honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
His actual stats against Windies when the top 4 pacers played aren't all that impressive either. But I never saw the guy play and I absolutely always refuse to rate players that I have never seen. I just think a lot about whether a player is good or not can be only said by seeing them.It's interesting that nearly everyone includes Gavaskar (who I rate massively btw). His record v WI in the 80s was amazing. But if one examines his record in Australia (the batting equivalent of fast bowlers on the subcontinent re. difficult pitches and conditions to adjust to) his stats here are very good in only 2 series really - during WSC when Australia were very poor and Thommo was coming back from the shoulder op., and 1985-86 when Australia were in their all-time nadir. If we are to be consistent with our ratings, ought we mark him down somewhat because when Australia were at/ near their top in the 3 test series in 80/81 he averaged 19? Don't know how well he went in the Rest of the World series in 1971-72 either. It's a small sample to judge one by, but we're happy to do it with others such as DK
He's obviously a great player, but this exercise proves what can be done with statistics.
Thoughts?
Obviously, those with great stats must have been great players, but to decide who is better between them, I would rather prefer doing that only when I have seen the players in question in action, at least on TV if not LIVE. No offence, but it is always funny for me to see someone like Sean (who can't be that elder to me, in fact I think he is younger than me) saying stuff like "Greg Chappell was obviously better than player X"....