
 

Top