Vaas vs Srinath vs Lee vs Zaheer vs Sobers

[Avada Kedavra]

He played Zimbabwe only 2 times. Had he played them more he'd have likely averaged under 30 here which would mean he'd also have 4 teams he averages less than 30 against.



ICC World XI is not a country and Vaas did not face them.

Also, he only played 2 matches in Bangladesh, which is where his record breaks down. Had he played there more (or even against them more) he'd more than likely improve that record. Which would make it 2 40+ countries, yet against Pakistan, he only played them 3 times even then. This is where your argument breaks down and is tedious. Even one of Lee's averages in the 30s is Zimbabwe and he played them 2 tests!

And Sri Lanka couldn't have improved their record against Lee ? He only played 2 tests against them too. Remove your "Aussies are always better" glasses for once and be objective. When I said Waqar's SR is considerably better than Mcgrath's SR with a marginal difference in average, just like in Vaas vs Lee case, you brought up Mcgrath's more consistent overall record and how most people would rate Mcgrath over Waqar. Exactly the same is the case with Vaas and Lee. One has a considerably better SR but his overall record doesn't match Vaas'. This is not to mention Vaas got to bowl in much more unfavourable conditions for fast bowling, a place where Lee averages 56. And just like most people think Mcgrath>Waqar, most people also think Vaas>Lee.

 

[Sir Alex]

It reflects that even against the minnows and, all that he played against them, Vaas was not that superlative against them on the whole.

Also that Lee was quite dire against them as well. I feel it is I.D to exclude them.

 

[Ikki]

And Sri Lanka couldn't have improved their record against Lee ? He only played 2 tests against them too. Remove your "Aussies are always better" glasses for once and be objective. When I said Waqar's SR is considerably better than Mcgrath's SR with a marginal difference in average, just like in Vaas vs Lee case, you brought up Mcgrath's more consistent overall record and how most people would rate Mcgrath over Waqar. Exactly the same is the case with Vaas and Lee. One has a considerably better SR but his overall record doesn't match Vaas'. This is not to mention Vaas got to bowl in much more unfavorable conditions for fast bowling, a place where Lee averages 56. And just like most people think Mcgrath>Waqar, most people also think Vaas>Lee.

See my post to Migara. The rest of your post is not worth anymore of my time - I've already given you the answers but the penny doesn't drop. You're arguing about McGrath v Waqar and using 1 test against Sri Lanka to build another argument. At some point you have to put your hands up and say "c'est la vie".

 

[Avada Kedavra]

See my post to Migara. The rest of your post is not worth anymore time responding to - I've already given you the answers but the penny doesn't drop; you're arguing about McGrath and Waqar now. At some point you have to put your hands up and say "c'est la vie".

What I can surmise from your answers is "twist the stats in any which way to suit an Aussie". I don't have to put up my hand and say c'est la vie, you have to put up your hand and say "je suis fou".

 

[Ikki]

Also that Lee was quite dire against them as well. I feel it is I.D to exclude them.

For the 6 combined tests he played he was dire; but it doesn't affect his record much. However, what you would expect with Vaas, having played them a combined 22 tests, is that his career record would change much more dramatically.

 

[Migara]

Yes, the difference in probability, and gauging that probability, is large. We are in the former assuming ONE very good player is going to beat up against a very weak team and in the latter it is assuming a whole TEAM is going to turn around against ONE very good bowler. In one instance the variable is one player, in the other it's eleven

Wrong. Single batsman in a lineup can destroy a bowler if the others can hold on. Jayasuriya single handedly eviscerated Akthar on one occasion, and he never recovered after that onslaught against SL. Don't clutch strawas. If Le layed inSL against SL that stats would have much different.

There are enough examples to show how very good stats against SL went pear shaped. BEst example is Kumble, who's a much better bowler than Lee.His average went from an all conquering 21.5 to 31.2 against SL.

Waqar was much better. His average increase from 17.9 to 22.3. In ODIs Saqlain started very well against SL, but got few manhandlings later in his career. His average also worsened over cause. There is very possibility that SL team could do it.

On further note, a national side will be always a best XI, but a bowler will age and his performances will drop. That is the very reason that a side has the posibility to do better than a single bowler.

 

[Migara]

For the 6 combined tests he played he was dire; but it doesn't affect his record much. However, what you would expect with Vaas, having played them a combined 22 tests, is that his career record would change much more dramatically.

Then FFS standardize and see.

 

[Ikki]

Wrong. Single batsman in a lineup can destroy a bowler if the others can hold on. Jayasuriya single handedly eviscerated Akthar on one occasion, and he never recovered after that onslaught against SL. Don't clutch strawas. If Le layed inSL against SL that stats would have much different.

Wrong, there is no guarantee several players would perform to the contrary against a "very good bowler" even less harder to gauge than if there was just 1. The stipulation revolves around the general quality of the players involved. Even if one were to do well, there is no guarantee the rest would hold on. You are making a presumption on numerous players - whereas in my example it is just 1 player against one very weak team.

There are enough examples to show how very good stats against SL went pear shaped. BEst example is Kumble, who's a much better bowler than Lee.His average went from an all conquering 21.5 to 31.2 against SL.

Waqar was much better. His average increase from 17.9 to 22.3. In ODIs Saqlain started very well against SL, but got few manhandlings later in his career. His average also worsened over cause. There is very possibility that SL team could do it.

I fail to see the relevance of your post. The question is not "could SL change them". Of course they could, it's reasonable to assume they could. Just as it's reasonable to assume players would still succeed against the same team. We know the former is possible because SL are a very good team. We know the latter is possible because Lee is a very good bowler.

Contrast that with Lee and Bangladesh. The probability that a weak team like Bangladesh would keep Lee's record a poor one is, I dare say, very far fetched. If you like, go now and bring a list of good test bowlers who played Bangladesh long enough and have anywhere near the same figures as Lee.

You won't find many because Bangladesh have been that poor therefore assuming they have the same probability of changing their fortunes against Lee as Sri Lanka have is disingenuous.

On further note, a national side will be always a best XI, but a bowler will age and his performances will drop. That is the very reason that a side has the posibility to do better than a single bowler.

That's not even near the point.

Then FFS standardize and see.

Standardise them with who and for what? We already know Vaas' record against the two minnows over 22 tests. That's a large enough sample for him to have demonstrated his skills against them.

[B][B][COLOR="Green"]Vaas[/COLOR][/B][/B]       [B]Avg[/B]       [B]SR[/B]
[B]Bang[/B]       25.78     52.8
[B]Zim[/B]        27.75     71.8

Against Bangladesh he did OK - I say OK because a bowler of his caliber should have done better having played that much - but his record against Zimbabwe is very average. Together his overall average/sr against them is only slightly better than his career average/sr. Which shows even though he played them plenty of times he did not cash in as a bowler of his quality should have.

 

[Sir Alex]

For the 6 combined tests he played he was dire; but it doesn't affect his record much. However, what you would expect with Vaas, having played them a combined 22 tests, is that his career record would change much more dramatically.

It isn't an excuse to exclude from his career statistics though. As ID as excluding Murali's Australia stats.

 

[Ikki]

It isn't an excuse to exclude from his career statistics though. As ID as excluding Murali's Australia stats.

Look at throughout the thread, I haven't removed them. In fact, the whole point is he didn't play them enough to help or harm his career record much either way.

The only time I've said we should ignore them is when Avada has made country to country comparisons and has concluded 1 test or 2 in a country is enough to brand one a failure or not. As if failing in 2 tests against Zimbabwe is equal to failing in 14 against India.

And they have nothing to do with Murali's stats against Australia. Murali has played in Australia enough. Stop fighting arguments that don't exist.

 

[Sir Alex]

Look at throughout the thread, I haven't removed them. In fact, the whole point is he didn't play them enough to help or harm his career record much either way.

What's the purpose of this then?

Without B/Z:

Lee

Vaas

The only time I've said we should ignore them is when Avada has made country to country comparisons and has concluded 1 test or 2 in a country is enough to brand one a failure or not. As if failing in 2 tests against Zimbabwe is equal to failing in 14 against India.

And they have nothing to do with Murali's stats against Australia. Murali has played in Australia enough. Stop fighting arguments that don't exist.

Ok. Still doesn't justify exclusion of B/Z stats from Lee's career or change the fact that he was poor against the minnows.

 

[Ikki]

What's the purpose of this then?

It shows that Vaas when he could/should have didn't take advantage of minnows. Not that minnows helped his figures. The criticism in this case is not that minnows helped him; but that they didn't, and it's due to his own limitations. They were weak throughout and he played them more than enough. He should have a better record against them.

The irony is you are harsh on Lee's ratios when you should also have criticism for Vaas. Lee didn't play Zimbabwe enough for example (only 2 tests), what about Vaas? He played them 15 times IIRC. His career stats against them are worse than the stats for the average bowler vs bangladesh.

Ok. Still doesn't justify exclusion of B/Z stats from Lee's career or change the fact that he was poor against the minnows.

Are you ok? This is the getting tedious. I have not removed B/Z stats from Lee's career to help him. They don't even make much of a difference for him. The whole point was you can't call him a failure against one team like Zimbabwe where he only played them for 2 tests and equate that with Vaas' failure against India against whom he played 14 tests. And mark them down as 1 each as if the scores are equal on that count. It's very possible to have 2 bad tests against anyone...but 14?

It's a fact that in the matches he played he was poor against the minnows. But more relevant is the fact that he didn't play them near enough to correct that. Lee was too good of a bowler to have kept his poor averages against those 2 minnows had he played them more. They were not good enough to keep a bowler of his caliber out had he played long enough. There is a mass of stats to look at - go look at the average bowler's average/sr against the two teams in question - many of those bowlers not as good as Lee. Very few ended up with bad ratios and that's because of small samples.

Do you understand what is being written here? Am I poor communicator of my point? I've said the same thing 10+ times now.

 

[Migara]

Wrong, there is no guarantee several players would perform to the contrary against a "very good bowler" even less harder to gauge than if there was just 1. The stipulation revolves around the general quality of the players involved. Even if one were to do well, there is no guarantee the rest would hold on. You are making a presumption on numerous players - whereas in my example it is just 1 player against one very weak team.

Still, in his limited opportunities he could do next to nothing. On other hand fast bowlers like Lee has surprise factor. When that wears off, good sides will take toll of him. The very reason he has not done better when the opponent is met regularly.

I fail to see the relevance of your post.

You fail to see the relevance that Le's 2 tests against SL is not representative as much as Lees 4 / 2 tests against minnows. FFS, he has not played in SL against SL, which would have dented his record big time.

 

[Sir Alex]

It shows that Vaas when he could/should have didn't take advantage of minnows. Not that minnows helped his figures. The criticism in this case is not that minnows helped him; but that they didn't, and it's due to his own limitations. They were weak throughout and he played them more than enough. He should have a better record against them.

The irony is you are harsh on Lee's ratios when you should also have criticism for Vaas. Lee didn't play Zimbabwe enough for example (only 2 tests), what about Vaas? He played them 15 times IIRC. His career stats against them are worse than the stats for the average bowler vs bangladesh.

Both didn't take enough advantage of minnows which is visible from their careers. In fact if anything Lee did far worse than Vaas in that aspect. Dunno what you are advocating "in favor" of Lee here.

Are you ok? This is the getting tedious. I have not removed B/Z stats from Lee's career to help him. They don't even make much of a difference for him. The whole point was you can't call him a failure against one team like Zimbabwe where he only played them for 2 tests and equate that with Vaas' failure against India against whom he played 14 tests. And mark them down as 1 each as if the scores are equal on that count. It's very possible to have 2 bad tests against anyone...but 14?

The other day when I tried excluding SA, SL, BD, Zim stats from Tendulkar's to facilitate a comparison with Richards, you weren't toeing the same line were you? Despite the fact that Richards never played against the above teams AT ALL in their career.

It's a fact that in the matches he played he was poor against the minnows. But more relevant is the fact that he didn't play them near enough to correct that. Lee was too good of a bowler to have kept his poor averages against those 2 minnows had he played them more. They were not good enough to keep a bowler of his caliber out had he played long enough. There is a mass of stats to look at - go look at the average bowler's average/sr against the two teams in question - many of those bowlers not as good as Lee. Very few ended up with bad ratios and that's because of small samples.

Do you understand what is being written here? Am I poor communicator of my point? I've said the same thing 10+ times now.

You are one dodgy communicator imho, not poor one,

Lee played 2 tests vs Zim, and 4 tests vs Bangladesh, and he struggled in them. The fact that "he could have got better" etc is all pure hypothesis, and equally can be said "He could've got worse actually" as well. Statistics are that, reflections of "what he did". So when arguing their statistical qualifications, it is dishonest on your part to bring in "what ifs" and "could've beens" (ie. subjective "opinion") and show as if that is some sort of fact.

You just know this is an argument which you cannot win mate.

 

[Ikki]

Still, in his limited opportunities he could do next to nothing. On other hand fast bowlers like Lee has surprise factor. When that wears off, good sides will take toll of him. The very reason he has not done better when the opponent is met regularly.

The opportunities were so limited that it makes the comparison meaningless. That's the whole point. 2 tests is not a reasonable sample, no matter how much you want to use it against Lee.

With minnows, the more tests you play against them the better. You may do poorly in 1 or 2 tests - they're not playing highschoolers - but if you play them long enough you can rectify that. However, if your sample is only a few tests and your poor tests come at the beginning of the sample then you're screwed. That's why the argument you bring forth is meaningless.

Surprise factor? Please.

You fail to see the relevance that Le's 2 tests against SL is not representative as much as Lees 4 / 2 tests against minnows. FFS, he has not played in SL against SL, which would have dented his record big time.

No, I am not making any conclusions based on a few tests - my whole point is you can't do as such. The reason I don't touch SL vs Lee is because whether they played more I can't be sure if SL get on top of Lee or Lee gets on top of SL. They're both likely from the quality of the two competitors. But with B/Z I am more than fairly sure that had they played longer Lee would do more than good against them - they are that poor. The competitors are not equal.


You don't seem to understand. If I wanted to remove all small samples (to be "fair" or what you deem that to be) it actually improves Lee's record more. If I just accept and remove Sri Lanka, I can also remove ICC, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe all under the same excuse and it will actually improve his record.

You know what's even funnier? Had he done well I'd still remove them because they're minnows and it would inflate his record! The only reason I would keep minnows is if the player played them enough and has poor stats against them. That is when I say "your bad, mate; no excuses".

 

[Ikki]

Both didn't take enough advantage of minnows which is visible from their careers. In fact if anything Lee did far worse than Vaas in that aspect. Dunno what you are advocating "in favor" of Lee here.

**** me dead. Both didn't have the same opportunity. One played them too few times. The other played them 22 times. The former has partial excuse, the latter has none.

Let me put it in a way that may penetrate: if Steve Smitth bats for Australia tomorrow and scores a century on debut, retires and stays on that average does that mean he is better than Tendulkar? Does that mean they had the same opportunity and faced the same or similar difficulty?

The other day when I tried excluding SA, SL, BD, Zim stats from Tendulkar's to facilitate a comparison with Richards, you weren't toeing the same line were you? Despite the fact that Richards never played against the above teams AT ALL in their career.

Why would I remove all those Tests? BD and Zim, yes. Why the others?

You are one dodgy communicator imho, not poor one,

Lee played 2 tests vs Zim, and 4 tests vs Bangladesh, and he struggled in them. The fact that "he could have got better" etc is all pure hypothesis, and equally can be said "He could've got worse actually" as well. Statistics are that, reflections of "what he did". So when arguing their statistical qualifications, it is dishonest on your part to bring in "what ifs" and "could've beens" (ie. subjective "opinion") and show as if that is some sort of fact.

You just know this is an argument which you cannot win mate.

You're telling me.

 

[Sir Alex]

**** me dead. Both didn't have the same opportunity. One played them too few times. The other played them 22 times. The former has partial excuse, the latter has none.

Let me put it in a way that may penetrate: if Steve Smitth bats for Australia tomorrow and scores a century on debut, retires and stays on that average does that mean he is better than Tendulkar? Does that mean they had the same opportunity and faced the same or similar difficulty?

Wrong analogy. If Steven Smith averages 25 in 4 test matches, against whom Tendulkar averages 55 in 20 tests, there is absolutely no way one can argue Steven Smith would have averaged more than 55 had he played 20 test matches.

In fact you are doing the same with Lee here. It is not as if against other oppositions, Lee is heads and shoulders above Vaas to arrive at that conclusion. Besides you are berating Vaas which is just a big joke.

Why would I remove all those Tests? BD and Zim, yes. Why the others?

You were cribbing at inclusion of World XI in the stats, how'd you compare Tendulkar's vs SA with Viv Richards vs Ind then?

 

[Ikki]

Wrong analogy. If Steven Smith averages 25 in 4 test matches, against whom Tendulkar averages 55 in 20 tests, there is absolutely no way one can argue Steven Smith would have averaged more than 55 had he played 20 test matches.

No, that is the wrong analogy. If Smith averages 25 they wouldn't even be compared in the first place. They either have to be about as poor or good as each other; however one having a bigger sample.

How about this: Smith plays 18 tests (once against every test nation, home and away) and ends up averaging 60, is consistent across the board and gets injured and retired. Does that mean he is better than Tendulkar? Were their opportunities or difficulties the same?

They weren't, so stop pretending as if such a small sample can be so readily compared to such a bigger sample. In Lee's case, it's to his detriment, in Smith's it's to his advantage.

How could anyone come and say "well 18 tests is 18 tests and that's enough...the average is important so he is much better than Tendulkar". It's laughable.

In fact you are doing the same with Lee here. It is not as if against other oppositions, Lee is heads and shoulders above Vaas to arrive at that conclusion. Besides you are berating Vaas which is just a big joke.

That's the entire point: that they are close. The only difference between them really are the minnows - where Vaas has played them plenty and Lee hardly any. Get a clue, fast.

You were cribbing at inclusion of World XI in the stats, how'd you compare Tendulkar's vs SA with Viv Richards vs Ind then?

Um, because you are comparing 2 players in different eras and saying they did not play the same teams. Well, that goes for EVERY team that you mention. The Australia Richards played was different to the one Tendulkar played. So do you remove them too? You can do that with every team...so you don't even compare them because you'd have to remove every team on the same basis .

Lee and Vaas however are contemporaries. The ICC XI was a one-off and only those involved should keep those stats and compare to. How can you say Lee failed vs ICC XI and Vaas didn't so 1-0 to Vaas? Do you make sense to yourself?

 

[Sir Alex]

No, that is the wrong analogy. If Smith averages 25 they wouldn't even be compared in the first place. They either have to be about as poor or good as each other; however one having a bigger sample.

That's news. Never knew averaging 37 and 47 are same as 28 and 29 (Lee's and Vaas' respectively) I am going to see the end to this now.

That's the entire point: that they are close. The only difference between them really are the minnows - where Vaas has played them plenty and Lee hardly any. Get a clue, fast.

They aren't. Check out Lee's subcontinent statistics and Vaas' subcontinent stats. Despite playing in far lesser pacer friendly conditions as compared to Lee, Vaas churned out such good performances. Lee also never had to face one of the best batting lineups of his time as well (Australia).

Um, because you are comparing 2 players in different eras and saying they did not play the same teams. Well, that goes for EVERY team that you mention. The Australia Richards played was different to the one Tendulkar played. So do you remove them too? You can do that with every team...so you don't even compare them because you'd have to remove every team on the same basis .

In that case, absolutely no player can be compared to another unless they faced the same XI in the same conditions right? Bit of rich from you there.

Lee and Vaas however are contemporaries. The ICC XI was a one-off and only those involved should keep those stats and compare to. How can you say Lee failed vs ICC XI and Vaas didn't so 1-0 to Vaas? Do you make sense to yourself?

About the same logic as saying Richards is better than Tendulkar because Tendulkar did not perform against SA. Rings a bell??

 

[Ikki]

That's news. Never knew averaging 37 and 47 are same as 28 and 29 (Lee's and Vaas' respectively) I am going to see the end to this now.

I'm clearly talking about overall average.

The Lee/Vaas thing is just a smaller argument within an argument; but we both know they are of the same quality. One just played one team very few times while the other played them plenty more.

And not just any teams...teams you expect them to thrash on.

They aren't. Check out Lee's subcontinent statistics and Vaas' subcontinent stats. Despite playing in far lesser pacer friendly conditions as compared to Lee, Vaas churned out such good performances. Lee also never had to face one of the best batting lineups of his time as well (Australia).

Lee has played 7 tests in all 4 countries in the subcontinent ... you and your drivel again. The only one he played near enough was India. The rest 3 tests for 3 teams. You guys want to remove Sri Lanka because overall Lee did well against them because the sample is small...yet the 1 test he played in Sri Lanka you use against him. it doesn't get any more blatant than that.

In that case, absolutely no player can be compared to another unless they faced the same XI in the same conditions right? Bit of rich from you there.

Haha, that is YOUR reasoning, not mine. The only teams we were removing in that discussion were MINNOWS. Richards didn't play ANY minnows in his era. Tendulkar played 2. That is why we removed them and none else. I've already gone to explain why I place minnows in a completely different category. Yet you tried to use their removal as reason to remove both SA and Sri Lanka in a sly way to improve Tendulkar's record.

About the same logic as saying Richards is better than Tendulkar because Tendulkar did not perform against SA. Rings a bell??

No it doesn't...you know why? Because I wasn't daft enough to go about how one is better country by country when one of the players in question hasn't played more than 7 tests in 4 of the countries. The argument Avada made and you are desperately trying to validate.

If I had said Tendulkar failed against SA and Richards never played them so 1-0 to Richards...then you'd have a point.