SL's test history is only 25 years. By then they've produced about 10 test players who average 40+ with tha bat (Gurusinghe, de Silva, Tillakaratne, Jayawardane, Sangakkara, Vandort, Samaraweera etc)
Yeah I was specifically talking tests. You're right about de Silva, and you can add Jayasuriya to that too with regard to ODIs.
It most certainly is not; in fact, the fundamental fairness of that statement is such as I have not seen in a debate of this nature in ages.
Ranking cricket players is arbitary. It's something we do for fun. It doesn't mean anything in real terms. Sri Lanka's best Test batsmen scoring runs for their country means more than "Top 10, All Time" lists.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion and I'll respect it as such, but I find that sort of thing off-putting about cricket. Perhaps I have no feel for the game, but many of cricket's sensibilities annoy me. Inzamam's sit-in was one of them. The darkest day for Test cricket and all but forgotten a month later.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Compared to his home average of 65 odd then it is
Agreed, I guess. Although it must be said that he has improved that average in the last 3 - 4 years to just under 40, and I would like to see him drag his career overseas average over that 40 mark by the time he hangs up his gloves. He has also, iirc, only scored 4 centuries overseas (this may need confirmation) - which is very poor indeed, however, it must also be said that 3 of those 4 hundreds came in testing circumstances, of which two led to the saving of the match for Sri Lanka. I think he will get there in the end.
Aravinda is a strange case, I think. IIRC up until 1996/97 (I think, this is all recollection) he had scored relatively few runs at home, and had more centuries overseas than at home (wonder what we would have said if this discussion was had at that time?). But then he had that golden run with the bat (which co-incided with a run of home games) where he plundered hundred after hundred against all comers. Then came an inevitable drop, which took place mostly overseas, and this may have skewed his stats even further.
It's simplistic to take an overall career record and ignore the many things that it misreprisents. No-one can possibly be criticised for being better at home than away at a time when they were poor both home and away, it's plain madness. It's also plain madness to judge a player on a single bad series, which Aravinda had more of than not overseas, he hardly played anyone more than once overseas during the time he was a batsman of note.
Nah, doesn't even need to be asked, Aravinda wins hands-down. Mind, I reckon there'd be very occasional times when the former would be a better bet.
I will have to look at those stats in greater detail. However, it certainly does exclude his (iirc) 167 and 2 scores of 70 odd in the 89/90 (I think) tour of Australia.
Fair enough, but would you care to be a little clearer on why you disagree with it?
Up until the end of 1991, practically all of Aravinda's success had come away from home (IIRC, he didn't make his first century at home until 1993), but he'd only played 6 Tests at home and 18 abroad. Over the rest of his career, his home and away numbers averaged out to what they are today -- which I think is a pretty fair reflection of his career. Career averages might not tell you *how* a batsman came to average those numbers, but they can't be dismissed outright.
In my opinion, Sri Lankan cricketers should be judged relative to what Sri Lanka has accomplished in Test cricket. If cricket were an even playing field, I could understand a universal standard. But it's not. It's proven extremely difficult for Sri Lanka to produce world class batsmen, compared to a country like Australia where they seem to roll off an assembly line. Obviously Australia shouldn't be "punished" for having excellent infrastructure and a long cricketing history, but they should be judged by different standards. As a rugby fan, I wouldn't judge English rugby players on how they compare to All Black or Springbok greats.
You're serious about this? They travel within the same country and play all their games indoors where weather and "pitch" conditions have absolutely zero bearing. Get off it.
An NBA player's schedule is harder than an international cricketer's. Winning on the road is tough. Even the best teams have a road record that's barely over .500. The weather doesn't play a part -- so what? Cricket's not the only sport that's played outdoors. Rugby is played in the rain, American football is played in the snow... I'm sorry, but cricket fans are precious about cricket. That's what it boils down to. Therefore, we have these grandiose standards, when playing away from home is a factor in any major domestic or international sport.
