Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[Uppercut]

Sorry, but if every player who played with and against Viv Richards says that he was the best, then I think that should count for a lot more, then someone twenty years later inventing some silly stats, and then passing that of as fact

They aren't stats, they're the number of runs they scored. Runs win cricket matches, not impressing spectators.

When you say he was the best, do you mean he was the best to watch? The most impossible to bowl to when he was on form? The most consistent? The best to have in pressure situations?

If you take good batting to mean scoring lots of runs, which is what i've always felt it should be, then how many runs he scores has to be more important than how he made his fellow players feel.

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, but if every player who played with and against Viv Richards says that he was the best, then I think that should count for a lot more, then someone twenty years later inventing some silly stats, and then passing that of as fact

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I find it acceptable that Viv Richards could be the best - in fact, personally, I am more inclined to agree.

But if someone were to say Greg Chappell was better, then I can see that person's point and give the respect to the comparison that it deserves.

 

[Richard]

the 'now' generation if you didn't see it, it did not happen

I am surprised you trust your mum when she tells you your birthdate

How many times? I have never once been of this mindset. I take the same attitude to what I have seen and what I have not seen.

The Hayden issue is one of the starkest demonstrations of that. I couldn't care less how many people think he's intimidating or good - to me he's been almost all his career someone who any good seamer will usually get out for not many and I will never, ever change that POV. It's similar with Vivian Richards - I don't care how many people say he was the second-greatest batsman there's ever been, to me he was just a damn good player who had two sensational scoring stints which made lots of people think he was better than he actually was for the majority of his career. One player whose career I've followed virtually in its entirity; one whose career finished a year after I started school. But my refusal to accept what the majority says about them, preferring to make my own judgement, is constant.

 

[archie mac]

They aren't stats, they're the number of runs they scored. Runs win cricket matches, not impressing spectators.

When you say he was the best, do you mean he was the best to watch? The most impossible to bowl to when he was on form? The most consistent? The best to have in pressure situations?

If you take good batting to mean scoring lots of runs, which is what i've always felt it should be, then how many runs he scores has to be more important than how he made his fellow players feel.

Not the most consistent but all the rest yes, and do me it is very important how they score their runs

 

[archie mac]

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I find it acceptable that Viv Richards could be the best - in fact, personally, I am more inclined to agree.

But if someone were to say Greg Chappell was better, then I can see that person's point and give the respect to the comparison that it deserves.

I have no problem with that, you agreed with a post, where it was said you should not consider what contemporarie players say about other players

 

[archie mac]

How many times? I have never once been of this mindset. I take the same attitude to what I have seen and what I have not seen.

The Hayden issue is one of the starkest demonstrations of that. I couldn't care less how many people think he's intimidating or good - to me he's been almost all his career someone who any good seamer will usually get out for not many and I will never, ever change that POV. It's similar with Vivian Richards - I don't care how many people say he was the second-greatest batsman there's ever been, to me he was just a damn good player who had two sensational scoring stints which made lots of people think he was better than he actually was for the majority of his career. One player whose career I've followed virtually in its entirity; one whose career finished a year after I started school. But my refusal to accept what the majority says about them, preferring to make my own judgement, is constant.

No, you make your mind up about Hayden because you watched him, but you dismiss what everyone says about Richards because you did not see him

 

[Richard]

I don't dismiss it. I have never once dismissed it. I simply say that it isn't enough for me to decide he's the second-best batsman of all-time, or even top-ten material.

I fully understand the reasons people have for thinking Richards the second-best batsman of all-time; I simply disagree with the line of reasoning.

 

[Uppercut]

Not the most consistent but all the rest yes, and do me it is very important how they score their runs

I wouldn't argue over how good a batsman Richards was or wasn't, ftr. The general point i was making is that if you want to argue that a batsman was the best ever, and the amount of runs they scored don't back that up, it's necessary to give some explanation as to why. It beats accusing everyone of being stat-readers who never even watch cricket.

Also, how they score their runs is important to some, but it's extremely subjective. The example i gave earlier was that i find Shiv Chanderpaul better to watch than Sachin Tendulkar. If you're comparing players, it's often best to not even go there.

 

[Ikki]

I have no problem with that, you agreed with a post, where it was said you should not consider what contemporarie players say about other players

I only agree to it to the extent that it should not be your only criteria.

I, myself, consider Lillee the greatest fast bowler of all time. That is, of course, helped by his almost universal lauding by his peers past and present. His record also stands to scrutiny.

However, I am not going to agree in every instance, especially when I think the statistics show a clear fact that maybe his contemporaries did not taken into account. Let's be frank, a lot of us here probably put more time into dissecting and analysing statistics than a lot of these players. We'll never have their insight into the game, of course, but their words should also be taken with some caution. Even more apt, a lot of us have only had this kind of ability to scrutinise so easily for only a few years. Other fans, etc, did not have that benefit.

 

[Ikki]

Also, how they score their runs is important to some, but it's extremely subjective. The example i gave earlier was that i find Shiv Chanderpaul better to watch than Sachin Tendulkar. If you're comparing players, it's often best to not even go there.

Agree with this. People think Hayden is limited, I think he has wonderful stroke-play. Others reckon Tendulkar is the epitome of what batting technique should be, I don't think he is anymore special than a Ponting. In fact, I probably liked watching Damian Martyn out of them all.

 

[Precambrian]

Agree with this. People think Hayden is limited, I think he has wonderful stroke-play. Others reckon Tendulkar is the epitome of what batting technique should be, I don't think he is anymore special than a Ponting. In fact, I probably liked watching Damian Martyn out of them all.

While I hate to drag in the Tendulkar-Ponting debate, Tendulkar has proven that he can adapt his game to the situations anywhere in the World. Ponting's got still to prove that. (1 century means nothing)

 

[Uppercut]

While I hate to drag in the Tendulkar-Ponting debate, Tendulkar has proven that he can adapt his game to the situations anywhere in the World. Ponting's got still to prove that. (1 century means nothing)

He means to watch.

 

[Ikki]

While I hate to drag in the Tendulkar-Ponting debate, Tendulkar has proven that he can adapt his game to the situations anywhere in the World. Ponting's got still to prove that. (1 century means nothing)

See, again, a fallacy. A fabrication. Tendulkar's overall record, especially in terms of world-wide success is more lacking than Ponting's. Ponting only has one country where he fails - he beats the crap out of the same side at home...and that's it for Ponting's weaknesses. Tendulkar fails home and away against S.Africa for example. He barely makes the grade against NZ and Pakistan too (and he fixed his Pakistan record once they pretty much lost their strong attack) Ponting has the more complete record.

 

[Ikki]

He means to watch.

Yes, originally.

 

[Precambrian]

See, again, a fallacy. A fabrication. Tendulkar's overall record, especially in terms of world-wide success is more lacking than Ponting's. Ponting only has one country where he fails - he beats the crap out of the same side at home...and that's it for Ponting's weaknesses. Tendulkar fails home and away against S.Africa for example. He barely makes the grade against NZ and Pakistan too (and he fixed his Pakistan record once they pretty much lost their strong attack) Ponting has the more complete record.

I won't call it failures. He had mediocre averages. Considering he played a lot of SA matches when he was yet to become the master that he is. Still a decent record.

Pakistan? Ponting's hardly played in Pakistan to really warrant a comparison between the two. I bet he'd have struggled big time during the heydays of WWs and Saqi, Mushy etc. And also note, Tendulkar played them when a certain Imran Khan was also there. Still he has a reasonably good record.

What abt Ponting's Ashes record? It's also pretty ordinary considering he had to face a good attack only in Ashes 05.

 

[Ikki]

I won't call it failures. He had mediocre averages. Considering he played a lot of SA matches when he was yet to become the master that he is. Still a decent record.

Pakistan? Ponting's hardly played in Pakistan to really warrant a comparison between the two. I bet he'd have struggled big time during the heydays of WWs and Saqi, Mushy etc. And also note, Tendulkar played them when a certain Imran Khan was also there. Still he has a reasonably good record.

What abt Ponting's Ashes record? It's also pretty ordinary considering he had to face a good attack only in Ashes 05.

When Ponting faced them, he did so also in the trying conditions in Sharjah which I would say is even more a testament to his batting. His batting against Pakistan is not in question like Tendulkar's is.

Tendulkar vs Pakistan pre 2000 with WW and even Imran is 7 matches at 35. A poor record for players of this stature.

Ponting's Ashes record is ordinary because he averages 48 yet Sachin's averages of 35, 42, etc are decent? That's Ponting's worst opponent, he is only 1-2 points off making his English record and his Indian record over 50 - which would mean he averages 50+ against every Test nation in the world. His only blot would be playing in India...nothing else.

It's not really disputable, Ponting has the more complete record.

 

[Uppercut]

When Ponting faced them, he did so also in the trying conditions in Sharjah which I would say is even more a testament to his batting. His batting against Pakistan is not in question like Tendulkar's is.

Tendulkar vs Pakistan pre 2000 with WW and even Imran is 7 matches at 35. A poor record for players of this stature.

Ponting's Ashes record is ordinary because he averages 48 yet Sachin's averages of 35, 42, etc are decent? That's Ponting's worst opponent, he is only 1-2 points off making his English record and his Indian record over 50 - which would mean he averages 50+ against every Test nation in the world. His only blot would be playing in India...nothing else.

It's not really disputable, Ponting has the more complete record.

Also, Tendulkar's non-minnows average is 51. Ponting's is 57. Quite a big difference there really.

Not getting involved in this debate, just pointing that out.

 

[Precambrian]

Also, Tendulkar's non-minnows average is 51. Ponting's is 57. Quite a big difference there really.

Not getting involved in this debate, just pointing that out.

Zimbabwe pre 2002 was easily Test Class. To call them minnows and deduct that from Tendulkar's record is not acceptable.

 

[Ikki]

Zimbabwe pre 2002 was easily Test Class. To call them minnows and deduct that from Tendulkar's record is not acceptable.

Being test class and minnows are two completely different things. Ponting has not played those minnows near to the extent that Tendulkar has. Subtracting those scores takes nothing away from them. We essentially don't care if they are good at bashing minnows - it tells us nothing that we need to know.

 

[Uppercut]

Zimbabwe pre 2002 was easily Test Class. To call them minnows and deduct that from Tendulkar's record is not acceptable.

When exactly their bowling attack declined is debatable. His really good performances against them were around 2001/02.

Anyway, it wouldn't make a great deal of difference. Ponting would still have quite a significant edge.