Mahela Jayawardene very underrated.

[ohtani's jacket]

Of course it is.

Fact is, you want your great batsman performing when they leave the country. How can a batsman be great if they don't make runs on tours such as South Africa, Australia etc?

Note this is in general, not specifically at Mahela.

This is why Dravid, Ponting, Tendulkar, S Waugh, Lara etc. are held in such high esteem. They've scored runs everywhere, home and away. Everyone has the odd blot or two on their record, but in general to be great you're expected to have a good record at home and away.

In that case, Sri Lanka can never claim to have had a great batsman, since all of their leading run scorers average in the 30s overseas bar Sangakkara, who averages over 50 away from home.

Does that make Sangakkara the greatest Sri Lanka batsman? Or is someone gonna come along and say his 140.50 average in Zimbabwe is the reason for that?

I mean comparing Jayawardene and Sangakkara, Jayawardene averages more than Kumar in India and England. Sangakkara averages more in Australia and Pakistan. The important thing is that they both contribute heavily to Tests won and Test series won.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Haha, that's such nonsense really.

I don't know what you're talking about... 52.22 vs. 36.06. Doesn't match up.

 

[Richard]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, of course, we must use the most absurdly simplistic set of stats one can possibly find and tell everyone this proves everything beyond all doubt.

 

[Pup Clarke]

7 ROLL-EYES!!!!.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Yes, we must.

 

[Richard]

7 ROLL-EYES!!!!.

I don't take kindly to people bad-mouthing Aravinda with worthless, meaningless statistics.

 

[Majin]

Well, I don't agree with that criteria. It's a standard that only applies to cricket players. Nobody judges a NBA player on how he averages against every team in the league, or a tennis player on whether they can win on every surface & those are sports with individual averages and statistics.

I can not claim to be an expert about the NBA, but I doubt playing in different basketball arenas makes that much difference apart from crowd noise. Similarly, there are only 4 different types of surface for Tennis courts, or at least in the major tournaments, and they all play an equal amount of time on them, or close to it.

Every Cricketing nation is different to play in. Hell, the grounds and pitches in the same countries can all differ vastly. The pitches aren't the only thing touring teams have to contend with either, the weather and climate changes etc all affect how you play and how you'll have to accomodate your game to succeed. Also, even the way the ground is constructed, whether the wind coming from one area aids the swing or not, etc. Batting on a road at Taunton is obviously going to be leagues off batting on some green top in New Zealand. If you're going to discuss cricket players, they have to be judged by how they perform in these conditions. No one else is discussed using them because I can't think of anyone else who has to deal with changes like this aside from cricketers.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I can not claim to be an expert about the NBA, but I doubt playing in different basketball arenas makes that much difference apart from crowd noise. Similarly, there are only 4 different types of surface for Tennis courts, or at least in the major tournaments, and they all play an equal amount of time on them, or close to it.

Playing at home or playing on the road makes a difference in the NBA. Moreso in the playoffs, but even in the regular season they have long road trips. It's not the same as a cricket tour obviously, but it has it's own psychology.

Tennis players don't spend equal time on each surface. The clay court season is far longer than the grass season, for example.

If you're going to discuss cricket players, they have to be judged by how they perform in these conditions. No one else is discussed using them because I can't think of anyone else who has to deal with changes like this aside from cricketers.

Almost every sport that's played outdoors can make this claim.

At some point, people need to be realistic. Sri Lanka as a Test playing nation have played 87 Tests away from home. They've won 15. They've only won Tests in five countries. The teams, not just the players, have struggled away from home.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't take kindly to people bad-mouthing Aravinda with worthless, meaningless statistics.

How many dropped catches were there in Aravinda's career? Do you know his first chance average?

I wasn't bad mouthing Aravinda. He was one of my favourite players in the world.

 

[Richard]

How many dropped catches were there in Aravinda's career? Do you know his first chance average?

Not his career first-chance average, no. I rarely saw him dropped, though. And I did not follow enough of his Test-career, nor am I in possession of enough Wisdens, to make a decent calculation.

I wasn't bad mouthing Aravinda. He was one of my favourite players in the world.

By saying, so unutterably simplistically, that his away record doesn't match-up to his home one, you are indeed doing so.

 

[silentstriker]

In that case, Sri Lanka can never claim to have had a great batsman, since all of their leading run scorers average in the 30s overseas bar Sangakkara, who averages over 50 away from home.

Aside from Sangakarra, they haven't had a great batsman. That part is absolutely true. So?

 

[Richard]

Nah. Aravinda was a top-notch batsman, fit to rank with anyone in the "second tier" of those from the 1990s, a rung below the Tendulkars, Laras, Stephen Waughs, etc.

As I quite clearly showed, his "poor" overseas average is barely worth the paper it's printed on, it has little significance.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, I don't agree with that criteria. It's a standard that only applies to cricket players. Nobody judges a NBA player on how he averages against every team in the league, or a tennis player on whether they can win on every surface & those are sports with individual averages and statistics.

Are you serious? Going on the road in practically every domestic sport is not even close to the same as doing so in international sport, let alone cricket. The conditions vary so wildly - environment, pitch and supporters - that it's a totally different challenge from playing in conditions that you've been trained to cope with.

With regards to tennis I beg to differ. People are always bringing up Federer's shortcomings on clay. That said, he's still considered great because he has been dominant practically everywhere else. A great player doesn't have to be perfect and succeed everywhere, but you damn well have to be quality in most places outside of your comfort zone.

 

[Migara]

Aravinda never had the luxry of having qualuty batsmen in the side as Mahela or Sanga. He had to do it him self. When he bagan to find some help his avrage was around 48 in test cricket. and could you believe that he has a SR of 81 in ODIs? Even Hayden's SR is below that and Ponting is just above that. All achieved withuot many big hits, and during his time normal SR was around 70.

 

[Perm]

A fine Test batsmen, but not a great.

Completely dominates England, India and South Africa while being quite poor against Australia and Pakistan means that he hasn't performed against all opposition. Not to mention the small matter of his away average. 37.21 is very mediocre.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

By saying, so unutterably simplistically, that his away record doesn't match-up to his home one, you are indeed doing so.

It's a given that at times he averaged higher in away Tests, in whole series even. He may have averaged higher over a certain period, in certain countries or even gotten better with age, but the basic fact remains -- he averaged 36 over his career. No amount of footnotes changes that. The guy scored 9 centuries overseas. He wasn't a bad player away from home, but his away record doesn't match his home record & no matter how clever you think you are, it's plain as day.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Aside from Sangakarra, they haven't had a great batsman. That part is absolutely true. So?

That's pretty unfair on Sri Lankan cricket.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Are you serious? Going on the road in practically every domestic sport is not even close to the same as doing so in international sport, let alone cricket. The conditions vary so wildly - environment, pitch and supporters - that it's a totally different challenge from playing in conditions that you've been trained to cope with.

NBA sides play a minimum of 82 games a season & teams that go deep into the playoffs can play upwards of 100. They travel more than international cricketers.

With regards to tennis I beg to differ. People are always bringing up Federer's shortcomings on clay. That said, he's still considered great because he has been dominant practically everywhere else. A great player doesn't have to be perfect and succeed everywhere, but you damn well have to be quality in most places outside of your comfort zone.

Only five men have ever won a Grand Slam at all four tournaments, yet plenty of players are considered "greats", even players who dominated on only one or two surfaces.

Really, the difference between the sports is that basketball and tennis are played for titles, whereas people don't judge batsmen on the number of Tests they won or Test series victories. In other sports like rugby, which has just as many variables as cricket, individual statistics are of little importance.

 

[Jono]

That's pretty unfair on Sri Lankan cricket.

No its not. You don't give out 'all time great' status like its a Borders discount coupon.

Sangakkara is looking pretty well set to eventually become an all-time great test batsman, but you can't say any other SL batsman is one of those. They may have been very very good test batsman, but not great.

Comparatively, India have probably only had 3-4 great test batsman.

 

[Migara]

A fine Test batsmen, but not a great.

Completely dominates England, India and South Africa while being quite poor against Australia and Pakistan means that he hasn't performed against all opposition. Not to mention the small matter of his away average. 37.21 is very mediocre.

37 is not mediocre. But by man's standards abd ability, it is.