The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Teja.]

@teja Yeah maybe I shouldn't have said that part. I take it back. But still the 150 tests averaging 59 has been done as a peak not as a career.

If Smith has to be rated higher with a 125 test sample, he should average much better to counteract the longevity of the extra tests then? 65?

 

[srbhkshk]

How is 150 tests a peak man? It's longer than 99% of people's careers.

 

[mr_mister]

We're comparing a hypothetical bloke averaging 60 over 125 tests with a bloke averaging 60 over 150 tests. I don't see why you should punish Sachin for averaging late 30s as a 16 yo.

It's a slippery slope just ignoring periods for whatever reason, though obviously Sachin being a teenager at the beginning is a good one(not so sure about playing on as an old man chasing the world records is though) Martin Crowe had a bunch of tests a youngster, Punter played on too long like Sachin etc. Should they be elevated further than they are? It's easier and dare I say fairer to just take careers as they are

 

[bagapath]

if Smith averaged under 72, however, he might still be ranked a few notches below Barry Richards by some people.

I think Steve Smith has done more than enough to be among the top 10 batsmen of the last 50 years.

my take is, Smith's great career is akin to other stellar careers like Sobers' and Hutton's and Hobbs', for they all boasted of 60+ averages for a long time. For smith to be deemed the second best after Bradman, in my books, he should cross Bradman's tally of 29 centuries and also average over 58 (Hammond/ Sobers). then it is difficult to kick him out of the top 5 of all-time. the batting lists are quite messy between positions 2 and 10. the names are interchangeable for all the right reasons.

 

[mr_mister]

How is 150 tests a peak man? It's longer than 99% of people's careers.

Because it's still a peak? You can't pretend those 50 tests didn't bloody happen.

 

[Daemon]

I appreciate Tendulkar’s peak (which was really two peaks - it was that long) is more than the careers of most batsmen, I’m not convinced it’s fair to chop off his worst years and then compare it to someone’s full career.

If you extend the same courtesy to Smith and then compare say Smith’s 115 test peak to Tendulkar’s 150 test one, and then conclude that Tendulkar’s was better because of a longer peak, I can buy that.

 

[Teja.]

It's a slippery slope just ignoring periods for whatever reason, though obviously Sachin being a teenager at the beginning is a good one(not so sure about playing on as an old man chasing the world records is though) Martin Crowe had a bunch of tests a youngster, Punter played on too long like Sachin etc. Should they be elevated further than they are? It's easier and dare I say fairer to just take careers as they are

Punter and Martin Crowe did not play for 20+ years though. If somebody played 20+ years like Sobers, Hammond etc., it would make sense to do an apples to apples comparision. If somebody played between 21-36, why should be compared directly to a guy who played from 16-41 and added 9 years more of value to his side?

 

[srbhkshk]

Because it's still a peak? You can't pretend those 50 tests didn't bloody happen.

How is not being good enough to play cricket better than playing cricket averaging 40?

 

[smash84]

if Smith averaged under 72, however, he might still be ranked a few notches below Barry Richards by some people.

 

[mr_mister]

if Smith averaged under 72, however, he might still be ranked a few notches below Barry Richards by some people.

I think Steve Smith has done more than enough to be among the top 10 batsmen of the last 50 years.

my take is, Smith's great career is akin to other stellar careers like Sobers' and Hutton's and Hobbs', for they all boasted of 60+ averages for a long time. For smith to be deemed the second best after Bradman, in my books, he should cross Bradman's tally of 29 centuries and also average over 58 (Hammond/ Sobers). then it is difficult to kick him out of the top 5 of all-time. the batting lists are quite messy between positions 2 and 10. the names are interchangeable for all the right reasons.

There's a high chance he does that in his next 10 or so tests

 

[OverratedSanity]

I appreciate Tendulkar’s peak (which was really two peaks - it was that long) is more than the careers of most batsmen, I’m not convinced it’s fair to chop off his worst years and then compare it to someone’s full career.

Genuinely dont understand why not? If the "cherry picked sample" itself is longer than Smith's career, what exactly is the problem in a straight comparison

 

[Teja.]

I appreciate Tendulkar’s peak (which was really two peaks - it was that long) is more than the careers of most batsmen, I’m not convinced it’s fair to chop off his worst years and then compare it to someone’s full career.

If you extend the same courtesy to Smith and then compare say Smith’s 115 test peak to Tendulkar’s 150 test one, and then conclude that Tendulkar’s was better because of a longer peak, I can buy that.

We're not measuring quality though. We are measuring value. Tendulkar averaging 50 for 12 years from 03-14 'ruined' his raw stats and his precious 60 average peak but he was a quality test batsman for more than most people's careers after already doing a Smith.

 

[trundler]

It's a slippery slope just ignoring periods for whatever reason, though obviously Sachin being a teenager at the beginning is a good one(not so sure about playing on as an old man chasing the world records is though) Martin Crowe had a bunch of tests a youngster, Punter played on too long like Sachin etc. Should they be elevated further than they are? It's easier and dare I say fairer to just take careers as they are

Don't know about others but I do agree with all those examples.

 

[smash84]

I appreciate Tendulkar’s peak (which was really two peaks - it was that long) is more than the careers of most batsmen, I’m not convinced it’s fair to chop off his worst years and then compare it to someone’s full career.

If you extend the same courtesy to Smith and then compare say Smith’s 115 test peak to Tendulkar’s 150 test one, and then conclude that Tendulkar’s was better because of a longer peak, I can buy that.

This is how I feel too.

Longevity has diminishing returns IMO. A "large enough" sample size should be comparable.

A 110-120 against 150 seems like a good enough number to me.

 

[mr_mister]

Punter and Martin Crowe did not play for 20+ years though. If somebody played 20+ years like Sobers, Hammond etc., it would make sense to do an apples to apples comparision. If somebody played between 21-36, why should be compared directly to a guy who played from 16-41 and added 9 years more of value to his side?

I guess because part of the praise of Sachin is due to his run and centuries record, and he accrued some of that during the 50 tests outside of the 150 test peak

yet when talking about his average you just want to ignore that period

 

[Teja.]

This is how I feel too.

Longevity has diminishing returns IMO. A "large enough" sample size should be comparable.

A 110-120 against 150 seems like a good enough number to me.

Would you rate Tendulkar the same if he retired in 02 with batting average of 58 and 9kish runs with that sample size met?

 

[smash84]

Would you rate Tendulkar the same if he retired in 02 with batting average of 58 and 9kish runs with that sample size met?

I might possibly rate him higher had he done so. Because he had faced the cream of the crop bowlers of all time and come out so well in that decade. The fact that the flat tracks and generally lower quality bowlers of the 00s ended up throwing up a ton of other batsmen with mid 50 averages kind of took away a bit of the gloss off Sachin.

 

[Teja.]

I might possibly rate him higher had he done so. Because he had faced the cream of the crop bowlers of all time and come out so well in that decade. The fact that the flat tracks and generally lower quality bowlers of the 00s ended up throwing up a ton of other batsmen with mid 50 averages kind of took away a bit of the gloss off Sachin.

I guess if you don't think he deserves to be rated higher for playing on for 12 more years and averaging 50, we just see cricket rating differently.

 

[honestbharani]

It's a slippery slope just ignoring periods for whatever reason, though obviously Sachin being a teenager at the beginning is a good one(not so sure about playing on as an old man chasing the world records is though) Martin Crowe had a bunch of tests a youngster, Punter played on too long like Sachin etc. Should they be elevated further than they are? It's easier and dare I say fairer to just take careers as they are

Who is elevating SAchin here to be greater than he actually is? The only batsman who is being elevated in this discussion is Smith, no one else.

 

[mr_mister]

Isn't the only reason Ponting is held slightly below Sachin/Lara/Hammond/Sobers is because of his final few years sucking.

If he retired at the end of 08 would he be considered Lara level? He'd have had basically the same record as Lara from a similar length career