Yeah, but once it gets to the stage where you're comparing someone who's played 400 times to someone who's played 150 times they're both pretty reasonable bets to perform. In any case, i wouldn't say the longevity factor makes up the difference between averaging 49 and averaging 32, whatever qualifications you choose to give those stats.
sorry that should have been '84 year old'
Will be conveyed tomorrow morning
I think that would be an opinion shared by you alone in this whole world.
i agree viv was in a different league as a fielder. sanath is not even in the same province.I think that would be an opinion shared by you alone in this whole world.
In bowling they were probably pretty similar, but in fielding you comparing favourably Sanath, who is a good solid fielder, to Viv who was simply phenomenol in the field. In fact he was a better fielder than he was batsman (and that is saying something). Of all the players I've seen in the field I'd rate Viv only slightly below Roger Harper, and ahead of Symonds.
To think that Santh was a better fielder, betrays you as omeone who never saw the great Viv field. He was a match winner in that capacity alone.
/strong first post.wc
strong possibly, but as I couldn't understand a word of it, I'd go for "totally illegible first post"
I think that would be an opinion shared by you alone in this whole world.
In bowling they were probably pretty similar, but in fielding you comparing favourably Sanath, who is a good solid fielder, to Viv who was simply phenomenol in the field. In fact he was a better fielder than he was batsman (and that is saying something). Of all the players I've seen in the field I'd rate Viv only slightly below Roger Harper, and ahead of Symonds.
To think that Santh was a better fielder, betrays you as omeone who never saw the great Viv field. He was a match winner in that capacity alone.
where to start.
I think viv should walk into the team on his batting alone. because HE is better than ponting, lara and tendulkar. choosing between the last three is more difficult than choosing between them and him. for starters, his SR as a a batsman was a clear 9 runs more than lara, 11 more than ricky and 14 more than sachin.thanks a lot bagapath and T_G..
so wonderful to hear first hand accounts of how good the players of the past were...
I have a question here in that case.. Given that Lara or Tendulkar or Ponting are not THAT much better than Viv and given a middle order of Sobers, Bradman and G Pollock with one slot left.. Would you guys then go for Viv because not only is he more intimidating but also he adds more on the field than the others (perhaps Ponting will be close, given that he himself is an awesome fielder)...
Would that be a right line of thinking?
my point exactly... Obviously, I didn't see the best of him even as a batsman and so I don't want to rate him but there are quite a few who seem to think the likes of Lara and Sachin at least were better than him as batsmen.. But even given that, with the sort of a fielder he was, you would think it is more value to have his fielding abilities and bowling abilities even if it is at the cost of a 2 or 3 runs average to your team...
Have you seen his SR?
Strike rates in Test cricket are highly misleading. There are so many factors at play that it would be folly to It is easier to maintain a higher SR in a team with a great batting and bowling lineup than in a team with poorer batting or bowling lineups. One has to look no further than Tendulkar for that. His SR is as good as it has ever been in his career and the stronger team he now plays in affords him that freedom. Also, one can almost guarantee that Sehwag wouldn't be striking at 78 if he didn't have Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman to follow. He'd have to bat much more 'responsibly' or get dropped in the name of recklessness. Does Gambhir deserve to be penalised because his career SR fell an entire 3 points over the course of a single test match recently?
