• 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 .

Coronis

Cricketer Of The Year
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

International Coach
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

Request Your Custom Title Now!
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

International Coach
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.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
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.
 

Migara

Cricketer Of The Year
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

International Coach
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.
 

Bolo.

International Vice-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.
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.
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
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
 
Last edited:

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
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.
 
Last edited:

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
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

International Coach
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

Cricketer Of The Year
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).
 

Top