Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[Ashes81]

Lets take a hypothetical situation.

Player A averages 40 in first five years of the career and 60 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player B averages 60 in first five years of the career and 40 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player C averages 50 for ten years and , and ends up with an average of 50

Now how do you judge their performances?

I'd rate the English batsmen the highest, the Aussie one the lowest and the other one at no.2 ?

 

[subshakerz]

110 vs 170

Yeah in that case I would say it is close between them but I would give the edge to the first batsman. Under the same logic why I would declare Steve Smith the best since Bradman if Smith retired with the record he has now after 110 tests.

If Smith averaged 58 after 110 tests and retired, or played 170 tests and retired averaging 53.5, do you think he would be rated the same?

Please don't fool yourself by saying yes.

 

[subshakerz]

Imagine if Batsman A was made to start their career at age 20 (as opposed to age 24) their avg would be destroyed and if they played till age 38 (and not 35) their average would take a beating again!

We always forget about factoring in these 'missing' years when we compare players with different career lengths.

In this case an average of 53.5 achieved over a 18-year career is better than an average of 58 achieved over a 11-year career (or even 12 year career).

Age 20 is still normal for a new batsman to start cricket. Nobody gives Lara or Ponting shade for starting at that age.

Tendulkar and Wasim get extra points from me for starting exceptionally young though and still performing well.

 

[shortpitched713]

I'd rate the English batsmen the highest, the Aussie one the lowest and the other one at no.2 ?

An honest man. Over 2300 years late for Diogenes, but it's good to know such a thing exists.

 

[trundler]

If Smith averaged 58 after 110 tests and retired, or played 170 tests and retired averaging 53.5, do you think he would be rated the same?

Please don't fool yourself by saying yes.

Repeat after me:

Peer reputation is a terrible measure for rating players for this and many other reasons.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah in that case I would say it is close between them but I would give the edge to the first batsman. Under the same logic why I would declare Steve Smith the best since Bradman if Smith retired with the record he has now after 110 tests.

If Smith averaged 58 after 110 tests and retired, or played 170 tests and retired averaging 53.5, do you think he would be rated the same?

Please don't fool yourself by saying yes.

Yes I would rate him the same and no I'm not fooling myself.

You keep asking "would others rate him the same". I'm sure others would (stupidly) downgrade him.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes I would rate him the same and no I'm not fooling myself.

You keep asking "would others rate him the same". I'm sure others would (stupidly) downgrade him.

Smith retires with a lesser average than Kallis after playing the same tests, I am sure many would still rate him above Kallis, but best after Bradman? Would be much more debatable.

It is such an obvious point I am surprised I have to debate this.

 

[subshakerz]

Repeat after me:

Peer reputation is a terrible measure for rating players for this and many other reasons.

It's not peer reputation. Unlike some posters here who have fixed their opinions of players half way through their careers, ratings of players by most posters will fluctuate as the individual's career progresses. As it should.

Lara in 2006 will be rated higher than Lara in 2000. Tendulkar in 2011 will be rated higher than Tendulkar in 2006.

Kohli now is nowhere near where Kohli was rated by posters in 2019.

Sehwag in 2010 will be rated higher than Sehwag of end of his career. Sanga at the end of his career will be rated higher than in 2010.

And so it goes.

Smith now is at near zenith of his rating. Five years of middling performance should change that unless you are in denial for some reason.

 

[trundler]

It's not peer reputation. Unlike some posters here who have fixed their opinions of players half way through their careers, ratings of players by most will fluctuate as the individual's career progresses. As it should.

Half of a 24 year career is still longer than a bloke who played 10 years though. And you're talking like we've not thought this through and don't really apply what we're saying. I'm fully aware that most people who rated Chappell worse than Ponting in 2008 went back on it after Punter's decline but I disagree with it and it's one concrete example that annoys me very much. Holding up Joe Public's perception as irrefutable truth is pointless on a forum of nerds.

 

[subshakerz]

Half of a 24 year career is still longer than a bloke who played 10 years though. And you're talking like we've not thought this through and don't really apply what we're saying. I'm fully aware that most people who rated Chappell worse than Ponting in 2008 went back on it after Punter's decline but I disagree with it and it's one concrete example that annoys me very much. Holding up Joe Public's perception as irrefutable truth is pointless on a forum of nerds.

If most posters go that way, then you are obliged to at least acknowledge their position, even if you don't agree with it. You judge cricketers by the entirety of their career and it is best to rank them once their career is over, otherwise accept their ranking will fluctuate based on performance.

Look at the comments above. They are saying Smith with 110 tests @ 58 should be rated the same as 170 tests @ 53.5.

Well, in the latter case, Smith would end up with a record and career length comparable or worse than Kallis, and at the moment nobody would put them in the same bracket.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If most posters go that way, then you are obliged to at least accept their logic, even if you don't agree with it.

Lmao gtfo

 

[subshakerz]

Lmao gtfo

I softened the language so don't get triggered...

 

[shortpitched713]

I have to agree with subshakerz here. The idea that we judge a player on parts of careers, before they are completed isn't quite right. That obligates us basically to only rate players that we seen, because guaranteed no one's looking at the overall career arc of a player they haven't seen. They're going to just take his overall performance, his averages, maybe some anecdotes about them, and that's it.

This doesn't even get into whether a long career of excellence is better than a short one. It's just a bit delusional to think that a player can't hurt himself through later career performances, compared to when they're at the absolute peak of their progressive average chart.

 

[trundler]

If most posters go that way, then you are obliged to at least acknowledge their position, even if you don't agree with it. You judge cricketers by the entirety of their career and it is best to rank them once their career is over, otherwise accept their ranking will fluctuate based on performance.

Look at the comments above. They are saying Smith with 110 tests @ 58 should be rated the same as 170 tests @ 53.5.

Well, in the latter case, Smith would end up with a record and career length comparable or worse than Kallis, and at the moment nobody would put them in the same bracket.

Kallis averaged 60 odd for a decade too, you're right but the difference between Smith and Kallis is largely down to eras. Smith has more blockbuster performances and no minnow bashing to boost his average too. If Smith ends up with Kallis-like numbers but with his current body of work stretched out to those aggregates he'd still be better.

 

[trundler]

guaranteed no one's looking at the overall career arc of a player they haven't seen.

I am though. I don't consider Lindwall's record after his comeback when comparing him to pacers who played 10ish years.

Or the last third of Gibbs's career when comparing him to spinners that played 40-50 tests in that era.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's just a bit delusional to think that a player can't hurt himself through later career performances, compared to when they're at the absolute peak of their progressive average chart.

The comparison is against a guy who just retired instead of "declining".

 

[subshakerz]

I have to agree with subshakerz here. The idea that we judge a player on parts of careers, before they are completed isn't quite right. That obligates us basically to only rate players that we seen, because guaranteed no one's looking at the overall career arc of a player they haven't seen. They're going to just take his overall performance, his averages, maybe some anecdotes about them, and that's it.

This doesn't even get into whether a long career of excellence is better than a short one. It's just a bit delusional to think that a player can't hurt himself through later career performances, compared to when they're at the absolute peak of their progressive average chart.

Yes. The conversation here has basically confirmed my suspicion of a slippery slope of bad reasoning.

What started as 'cricketers with much longer careers shouldn't get their latter years reflected when compared with those with shorter ones' has now become 'cricketers who achieve peak greatness shouldn't be penalized at all for their performances of their latter years'.

 

[OverratedSanity]

'cricketers who achieve peak greatness shouldn't be penalized at all for their performances of their latter years'.

Not compared to players of shorter career length who just retired. Yes.

If they kept performing in their letter years, of course they'd be even greater.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis averaged 60 odd for a decade too, you're right but the difference between Smith and Kallis is largely down to eras. Smith has more blockbuster performances and no minnow bashing to boost his average too. If Smith ends up with Kallis-like numbers but with his current body of work stretched out to those aggregates he'd still be better.

He would be better than Kallis but no way would his case as best after Bradman be as solid as it is now.

 

[shortpitched713]

The comparison is against a guy who just retired instead of "declining".

A small decline from peak is understandable. It will be more than made up for by the longevity, and their aggregate achievements. A huge fall-off is what is going to be held against someone, imo.