Grand Final - Greatest All-rounder of All Time

[Ikki]

Sure, but in Bradman's case it looks like a real ability and not a few abberations in a 20 year career.

 

[zaremba]

Is it really though? The impressive statistic for me here is taht Bradman averaged 99.94. Now if he did that with no double centuries, that average would imply that he was scoring a century nearly every time he came to the crease. That would be incredible; for me, that'd be every bit as incredible as doing it with 12 test double-centuries. If you were to tell me that Bradman scored 6996 runs @ 99.94 with no double centures, I'd be just as impressed as I am when you tell me that he did it with twelve double centuries. Hence the number 200 in itself is rather irrelevant.

I take this point. But we all know about his average, but the double hundreds are just the other side of (as Alan Partridge might say) the same deeply impressive statistical coin. The two stats - 99.94 and 12 double hundreds - are interlinked, and each is, for me, pretty much equally staggering. The fact is that in about every 7th innings he would register either a double or a triple century. And that's not ANLF, it's just a reflection of him regularly making ridiculously huge scores which, when he scored them, basically made his team invincible.

 

[Prince EWS]

I've had a few rants about this before, but I like how you've given it a name.



Is it really though? The impressive statistic for me here is taht Bradman averaged 99.94. Now if he did that with no double centuries, that average would imply that he was scoring a century nearly every time he came to the crease. That would be incredible; for me, that'd be every bit as incredible as doing it with 12 test double-centuries. If you were to tell me that Bradman scored 6996 runs @ 99.94 with no double centures, I'd be just as impressed as I am when you tell me that he did it with twelve double centuries. Hence the number 200 in itself is rather irrelevant.

This. In fact, I'd actually be more impressed unless he had an absurd number of not-outs.

 

[Uppercut]

But given that he averaged 99.94, the number of double-centures becomes irrelevant. He's either contributing massively to his team once every 7 matches, or contributing a very, very large amount to his team every 4 or 5. It's all good.

 

[Uppercut]

This. In fact, I'd actually be more impressed unless he had an absurd number of not-outs.

Yeah, me too. But that's why I included the number of runs- 6996 in 80 innings. Holy ****.

 

[zaremba]

This. In fact, I'd actually be more impressed unless he had an absurd number of not-outs.

Yep, 100 nearly every time would maybe be even more impressive than what Bradman achieved. However it doesn't lessen the fact that the way Bradman went about it - occasionally failing but very often making enormous scores - was in itself awesome.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, me too. But that's why I included the number of runs- 6996 in 80 innings. Holy ****.

You didn't actually mention the number of innings in your final point though..

If you were to tell me that Bradman scored 6996 runs @ 99.94 with no double centures, I'd be just as impressed as I am when you tell me that he did it with twelve double centuries. Hence the number 200 in itself is rather irrelevant.

 

[zaremba]

It's all good.

Sure is.

Except that he scored ****loads of them against England. But I can forgive him that.

 

[bagapath]

The fact is that in about every 7th innings he would register either a double or a triple century. And that's not ANLF, it's just a reflection of him regularly making ridiculously huge scores which, when he scored them, basically made his team invincible.

And Kallis' stat is just a reflection of him scoring a ridiculously huge number of centuries without converting even one of them into a double, basically showing him in lesser light compared to another batter who can bat beyond 200. If Bradman's 12 doubles prove he was invincible, someone at the other end of the spectrum should be docked a few points for not even doing it once.

 

[bagapath]

Ikki!

A quick mail to answer some of your points.

Viv Richards scored 3 double centuries and not 2. Dont worry about this mistake. I wont laugh at you.

The fact is, the SR usually increases after the first hundred. In Dravid's case as you have noticed, every time he scores a double century he ends up scoring more than 8-9 runs above his career SR of 43. When he doesnt do that he never reaches the double century, like Kallis. My point is, once settled, the batsman should try to make use of more run scoring opportunities. Dravid, for example, bats at a different pace compared to Kallis after he gets settled. Unless Jacques does it, he is never going to have the time to score 200.

I am okay with him being bunched with Waugh and Dravid. Since we are comparing him with a top 10 batsman here he is suffering in comparison. He would do fine otherwise. And yes, I believe there is a significant difference between Waugh and Ponting. And Dravid and Lara. And Kallis and Tendulkar.

And seriously dude.... I understand you don't think it is important to make a double hundred to be called great. Fine. But why have you not been able to explain this guy not managing even one after 130 tests other than blaming luck and his partners? For 130 tests...? Come on. Ikki. There has to something missing in this guy. Accept it.

 

[zaremba]

And Kallis' stat is just a reflection of him scoring a ridiculously huge number of centuries without converting even one of them into a double, basically showing him in lesser light compared to another batter who can bat beyond 200. If Bradman's 12 doubles prove he was invincible, someone at the other end of the spectrum should be docked a few points for not even doing it once.

No. Whether or not you make a one-off 200 proves next to nothing. Ask Rob Key or Jason Gillespie.

Talking about "batting beyond 200" is, with respect, meaningless. His best score is 189 not out. Would it really make a difference to your assessment of him as a player if he had continued with that (unbeaten) innings to score those extra 11 runs? Do you really measure a player's greatness by such arbitrary landmarks?

I'd care infinitely more about a gutsy series-winning 120 against world-class opposition than I would about 200 scored on a road in a dead rubber game against Bangladesh.

 

[Ikki]

Bagapath, correct, Richards did score 3. I was going off memory but yes I checked and it's 3.

With regards to Dravid, his scores from 100-199 shows that he is only 4-5 points more than his career SR. And less than Kallis' SR when 100-199.

But I am fine with your ratings. I personally think there is very little between someone like Kallis and Sobers in batting, same with Dravid and Tendulkar, Ponting and Waugh.

 

[bagapath]

No. Whether or not you make a one-off 200 proves next to nothing. Ask Rob Key or Jason Gillespie.

Talking about "batting beyond 200" is, with respect, meaningless. His best score is 189 not out. Would it really make a difference to your assessment of him as a player if he had continued with that (unbeaten) innings to score those extra 11 runs? Do you really measure a player's greatness by such arbitrary landmarks?

I'd care infinitely more about a gutsy series-winning 120 against world-class opposition than I would about 200 scored on a road in a dead rubber game against Bangladesh.

maybe you are not following thread from the beginning. I did mention jason gillespie in my very first post on this topic. and I did say some mediocre and lots of good batsmen have made double hundreds. but all great batsman have made at least one, except sutcliffe. he is rarely considered better than hobbs, hutton or gavaskar despite a superior average because he was a very slow batter. the same is true with kallis because he is also very slow. this is not about whether kallis is great or not. he is. but about how great he is. i say he is a top 30 player but not in the top 10 despite 30 hundreds and a 50+ avg. due to poor SR. this lack of double hundreds is also a result of that.

instead of jumping into conclusions and calling my argument arbitrary please go back and see why I am harping on this. As long as it is accepted as a gap in Kallis' CV I am okay. Pretending as though it doesnt make a difference is not acceptable to me. If 12 double hundreds make a person much bigger than he already is otherwise, then no double century after 30 hundreds makes a player smaller than a player with same number of centuries but 2 or 3 double centuries. Ikki has been arguing that Kallis is not that slow as I make him out to be. But he has no other logical explanation for this guy's failure to cross the 200 mark after 13 years. whether it is important to you or not, do you have any?

 

[bagapath]

With regards to Dravid, his scores from 100-199 shows that he is only 4-5 points more than his career SR. And less than Kallis' SR when 100-199.
.

dravid's career SR is 42. when he scores double hundreds it is around 53. that is a significant increase. he is able to get past 200 because he improves his scoring rate after he settles down.

 

[Ikki]

dravid's career SR is 42. when he scores double hundreds it is around 53. that is a significant increase. he is able to get past 200 because he improves his scoring rate after he settles down.

That's beside the point. We are arguing the rate of scoring he shifts to before he reaches 200, not the scoring rate he has after it. Kallis doesn't have a 200+ score so you can't compare. Hence the SRs of 100-199 - scores of settled batsmen who have made a big contribution and are now shifting towards 200. When you look at scores then, his SR is only 48 - lower than Kallis' 50. So Kallis actually scores even faster than Dravid post 100.

 

[zaremba]

maybe you are not following thread from the beginning. I did mention jason gillespie in my very first post on this topic. and I did say some mediocre and lots of good batsmen have made double hundreds. but all great batsman have made at least one, except sutcliffe. he is rarely considered better than hobbs, hutton or gavaskar despite a superior average because he was a very slow batter. the same is true with kallis because he is also very slow. this is not about whether kallis is great or not. he is. but about how great he is. i say he is a top 30 player but not in the top 10 despite 30 hundreds and a 50+ avg. due to poor SR. this lack of double hundreds is also a result of that.

instead of jumping into conclusions and calling my argument arbitrary please go back and see why I am harping on this. As long as it is accepted as a gap in Kallis' CV I am okay. Pretending as though it doesnt make a difference is not acceptable to me. If 12 double hundreds make a person much bigger than he already is otherwise, then no double century after 30 hundreds makes a player smaller than a player with same number of centuries but 2 or 3 double centuries. Ikki has been arguing that Kallis is not that slow as I make him out to be. But he has no other logical explanation for this guy's failure to cross the 200 mark after 13 years. whether it is important to you or not, do you have any?

I'm not meaning to have a go at you or to be disrespectful towards you, bagapath. I have read your early posts on this topic (I have to admit to skimming over the last few dozen posts in the thread) and I don't believe that I'm jumping to conclusions.

But I'm afraid we're not going to agree on this. I believe that to think in terms of a "gap in the CV" is misguided, for two reasons.

1. To think in terms of "gaps in CVs" in this context is to apply a tick-box approach to analysing a player's worth. The example of Tendulkar shows how absurd that approach is. Was he as great a player before he scored his double hundred as he was thereafter? Of course he was. Hitting that particular landmark frankly changed nothing.

2. It's only a "gap" if you attach some particular significance to an arbitrary numerical landmark - for no other reason than that it happens to be a round number. And what's more, you seem to be saying that if he had scored a one-off double hundred, that gap would be eliminated, as can be seen from your comment that "all great batsman have made at least one, except Sutcliffe" (my emphasis). Now, Kallis would obviously be in that category if when he scored 189 not out he had been able to go on and get 200. What does it matter that he didn't get those extra runs because the innings was closed? For me, that's an arbitrary and meaningless way to categorise how great a player he is.

 

[Uppercut]

Comparing Kallis and Dravid's strike rates after reaching 100 is to miss the point though, bagapath. If you're trying to say that a player can't score a double-century with a strike rate of 44 you're coming up against a hell of a lot more than just ikki's one example. Jason Gillespie has a strike rate of 31.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm not meaning to have a go at you or to be disrespectful towards you, bagapath. I have read your early posts on this topic (I have to admit to skimming over the last few dozen posts in the thread) and I don't believe that I'm jumping to conclusions.

But I'm afraid we're not going to agree on this. I believe that to think in terms of a "gap in the CV" is misguided, for two reasons.

1. To think in terms of "gaps in CVs" in this context is to apply a tick-box approach to analysing a player's worth. The example of Tendulkar shows how absurd that approach is. Was he as great a player before he scored his double hundred as he was thereafter? Of course he was. Hitting that particular landmark frankly changed nothing.

2. It's only a "gap" if you attach some particular significance to an arbitrary numerical landmark - for no other reason than that it happens to be a round number. And what's more, you seem to be saying that if he had scored a one-off double hundred, that gap would be eliminated, as can be seen from your comment that "all great batsman have made at least one, except Sutcliffe" (my emphasis). Now, Kallis would obviously be in that category if when he scored 189 not out he had been able to go on and get 200. What does it matter that he didn't get those extra runs because the innings was closed? For me, that's an arbitrary and meaningless way to categorise how great a player he is.

Excellently put.

 

[zaremba]

whether it is important to you or not, do you have any?

I think it's a statistical anomaly.

But you could look at it this way: he has 8 unbeaten scores of 130 or more. Perhaps if those innings were completed he'd have got to the arbitrary landmark of 200 on one occasion? Perhaps on 5 or 6 occasions? Who knows?

 

[bagapath]

I think it's a statistical anomaly.

But you could look at it this way: he has 8 unbeaten scores of 130 or more. Perhaps if those innings were completed he'd have got to the arbitrary landmark of 200 on one occasion? Perhaps on 5 or 6 occasions? Who knows?

sure he would have. but he could not do that because either the team declared or he ran out of partners. neither would have happened if he had been a faster scorer of runs.

Jason Gillespie has a strike rate of 31.

Yes, he does. And when scored that double hundred his SR went up to 47. I have been saying Kallis would have to do something out of character like that to score a double hundred. Whatever he is doing at the moment is not good enough.