Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[Coronis]

Longevity definitely counts, as does peak performance. However, they’re just two of many factors I consider when rating players. I don’t think there’s a single correct “formula” regarding these and it all comes down to the specific individuals being discussed.

 

[subshakerz]

Longevity definitely counts, as does peak performance. However, they’re just two of many factors I consider when rating players. I don’t think there’s a single correct “formula” regarding these and it all comes down to the specific individuals being discussed.

The tricky ones are players like Waqar and Botham who almost have two separate careers.

 

[OverratedSanity]

The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.

I don't think many people realise how stupid that line of thinking is. And the constant strawmamning about longevity is irritating. This is not about longevity. Its about actual utility. Deciding to not play cricket is not a skill.

 

[subshakerz]

The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.

I don't think many people realise how stupid that line of thinking is. And the constant strawmamning about longevity is irritating. This is not about longevity. Its about actual utility. Deciding to not play cricket is not a skill.

You mean a situation that almost never happens.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You mean a situation that almost never happens.

That's why I said "ideal", look up what it means . That would literally be your perfect cricketer by your own admission.

 

[honestbharani]

The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.

Mike Hussey if he retired a year earlier, I guess.

 

[honestbharani]

There is a whole spectrum between "retired to preserve stats" to "stayed on too long blocking others". Why are we only arguing the extremes?

 

[Prince EWS]

The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.

Voges!

 

[Migara]

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?

 

[subshakerz]

That's why I said "ideal", look up what it means . That would literally be your perfect cricketer by your own admission.

Gilly is close to this though.

 

[subshakerz]

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?

Can't really split them.

 

[Coronis]

Voges!

I keep saying he’s the best after Bradman but nobody listens…

 

[Bolo.]

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.

If Smith retires today, he is better than Sachin. If he plays on for 6 more years and averages 50ish in that time, he is worse than Sachin's 18 year peak. Pretty sure this is not the conclusion you want to draw?

Not happy with just giving Sachin a free ride on his very late career rubbish, but I guess this is a pretty unusual example for multiple reasons.

 

[halba]

Saw a discussion in another thread...it'd be interesting to see what the general opinion is.

There's no discussion. Sanga was the no1 batsman of that era by a mile. Tendulkar 2nd.

Sehwag isn't even in the top 5

 

[centurymaker]

The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.

I don't think many people realise how stupid that line of thinking is. And the constant strawmamning about longevity is irritating. This is not about longevity. Its about actual utility. Deciding to not play cricket is not a skill.

I agree word for word.

Total utility above replacement value is the most logical way. And Longevity matters, though for instance each subsequent year after say a 15 year career is less & less important.

But if a batsman has not had for eg a 15 year career, it means they were not good enough either at the beginning or end. So their lack of selection should be factored in, just like a late career decline, if you want to keep things 'consistent'! @subshakerz

 

[centurymaker]

For example, a batsman finally does enough and manages get selected at age 24 and plays till 35 and retires. Averages 60 for 10 years and avgs 45 in their 11th year. Finishes with avg of 58.5.

How can that player be rated above someone who had a career peak of avging 60 for 12 years?! It wouldn't matter even if they had years of avging 40 at the end.

 

[centurymaker]

Batsman A gets selected late at 24.
Avgs 45 in their 1st year
Avgs 60 for next 9 years
Avgs 45 in their last year and retires aged 35.
Finishes with avg of 58

Batsman B gets selected early at 20 as they are already good enough!
Avgs 45 for 2 years
Avgs 60 for 11 years
Avgs 40 in their last 5 years
Retires aged 38 with avg of 53.5

Who is better?? @subshakerz

 

[subshakerz]

Batsman A gets selected late at 24.
Avgs 45 in their 1st year
Avgs 60 for next 9 years
Avgs 45 in their last year and retires aged 35.
Finishes with avg of 58

Batsman B gets selected early at 20 as they are already good enough!
Avgs 45 for 2 years
Avgs 60 for 11 years
Avgs 40 in their last 5 years
Retires aged 38 with avg of 53.5

Who is better?? @subshakerz

How many tests did each play?

 

[centurymaker]

How many tests did each play?

110 vs 170

 

[centurymaker]

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).