Sachin bashers need to know this
Nirvanam
India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
India's greatest match-winner batsman.
http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-ever.html
tendulkar.com
Consistency: # of Tests with Ranking above 750
I don't think Sachin has a clear advantage over Dravid
Also, instead of measuring raw runs, one has to measure 'normalized'
runs to remove the Pitch + Opposition Bias (The two biggest factors
determining raw runs). Same for bowling
viper
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26e28e2a-9016-4050...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
How completely fucking rivetting. Why don't you post it to
rec.sport.esotericindiannavelgazing ?
Viper
Nirvanam
> On Nov 7, 8:57 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Some months back there was a "research survey" done by a website about
> > India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
> > India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
> > think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
> > match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
> > India's greatest match-winner batsman.http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-...
>
> Consistency: # of Tests with Ranking above 750
>
>
> I don't think Sachin has a clear advantage over Dravid
>
> Also, instead of measuring raw runs, one has to measure 'normalized'
> runs to remove the Pitch + Opposition Bias (The two biggest factors
> determining raw runs). Same for bowling
Do you have any objective way of including these "pitch" related
stuff? Yes Opposition you can, and if you use that parameter also you
will find Sachin is clearly ahead of Dravid. Just consider these 2
teams: Aus, and SA
Sachin has scored against Aus: Sydney 92 - draw, Perth 92 - lost,
Chennai/Mumbai? 98 - win, Blore 98 - lost Melbourne 99 - lost, Chennai
01 - won, Sydney 04 - draw, Sydney 08 - lost, Adelaide 08 - draw,
Nagpur 08 - won
Against RSA: Jo'burg 92 - draw, Cape Town 97 - lost, Bloem 01 - lost,
Dravid - against Aus - Kolkata 01 - won, Adelaide 03 - won
RSA: Joburg 97 - draw, Chennai 08 - draw
Sachin v/s Aus - 3W 4L 3D and RSA - 0W 2L 1D Total - 13 i.e. 4Home
9Away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dravid v/s Aus - 2W 0L 0D and RSA - 0W 0L 2D Total - 4 i.e. 2Home
2Away
They don't even compare!
Pitch conditions - Difficult pitches: Sachin - Perth, Melbourne, Jo-
burg, Cape Town, Bloem i.e. 5, and Dravid - Joburg i.e. 1. Where is
the comparison?
Sachin fought at least in 6 losing causes with centuries, Dravid -
ZERO!
If you include 50s as well, the gap between the two would increase so
much more.
tendulkar.com
> On Nov 8, 2:16 am, "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 7, 8:57 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Some months back there was a "research survey" done by a website about
> > > India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
> > > India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
> > > think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
> > > match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
> > > India's greatest match-winner batsman.http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-...
>
> > Consistency: # of Tests with Ranking above 750
>
> >http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/battin...
>
> > I don't think Sachin has a clear advantage over Dravid
>
> > Also, instead of measuring raw runs, one has to measure 'normalized'
> > runs to remove the Pitch + Opposition Bias (The two biggest factors
> > determining raw runs). Same for bowling
>
> Do you have any objective way of including these "pitch" related
> stuff? Yes Opposition you can, and if you use that parameter also you
> will find Sachin is clearly ahead of Dravid. Just consider these 2
> teams: Aus, and SA
Difficulty of a Pitch = Avg # of runs scored in that match (instead of
pre-selecting a set of pitches)
Strength of Opposition= Avg. ICC Rating of the top 4 bowlers
In fact, the ICC Ratings takes care of both in some way when
calculating the ratings
If ICC publishes the normalized rating of a player every match(instead
of the cumulative one that is done currently), you can pretty much do
all other analysis
That's why, instead of arbitrary metrics, the criteria of # of matches
with rating > 750 is better
If you try you may even reverse-engineer the ICC Rating for a player
for a single match
<rest analysis through biased selection of matches snipped>
Nirvanam
No matter which way you look at it, you will always find Sachin ahead
of Dravid, and that too significantly ahead. The only area where
Dravid can come close to Sachin is in career average. Like you
mentioned that just naming the pitch won't do, even if you consider
the percentage of runs scored by these 2 in the above 17 instances,
you'll find Sachin is way ahead of Dravid.
Dravid doesn't even have enough number of significant scores against
the best teams during his career. Sachin has 4 times the number of
centuries against these 2 top teams wrt Dravid.
On subjective criteria like elegance, stroke making ability, and the
like there is no comparison between the two. Sachin wins hands down.
Only way Dravid can do better is if we take objective criteria like
stats. Stats are busting the myth that Dravid can even be compared
with Sachin as far as performance is concerned.
Also why rating above 750? It sounds quite arbitrary to me. What is
the logic in choosing the number 750? Why not 751 or 800 or 765 or
700?
Even if we use your 750 criteria, a quick visual inspection of the
ratings graphs of both Sachin and Dravid do not show any significant
difference of the time for which the line is above 750. Sachin has
been consistently above 750 (4 to 5 dips below 750) between 18 Jan 94
to 22 Dec 2005. Whereas Dravid has been above 750 (4 to 5 dips)
between 6 March 98 to 27 July 2007.
Here is the comparison -
http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/batting/?name_selected=1905&name_selected2=0&graph=rating&name=Tendulkar&name2=dravid&name_selected2=2142
If you look at the 2 graphs side by side, you will notice that Sachin
has hit above 800 for much longer than Dravid has.
Now, look at the Rankings graph. Again you can make out that Sachin
has been in the higher ranks more than Dravid.
http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/batting/?name_selected=1905&name_selected2=2142&graph=ranking&name=Tendulkar&name2=dravid
The myth is busted
Don speaks the truth
>
> - Show quoted text -
The best difference between Sachin's and Dravid's test cricket batting
is seen in the tour to Aus in 1999 when Sachin averaged close to 50 in
the tour and Dravid had single digit average. This was when Aussies
were at their peak with a full strength bowling attack including
Mcgrath and Lee.
Don
Nirvanam
wrote:
You know it wasn't until I actually looked at the stats that I
realized Dravid was so poor against the 2 best teams of his era! Just
4 centuries and only 2 away. Of these 4 only one of them can be
considered as anywhere near a devilish pitch i.e. Joburg. You can also
give him credit for Kolkata 2001 because the situation was really
tough. The most surprising aspect was that Dravid NEVER scored a
century innings in a loss to at least show some resistance.
Compare that to Sachin - 13 centuries against the top 2: 10 against
the best. 9 of those 13 come away from home. 5 of those 9 on difficult
pitches abroad. And at least 10 centuries when India was in a tough
situation (leaving out Sydney 92, Adelaide 08, Bangalore 98).
Among the other 30+ centurions (let's leave the 29 centurion coz he
and his stats were a freak of nature so no point in including him in
any comparative analysis)
Gavaskar scored 21 against WI and Aus i.e. 9Home and 12Away A-H ratio
1.33
Ponting 14 against RSA and India i.e. 10Home and 4Away A-H ratio 0.4
Lara 13 against Aus and RSA i.e. 7Home and 6Away A-H ratio 0.86
Waugh 4 against RSA and India (include WI it becomes 11) i.e. 2Home
and 2Away (6Home 5Away) A-H ratio 0.5(0.83)
Kallis 6 against Aus and India i.e. 2Home 4Away A-H ratio 2
Hayden 12 against RSA and India i.e. 8Home 4Away A-H ratio 0.5
Sachin's A-H ratio 9/4 2.25
Only Kallis comes close to Sachin's A-H ratio but the sheer difference
in magnitude of centuries renders any comparison meaningless. Against
the very best of the day, Gavaskar is way ahead of the pack. Apart
from Gavaskar and Sachin no one has scored double digit number of
centuries against THE very best of their day. If you consider the top
2 then you have Ponting, Sachin, Lara, and Hayden forming a group
after a wide gap from Gavaskar.
Dravid can't even be compared with Kallis or Waugh. A comparison with
Sachin cannot happen even in a dream. There is absolutely no parameter
on which Dravid will better Sachin except of course the slowness of
scoring runs
tendulkar.com
> Also why rating above 750? It sounds quite arbitrary to me. What is
> the logic in choosing the number 750? Why not 751 or 800 or 765 or
> 700?
Compute area under the curve
>
> Even if we use your 750 criteria, a quick visual inspection of the
> ratings graphs of both Sachin and Dravid do not show any significant
> difference of the time for which the line is above 750. Sachin has
> been consistently above 750 (4 to 5 dips below 750) between 18 Jan 94
> to 22 Dec 2005. Whereas Dravid has been above 750 (4 to 5 dips)
> between 6 March 98 to 27 July 2007.
> Here is the comparison -http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/battin...
I don't think anybody argues Dravid > Sachin especially after Dravid's
slump in the last two years. The debate mostly happened when Sachin
was having his own slump in 2006. I just gave you an unbiased
methodology to do that instead of arbitrary criteria that you have put
in your original post.
skp
>
> You know it wasn't until I actually looked at the stats that I
> realized Dravid was so poor against the 2 best teams of his era! Just
> 4 centuries and only 2 away. Of these 4 only one of them can be
> considered as anywhere near a devilish pitch i.e. Joburg. You can also
> give him credit for Kolkata 2001 because the situation was really
> tough. The most surprising aspect was that Dravid NEVER scored a
> century innings in a loss to at least show some resistance.
You talk about 750 being arbitrary in your dialogue with Tend.com but
teh fact is that a century itself is an arbitrary point. I know that
Dravid has had at least 2 nineties in OZ which in my book are pretty
darn good performances but of course don't get reflected in the "he
has only 2 away centuries against OZ" comment of yours.
Besides, why so much emphasis on how each has done particularly
against OZ and RSA. Judging by that criterion alone, Laxman is
probably better than both Dravid and SRT (just a guess, haven't
checked the stats). But I don't think anyone would argue that Laxman
is better than either Dravid or SRT.
I don't really understand the last statement in the paragraph above.
I agree that it is ludicrous to criticize SRT for having so many
centuries in matches lost but critcitzing a guy for having no
centuries in losing matches is a bit much as well.
As an aside, on the SRT criticism, as applied to ODIs, he has 32 or so
tons in wins and 13 or so tons in losses. Just the 32 in wins is more
tons than any other player. But the critics still point to the 13
centuries in losing causes as being some sort of blot on his career.
It's almost as if they would consider him to be a greater player if he
had got ducks instead of tons in those 13 matches. It's a ludicrous
argument.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, most observers would say that over
the last 20 years, the best test batsmen have been SRT, Lara and
Ponting (not necessarily in that order). One could craft viable
arguments to support any order among the 3. Most would also say that
Dravid and Kallis would occupy the 4th and 5th spots but again, not
necessarily in that order.
Essentially, you have got it right in saying that SRT is better than
Dravid but IMO, you reach the conclusion by utilizing criteria that
are too selective and biased.
This is just sheer nonsense. Or perhaps just hyperbole on your part.
Whatever. There are several parameters in which Dravid does better
SRT. But as a package, as I have already said, the vast majority of
observers would say that SRT is a better bat than Dravid.
Call Centre
>
> If you look at the 2 graphs side by side, you will notice that Sachin
> has hit above 800 for much longer than Dravid has.
Being 800 for much longer only proves that Sachin has been more
consistent in maintaining a higher ranking. However, in actually
winning test matches Dravid may rank slightly ahead of Tendulkar. Two
amazing victories of India (its first ever test series win against
Pakistan in Pakistan and that amazing victory in 2003/2004 test win at
Adelaide were just two fairly recent examples). Tendulkar has played
some amazing knocks in test match cricket. The 130 or so he made
against Pakistan in India in 1999 stands as one of his best test match
innings and compares with Gavaskar's 97 vs the same opposition at
Bangalore. However, both test matches were lost. Does that mean
Gavaskar wasn't that great a player. NO. It simply means that their
contributions showed individual brilliance but failed to win the test
match. No more no less. When you compare the actual test matches won
for India I believe Dravid would rank slightly higher than Sachin.
However, I guess in India they both might have fared equally well with
Sachin being slightly ahead. Abroad however, Dravid is ahead of Sachin
more than Sachin is ahead of Dravid in India. And winning abroad is
always considered a better mark of a great player. Both are great
players in test match cricket. IMHO Dravid ranks slightly higher. It
doesn't mean Sachin is being criticized. It merely means that great as
Sachin is there are quite a few people who might prefer Dravid over
Sachin in a test match team purely as a batsman. However, there is
always the Sachin factor so it all depends on the team. If my
hypothetical team has all time greats I might not want Dravid to play
as his contribution in such a team may not mean much. However, in the
team where both have played since 1996 together and faced the same
opposition Dravid may rank slightly higher than Sachin in test
matches. In one day cricket however, Sachin remains not just the king
out of all the Indian batsmen past or present but is also IMHO amongst
the top 3 ODI batsmen of all time. In test matches also he ranks as an
all time great but Dravid might rank slightly higher. If a difference
exists amongst these two great players it would be marginal at best
for test match cricket. :)
>
> Now, look at the Rankings graph. Again you can make out that Sachin
> has been in the higher ranks more than Dravid.http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/battin...
>
> The myth is busted- Hide quoted text -
Nirvanam
Tendyla.com why did I put that link over there? So, you yourself can
visually see the area under the curve...also you could see the area
under the curve for any cut-off value.
> I don't think anybody argues Dravid > Sachin especially after Dravid's
> slump in the last two years. The debate mostly happened when Sachin
> was having his own slump in 2006. I just gave you an unbiased
> methodology to do that instead of arbitrary criteria that you have put
> in your original post.
So now you accept there is really no meaningful parameter where Dravid
can ever be considered in the same breath as Tendulkar?
Nirvanam
> teh fact is that a century itself is an arbitrary point. I know that
> Dravid has had at least 2 nineties in OZ which in my book are pretty
> darn good performances but of course don't get reflected in the "he
> has only 2 away centuries against OZ" comment of yours.
Read the write-up here, http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-ever.html
it talks about 75+ in a Test. A small table related to India wins and
their performances in India wins - these are 75+ scores in a Test
match...both innings put together. Figures in brackets show
percentages
Name Wins 150+ 100+ 75+
Sachin 50 7(14) 15(30) 27(54)
Rahul 43 6(14) 10(23) 22(51)
> Besides, why so much emphasis on how each has done particularly
> against OZ and RSA. Judging by that criterion alone, Laxman is
> probably better than both Dravid and SRT (just a guess, haven't
> checked the stats). But I don't think anyone would argue that Laxman
> is better than either Dravid or SRT.
Aus and SA came in because Tendlya.com said we need to consider
opposition strength and pitch conditions while considering the
performance of these guys.
Shall I bust the myth about Lax being better than Tendulkar v/s any
team leave alone Aus? Here: Lax centuries (Sydney 99, Kolkata 01,
Adelaide 03, Sydney 04, Sydney 08, Delhi 08) Home - 2 Away - 4 total -
6 (I think I am missing 1 from 2004 series in India).
Out of these none of the pitch conditions were so grave. Kolkata was a
difficult situation so that goes into Lax's kitty.
Want to look at their 75+ or 50+ performances against Australia, and
bust any other such myths you may have in your mind?
> I don't really understand the last statement in the paragraph above.
> I agree that it is ludicrous to criticize SRT for having so many
> centuries in matches lost but critcitzing a guy for having no
> centuries in losing matches is a bit much as well.
No centuries in lost matches = no resistance provided at all. Zero
resistance. A batsman's performances are not just about wins, it is in
ensuring draws, it is in fighting against an inevitable loss. Dravid
FAILS MISERABLY in such endeavors when compared to Tendulkar. I am
pretty sure every fan would like to watch his team show resistance and
not capitulate. Gavaskar, Sachin, Vishy, and Azza in the past 30-40
years have done that consistently.
> Anyway, back to the topic at hand, most observers would say that over
> the last 20 years, the best test batsmen have been SRT, Lara and
> Ponting (not necessarily in that order). One could craft viable
> arguments to support any order among the 3. Most would also say that
> Dravid and Kallis would occupy the 4th and 5th spots but again, not
> necessarily in that order.
Yep and most would also recognize that Sachin and Lara are way ahead
of Kallis and Dravid. Although I love some of Ponting's innings some
even grudgingly and of late I am even beginning to respect him as an
individual, I am not very sure if he can be spoken in the same breath
as Sachin and Lara as an ATG except for his statistics. But having
said that, let me also add that the difference between Sachin/Lara and
Ponting is MINUSCULE. But the difference between these 3 and Dravid/
Kallis is clear, present, and wide enough for even a novice to say
that "yes there is a big difference"
> Essentially, you have got it right in saying that SRT is better than
> Dravid but IMO, you reach the conclusion by utilizing criteria that
> are too selective and biased.
I challenge you, give me any set of criteria and I'll bust this myth
too. I CHALLENGE YOU. Too many people have said too much crap about
this gem. What people don't understand is that they themselves don't
believe Sachin is anything less than the #1 in cricket but it is
because the ten others in the team that rarely support him that Sachin
gets blamed.
> This is just sheer nonsense. Or perhaps just hyperbole on your part.
> Whatever. There are several parameters in which Dravid does better
> SRT. But as a package, as I have already said, the vast majority of
> observers would say that SRT is a better bat than Dravid.
Again, I challenge you to provide a set of such criteria. And please
include multiple criteria because if you take just 1 item, for ex -
career average Dravid may just find himself to be infinitesimally (not
significant though) better than Sachin. I trust you to be fair in
choosing the criteria.
Let this myth be busted once and for all. If there is one Indian
batsman that can be spoken about in the same breath as Sachin it is
Gavaskar. Although Gavaskar himself would argue that he is a lesser
mortal when compared to Sachin.
Nirvanam
You say, "in actually winning test matches Dravid may rank slightly
ahead of Tendulkar.". This article BUSTS THAT MYTH. Read it once
before asking for more statistics -
http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-ever.html.
Those HoldingWilley researchers also went with the same assumption and
when I provided them this article to publish they backed off (even
after writing to me, oh we welcome criticism and this and that lauda
lasoon). THE MYTH IS BUSTED. If you really want to debate on Dravid
and Sachin and who is more influential in wins, bring data coz
subjective inferences cannot prove anything.
Just like I have challenged skp, I challenge you to provide me any
data-observable set of criteria that can put Dravid ahead of Sachin.
And I trust you will provide reasonable enough criteria
Nirvanam
> for India I believe Dravid would rank slightly higher than Sachin.
> However, I guess in India they both might have fared equally well with
> Sachin being slightly ahead. Abroad however, Dravid is ahead of Sachin
> more than Sachin is ahead of Dravid in India. And winning abroad is
> always considered a better mark of a great player. Both are great
> players in test match cricket. IMHO Dravid ranks slightly higher.
This time around you provide the data to see whether it is true or a
MYTH. When you do the data gathering yourself, you will see Sachin is
ahead of Dravid no matter opposition, pitch, home, away, win, loss,
draw. In number of 100s in Australia in wins Dravid has 1 but Sachin
does not, other than that parameter I am not sure where else Dravid is
better. Eng - 1 in a win, Sachin 1 in a win, Pak Dravid 1 in a win,
Sachin 1 in a win.
Take the averages, take the 50s, take the 75+ in a Test...take any
decent criterion and you will not find Dravid ahead of Sachin.
> However, in the
> team where both have played since 1996 together and faced the same
> opposition Dravid may rank slightly higher than Sachin in test
> matches. In one day cricket however, Sachin remains not just the king
> out of all the Indian batsmen past or present but is also IMHO amongst
> the top 3 ODI batsmen of all time. In test matches also he ranks as an
> all time great but Dravid might rank slightly higher. If a difference
> exists amongst these two great players it would be marginal at best
> for test match cricket. :)
As I have challenged you, provide me any criteria, dig some data out
and I'll be more than happy to BUST THE MYTH
skp
> > You talk about 750 being arbitrary in your dialogue with Tend.com but
> > teh fact is that a century itself is an arbitrary point. I know that
> > Dravid has had at least 2 nineties in OZ which in my book are pretty
> > darn good performances but of course don't get reflected in the "he
> > has only 2 away centuries against OZ" comment of yours.
>
> it talks about 75+ in a Test. A small table related to India wins and
> their performances in India wins - these are 75+ scores in a Test
> match...both innings put together. Figures in brackets show
> percentages
> Name Wins 150+ 100+ 75+
>
> Sachin 50 7(14) 15(30) 27(54)
>
> Rahul 43 6(14) 10(23) 22(51)
All well and good. But it really doesn't address my point above that
(you) saying Dravid only has 2 away centuries against RSA and OZ
doesn't recognize his 90s (which are also good scores). Indeed,
Dravid has a lot of nineties. Bit of a nervous fella I gather.
Also, these stats just support your opinion *and mine* that SRT is a
better batsman. I am not arguing that point at all; we are ad idem on
that score. (But keep in mind that Dravid has played 25 odd fewer
tests than SRT when you look at those stats).
>
> > Besides, why so much emphasis on how each has done particularly
> > against OZ and RSA. Judging by that criterion alone, Laxman is
> > probably better than both Dravid and SRT (just a guess, haven't
> > checked the stats). But I don't think anyone would argue that Laxman
> > is better than either Dravid or SRT.
>
> Aus and SA came in because Tendlya.com said we need to consider
> opposition strength and pitch conditions while considering the
> performance of these guys.
Ok. Fair.
>
> Shall I bust the myth about Lax being better than Tendulkar v/s any
> team leave alone Aus? Here: Lax centuries (Sydney 99, Kolkata 01,
> Adelaide 03, Sydney 04, Sydney 08, Delhi 08) Home - 2 Away - 4 total -
> 6 (I think I am missing 1 from 2004 series in India).
> Out of these none of the pitch conditions were so grave. Kolkata was a
> difficult situation so that goes into Lax's kitty.
>
> Want to look at their 75+ or 50+ performances against Australia, and
> bust any other such myths you may have in your mind?
No need to bust the myth. As I indicated in my earlier post, almost
everyone would agree that Lax (though a good batsman) can't at all be
compared to SRT (or Dravid for that matter). But I am pretty sure
that he has a better average than SRT against Oz. You are merely
referring to centuries. Plus, you don't take account of the fact that
Lax has played a lot fewer games than SRT against OZ.
> > I don't really understand the last statement in the paragraph above.
> > I agree that it is ludicrous to criticize SRT for having so many
> > centuries in matches lost but critcitzing a guy for having no
> > centuries in losing matches is a bit much as well.
>
> No centuries in lost matches = no resistance provided at all. Zero
> resistance. A batsman's performances are not just about wins, it is in
> ensuring draws, it is in fighting against an inevitable loss. Dravid
> FAILS MISERABLY in such endeavors when compared to Tendulkar. I am
> pretty sure every fan would like to watch his team show resistance and
> not capitulate. Gavaskar, Sachin, Vishy, and Azza in the past 30-40
> years have done that consistently.
IMO, you are overstating the point. Dravid (I am sure) has had
centuries or other high scores in drawn matches. Besides, even a
score of 25 could be a match saving performance in tests so long as
you stay at the crease for a long time. In any event, just looking at
the century making draws, he did show resistance in those matches and
was instrumental in India getting the draw. So, I am not sure why you
say that the fact that he did not have centuries in losing matches
means he shows no resistance. Are you saying that Dravid would be a
better player in your eyes if some of his 26 (or whatever) centuries
were in losses as opposed to wins or draws? That logic would be as
ludicrous as the one identified in my earlier post where I pointed out
that some of SRT's critics would apparently consider him to be a
greater player if he had 13 ducks instead of 13 centuries in those ODI
matches that India lost despite his ton.
>
> > Anyway, back to the topic at hand, most observers would say that over
> > the last 20 years, the best test batsmen have been SRT, Lara and
> > Ponting (not necessarily in that order). One could craft viable
> > arguments to support any order among the 3. Most would also say that
> > Dravid and Kallis would occupy the 4th and 5th spots but again, not
> > necessarily in that order.
>
> Yep and most would also recognize that Sachin and Lara are way ahead
> of Kallis and Dravid.
Well, I don't know about "way ahead". But there is enough of a gap
there for most people to confidently say that SRT definitely belongs
in the top 3 while Dravid doesn't.
> > This is just sheer nonsense. Or perhaps just hyperbole on your part.
> > Whatever. There are several parameters in which Dravid does better
> > SRT. But as a package, as I have already said, the vast majority of
> > observers would say that SRT is a better bat than Dravid.
>
> Again, I challenge you to provide a set of such criteria. And please
> include multiple criteria because if you take just 1 item, for ex -
> career average Dravid may just find himself to be infinitesimally (not
> significant though) better than Sachin. I trust you to be fair in
> choosing the criteria.
Well, we are now in agreement. Initially, you said that there were no
parameters where Dravid was better than SRT. None. Zilch.
I then said that there were several single parameters where Dravid is
better but overall, he ain't better.
You now concede that there are some single parameters where Dravid
would be better but you want me to show a *set* of parameters where
Dravid would be better. I never claimed that there was such a set.
As I have said, IMO, SRT is a better player than Dravid.
>
> Let this myth be busted once and for all. If there is one Indian
> batsman that can be spoken about in the same breath as Sachin it is
> Gavaskar. Although Gavaskar himself would argue that he is a lesser
> mortal when compared to Sachin.
Again, that's probably an opinion shared by many (including me).
i.e., SRT and Gavaskar are India's top 2. Dravid, to me, is an easy
No. 3. Of course, I have no idea where the oldtimers (i.e. before
Gavaskar fit in). Truth be told, I have only been following cricket
since 2003 so even what I know about Gavaskar is only from reading
about his career.
skp
Turns out that SRT is marginally ahead of Lax on batting average even
against OZ. Plus, on the centuries and number of matches, it turns
out that Lax has only played 5 fewer matches against Oz than SRT. I
had assumed that the difference in matches played would have been
greater
Nirvanam
> (you) saying Dravid only has 2 away centuries against RSA and OZ
> doesn't recognize his 90s (which are also good scores). Indeed,
> Dravid has a lot of nineties. Bit of a nervous fella I gather.
Do 90+ scores get included in 75+ scores or not? Or do you want to
have a parameter like >= 90 < 100? I'll bust each and every myth
anyone has about Dravid being better than Tendulkar in any meaningful
criteria.
> Also, these stats just support your opinion *and mine* that SRT is a
> better batsman. I am not arguing that point at all; we are ad idem on
> that score. (But keep in mind that Dravid has played 25 odd fewer
> tests than SRT when you look at those stats).
LOL! Let's consider this: matches per century - Sachin 159 / 42 =
3.78, Dravid - 134 / 26 = 5.15
50+ scores Sachin 159 / 95 = 1.67 Dravid 134 / 83 = 1.61
Where exactly is the difference? 0.06, which means in every 1 / 0.06
matches i.e. around 16 Tests Dravid scores 1 fifty more than
Tendulkar. Now the difference in 100s is 1.37 which means in every 1 /
1.37 matches i.e. in every 0.73 matches Tendulkar scores a century
more than Dravid! If anything Dravid has been guilty of not carrying
on further. If you feel that the logic I used here is not right, go
ahead use your own logic and present me something that will show
Dravid in a light where he is "better" than Sachin.
I'll help you with one more, instead of Tests let's consider
innings...
100s -> Sachin 261/42 = 2.61 Dravid 233/26 = 9
50s -> Sachin 261 / 95 = 2.75 Dravid 233/83 = 2.8
Again, where exactly is Dravid better than Sachin? There is NO
comparison in centuries, and in fifties there is hardly any difference
between the two.
> But I am pretty sure
> that he has a better average than SRT against Oz. You are merely
> referring to centuries. Plus, you don't take account of the fact that
> Lax has played a lot fewer games than SRT against OZ.
Let me BUST THAT MYTH TOO:
Sachin Avg v/s Aus 56.08, Tests per century - 29/10 = 2.9, Tests per
fifty - 29/21 = 1.4, Innings per century - 55/10 = 5.5, Innings per
fifty - 55/21 = 2.62
Lax Avg v/s Aus 55.1 Tests per century - 24/6 = 4, Tests per fifty -
24/16 = 1.5, Innings per century - 44/6 = 7.3, Innings per fifty -
44/16 = 2.75
in Aus
Sachin - 58.53, Tpc = 2.67, Tpf = 1.45, Ipc = 5, Ipf = 2.7
Lax - 54.05, Tpc = 2.75, Tpf = 1.57, Ipc = 5.25, Ipf = 3
Not one parameter is Lax even infinitesimally better than Tendulkar.
Don't you realize you are trying to compare a once in a century player
with mere humans? No matter what parameter you take you'll not be able
to find anyone significantly ahead of Sachin (forget the 29 century
freak..I am doing a comparative analysis of Ponting, Lara, and
Tendulkar to show that putting altogether Sachin/Lara cannot be
differentiated much but the 2 are ahead of Ponting). Amongst Indian
batsmen only Gavaskar comes close to any comparison with Sachin.
> IMO, you are overstating the point. Dravid (I am sure) has had
> centuries or other high scores in drawn matches. Besides, even a
> score of 25 could be a match saving performance in tests so long as
> you stay at the crease for a long time. In any event, just looking at
> the century making draws, he did show resistance in those matches and
> was instrumental in India getting the draw. So, I am not sure why you
> say that the fact that he did not have centuries in losing matches
> means he shows no resistance. Are you saying that Dravid would be a
> better player in your eyes if some of his 26 (or whatever) centuries
> were in losses as opposed to wins or draws? That logic would be as
> ludicrous as the one identified in my earlier post where I pointed out
> that some of SRT's critics would apparently consider him to be a
> greater player if he had 13 ducks instead of 13 centuries in those ODI
> matches that India lost despite his ton.
It is an observation. An observation which says this: "hey, for all
the greatness and "the wall" like references, Dravid doesn't seem to
have even constructed a few layers of bricks when the team is losing.
Where is the fight? I wonder if this "wall" thing is a myth"
Now you may have a different viewpoint. To me, a great an ATG is
someone who is able to display his skills everywhere i.e. diff venues,
diff pitch conditions, diff bowling attacks, diff match situations,
and shows grit, determination. In all these parameters if you look at
objective data (not subjective impressions) you will find that Dravid
cannot even be compares to Sachin.
Its a myth that Dravid is "the wall". It is his style of play, not the
runs he makes that give him that name. There is no WALL or WILL better
than Sachin as far as India is considered. Only one who can even be
compared with Sachin is Gavaskar. And let us get this straight once
and for all. Too much nonsense about this man is being said. You need
to realize that the nonsense that is thrown at Sachin is ONLY because
you EXPECT miracles from him EVERYTIME.
> Well, I don't know about "way ahead". But there is enough of a gap
> there for most people to confidently say that SRT definitely belongs
> in the top 3 while Dravid doesn't.
You want me to bust the myth that Dravid and Kallis are "not way
behind"?
> Well, we are now in agreement. Initially, you said that there were no
> parameters where Dravid was better than SRT. None. Zilch.
Fine, go ahead throw up any parameter you like and let's see what the
data says.
> I then said that there were several single parameters where Dravid is
> better but overall, he ain't better.
There are none. Myths are being busted one by one...so bring in all
your parameters and I'll bust each and every one of them.
> You now concede that there are some single parameters where Dravid
> would be better but you want me to show a *set* of parameters where
> Dravid would be better. I never claimed that there was such a set.
> As I have said, IMO, SRT is a better player than Dravid.
Go ahead give me your parameters/criterion/criteria. Let the guys here
decide (and you too) whether they are meaningful or not. Let us
provide data on those criteria and make up our own minds so that you
do not have to feel compelled to come out and say "Dravid is not
better than Sachin no matter what the criteria". But if you have no
problems in accepting that you fell for the myth too, then express it
that way.
Nirvanam
> against OZ. Plus, on the centuries and number of matches, it turns
> out that Lax has only played 5 fewer matches against Oz than SRT. I
> had assumed that the difference in matches played would have been
> greater
Sorry did not read this post before responding to the other one. :-)
Anyway, this data gathering exercise would have given you enough
reason to believe that there are many more such MYTHS that need to be
busted. One of them is Dravid being better than Sachin on such and
such parameters. No Indian batsman is better than Sachin (Gavaskar
compares in many, better in some, but all together is lesser) in any
meaningful parameter except extremely extremely specific parameters
like 300+ scores or things like the runs scored in the first 3 overs
after lunch, or last 2 overs of the day, or such typically meaningless
criteria.
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c315e88-3890-499d...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Don't you realize you are trying to compare a once in a century player
> with mere humans? No matter what parameter you take you'll not be able
> to find anyone significantly ahead of Sachin (forget the 29 century
> freak..I am doing a comparative analysis of Ponting, Lara, and
> Tendulkar to show that putting altogether Sachin/Lara cannot be
> differentiated much but the 2 are ahead of Ponting). Amongst Indian
> batsmen only Gavaskar comes close to any comparison with Sachin.
It's a bit rich to style yourself as a 'myth buster' then go on to describe
Tendulkar as a "once in a century player". He wasn't the player of the 20th
century and it's too early to know whether he will be the best of the 21st.
<snip>
Andrew
Uday Rajan
>
> It's a bit rich to style yourself as a 'myth buster' then go on to describe
> Tendulkar as a "once in a century player". He wasn't the player of the 20th
> century and it's too early to know whether he will be the best of the 21st.
I don't think it's too early to know whether he will be the best of
the 21st century. He won't, since Ponting is ahead of him by some
distance in this century. IMO, the mid to late '90s were Tendulkar's
glory years. It's no surprise that following some of his more recent
knocks, various people are referring to them as throwback innings.
Of course, Gavaskar remains the best Test batsman India has ever had.
But looking at Tests and odos collectively, Tendulkar's performances
are simply staggering. I'm sympathetic to the OP's position that he
sometimes does not get enough credit for what he has achieved, with
focus being on the failures rather than the successes. But that in
itself is the mark of a great player. Over most of his career, fans
have expected him to perform at a level higher than any other player
in the team, which is a signal that he's generally been the best
player in the side.
Andrew Dunford
"Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0f0f2515-9c46-40dc...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Most fans I know in NZ, Australia or the UK are simply staggered that the
endless 'Tendulkar v Dravid' etc. arguments even exist. Not because they
think the conclusion is foregone, but rather a sense of bemusement that
people can't just say "I was proud that they both played for the team I
support". This seems to be a curiously Indian phenomenon.
Andrew
Uday Rajan
>
> Most fans I know in NZ, Australia or the UK are simply staggered that the
> endless 'Tendulkar v Dravid' etc. arguments even exist. Not because they
> think the conclusion is foregone, but rather a sense of bemusement that
> people can't just say "I was proud that they both played for the team I
> support". This seems to be a curiously Indian phenomenon.
Duh. What's the fun in that? Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes in a
pub knows that you need to get a good argument going when you have a
few hours to kill.
As for curiously Indian, not at all. Witness the endless NSV-QCCC wars
on this forum. Steve Waugh is a great player in one state and a
selfish average-boosting b***** in another.
Nirvanam
> "Nirvanam" <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Andy, if you think you can challenge that, throw in your parameters
and I'll be happy to bust them for you.
Who according to you is a once in a century player? Give me your
criteria, and please make them meaningful ones: not like who scored
most runs in the last 2 balls of the 3rd day of a test in Sydney, or
who scored 386+ scores most times.
I challenge you, Andy. If you think there are significant parameters
that can show Sachin as not being a once in a century batsman
significantly, bring them on!
Nirvanam
> "Uday Rajan" <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Go to your local bar where you know cricket fans are regular, and
throw up this question - is Chris Carins better or Oram? or Reid? or
whoever. And you'll realize it is not just an Indian phenomenon but a
human phenomenon...all of us have favorites or players/actors/leaders
that we like and it is natural that we hold them in high regard and
love to defend them. Does that mean we are not acknowledging the
contribution of others? No. It just means that our favorites are our
favorites and they are favorites because we care to defend them in
comparative discussions.
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54f7d964-a887-4e74...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Bradman first, daylight second. The significant parameter is comparison
with his peers.
Andrew
Nirvanam
I asked you to provide the parameters/criteria based on which Sachin
can be evaluated and compared. I already mentioned in my previous
posts that there is no point in bringing Bradman into any objective
data based comparisons...he was a freak of nature, no one has
surpassed him in pure statistics. There is absolutely no point in
comparig anyone with him...its a foregone conclusion.
So, if you think you can challenge my claim that Sachin is a once in a
century cricketer, bring your criteria. Else stop beating around the
bush or shooting in the dark.
higgs
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't pretend to speak for Andrew, but it appears that his criteria
appears to be 'something like Bradman'.
You may not like that criteria, or perhaps disagree with it, but
that's really your bad luck
Higgs
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c8f1ad5-9028-4178...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
I don't need to challenge your claim because it is entirely unsubstantiated.
Instead of waffling on endlessly about parameters and criteria perhaps you
could enlighten us by defining what "once in a century" actually means to
you.
Andrew
Michael Banner
<snip>
> So, if you think you can challenge my claim that Sachin is a once in a
> century cricketer, bring your criteria. Else stop beating around the
> bush or shooting in the dark.
I think Sachin is up there alongside guys like Hammond, Hutton, Hobbs,
Viv Richards, Gavaskar, Greg Chappell, Trumper, Miandad, Lara.
I don't think he is as good as Bradman or Sobers from this century.
I can't see how that makes him a once in a century cricketer. Perhaps
a once in a decade cricketer.
Nirvanam
Let me answer your question, and hopefully expect you to then provide
enough substantiated data to prove me wrong.
A once in a century cricketer is one who will make it to the century's
cricket team i.e. the XI best for the century. So this team would have
2 openers, 3 middle order batsmen, 1/2 all-rounders, 1 WK, 2/1 fast
bowlers and 1/2 spinners. In other words this "once in a century"
batsman will be among the top 3 middle-order batsmen of the century,
and/or top 2 openers of the century. So, all in all there will be 12
players. Some others may feel we should have a squad of 14
instead...whichever way. I'd like to stick to 12. The twelfth man will
basically come from either the all-rounders or bowlers. He will not
alter anything about the batsmen though.
Of course some cricketers' careers have overlapped 2 centuries esp
Sachin and Lara (2 contenders to the top 3 middle-order batsmen), so
we can club them in the 20th century itself.
Criteria:
Aggregates - runs, centuries, 50+, Innings per century, Innings per
50+, Conversion Rate, Average, Consistency (Std Dev), CoV (avg /
std.dev)
Performance against Contemporary Best Team - runs, centuries, 50+,
Innings per century, Innings per 50+, Conversion Rate, Average,
Consistency (Std Dev), CoV (avg / std.dev)
Performance at Home - similar metrics to that of the aggregates
Performance Away - similar metrics to that of the aggregates
Performance on Different tracks - Extreme spin Extreme Pace Extreme
Swing, and all in between
These are the 5 broad categories.
There was a similar exercise done by Ananth Narayanan, Cricinfo's
statistician - http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/05/the_great_test_batsmen_a_look.php
He also did a follow-up to that
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/06/test_batsmen_analysis_a_follow.php#comments
The analysis finds Bradman as number 1, Lara as 2, and Sachin 3,
Ponting 4 for Tests. He also stated that if he were to consider
performance in both forms of the game then Sachin would be 1, and Lara
2 (obviously Don will not be in this because he never played ODIs).
My only contention with the above was that the weightage given to
winning matches which are really a team effort should be lesser. In
any case the conclusions will still be the same 1,2,3 only that if you
reduce the winning weightage the distance between 3 and 4 will be much
more and you may see 2and 3 swap places (I don't know...will have to
wait to analyze)
Now, Andy, do you have the conviction to challenge my claim that
Sachin is a "once in a century" player? Then go ahead and make your
challenge as clear as possible. Stop beating around the bush with
statements like "unsubstantiated claims". I have claimed it based on
my data analysis, if you think my claim is not substantiated with data
well enough, then why don't you try doing the analysis? When you claim
that someone's claim is unsubstantiated, then you need to be able to
point out why it is unsubstantiated, or provide data which refutes the
claim. You have done neither.
Andrew Dunford
"Nirvanam" <viz.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20775623-a801-4259...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It would be helpful if you understood the context in which I used
'unsubstantiated'.
I wrote that your "once in a century" claim regarding Tendulkar was
unsubstantiated because at the time you made it there was no accompanying
definition of what the term "once in a century" meant or any meaningful data
to back up the claim. I never once said you didn't have the data, but
rather that you hadn't provided it at that point in order to substantiate
your claim.
However the main source of contention here is your highly unusual use of the
term 'once in a century player'. I expect that most people would interpret
this phrase as "the single best cricketer in a 100 year period" rather than
"would make the best XI".
Andrew
Michael Banner
<snip>
> The analysis finds Bradman as number 1, Lara as 2, and Sachin 3,
> Ponting 4 for Tests. He also stated that if he were to consider
> performance in both forms of the game then Sachin would be 1, and Lara
> 2 (obviously Don will not be in this because he never played ODIs).
I find it odd that 3 out out of the top 4 middle order batsmen have
come in the last 10-20 years. Frankly, it appears this analysis is
ignoring the fact that more batsmen in the last 10 years have averaged
over 50 than in any other decade in history.
Does this mean batsmen are generally better now than ever before?
I think it is more due to declining bowling standards and flatter
wickets being prepared.
Ravi
> "Uday Rajan" <udayra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
While I cannot say if it is an Indian phenomenon or not, there is
certainly the tendency in the Indian media to have things in black or
white, best or not, champion or not, etc. However what has happened is
that India have had significant success in Test subsequent to Dravid,
Ganguly, Laxman coming in to the team and playing key roles in
addition to Sachin. A number of incredible wins have been engineered
by team with Dravid and Laxman's contributions in particular have
stood out. This has probably spawned such debates (by the media/ some
fans) which is based on the premise that Sachin is God so others
cannot have made such contributions and this cannot be right! . The
premise is all is black and white and grey shades are not acceptable.
So evaluation of players and even team selection is based sometimes
less on form and recent record but more on the perception that so and
so player is great! This explains why the Indian ODI team lost to Aus
- the inability to make changes based on form is a problem. The
ability to ignore facts and reality is another strategic problem.
For example the contribution of Kumble was acknowledged much later in
his career only because he 'was not expected' to have taken so many
wickets particularly he was not turning the ball sharply
An few observations on this blog on the Ind-Aus series
http://greatbong.net/2009/11/10/observations-on-india-australia-odi-series-2009/
Ravi
higgs
Not only that, of the top 20 batsmen of all time, 3 of them currently
play in the same Indian team.
One would assume they should be nigh on unbeatable.
I found it an interesting list,
partly because I've actually seen 15 out of the top 20 perform (never
got to see Bradman, Hobbs, Hutton, Headley or Weekes).
I'd actually put them in quite a different order, and some would not
make my top 20 at all-and that's not to say I think any of them is a
rubbish batsman, but if we're talking ATG (which we are), I'd make
some changes.
Besides, there's more to such a list than (slightly selective) stats
Higgs
Nirvanam
> > He also did a follow-up to that
If once in a century cricketer has to be just one individual, then I'd
pick the one individual who demonstrates all cricketing skills very
well. Don does not fit in this list. Sobers, the big 4, Miller, and
Kallis...i.e really your main short list. Out of this a couple of
years ago I'd have chosen Gary Sobers as THE greatest cricketer of all
time in any case, Bradman probably second. But in the last couple of
years I have realized that captaincy is an art very unique to cricket
to be given weightage when deciding the best cricketer of course this
would disadvantage the non-captains just like how it would
disadvantage the non-all-rounders. So including captaincy with the
other 3 departments, I'd pick Imran as the greatest ever. Really it is
more of if I wake up on the left side of the bed it'd be Imran, right
side it'd be Sobers.
Given all these complications, my definition of once in a century
cricketer is pretty straight forward - must make the century's XII.
Nirvanam
In the follow up article I think he has split it as before 1960 and
after 1960. In fact I remember in some statistical-analysis circles it
is generally considered that cricket went thru 3 phases: bowler
friendly upto The Great War, batting friendly between 1920 and 196(7)
0, and balanced since 196(7)0.
It is another myth that pitches these days are so flat...they are flat
compared to the 90s but not to the entire history of cricket. The
flattest of pitches were during 1940s and 50s. There is enough
statistical analysis done on that hypothesis. You'll find a few
analysis in CI's It "Figures" blog itself.
Nirvanam
>
Exactly, I think some of the criteria favored players from champion
teams. If we consider pure ability of the batsman than I am sure the
list would be different but I tend to believe that the top 3 will not
change. In fact top 1 is foregone conclusion, but 2 and 3 might just
swap sides based on which side of the bed you got up that day. So it
is more like a joint 2nd. But the rest from #4 to #20 would change
places...may not be very significant movement but guys like Gavaskar,
Chappell who were not involved in as many wins as say Ponting, Sehwag,
Hayden, Dravid, and Waugh may find higher ranks.
Nirvanam
I think I'd consider that to be true. There is this saying by
Wordsworth: "the child is the father of the man". It is so true in
every walk of life. You will find that the next generation is better
than the previous one...that;s why records in almost every walk of
life get broken. Maybe they are helped by technology but that is
beside the point. It is a natural evolutionary progression that
"required/advantageous" skills keep getting better generation over
generation. Of course you will find freak occurrences that were
supposed to have been born sometime in the distant future but ended up
in the past: like Bradman in cricket, or Einstein in physics
higgs
My interpretation is that longevity seems to be overly rewarded-all
the high aggregating players bar Waugh seem to make the top 20- and
I'm not convinced that 2&3 even should be 2&3, let alone swop
positions; and that players from champion teams aren't favoured.
If you take some almost universally acknowledged champion teams ('48
Australians, 70s/80s WIndies & recent Australians), you get Bradman
from '48, Richards from the WI and Hayden & Ponting from the recent
Aus.
Other champion teams might be late 60s SA (none), 70s Aus (1,
Chappell) and late 50s England (1, Barrington).
Contrast this with current India (not sure about the label
'champion'), who have 3.
FWIW, the best batsmen I have seen are, I think, Lara and the Richards
Brothers.
I was also mightily impressed by Zaheer and Chappell, G., amongst many
others
Higgs
R. Spanditt
> Some months back there was a "research survey" done by a website about
> India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
> India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
> think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
> match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
> India's greatest match-winner batsman.
> http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-ever.html
What have they ever won and who will remember them for it???
Nirvanam
> the high aggregating players bar Waugh seem to make the top 20- and
> I'm not convinced that 2&3 even should be 2&3, let alone swop
> positions; and that players from champion teams aren't favoured.
I think longevity is a fair parameter...probably the weightage can be
reduced rather normalized based on the average number of test matches
played during different decades/years/generations. But longevity says
a lot about the player...consider Bradman: he started in 1928, 6 years
he could not play because of the war, the last two of which could have
been more or less the last years of his career had the war not been.
Yet, after 1945 he played for 3-4 years more. Doesn't that kinda
longevity say something about the man? Of course you'll always find
people here and there argue that the Don and all other batsmen during
the 1940s and early 50s got lucky because there were not many bowlers
around...most of the bowlers were professionals, not very well to do,
in the counties and when the war happened many of them joined the
forces and lost their lives. So there was really a dearth of bowling
during that time...old people would do the bowling and all. But
Bradman was equally old to face the bowling!
Longevity by its very nature suggests that the player was so damn good
that he kept his place in the side for so long and PERFORMED
consistently all the while. None can argue that Waugh, Border,
Gavaskar, Bradman, Sachin, and Lara were at any point in time in their
careers not fit to be in the playing XI of their teams. None of these
guys played for a team that was abysmal that their teams never had
enough talent to challenge their positions. Also, longevity as a
parameter can be questioned only if it somehow allowed a less
consistent player above others which it clearly does not seem to.
> If you take some almost universally acknowledged champion teams ('48
> Australians, 70s/80s WIndies & recent Australians), you get Bradman
> from '48, Richards from the WI and Hayden & Ponting from the recent
> Aus.
> Other champion teams might be late 60s SA (none), 70s Aus (1,
> Chappell) and late 50s England (1, Barrington).
> Contrast this with current India (not sure about the label
> 'champion'), who have 3.
I don't think Dravid, Sehwag, and Hayden belong in the top 15 at
all...maybe sneak in after 15. But the fact that they are higher than
15 is primarily because they played in teams that won more matches
than some of the other better batsmen of the century, for ex -
Miandad, Inzi, Gooch
You would've also noticed there was one more parameter that was
advantageous for Headley, Yousuf, Lara, Gavaskar, etc which is the
percentage of team runs scored. If you are the only good/great batsman
in the team then you'll obviously gain a lot on that account.
> FWIW, the best batsmen I have seen are, I think, Lara and the Richards
> Brothers.
> I was also mightily impressed by Zaheer and Chappell, G., amongst many
> others
Yep...subjectively we all have our list of the top batsmen because
their style of play appeals to us. FWIW I'd consider (not based on
stats) the greatest batsmen ever are Sachin and Lara.
I also think that if we truly want to analyze the "batsmanship" of a
cricketer it should be based on talent and demonstration of that
talent on the field of play. So criteria like involvement in wins,
percentage of team runs, etc should not be given too much of
weightage. Look at it this way: these top 3 middle-order batsmen and
top 2 openers will be playing in a World XI. Why would this team of
all the teams necessarily require its members to have been involved in
many wins or scored most of the team runs? Besides they are never
going to play together anyway.
vijay...@my-deja.com
> On Nov 8, 9:31 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 8, 2:16 am, "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 7, 8:57 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Some months back there was a "research survey" done by a website about
> > > > India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
> > > > India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
> > > > think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
> > > > match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
>
> > > Consistency: # of Tests with Ranking above 750
>
> > >http://www.reliancemobileiccrankings.com/playercomparison/test/battin...
>
> > > I don't think Sachin has a clear advantage over Dravid
>
> > > Also, instead of measuring raw runs, one has to measure 'normalized'
> > > runs to remove the Pitch + Opposition Bias (The two biggest factors
> > > determining raw runs). Same for bowling
>
> > Do you have any objective way of including these "pitch" related
> > stuff? Yes Opposition you can, and if you use that parameter also you
> > will find Sachin is clearly ahead of Dravid. Just consider these 2
> > teams: Aus, and SA
>
> Difficulty of a Pitch = Avg # of runs scored in that match (instead of
> pre-selecting a set of pitches)
> Strength of Opposition= Avg. ICC Rating of the top 4 bowlers
>
> In fact, the ICC Ratings takes care of both in some way when
> calculating the ratings
> If ICC publishes the normalized rating of a player every match(instead
> of the cumulative one that is done currently), you can pretty much do
> all other analysis
>
ICC Ratings also have a decay factor built in. Sachin has missed many
more matches than Dravid (IIRC only 1 test missed) over his career.
Also, some of Sachin's best performances are longer ago than Dravid's
and that has an impact via the decay factor as well.
> That's why, instead of arbitrary metrics, the criteria of # of matches
> with rating > 750 is better
>
> If you try you may even reverse-engineer the ICC Rating for a player
> for a single match
>
Vijay
RaspingDrive
Hmm, you are entitled to your definition, but the above is not a
commonly understood or accepted meaning for "once in a century
player".
RaspingDrive
> I think longevity is a fair parameter...probably the weightage can be
> reduced rather normalized based on the average number of test matches
> played during different decades/years/generations. But longevity says
> a lot about the player...consider Bradman: he started in 1928, 6 years
But Bradman, as you already admitted, and hence removed him from the
discussion, is an outlier. In fact he should be the "once in a century
player".
> I don't think Dravid, Sehwag, and Hayden belong in the top 15 at
> all...maybe sneak in after 15. But the fact that they are higher than
> 15 is primarily because they played in teams that won more matches
> than some of the other better batsmen of the century, for ex -
> Miandad, Inzi, Gooch
Dravid and Sehwag have won matches. I can remember at least two for
Sehwag (one in Pakistan and one against England where his blistering
start was crucial). That he has been inconsistent is true, however.
Dravid has won a series in West Indies, probably the first in about 30
odd years. That he has is no Tendulkar is true, however.
Nirvanam, your Tendulkar Puranam is interesting to read and I welcome
your write-ups :-) However, if, by some chance, you know Tamil, I
suggest you watch Vadivelu's comedy in the Tamil movie Winner. If you
don't know the language, my apologies. I am reminded of a particular
Vadivelu scene in that movie concerning misplaced expectations. More
clarification will be given as and when some, if any, interest is
shown :)
S
R Bharat Rao
> Some months back there was a "research survey" done by a website about
> India's greatest Test match winner. They claimed Rahul Dravid was
> India's greatest Test match winner. I wrote a rebuttal to that. I
> think this rebuttal can be read even in the context of the Hyderabad
> match (although it is an ODI), and see how Sachin continues to be
> India's greatest match-winner batsman.http://perceptz.blogspot.com/2009/02/is-rahul-dravid-indias-greatest-...
Even though I agree with you, I don't believe you help your cause by
mis-stating the article, nor does it help to bring in an ODI knock
into a Test discussion. The fundamental question asked in the article
was "Is Rahul Dravid India's greatest Test cricketer?" There
certainly was a time when he was the finest Test bat in the side,
during his purple peak from 02-06, but even his most ardent fans (and
I count myself in that group) would think that assertion that "over
both their careers Dravid has been better than Tendulka"r laughable.
Rahul Dravid, is IMO, inarguably no higher than #3 in India's Test
pantheon. I personally rate him #3, but I wouldn't quibble with a
rating as low as #5. But #1 and #2 in India's Test greats is clearly
one of Sunil Gavaskar & Sachin Tendulkar. One could argue between who
is #1 (and I wish India played more Tests now so Sachin could settle
the arguement), but there is no way Dravid himself would rate himself
above Tendulkar as a cricketer.
And as to who India's greatest Test match winner is, again there is no
question. Anil Kumble has won more Tests for India than Dravid &
Tendulkar put together -- doesn't make him a greater Test cricketer
than either..
My ranking of the Test Pantheon
Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Dravid, Kumble, Mankad
and speaking Tests only, it is awfully close between #1 & #2 in my
book - a couple more series like the last one in Aus or the match
winning knock against England, and I'd swop the two -- too bad, the
BCCI is trying to kill Tests (schedule T1 Mon-Fri -- faugh). A
dropoff to #3 and #3-#5 are also bunched together. And then again a
dropoff, with the rest -- great as they are -- with Chandra & Bedi
leading the pack.
Bharat
Nirvanam
Then, what is the commonly accepted definition, RaspingDrive? Firstly,
prove that there is a commonly accepted definition for once-in-a-
century batsman. There is absolutely NO COMMONLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION
for the term. Think logically man, first ask yourself if it has to be
"accepted definition", then who are the parties that need to "accept"
such a definition? Then, ask yourself, what quantifies "common"?
Nirvanam
> Sehwag (one in Pakistan and one against England where his blistering
> start was crucial). That he has been inconsistent is true, however.
> Dravid has won a series in West Indies, probably the first in about 30
> odd years. That he has is no Tendulkar is true, however.
Wasn't that my point anyway? I said some of the guys in the top 15
should not have been there but made it to that list because of the
parameter on "matches won".
> Nirvanam, your Tendulkar Puranam is interesting to read and I welcome
> your write-ups :-) However, if, by some chance, you know Tamil, I
> suggest you watch Vadivelu's comedy in the Tamil movie Winner. If you
> don't know the language, my apologies. I am reminded of a particular
> Vadivelu scene in that movie concerning misplaced expectations. More
> clarification will be given as and when some, if any, interest is
> shown :)
>
> S
My mom's a sambhar so I am hafl-sambhar, half-gulti but full-
Bangalorean :D. I find it difficult to understand the Tamil spoken in
movies...not used to watching Tamil movies so can't follow the speed
with which they talk in the movies. Anyway Tendulkar Puranam is not
really a Puranam but an Itihasa...the main difference between purana
and itihasa is that puranas are way back in the past (that's why
considered legends and myths) whereas itihasas are recent history from
as recent as just 10 years back :-). A little off topic...it is
interesting that Mahabharat is called an Itihasa and not a Purana. In
fact, recently using modern scientific methods they established the
date of the start of the war to be on 16 October 5561 BC.
Nirvanam
I find Jumbo the greatest match winner for India in Tests.
HoldingWilley's top 20 they claimed was based on contribution to
matches won. Given that, I don't see any reason why there can be any
other player than Jumbo as the greatest Test match winner for India.
Greatest Test cricketers produced by India I'd think are Sachin,
Jumbo, and Gavva. I would not like to choose a compulsory topper.
Although the kid inside me wants to say Kapil is the greatest ever for
India because he was my boyhood hero, I think he screwed his own
career. Had he retired soon after the 91-92 Aus tour, I think his
stats would've been much better, and history would've found it very
difficult to look beyond a world class all-rounder like him as India's
greatest.
skp
Good post. No clue about Mankad. Where do you rank Kapil Dev?
R Bharat Rao
>
> - Show quoted text -
Talk about a TOTAL Brain Freeze --- how could I forget Kapil.
My Test ratings are:
Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Kapil Dev, Dravid, Kumble, Mankad
Mankad is Vinoo Mankad, the 2nd greatest LAS India has produced and a
top-order Test bat in his own right. Definitely the greatest of the
pre-Gavaskar era.
Bharat (not even #1 in remembering India's Test ratings :-)
R Bharat Rao
> Let this myth be busted once and for all. If there is one Indian
> batsman that can be spoken about in the same breath as Sachin it is
> Gavaskar. Although Gavaskar himself would argue that he is a lesser
> mortal when compared to Sachin.
Sachin is definitely more talented and more versatile than Gavaskar.
SRT's technique is superb -- after all these years, I still marvel at
how still his head is when he cover drives, and my favorite shot is
actually his forward defense -- such perfection of technique.
However, that doesn't make him necessarily the better of the two as a
Test batsman. There's no question whom I'd rather watch bat, but
Gavaskar, is for me, the better Test batsman by a smidgen.
Bharat
higgs
> > My interpretation is that longevity seems to be overly rewarded-all
> > the high aggregating players bar Waugh seem to make the top 20- and
> > I'm not convinced that 2&3 even should be 2&3, let alone swop
> > positions; and that players from champion teams aren't favoured.
>
> I think longevity is a fair parameter...probably the weightage can be
> reduced rather normalized based on the average number of test matches
> played during different decades/years/generations. But longevity says
> a lot about the player...consider Bradman: he started in 1928, 6 years
> he could not play because of the war, the last two of which could have
> been more or less the last years of his career had the war not been.
> Yet, after 1945 he played for 3-4 years more. Doesn't that kinda
> longevity say something about the man? Of course you'll always find
> people here and there argue that the Don and all other batsmen during
> the 1940s and early 50s got lucky because there were not many bowlers
> around...most of the bowlers were professionals, not very well to do,
> in the counties and when the war happened many of them joined the
> forces and lost their lives. So there was really a dearth of bowling
> during that time...old people would do the bowling and all. But
> Bradman was equally old to face the bowling!
>
Perhaps I should have used the term 'weight of matches'.
For example, Jack Hobbs had a Test career lasting 22 years, which I
think is longer than Lara/SRT/Ponting etc, but he played 61 Tests.
There's no way he was going to score more runs than someone who plays
upwards of 150.
That doesn't seem to me to be a metric that should be included.
Bottom line, current players play much more than players even from 30
years ago.
> Longevity by its very nature suggests that the player was so damn good
> that he kept his place in the side for so long and PERFORMED
> consistently all the while. None can argue that Waugh, Border,
> Gavaskar, Bradman, Sachin, and Lara were at any point in time in their
> careers not fit to be in the playing XI of their teams. None of these
> guys played for a team that was abysmal that their teams never had
> enough talent to challenge their positions. Also, longevity as a
> parameter can be questioned only if it somehow allowed a less
> consistent player above others which it clearly does not seem to.
>
I never made any comment about these guys not being good enough to
hold their places.
> > If you take some almost universally acknowledged champion teams ('48
> > Australians, 70s/80s WIndies & recent Australians), you get Bradman
> > from '48, Richards from the WI and Hayden & Ponting from the recent
> > Aus.
> > Other champion teams might be late 60s SA (none), 70s Aus (1,
> > Chappell) and late 50s England (1, Barrington).
> > Contrast this with current India (not sure about the label
> > 'champion'), who have 3.
>
> I don't think Dravid, Sehwag, and Hayden belong in the top 15 at
> all...maybe sneak in after 15. But the fact that they are higher than
> 15 is primarily because they played in teams that won more matches
> than some of the other better batsmen of the century, for ex -
> Miandad, Inzi, Gooch
>
I'm not so sure they did.
India are a successful side, but they aren't *that* successful.
> You would've also noticed there was one more parameter that was
> advantageous for Headley, Yousuf, Lara, Gavaskar, etc which is the
> percentage of team runs scored. If you are the only good/great batsman
> in the team then you'll obviously gain a lot on that account.
>
Why isn't Flower higher?
> > FWIW, the best batsmen I have seen are, I think, Lara and the Richards
> > Brothers.
> > I was also mightily impressed by Zaheer and Chappell, G., amongst many
> > others
>
> Yep...subjectively we all have our list of the top batsmen because
> their style of play appeals to us. FWIW I'd consider (not based on
> stats) the greatest batsmen ever are Sachin and Lara.
>
Fair enough, but which other batsmen have you seen play?
Like I said, I've seen 15 off that list of 20 (not archival footage, I
mean in the flesh, at the ground).
> I also think that if we truly want to analyze the "batsmanship" of a
> cricketer it should be based on talent and demonstration of that
> talent on the field of play. So criteria like involvement in wins,
> percentage of team runs, etc should not be given too much of
> weightage. Look at it this way: these top 3 middle-order batsmen and
> top 2 openers will be playing in a World XI. Why would this team of
> all the teams necessarily require its members to have been involved in
> many wins or scored most of the team runs? Besides they are never
> going to play together anyway.
But Longevity should?
Is this series going to last upwards of 20 years?
Higgs
RaspingDrive
So, it would appear, every member of the XII would be a "once in a
century" player according to you. Since Bradman would be in that XII,
he is also a "once in a century" player along with others in that XII?
Ideally, the proposed measure or term should be able to produce better
discrimination between the greatest (Bradman) and "as good as many
others" (Tendulkar and the rest). I have no problem in lumping
Tendulkar with Imran, Lara, Richards, Sobers, Ponting and others.
S
RaspingDrive
> > Dravid and Sehwag have won matches. I can remember at least two for
> > Sehwag (one in Pakistan and one against England where his blistering
> > start was crucial). That he has been inconsistent is true, however.
> > Dravid has won a series in West Indies, probably the first in about 30
> > odd years. That he has is no Tendulkar is true, however.
>
> Wasn't that my point anyway? I said some of the guys in the top 15
> should not have been there but made it to that list because of the
> parameter on "matches won".
Your earlier statement "But the fact that they are higher than 15 is
primarily because they played in teams that won more matches ..."
seemed to suggest that the two said players got undeserved mileage
because of "team" victories when the truth is that their contribution
was integral to such victories.
> > Nirvanam, your Tendulkar Puranam is interesting to read and I welcome
> > your write-ups :-) However, if, by some chance, you know Tamil, I
> > suggest you watch Vadivelu's comedy in the Tamil movie Winner. If you
> > don't know the language, my apologies. I am reminded of a particular
> > Vadivelu scene in that movie concerning misplaced expectations. More
> > clarification will be given as and when some, if any, interest is
> > shown :)
>
> > S
>
> My mom's a sambhar so I am hafl-sambhar, half-gulti but full-
> Bangalorean :D. I find it difficult to understand the Tamil spoken in
So you are sambhar, pappu podi (+aavakkai+gongura), and bisi bele bath
rolled into one :-) Just kidding. All the dishes are awesome to the
taste buds.
> movies...not used to watching Tamil movies so can't follow the speed
> with which they talk in the movies. Anyway Tendulkar Puranam is not
Sorry about the topic then.
> really a Puranam but an Itihasa...the main difference between purana
> and itihasa is that puranas are way back in the past (that's why
> considered legends and myths) whereas itihasas are recent history from
> as recent as just 10 years back :-). A little off topic...it is
> interesting that Mahabharat is called an Itihasa and not a Purana. In
> fact, recently using modern scientific methods they established the
> date of the start of the war to be on 16 October 5561 BC.
Didn't use puranam in the literal sense. Since you are a half-sambhar,
you can check with your mother that puranam is typically used in
vernacular Tamil to indicate any lengthy discourse. As in "Porum
porum, onnoda puranam" :)
S
Nirvanam
> For example, Jack Hobbs had a Test career lasting 22 years, which I
> think is longer than Lara/SRT/Ponting etc, but he played 61 Tests.
> There's no way he was going to score more runs than someone who plays
> upwards of 150.
> That doesn't seem to me to be a metric that should be included.
That's why I suggested they normalize the number of Tests played.
Anyway he did not consider the number of Tests played at all except as
a cut off figure of 20 innings or something. The way longevity impacts
is in aggregate runs made only. I don't think he has even considered
number of centuries. What I'd prefer is to reduce weight of aggregate
and increase weight of average, include centuries per Test, per
innings, Fifty+ per Test, per innings and so on. That does a better
comparison
> Why isn't Flower higher?
Possibly the "wins" criteria?
> Fair enough, but which other batsmen have you seen play?
From early-mid 80s I've been watching cricket. And the others are only
archival. That's why on subjective terms I can't compare many, I loved
Richards style but I consider Lara better. You won't believe but when
I was growing up in the 80s I used to think David Boon was the
best..this was especially between 87 and 92.
> Like I said, I've seen 15 off that list of 20 (not archival footage, I
> mean in the flesh, at the ground).
That's fine, but there would be so many others of your vintage who
think differently. They are subjective interpretations and each one to
his own. When it comes to statistics then players of different eras
can be compared, albeit not perfectly. Why do you think the Don is
considered so highly? If his stats were like the other top players
like 50-60 average then obviously people who haven't seen him play
will not think so highly of him. It's like the kids these days who
haven't seen the young Sachin, claiming Viru is better However, the
premise that humans become better at required/advantageous skills is
more or less a fact. It will differ at the individual level, but at a
group/society level it is a truism.
> > I also think that if we truly want to analyze the "batsmanship" of a
> > cricketer it should be based on talent and demonstration of that
> > talent on the field of play. So criteria like involvement in wins,
> > percentage of team runs, etc should not be given too much of
> > weightage. Look at it this way: these top 3 middle-order batsmen and
> > top 2 openers will be playing in a World XI. Why would this team of
> > all the teams necessarily require its members to have been involved in
> > many wins or scored most of the team runs? Besides they are never
> > going to play together anyway.
>
> But Longevity should?
Sorry, didn't quite understand what you are trying to ask.
> Is this series going to last upwards of 20 years?
How can it? They are not even alive at the same time. I am not sure I
understand what you are trying to ask, Higgs
Nirvanam
> primarily because they played in teams that won more matches ..."
> seemed to suggest that the two said players got undeserved mileage
> because of "team" victories when the truth is that their contribution
> was integral to such victories.
Yep. I am saying that Viru and Dravid got mileage because they were
involved in wins. It doesn't matter whether they played match-winning
roles in those wins. That is my whole point: winning matches should
not have so much weight for individual analysis because it is a team
game. Consider this: suppose Viru played an amazing knock but India
lost, should it take away anything from his performance? For ex, Viru
was doing well in the 2003 world cup final. Similarly Dravid's first
century 148 v/s SA at Joburg got India a draw. Should that take away
anything from that effort? Some performances end up in wins, some
don't. It is more a reflection on the team than the individual
himself. I don't think Dravid, Hayden, Viru, and the like deserve to
be in the top 15 batsmen ever. Viru may still make it because he has
at least 4 yrs in which if he scores another biggie and a few more to
the streak of 150+ (right now he is tied with Bradman, no?) then he
deserves to be in the top 15. Similarly Sanga also can make it to the
top 15. But Dravid, Hayden in the top 15?
> > > Nirvanam, your Tendulkar Puranam is interesting to read and I welcome
> > > your write-ups :-) However, if, by some chance, you know Tamil, I
> > > suggest you watch Vadivelu's comedy in the Tamil movie Winner. If you
> > > don't know the language, my apologies. I am reminded of a particular
> > > Vadivelu scene in that movie concerning misplaced expectations. More
> > > clarification will be given as and when some, if any, interest is
> > > shown :)
>
> > > S
>
> > My mom's a sambhar so I am hafl-sambhar, half-gulti but full-
> > Bangalorean :D. I find it difficult to understand the Tamil spoken in
>
> So you are sambhar, pappu podi (+aavakkai+gongura), and bisi bele bath
> rolled into one :-) Just kidding. All the dishes are awesome to the
> taste buds.
Nah, no offence taken...friends call me a "cock tail" - speak Tamil
with mom, Telugu with dad, Kannada with bro, American with wife,
Bombayya Hindi with some friends, Puneri Marathi with some other
friends, etc...a cocktail family...lol!
> Didn't use puranam in the literal sense. Since you are a half-sambhar,
> you can check with your mother that puranam is typically used in
> vernacular Tamil to indicate any lengthy discourse. As in "Porum
> porum, onnoda puranam" :)
Yep, I understood the context in which you were using the word :-)
higgs
> > Perhaps I should have used the term 'weight of matches'.
> > For example, Jack Hobbs had a Test career lasting 22 years, which I
> > think is longer than Lara/SRT/Ponting etc, but he played 61 Tests.
> > There's no way he was going to score more runs than someone who plays
> > upwards of 150.
> > That doesn't seem to me to be a metric that should be included.
>
> That's why I suggested they normalize the number of Tests played.
> Anyway he did not consider the number of Tests played at all except as
> a cut off figure of 20 innings or something. The way longevity impacts
> is in aggregate runs made only. I don't think he has even considered
> number of centuries. What I'd prefer is to reduce weight of aggregate
> and increase weight of average, include centuries per Test, per
> innings, Fifty+ per Test, per innings and so on. That does a better
> comparison
>
I don't think aggregate tells very much at all, except for longevity.
You appear to value longevity very highly.
I'd agree that centuries per Test etc is a metric that ought to be
looked at.
> > Why isn't Flower higher?
>
> Possibly the "wins" criteria?
>
Then the wins factor appears to be overstated.
I question if it is worth much at all.
Being in a good/great side does not make you a great batsman, any more
than being in a crap sode makes you a crap batsman.
> > Fair enough, but which other batsmen have you seen play?
>
> From early-mid 80s I've been watching cricket. And the others are only
> archival. That's why on subjective terms I can't compare many, I loved
> Richards style but I consider Lara better. You won't believe but when
> I was growing up in the 80s I used to think David Boon was the
> best..this was especially between 87 and 92.
>
I think, overall, Lara was better than Richards.
But in his pomp, Richards was better. I'd hazard that Richards at his
best was better than anyone.
> > Like I said, I've seen 15 off that list of 20 (not archival footage, I
> > mean in the flesh, at the ground).
>
> That's fine, but there would be so many others of your vintage who
> think differently. They are subjective interpretations and each one to
> his own. When it comes to statistics then players of different eras
> can be compared, albeit not perfectly. Why do you think the Don is
> considered so highly? If his stats were like the other top players
> like 50-60 average then obviously people who haven't seen him play
> will not think so highly of him. It's like the kids these days who
> haven't seen the young Sachin, claiming Viru is better However, the
> premise that humans become better at required/advantageous skills is
> more or less a fact. It will differ at the individual level, but at a
> group/society level it is a truism.
>
Stats can tell you anything you like.
All you have to do is include or exclude the ones that you require to
reach a particular result (or you can be cleverer and attach a
weighting to various stats)
> > > I also think that if we truly want to analyze the "batsmanship" of a
> > > cricketer it should be based on talent and demonstration of that
> > > talent on the field of play. So criteria like involvement in wins,
> > > percentage of team runs, etc should not be given too much of
> > > weightage. Look at it this way: these top 3 middle-order batsmen and
> > > top 2 openers will be playing in a World XI. Why would this team of
> > > all the teams necessarily require its members to have been involved in
> > > many wins or scored most of the team runs? Besides they are never
> > > going to play together anyway.
>
> > But Longevity should?
>
> Sorry, didn't quite understand what you are trying to ask.
>
You appear to place a high emphasis on longevity/aggregate
> > Is this series going to last upwards of 20 years?
>
> How can it? They are not even alive at the same time. I am not sure I
> understand what you are trying to ask, Higgs
You appear to place high value on longevity, ie playing lots of Tests
for upwards of 20 years and were so damned good that they kept their
place.
For the purpose of picking a Worlds Best XI, that is irrelevent.
One might also ponder if you pick someone for this match up based on
their overall career, or on as period when they were at their best.
I suspect the latter.
As you mention, kids of today might think Viru is better than Sachin,
based on what they see today, not on what they didn't see 10 years ago
Higgs
higgs
> > Your earlier statement "But the fact that they are higher than 15 is
> > primarily because they played in teams that won more matches ..."
> > seemed to suggest that the two said players got undeserved mileage
> > because of "team" victories when the truth is that their contribution
> > was integral to such victories.
>
> Yep. I am saying that Viru and Dravid got mileage because they were
> involved in wins. It doesn't matter whether they played match-winning
> roles in those wins. That is my whole point: winning matches should
> not have so much weight for individual analysis because it is a team
> game. Consider this: suppose Viru played an amazing knock but India
> lost, should it take away anything from his performance? For ex, Viru
> was doing well in the 2003 world cup final. Similarly Dravid's first
> century 148 v/s SA at Joburg got India a draw. Should that take away
> anything from that effort? Some performances end up in wins, some
> don't. It is more a reflection on the team than the individual
> himself. I don't think Dravid, Hayden, Viru, and the like deserve to
> be in the top 15 batsmen ever. Viru may still make it because he has
> at least 4 yrs in which if he scores another biggie and a few more to
> the streak of 150+ (right now he is tied with Bradman, no?) then he
> deserves to be in the top 15. Similarly Sanga also can make it to the
> top 15. But Dravid, Hayden in the top 15?
>
I'm not so sure about that (Viru tied with Bradman, amongst other
things).
What exactly is a 'biggie'?
250+?
Is the size of the 'biggie' important?
Hammond scored plenty of 'biggies'
Higgs
vijay...@my-deja.com
as bowler, but I am not sure that retiring then
would have improved his stats by much. By the time he
retired, he was ranked #9 in the ICC rankings - with
Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Waqar all already well into their
careers.
I don't think there is any Indian bowler in the Top 10
today, and even Kumble was not in the Top 10 when he
retired, IIRC.
Not a bad achievement for Kapil.
And more importantly, wasn't his fabulous century
in RSA after the Aus tour? Why would you want to
give that a miss?
Vijay
Nirvanam
> You appear to value longevity very highly.
> I'd agree that centuries per Test etc is a metric that ought to be
> looked at.
I value longevity, but not very highly. I recognize that longevity
indicates greatness over a sustained period of time. If longevity is
not considered then you would've players like Pietersen and Dilshan
making up the top 20...Pietersen has hardly played for 5 years.
> Then the wins factor appears to be overstated.
> I question if it is worth much at all.
> Being in a good/great side does not make you a great batsman, any more
> than being in a crap sode makes you a crap batsman.
That is exactly my argument: that wins must not be given much weight
when analyzing batsmen
> Stats can tell you anything you like.
> All you have to do is include or exclude the ones that you require to
> reach a particular result (or you can be cleverer and attach a
> weighting to various stats)
Fair enough, but understand this that if it weren't for stats Bradman
would not have such a high place in cricketing consciousness. Stats
may not tell everything but they do tell something.
> You appear to place a high emphasis on longevity/aggregate
As mentioned above, I recognize longevity is a good thing, but as
mentioned in my previous posts I do not consider aggregate such a
great thing hence I suggested we should concentrate more on average,
cpt, cpi, etc
> You appear to place high value on longevity, ie playing lots of Tests
> for upwards of 20 years and were so damned good that they kept their
> place.
> For the purpose of picking a Worlds Best XI, that is irrelevent.
Again, I have not at all implied that. I said I recognized longevity
has some bearing on the greatness of a player, but no where have I
said that only long careers should be considered for world XI
Nirvanam
> things).
I think he is: he has the highest streak of centuries which have been
150+ along with Bradman, or did he already overtake him?
> What exactly is a 'biggie'?
>
> 250+?
I meant 300+ If he did that then he would be the ONLY Test cricketer
to have scored 3 triples. And within the context of my passage, 3
triples along with the 150+ streak and his the other achievements
should make a good case for him to be in the top 15 batsmen
higgs
For me, a biggie is 400 or more.
At present, Lara is miles ahead of anybody, he is the ONLY Test
cricketer to have scored one.
Given that Viru hasn't yet scored one, it's debatable if he should be
included in the top 50
Higgs
Nirvanam
>
> At present, Lara is miles ahead of anybody, he is the ONLY Test
> cricketer to have scored one.
>
> Given that Viru hasn't yet scored one, it's debatable if he should be
> included in the top 50
>
> Higgs
Lol! why not in the top 50? Since Lara is the ONLY one to score >=
400, so definitely there aren't 49 other batsmen who have done that,
why should Sehwag not even be in the top 50?
You are nit-picking Higgs. I have not claimed Sehwag is among the top
15. I in fact said he doesn't even belong in the top 20. After that I
said, if he gets another >= 300, then that PLUS his other achievements
like the streak of 150+ scores, 100s in all countries he has played in
(Ban, not sure though), good conversion rate, cpt, cpi, etc, etc can
make a CASE for him to be in the top 15.
higgs
> > For me, a biggie is 400 or more.
>
> > At present, Lara is miles ahead of anybody, he is the ONLY Test
> > cricketer to have scored one.
>
> > Given that Viru hasn't yet scored one, it's debatable if he should be
> > included in the top 50
>
> > Higgs
>
> Lol! why not in the top 50? Since Lara is the ONLY one to score >=
> 400, so definitely there aren't 49 other batsmen who have done that,
> why should Sehwag not even be in the top 50?
>
You make your criteria, I'll make mine.
No need to be so upset just because my criteria are more stringent
Higgs
Don speaks the truth
Or just plain stupid, shall we say, Bugsy?
Don
>
> Higgs
Michael Banner
<snip>
> It is another myth that pitches these days are so flat...they are flat
> compared to the 90s but not to the entire history of cricket. The
> flattest of pitches were during 1940s and 50s. There is enough
> statistical analysis done on that hypothesis. You'll find a few
> analysis in CI's It "Figures" blog itself.
Does the CI "It Figures" blog have stats for the abundance of batsmen
averaging over 50 this decade?
Pitches may not be the flattest they have ever been, but I think
bowling standards now are the poorest I can remember seeing (which is
since the early 80's).
This is probably due to the excessive games played, the workloads on
the bowlers, and the short forms of the game promoting a different
style of bowling.
In short, I don't think batsmen have ever had it quite this good.
Michael Banner
> > Does this mean batsmen are generally better now than ever before?
>
> I think I'd consider that to be true. There is this saying by
> Wordsworth: "the child is the father of the man". It is so true in
> every walk of life. You will find that the next generation is better
> than the previous one...that;s why records in almost every walk of
> life get broken. Maybe they are helped by technology but that is
> beside the point. It is a natural evolutionary progression that
> "required/advantageous" skills keep getting better generation over
> generation. Of course you will find freak occurrences that were
> supposed to have been born sometime in the distant future but ended up
> in the past: like Bradman in cricket, or Einstein in physics
Can't say I really agree with this.
If batsmen have "evolved" then so have fielders, bowlers, and the
analysis of a batsmen weaknesses via technology which previous
generations didn't have the advantage of. In short, it is not that
simple.
Skills change and evolve over time.
I'm not convinced humans have evolved much in the last 150 years.
Devolved more likely, as a result of urban living and processed foods
stripping nutrients from our foods.
If you were a stand out performer 100 years ago, chances are you would
be as far ahead of the pack today as you were back then. Call it the
bell curve effect.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> I'm not convinced humans have evolved much in the last 150 years.
> Devolved more likely, as a result of urban living and processed foods
> stripping nutrients from our foods.
Or regressed.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Nirvanam
Yes, Anant Narayan does pretty decent analysis. And even this
particular one of decade-wise batting was done following a reader's
input about too many 50+ batsmen this decade.
His analysis only present the stats behind...he neither claims
anything out of them nor does he suggest how the numbers must be
interpreted. His stance is: here's the data, you can draw your own
conclusions. So when he did this exercise it was noticed that the
1940s was the best decade for batsmen. Also the oughties were second
if I am not mistaken.
The root cause for this according to me is that: In the current decade
batsmen have generally been more open to taking risks which has been
paying off well. If you look at the 90s there were hardly any players
that took serious risks or stamped their authority aggressively except
Sachin and Lara...and a few others once in a while. But consistently
it was only Sachin and Lara. This decade though has Hayden, Viru,
Ponting, almost every team has at least 1 guy who is doing it and it
is paying off. Of course this does not mean that the pitches haven't
flattened out. Pitches are also a factor, may not be the major factor
by a distance.
Whereas in the 40s, I think the biggest or at least one of the most
influencing factors was dearth of class bowlers. The war left the
cricket fields with very average bowlers and this coupled with flat
tracks led to it being the decade of batsmen.
In any case cricket has gone thru 3 distinct eras: upto the Great War
was the bowler-domination era, 1920 to 1960 was the batsman-domination
era, and since then it has been called balanced era
Nirvanam
>
> If batsmen have "evolved" then so have fielders, bowlers, and the
> analysis of a batsmen weaknesses via technology which previous
> generations didn't have the advantage of. In short, it is not that
> simple.
Yes, even fielders have improved, bowlers have improved...over all
cricket itself has improved. The average fielder of today is better
than the average fielder of the previous generations. Similarly for
bowlers and batsmen. As a trend for a group/society this is
true...that does not mean all past individuals will be bettered.
> Skills change and evolve over time.
The human being itself as a specie evolving takes a much longer time-
scale. We are referring to skills not the biological body.
> I'm not convinced humans have evolved much in the last 150 years.
> Devolved more likely, as a result of urban living and processed foods
> stripping nutrients from our foods.
No doubt our lifestyles have changed and we don't seem to be as fit as
our previous generations. But being fit is not an advantageous skill
for all and sundry...its only for those who are into physical
activities. An urban IT professional like me would find mental skills
more rewarding than physical...not that physical fitness is bad or
disadvantageous in any way. I guess you get the point...
> If you were a stand out performer 100 years ago, chances are you would
> be as far ahead of the pack today as you were back then. Call it the
> bell curve effect.
Again, you are considering an individual instance over a group
comparison. You will have individuals who are great across eras, but
as a whole group the next generation is better than the previous as
far as advantageous skills are concerned. I sense you will argue that
WI show the opposite trend. But here's the key...is cricket an
"advantageous" skill compared to other opportunities that the general
population has in the Caribbean, today?
View this truism of generations improving from a macro level
perspective rather than a micro one. The corollary is that the skills/
things that have been perceived to not be important tend to go down
over generations...for ex - physical fitness among the general
populace. But the perception towards physical fitness is changing now,
so you will see the next generation will be fitter than us.
Michael Banner
<snip>
> > If you were a stand out performer 100 years ago, chances are you would
> > be as far ahead of the pack today as you were back then. Call it the
> > bell curve effect.
>
> Again, you are considering an individual instance over a group
> comparison.
"People" are not intrinsically better now than they were from previous
generations. They just have different skill sets in response to life
as it is today.
100 years ago the game bore no comparison to now. The game itself has
changed, and so have the players skills in response.
The key though, is that the best players adapt and improve based on
the circumstances they face at the time.
At the moment, the bowlers are on a hiding to nothing and the batsmen
reign supreme, because that is what it is perceived that the public
want to see.
Nirvanam
> generations. They just have different skill sets in response to life
> as it is today.
I never claimed that people are intrinsically better. I said they are
better at advantageous/required skills. And the word "require" is
obviously within a particular context.
> 100 years ago the game bore no comparison to now. The game itself has
> changed, and so have the players skills in response.
Yep, appropriate point but as the advantageous skills changed the
batsmen have adapted better. For example, if you take a normal batsman
from today back in time and ask him to play a game on a fairly normal
pitch, he will score much faster than the others. Similarly if you
bring a normal player from the past to now on a normal pitch, he will
find making runs difficult because most of the fielders would not
escort the ball to the fence. However, if the same batsman was to play
on an uncovered pitch he would do better than the modern fellow on an
uncovered pitch.
So this evolutionary thing is always under a context. In fact it is a
necessity for any species to become better at advantageous skills if
it wants to survive in this constantly changing universe.
> The key though, is that the best players adapt and improve based on
> the circumstances they face at the time.
No disagreement there.
> At the moment, the bowlers are on a hiding to nothing and the batsmen
> reign supreme, because that is what it is perceived that the public
> want to see.
I'd say. and I think you'd probably agree, that that perception is not
true. People want to see a fight not just 4s and 6s. Having said that,
although the batsmen have been able to score faster, the bowlers have
been able to pick wickets faster too. Otherwise what can explain the
increase in Test results: the requirement of 20 wickets to win a Test
hasn't changed. So bowlers also have become better, and faster from
that perspective. In fact I am not sure if there were more consistent
90mph bowlers in any decade more than the current one or the 90s.
Mike Holmans
<mpba...@hotmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>If you were a stand out performer 100 years ago, chances are you would
>be as far ahead of the pack today as you were back then. Call it the
>bell curve effect.
I think this is dubious at best, though it does depend on what you
mean.
How would you measure it, or doesn't that matter?
Cheers,
Mike
--
higgs
wrote:
No, just indicative of how you can set your own criteria or select
your own stats to suit your own argument.
Since when is a run of large hundreds (150+) a criteria for an ATG?
I'm not saying it is worthless, but I could quite easily counter with
the (small) list of players who have scored 2 or more double hundreds
in a series and get a different list.
Why is the number of triple centuries a valid metric but double
hundreds aren't and quadruples are 'just plain stupid'?
The standard statistical measure of a batsman is average. Obviously
people point to the historical nature of the state of pitches, the
quality of opponents etc as variables, so I can understand why
different criteria might be included. I just think some of those that
have been mentioned here are more than a bit selective
Higgs
higgs
> On Nov 18, 5:24 am, Michael Banner <mpban...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 10:22 pm, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > It is another myth that pitches these days are so flat...they are flat
> > > compared to the 90s but not to the entire history of cricket. The
> > > flattest of pitches were during 1940s and 50s. There is enough
> > > statistical analysis done on that hypothesis. You'll find a few
> > > analysis in CI's It "Figures" blog itself.
>
> > Does the CI "It Figures" blog have stats for the abundance of batsmen
> > averaging over 50 this decade?
>
> > Pitches may not be the flattest they have ever been, but I think
> > bowling standards now are the poorest I can remember seeing (which is
> > since the early 80's).
>
> > This is probably due to the excessive games played, the workloads on
> > the bowlers, and the short forms of the game promoting a different
> > style of bowling.
>
> > In short, I don't think batsmen have ever had it quite this good.
>
> Yes, Anant Narayan does pretty decent analysis. And even this
> particular one of decade-wise batting was done following a reader's
> input about too many 50+ batsmen this decade.
>
Does he?
If it's the table I found, I'm not so sure it says the 40s were the
best decade.
He appears to be looking at the top run scorers for 8 periods (one
being the 40s-50s).
Can you tell us where you got this from?
.
> His analysis only present the stats behind...he neither claims
> anything out of them nor does he suggest how the numbers must be
> interpreted. His stance is: here's the data, you can draw your own
> conclusions. So when he did this exercise it was noticed that the
> 1940s was the best decade for batsmen. Also the oughties were second
> if I am not mistaken.
>
I'm a bit sceptical about the notion of no claims or suggestions.
After all, he does talk of 'the incomparable Miandad' and ' Note the
fantastic aggregates of the under-rated Mohammd Yousuf', whilst
'Hammond has a very high away average, tempered by the fact that a lot
of these runs have been scored against weak bowling attackes(sic)'.
> The root cause for this according to me is that: In the current decade
> batsmen have generally been more open to taking risks which has been
> paying off well. If you look at the 90s there were hardly any players
> that took serious risks or stamped their authority aggressively except
> Sachin and Lara...and a few others once in a while. But consistently
> it was only Sachin and Lara. This decade though has Hayden, Viru,
> Ponting, almost every team has at least 1 guy who is doing it and it
> is paying off. Of course this does not mean that the pitches haven't
> flattened out. Pitches are also a factor, may not be the major factor
> by a distance.
>
Is there any justification for this claim?
I don't believe this decade has seen any particular rise in players
prepared to take risks (and thus inflate their averages? Huh?). Do you
really think Dravid is a risk-taker?
Are many of the players with 50+ averages risky players?
I looked at the average S/R for a lot of those players, and it was in
the low 50s, no different from comparable players frorm other eras
(where available), unless you look at Sehwag and Smith (who have SRs
over 60, like IVAR), but Viru now averages under 50 and Smith is @50.
I don't believe this claim is correct, let alone a reason for the rash
of higher averages.
> Whereas in the 40s, I think the biggest or at least one of the most
> influencing factors was dearth of class bowlers. The war left the
> cricket fields with very average bowlers and this coupled with flat
> tracks led to it being the decade of batsmen.
>
So why weren't there lots of 50+ averages for players from the 40s
(excluding Bradman, Hammond & Hutton, who were around in the 30s)?
> In any case cricket has gone thru 3 distinct eras: upto the Great War
> was the bowler-domination era, 1920 to 1960 was the batsman-domination
> era, and since then it has been called balanced era- Hide quoted text -
>
Is this a well-recognised distinction of eras, or one you are putting
forward?
Are you watching Ithe current ndia v SL?
Higgs
Nirvanam
That's my opinion. If you opine differently, fine.
> If it's the table I found, I'm not so sure it says the 40s were the
> best decade.
> He appears to be looking at the top run scorers for 8 periods (one
> being the 40s-50s).
>
> Can you tell us where you got this from?
Here is the It Figures blogs main page http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/
Look thru the archives...try going back to about April/May. I don't
think this article was that far back but I am sure it is definitely
after April this year.
> I'm a bit sceptical about the notion of no claims or suggestions.
> After all, he does talk of 'the incomparable Miandad'
That is not a claim...it is his opinion. You need to be able to
distinguish between a claim made on numerical data and a subjective
opinion.
> and ' Note the
> fantastic aggregates of the under-rated Mohammd Yousuf', whilst
> 'Hammond has a very high away average, tempered by the fact that a lot
> of these runs have been scored against weak bowling attackes(sic)'.
Now this is a claim. And if he has claimed that then you would see
that he has enough data to back it up...wherever numbers can be used,
you'll find that he has always based his interpretations based on the
numbers. So, if you think he is wrong in his "numerical analysis", dig
the numbers out and present your case.
> Is there any justification for this claim?
> I don't believe this decade has seen any particular rise in players
> prepared to take risks (and thus inflate their averages? Huh?). Do you
> really think Dravid is a risk-taker?
> Are many of the players with 50+ averages risky players?
> I looked at the average S/R for a lot of those players, and it was in
> the low 50s, no different from comparable players frorm other eras
> (where available), unless you look at Sehwag and Smith (who have SRs
> over 60, like IVAR), but Viru now averages under 50 and Smith is @50.
> I don't believe this claim is correct, let alone a reason for the rash
> of higher averages.
It is a subjective interpretation, not a claim...the words
"...according to me is that..." make it quite clear that it is an
opinion not a claim of truth.
> > Whereas in the 40s, I think the biggest or at least one of the most
> > influencing factors was dearth of class bowlers. The war left the
> > cricket fields with very average bowlers and this coupled with flat
> > tracks led to it being the decade of batsmen.
>
> So why weren't there lots of 50+ averages for players from the 40s
> (excluding Bradman, Hammond & Hutton, who were around in the 30s)?
Do you have data to back it up? Again consider the whole context, the
argument here is 'batting was easier'. 50+ averages of a few batsmen
does not answer that question exclusively. When someone says batting
was easier understand that he is referring to batting in general for
all players not just the great batsmen. In the link given above go
back till April/May in the archives and you'll find the article that
shows numerical differences against the decades. Of course you may or
may not agree to the criteria chosen. If you do not agree then present
your criteria and present data as per your criteria so that others can
understand according to your perspective. Some will accept your
perspective, some will not.
> Is this a well-recognised distinction of eras, or one you are putting
> forward?
Numbers indicate that to a certain extent. Again go back into those
archives you'll find one or the other article that shows that that
categorization is numerically observable and numerically true... oh
and by the way Anant is not the only one who does the analysis
there...there are about 4 guys from diff parts of the world, but
usually Anant publishes his work more often than the others and you
see lot more interest (gaged by number of comments) on his posts than
the others.
And there are subjective statements by many noted cricket writers
(including vintage writers) on this difference which I have come
across thru out my life which makes me "believe" that is true.
eusebius
>
> It would be helpful if you understood the context in which I used
> 'unsubstantiated'.
>
> I wrote that your "once in a century" claim regarding Tendulkar was
> unsubstantiated because at the time you made it there was no accompanying
> definition of what the term "once in a century" meant or any meaningful data
> to back up the claim. I never once said you didn't have the data, but
> rather that you hadn't provided it at that point in order to substantiate
> your claim.
>
> However the main source of contention here is your highly unusual use of the
> term 'once in a century player'. I expect that most people would interpret
> this phrase as "the single best cricketer in a 100 year period" rather than
> "would make the best XI".
>
> Andrew
Andy, you have clearly mispercepted the criteria for a one in a
century player. To be such, one has to be in the top century, ie in
the top one hundred. Any other statistiation is misappropriated for
this porpoise.
Nirvanam
I wouldn't look at it that way. I'll consider that the player should
make it to the playing 11/12 for the century.
By the way, if you had to choose only 1 player, who would you pick,
and why?
eusebius
>
> It would be helpful if you understood the context in which I used
> 'unsubstantiated'.
>
> I wrote that your "once in a century" claim regarding Tendulkar was
> unsubstantiated because at the time you made it there was no accompanying
> definition of what the term "once in a century" meant or any meaningful data
> to back up the claim. I never once said you didn't have the data, but
> rather that you hadn't provided it at that point in order to substantiate
> your claim.
>
> However the main source of contention here is your highly unusual use of the
> term 'once in a century player'. I expect that most people would interpret
> this phrase as "the single best cricketer in a 100 year period" rather than
> "would make the best XI".
>
> Andrew
Andy, you have clearly mispercepted the paramaters/criteria for a one
in a century player. To be such, one has to be in the top century, ie
in the top one hundred. Any other statistiation or unsubstantiation is
misappropriated for this porpoise.
Michael Banner
<snip>
> > 100 years ago the game bore no comparison to now. The game itself has
> > changed, and so have the players skills in response.
>
> Yep, appropriate point but as the advantageous skills changed the
> batsmen have adapted better. For example, if you take a normal batsman
> from today back in time and ask him to play a game on a fairly normal
> pitch, he will score much faster than the others.
And not last anywhere near as long at the crease. I presume he is to
have no helmet, arm guard, chest protector, that there is no
restiction on the number of bouncers allowed per over, no restriction
on leg side fielders behind square, that we are playing on the
somewhat dodgy wickets of the time where the wicket was not rock hard
and the square was not fast and hard and the outfield was not
delightfully mowed down to resemble carpet and the boundary was not
roped off from the boundary as close to the wicket as it is today.
> Similarly if you
> bring a normal player from the past to now on a normal pitch, he will
> find making runs difficult because most of the fielders would not
> escort the ball to the fence.
Perhaps fielding was not as important back then because it was more of
a bowlers game.
> However, if the same batsman was to play
> on an uncovered pitch he would do better than the modern fellow on an
> uncovered pitch.
>
> So this evolutionary thing is always under a context. In fact it is a
> necessity for any species to become better at advantageous skills if
> it wants to survive in this constantly changing universe.
And this bings me to my point. The batsmen of 100 years ago evolved a
different game because batting was more about survival, where it is
now about selling the game a la baseball.
You are saying batsmen are better now. I say they are neither better
nor worse, only different.
The great batsmen that to me come to mind are Bradman, Grace, Hobbs,
Hammond, Hutton, Headley, Sobers, V Richards, G Chappell, Lara,
Tendulkar. I'm saying any of these guys, if born to a different era,
would have stood out in a similar way.
> > The key though, is that the best players adapt and improve based on
> > the circumstances they face at the time.
>
> No disagreement there.
>
> > At the moment, the bowlers are on a hiding to nothing and the batsmen
> > reign supreme, because that is what it is perceived that the public
> > want to see.
>
> I'd say. and I think you'd probably agree, that that perception is not
> true.
Absolutely.
Michael Banner
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:27:56 -0800 (PST), Michael Banner
>
> >If you were a stand out performer 100 years ago, chances are you would
> >be as far ahead of the pack today as you were back then. Call it the
> >bell curve effect.
>
> I think this is dubious at best, though it does depend on what you
> mean.
>
> How would you measure it, or doesn't that matter?
Hi Mike,
It's just my armchair expert opinion, I don't have the means nor the
inclination to statiscally support it. I would be interested to hear
your opinion.
Nirvanam is of the opinion that the reason so many batsmen today
average over 50 is because batsmen are better now. I am of the opinion
that the game is more batsmen friendly, and bowler unfriendly, than
has historically been the case.
Obviously, if you took a batsmen from today and sent him by time
machine into the age of sticky wickets, ho helmets, no fielding or
bouncer restrictions etc, he'd struggle. But eventually he would
adapt. However, I'm thinking more along the line of Hobbs, at birth,
being whisked by time machine into the future. Provided he was
similarly motivated to succeed in this version of the game as we
historically know to be the case, I can't see why he wouldn't become
the Tendulkar of this time.
higgs
> > Does he?
>
> That's my opinion. If you opine differently, fine.
>
I haven't been able to find Narayan supplying the figures that you say
support your opinion.
> > If it's the table I found, I'm not so sure it says the 40s were the
> > best decade.
> > He appears to be looking at the top run scorers for 8 periods (one
> > being the 40s-50s).
>
> > Can you tell us where you got this from?
>
> Here is the It Figures blogs main pagehttp://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/
>
I'm well aware where the 'It Figures' blog is, I want to know where
you found data from there saying the 40s were a standout era for the
batsmen.
All I could find was a snapshot of half a dozen players from the 40s/
50s.
> Look thru the archives...try going back to about April/May. I don't
> think this article was that far back but I am sure it is definitely
> after April this year.
>
?
> > I'm a bit sceptical about the notion of no claims or suggestions.
> > After all, he does talk of 'the incomparable Miandad'
>
> That is not a claim...it is his opinion. You need to be able to
> distinguish between a claim made on numerical data and a subjective
> opinion.
>
You say he merely presents the data and makes no suggestion as to how
it should be interpreted.
It looks suspiciously like he does to me.
> > and ' Note the
> > fantastic aggregates of the under-rated Mohammd Yousuf', whilst
> > 'Hammond has a very high away average, tempered by the fact that a lot
> > of these runs have been scored against weak bowling attackes(sic)'.
>
> Now this is a claim. And if he has claimed that then you would see
> that he has enough data to back it up...wherever numbers can be used,
> you'll find that he has always based his interpretations based on the
> numbers. So, if you think he is wrong in his "numerical analysis", dig
> the numbers out and present your case.
>
Actually, it's not a presentation of the stats, it's telling us how
they need to be interpreted.
You need to learn how to distinguish between a simple presentation of
stats and the bias of the presenter.
> > Is there any justification for this claim?
> > I don't believe this decade has seen any particular rise in players
> > prepared to take risks (and thus inflate their averages? Huh?). Do you
> > really think Dravid is a risk-taker?
> > Are many of the players with 50+ averages risky players?
> > I looked at the average S/R for a lot of those players, and it was in
> > the low 50s, no different from comparable players frorm other eras
> > (where available), unless you look at Sehwag and Smith (who have SRs
> > over 60, like IVAR), but Viru now averages under 50 and Smith is @50.
> > I don't believe this claim is correct, let alone a reason for the rash
> > of higher averages.
>
> It is a subjective interpretation, not a claim...the words
> "...according to me is that..." make it quite clear that it is an
> opinion not a claim of truth.
>
So you've got no statistical stuff to back it up?
I haven't made a thorough search, but the quick one I did does not
seem to support your thesis.
> > > Whereas in the 40s, I think the biggest or at least one of the most
> > > influencing factors was dearth of class bowlers. The war left the
> > > cricket fields with very average bowlers and this coupled with flat
> > > tracks led to it being the decade of batsmen.
>
> > So why weren't there lots of 50+ averages for players from the 40s
> > (excluding Bradman, Hammond & Hutton, who were around in the 30s)?
>
> Do you have data to back it up? Again consider the whole context, the
> argument here is 'batting was easier'. 50+ averages of a few batsmen
> does not answer that question exclusively. When someone says batting
> was easier understand that he is referring to batting in general for
> all players not just the great batsmen. In the link given above go
> back till April/May in the archives and you'll find the article that
> shows numerical differences against the decades. Of course you may or
> may not agree to the criteria chosen. If you do not agree then present
> your criteria and present data as per your criteria so that others can
> understand according to your perspective. Some will accept your
> perspective, some will not.
>
Hang on.
You want me to produce data to back up my disagreement with an opinion
you produced?
An opinion that isn't based on stats, except from a vague recollection
of something that you can't recall and can't find and want me to go
off and find for you?
> > Is this a well-recognised distinction of eras, or one you are putting
> > forward?
>
> Numbers indicate that to a certain extent. Again go back into those
> archives you'll find one or the other article that shows that that
> categorization is numerically observable and numerically true... oh
> and by the way Anant is not the only one who does the analysis
> there...there are about 4 guys from diff parts of the world, but
> usually Anant publishes his work more often than the others and you
> see lot more interest (gaged by number of comments) on his posts than
> the others.
> And there are subjective statements by many noted cricket writers
> (including vintage writers) on this difference which I have come
> across thru out my life which makes me "believe" that is true.
So, I take it that it's simply your set of distinctions, backed up by
nothing more than a vague pointer to a statistician (who'se figures
you can't find) and some writers (who's names you don't remember?
Thanks.
Most helpful
Higgs
higgs
> On Nov 20, 5:02 am, Nirvanam <viz.sha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > 100 years ago the game bore no comparison to now. The game itself has
> > > changed, and so have the players skills in response.
>
> > Yep, appropriate point but as the advantageous skills changed the
> > batsmen have adapted better. For example, if you take a normal batsman
> > from today back in time and ask him to play a game on a fairly normal
> > pitch, he will score much faster than the others.
>
> And not last anywhere near as long at the crease. I presume he is to
> have no helmet, arm guard, chest protector, that there is no
> restiction on the number of bouncers allowed per over, no restriction
> on leg side fielders behind square, that we are playing on the
> somewhat dodgy wickets of the time where the wicket was not rock hard
> and the square was not fast and hard and the outfield was not
> delightfully mowed down to resemble carpet and the boundary was not
> roped off from the boundary as close to the wicket as it is today.
>
I'd also question if our modern batsman would actually score so
quickly.
The likes of Sehwag, Pietersen & Smith do score quickly (though I'd
question if they get classed as 50+ batsmen. Their averages seem to
hover around this mark), but would Dravid or Samaweera score so
quickly? Their SRs are in the 40s.
Take away their helmets etc and they might make Trevor Bailey look
like a slogger.
Looking at the current Indian/SL teams, their SRs seem to be around
the 50 mark.
I'm aware that data might be difficult to find for older matches, but
does anyone have a handle on what older SRs were?
Higgs
Michael Banner
<snip>
> > Here is the It Figures blogs main pagehttp://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/
>
> I'm well aware where the 'It Figures' blog is, I want to know where
> you found data from there saying the 40s were a standout era for the
> batsmen.
>
> All I could find was a snapshot of half a dozen players from the 40s/
> 50s.
OK,
I went into "It Figures" at:- http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/405628.html
I copied the data into excel and sorted it by averages above 50 and
decade. I then put a line between each period so we could see the
distribution by decade. I hope like hell it lines up. This is what I
got:
Eng Hobbs J.B Pre-WW1 2,465 @ 57.33
Aus Bradman D.G WW1-WW2 5,093 @ 97.94
Win Headley G.A WW1-WW2 2,135 @ 66.72
Eng Hammond W.R WW1-WW2 6,883 @ 61.46
Eng Sutcliffe H WW1-WW2 4,555 @ 60.73
Eng Hobbs J.B WW1-WW2 2,945 @ 56.63
Win EdeC Weekes 40s-50s 4,455 @ 58.62
Win Walcott C.L 40s-50s 3,714 @ 58.03
Win Sobers G.St.A 40s-50s 2,213 @ 56.74
Eng Hutton L 40s-50s 5,626 @ 54.62
Aus Harvey R.N 40s-50s 5,107 @ 52.65
Win Worrell F.M.M 40s-50s 2,691 @ 51.75
Win Sobers G.St.A 1960s 4,563 @ 60.04
Eng Barrington K.F 1960s 6,397 @ 59.79
Eng Graveney T.W 1960s 2,292 @ 52.09
Aus Simpson R.B 1960s 3,995 @ 51.22
Eng Dexter E.R 1960s 4,232 @ 50.38
Pak Javed Miandad 1970s 2,059 @ 64.34
Win Richards I.V.A 1970s 2,640 @ 57.39
Eng Boycott G 1970s 3,806 @ 55.97
Ind Gavaskar S.M 1970s 5,647 @ 55.91
Aus Chappell G.S 1970s 4,357 @ 53.79
Aus Redpath I.R 1970s 2,861 @ 50.19
Pak Javed Miandad 1980s 5,642 @ 54.78
Aus Border A.R 1980s 7,418 @ 54.54
Aus Chappell G.S 1980s 2,753 @ 53.98
Win Lloyd C.H 1980s 2,921 @ 52.16
Aus Jones D.M 1980s 2,370 @ 51.52
Ind Tendulkar S.R 1990s 5,626 @ 58.00
Aus Waugh S.R 1990s 6,213 @ 53.10
Win Lara B.C 1990s 5,573 @ 51.60
Eng Gooch G.A 1990s 4,176 @ 51.56
Zim Flower A 2000s 2,214 @ 63.26
Pak Mohammad Yousuf 2000s 5,873 @ 61.18
Aus Ponting R.T 2000s 8,864 @ 59.89
Saf Kallis J.H 2000s 8,428 @ 58.94
Slk Sangakkara K.C 2000s 5,598 @ 57.12
Slk Jayawardene D.P.M 2000s 6,581 @ 56.25
Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 2000s 5,113 @ 55.58
Aus Hussey M.E.K 2000s 3,041 @ 55.29
Win Lara B.C 2000s 6,380 @ 54.07
Ind Gambhir G 2000s 2,271 @ 54.07
Ind Dravid R 2000s 8,125 @ 53.45
Eng Thorpe G.P 2000s 3,145 @ 53.31
Aus Waugh S.R 2000s 2,825 @ 53.30
Win Chanderpaul S 2000s 6,342 @ 53.29
Aus Hayden M.L 2000s 8,365 @ 52.94
Ind Tendulkar S.R 2000s 6,932 @ 52.92
Pak Younis Khan 2000s 5,129 @ 51.81
Slk Samaraweera T.T 2000s 3,269 @ 51.08
Eng Pietersen K.P 2000s 4,494 @ 50.49
Saf Smith G.C 2000s 6,343 @ 50.34
Ind Sehwag V 2000s 5,757 @ 50.06
Anyone notice a fairly even number of players averaging over 50 up
until the 2000's?
higgs
> On Nov 21, 3:44 pm, higgs <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Here is the It Figures blogs main pagehttp://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/
>
> > I'm well aware where the 'It Figures' blog is, I want to know where
> > you found data from there saying the 40s were a standout era for the
> > batsmen.
>
> > All I could find was a snapshot of half a dozen players from the 40s/
> > 50s.
>
> OK,
>
You need to simply lay out the figures, rather than trying to
influence us as to how we interpret them..........
Higgs
Nirvanam
> have no helmet, arm guard, chest protector, that there is no
> restiction on the number of bouncers allowed per over, no restriction
> on leg side fielders behind square, that we are playing on the
> somewhat dodgy wickets of the time where the wicket was not rock hard
> and the square was not fast and hard and the outfield was not
> delightfully mowed down to resemble carpet and the boundary was not
> roped off from the boundary as close to the wicket as it is today.
Yep, I'll agree on most aspects but have a different opinion on some.
But that is beside the point. My point continues to remain that,
"advantageous" skills, given the context of course, are bettered
generation after generation.
> Perhaps fielding was not as important back then because it was more of
> a bowlers game.
Again, agree with you. But that is beside the point. My point is,
"adv.....
> And this bings me to my point. The batsmen of 100 years ago evolved a
> different game because batting was more about survival, where it is
> now about selling the game a la baseball.
About the 100 yr ago batsman evolving based on survival, I
agree...selling the game I am not a natural pessimist to feel that is
always true. I am pragmatic enough to understand that the game runs on
finance (what doesn't?) but does it mean the game is somehow becoming
a no-good sport...nope.
> You are saying batsmen are better now. I say they are neither better
> nor worse, only different.
Again, if you go back and look at my posts, I have always maintained
they are better as far as "ADVANTAGEOUS" skills are concerned. Is it
so difficult to interpret that from my posts?
> The great batsmen that to me come to mind are Bradman, Grace, Hobbs,
> Hammond, Hutton, Headley, Sobers, V Richards, G Chappell, Lara,
> Tendulkar. I'm saying any of these guys, if born to a different era,
> would have stood out in a similar way.
Yep. No where have I said that these greats will NOT adapt. Again, my
point is "in general" i.e. "the normal/average/regular/run-of-the-mill
player". Just like how you have greats adapting everywhere, you also
have useless fellows who adapt nowhere. But it is the middle, the
normal/regular player we are talking about.
Nirvanam
> average over 50 is because batsmen are better now.
That is definitely NOT my opinion. My opinion, again, is batsmen are
better in ADVANTAGEOUS skills generation over generation. AND this
does not mean the greats will not adapt to any situation/conditions/
era. That is why they are greats in the first place. If you choose to
keep your frame of reference to include only the greats, it neither
challenges my opinion nor gives any different insight to what is
already known.
higgs
Can you elucidate on these 'ADVANTAGEOUS skills'?
What are they?
I'd accept that nutrition, training and opportunity is better now than
70 years ago, but I really don't see how players of that era wouldn't
have been able to adapt, given the same exposure.
I believe that the plethora of 50+ averaging batsmen in the current
era is nothing to do with them actually being better than their peers
of even 20 years ago, let alone 50.
There are many other reasons
Higgs
Michael Banner
<snip>
> My point continues to remain that,
> "advantageous" skills, given the context of course, are bettered
> generation after generation
I don't take issue with that. I take issue with your comment that
batsmen are better today than in the past. And as I mentioned before,
the game is so different now that this is just something which cannot
be argued. Elsewhere I have posted statistics showing that it is usual
to have 5-6 batsmen per decade who average over 50, this decade we
have 21. My belief is that this is due to flat wickets and a dearth of
quality bowlers. I blame this on the short forms of the game.
> > Perhaps fielding was not as important back then because it was more of
> > a bowlers game.
>
> Again, agree with you. But that is beside the point. My point is,
> "adv.....
You continue to agree that the game bears little resemblance to 100
years ago. Are you able to start a fire with flint & tinder? Not an
advantageous skill to have nowadays, so no reason why you would. A bit
like being able to bat in adverse conditions.
> > You are saying batsmen are better now. I say they are neither better
> > nor worse, only different.
>
> Again, if you go back and look at my posts, I have always maintained
> they are better as far as "ADVANTAGEOUS" skills are concerned. Is it
> so difficult to interpret that from my posts?
I asked if you felt that batsmen were generally better today than in
the past, and you said yes,
<snip>
Nirvanam
> support your opinion.
I have given you the link to the archives, please do your search if
you are inclined enough to prove that my opinion is ridiculous.
> I'm well aware where the 'It Figures' blog is, I want to know where
> you found data from there saying the 40s were a standout era for the
> batsmen.
>
> All I could find was a snapshot of half a dozen players from the 40s/
> 50s.
Here again..."> > Look thru the archives...try going back to about
April/May. I don't
> > think this article was that far back but I am sure it is definitely
> > after April this year."
> ?
Specify the question and I'll be able to understand what you are
asking. Just a question mark does not give me a clue to what you are
asking. Do you want to know how to navigate thru the web page into the
archives?
> You say he merely presents the data and makes no suggestion as to how
> it should be interpreted.
> It looks suspiciously like he does to me.
Where is he suggesting that someone interpret it that way? He is only
opining, he is not asking you to opine similarly. When you, Higgs,
present an opinion, are you expecting the opposite person to
necessarily agree to your opinion?
> Actually, it's not a presentation of the stats, it's telling us how
> they need to be interpreted.
pedantic response. Very rarely can anything be argued once you start
getting pedantic to the extreme. Higgs, the guy wrote some words and
after writing the passage he pasted a table. So it is a natural
comprehension expectation that the reader will interpret that the
words and the numbers in the table are linked. So any "interpretation"
is based on those numbers.
> You need to learn how to distinguish between a simple presentation of
> stats and the bias of the presenter.
I'll take classes from you. When shall we start?
> > It is a subjective interpretation, not a claim...the words
> > "...according to me is that..." make it quite clear that it is an
> > opinion not a claim of truth.
>
> So you've got no statistical stuff to back it up?
Higgs, its an opinion man. Either agree with it or let it go. But if
you insist on proving that it is a ridiculous opinion, then you will
need to back it up with reasons why it is ridiculous. I have not
suggested that my opinion is the universal truth.
> Hang on.
> You want me to produce data to back up my disagreement with an opinion
> you produced?
> An opinion that isn't based on stats, except from a vague recollection
> of something that you can't recall and can't find and want me to go
> off and find for you?
Again, I have given you the link to the archives, please do your
search if you are inclined enough to prove that my opinion is
ridiculous.
> So, I take it that it's simply your set of distinctions, backed up by
> nothing more than a vague pointer to a statistician (who'se figures
> you can't find) and some writers (who's names you don't remember?
Once again, I have given you the link to the archives, please do your
search if you are inclined enough to prove that my opinion is
ridiculous.
Just in case you are facing a problem with navigating into the
archive, pleas let me know and I'll provide that info.
Michael Banner
> > average over 50 is because batsmen are better now.
>
> That is definitely NOT my opinion.
I earlier stated that more batsmen in this decade than in any other
had averaged over 50, and asked (somewhat rhetorically, I admit) if
that meant batsmen were better now than ever before. You replied in
the affirmative.
> My opinion, again, is batsmen are
> better in ADVANTAGEOUS skills generation over generation. AND this
> does not mean the greats will not adapt to any situation/conditions/
> era. That is why they are greats in the first place. If you choose to
> keep your frame of reference to include only the greats, it neither
> challenges my opinion nor gives any different insight to what is
> already known.
Sounds fine to me. I don't doubt that batsmen today possess skills
which batsmen of 100 years ago didn't. I also have no doubt that
batsmen today lack skills their predecessors had.
higgs
> > I haven't been able to find Narayan supplying the figures that you say
> > support your opinion.
>
> I have given you the link to the archives, please do your search if
> you are inclined enough to prove that my opinion is ridiculous.
>
And as I've mentioned, searching the archives, I don't find the
figures that you say support your opinion.
There seem to me to be a couple of possibilities.
1) I'm not looking in the correct place, in which case, point me
there.
2) The figures don't actually exist, you made them up.
3) I can't think of a third option. Can you?
At the moment, 2) looks the stronger possibility.
Higgs
eusebius
I am a big fan of Grant Bradburn
But if not, then I would say that Murali is the player of this
century, for all sorts of reasons.
eusebius
Depends what kind of perception. Depends what kind of sensory
apparatus gave rise to that perception. What kind of critical faculty.
I perceive that black is black and white is white. Is that untrue
perception? Yet if it was said, that 'perception is not always
reality' or 'mere perception does not equal reality' or that
'perception often is not truth' then this would be closer the mark I
feel.
Nirvanam
What's the need to "snip"? Its fairly well understood that the
previous posts do not need continuation in every post. Or are you
being sarcastic just for the heck of it? I'll give you the benefit of
doubt on this.
> I don't take issue with that. I take issue with your comment that
> batsmen are better today than in the past.
Read my previous post again, I even clarified that I am not referring
to batsmen being blanket better but batsmen being better-at-
advantageous-skills.
> You continue to agree that the game bears little resemblance to 100
> years ago. Are you able to start a fire with flint & tinder? Not an
> advantageous skill to have nowadays, so no reason why you would. A bit
> like being able to bat in adverse conditions.
Yep. It is not an advantageous skill. Consider this: if a batsman can
play on uncovered pitches, is that any advantage at all in today's
world? No. Simply because uncovered wickets are not used any more. If
I am understanding you correctly, you are probably saying that if a
batsman can play on uncovered pitches then he should be able to play
on covered pitches as well. That, unfortunately we cannot prove.
> I asked if you felt that batsmen were generally better today than in
> the past, and you said yes,
And I said that yes they are because that is how generations evolve.
They get better at advantageous skills. For ex - a thousand years ago
probably every Tom, Dick, and Harry would know how to make a pot but
today we don't. It is not that the skill of making a pot is a no-good
skill, just that it holds no advantage for the regular person in
today's world. Operating a computer does.
> <snip>
These snips are not necessary, Mike. Lets give each other that little
bit of benefit of respect
Nirvanam
>
> What are they?
Its fairly easy to figure out Higgs. Following are some:
Better fielding
Better running between the wickets
Ability to innovate
Ability to do more than just one core skill
Ability to play in the air without gifting catches
Ability to score faster than run-a-ball
Ability to adapt to different climatic conditions
Ability to adapt to different formats of the game in quick time
etc, etc, etc
> I'd accept that nutrition, training and opportunity is better now than
> 70 years ago, but I really don't see how players of that era wouldn't
> have been able to adapt, given the same exposure.
I am not saying they will not be able to adapt given the same
upbringing as kids these days. I am saying that if you transport the
regular batsman from yesteryear to today with his mental and physical
approach to the game grounded to his era, he will not be as good as
the regular player of today. Because today's asks are very different
and the modern players have grown up in these different asks so they
have an advantage over the yesteryear player as far as these
particular asks are concerned.
> I believe that the plethora of 50+ averaging batsmen in the current
> era is nothing to do with them actually being better than their peers
> of even 20 years ago, let alone 50.
I never argued about the toppers at all. I maintained my frame of
reference to the regular player not the topper.
Nirvanam
Higgs, when you go to that page. On the right side column you'll first
see some photos and text about the authors, below that would be some
recent posts, etc...keep going down and you'll see a section called
"Archives". Under that section you'll see different months. If you
click on a particular month it will show you the articles posted
during that month.
I remember that this particular article is not very old, so I
suggested you look back up to the month of April and you'll find it in
one of the months' pages. When you navigate thru the months, you'll
come across various articles...the title of which will be reasonably
good enough to figure out what the article is about. You may find some
articles that interest you...go ahead enjoy a read!
Jeff Urs
[snip]
I'll grant you a few of those, but why do you think that these skills
would be any more advantageous now than then?
> Better running between the wickets
> Ability to innovate
> Ability to do more than just one core skill
> Ability to play in the air without gifting catches
(BTW, [snip] is not meant as a sign of disrespect for you, but a sign
of respect for others who may come into this thread at this post and
may not have any idea you wrote any more.)
--
Jeff
Michael Banner
> > <snip>
>
> What's the need to "snip"? Its fairly well understood that the
> previous posts do not need continuation in every post.
It's good usenet ettiquette, and a sign of respect to anyone who wants
to follow this conversation.
> Or are you
> being sarcastic just for the heck of it? I'll give you the benefit of
> doubt on this.
Since it never even occurred to me that you would find my use of
<snip> to be sarcastic, I will refrain from making comment on your
remarks here.
> Yep. It is not an advantageous skill. Consider this: if a batsman can
> play on uncovered pitches, is that any advantage at all in today's
> world? No. Simply because uncovered wickets are not used any more.
Correct.
> If
> I am understanding you correctly, you are probably saying that if a
> batsman can play on uncovered pitches then he should be able to play
> on covered pitches as well.
Incorrect.
<snip>