Which cricketer has the most complete record?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I understand that McGrath owns the complete works of Philip Glass on vinyl; therefore he has the most complete record collection.

 

[bagapath]

ikki... but this thread is about the most "complete" cricketer. if a batsman/bowler has been a total failure in a certain setup then he is ruled out. calling ponting the most complete batsman is like calling murali the most complete bowler. they both have failed miserably in a test playing nation apiece. they cannot be in the race.

and yes i mean "in" a certain country. being a complete cricketer must have some connection to succeeding in all conditions. right? compensating for a massive failure in one place with a massive success in another place makes you a successful cricketer; not a complete cricketer. look at sehwag for example. unless he does well in south africa his claim to greatness will always have a question mark above his head despite his triple against them in india. ponting's doubles against india cannot make up for his pathetic show on indian soil. leave him out ikki. he is a great cricketer. but his career is not going to look complete unless he fixes this in his resume.

 

[Ikki]

ikki... but this thread is about the most "complete" cricketer. if a batsman/bowler has been a total failure in a certain setup then he is ruled out. calling ponting the most complete batsman is like calling murali the most complete bowler. they both have failed miserably in a test playing nation apiece. they cannot be in the race.

and yes i mean "in" a certain country. being a complete cricketer must have some connection to succeeding in all conditions. right? compensating for a massive failure in one place with a massive success in another place makes you a successful cricketer; not a complete cricketer. look at sehwag for example. unless he does well in south africa his claim to greatness will always have a question mark above his head despite his triple against them in india. ponting's doubles against india cannot make up for his pathetic show on indian soil. leave him out ikki. he is a great cricketer. but his career is not going to look complete unless he fixes this in his resume.

If it was compensating with another team, I'd agree. Compensating against the same team, albeit either home or away, makes much more sense. To me, if you average less than 40, overall, against a team it is much worse and averaging above 35 both home and away but less than 40 - i.e. Tendulkar v S.Africa - doesn't change that. That means you were done both home and away. Whereas in Ponting's case failure is split in this regard. He averages 79 (!) against India at home in as many matches he averages 20 away - 47 overall. That is much more of a success IMO than Tendulkar's S.Africa. Tendulkar in neither case has been helpful whereas Ponting was at least in one.

Again, for me, Tendulkar can't be considered as complete as Ponting even as it is. Nevermind that his record against Pakistan was also comparable until 2004 - when Pakistan lost any semblance of a world class attack - to that of S.Africa. We'll never agree in this regard, which I why I suppose we let it be.

 

[Streetwise]

Tendulkar and Lara failed miserably as captains so they also cannot claim to have complete records, in reality there is no complete record.

 

[bagapath]

my point is... ponting is not the complete batsman we are looking for. if there is a batter who averaged above 35 both home and away, or make it 40 if you think i am tweaking it for tendy, against all the major test playing nations of his time then he is our man. may be border would come close to the requirement. or gavaskar. or one of the 3Ws. I dont know. I have to check their numbers. but i am sure no one with the first name of "ricky" would fit the bill though. if we keep the limit at 40 then no one called "sachin" would make it either. but it is important for a batsman to never fail in any condition to be "complete". no point in scoring well at home and failing abroad against a nation - like sehwag against SA or ponting against India. I dont think sachin failed against anyone anywhere. he had a blot in his home record against SA and he has set it right. ricky is far from breathing easy in india.

 

[Ikki]

my point is... ponting is not the complete batsman we are looking for. if there is a batter who averaged above 35 both home and away, or make it 40 if you think i am tweaking it for tendy, against all the major test playing nations of his time then he is our man. may be border would come close to the requirement. or gavaskar. or one of the 3Ws. no one with the first name of "ricky" would fit the bill though. if we keep the limit at 40 then no one called "sachi" would make it either. but it is important for a batsman to never fail in any condition to be "complete". no point in scoring well at home and failing abroad against a nation - like sehwag against SA or ponting against India.

If a batsman averages 36 away and at home, that is by your reckoning keeping him in "complete" terms. Yet, actually, that is indeed a failure both home and away. IMO, at least Ponting was imperious at least at home.

Tendulkar averages 38 overall against S.Africa; Ponting averages 47 against India. Ponting's lowest average against a country is 47, his second lowest England is 48. Tendulkar averages 38 against S.Africa and 42 against Pakistan.

 

[bagapath]

yeah. yeah. I know. but he cannot bat in india to save his life.

but mcgrath cannot be taken that lightly in any country. that is why he is more respected and called the most complete bowler. let ricky not evoke laughter on indian grounds then he will be called a complete batsman. no one laughs at glenn mcgrath anywhere.

 

[Streetwise]

If a batsman averages 36 away and at home, that is by your reckoning keeping him in "complete" terms. Yet, actually, that is indeed a failure both home and away. IMO, at least Ponting was imperious at least at home.

Tendulkar averages 38 overall against S.Africa; Ponting averages 47 against India. Ponting's lowest average against a country is 47, his second lowest England is 48. Tendulkar averages 38 against S.Africa and 42 against Pakistan.

\So if a batsman averages less than 40 against a team then he does not have a complete record, so only batsmen that have an average of over 40 against every team have a complete record. How many batsmen have an average of over 40 against every non minnow team.

 

[Ikki]

yeah. yeah. I know. but he cannot bat in india to save his life.

Neither could Tendulkar against S.Africa till last series (remember, he averaged 27 then).

but mcgrath cannot be taken that lightly in any country. that is why he is more respected and called the most complete bowler. let ricky not evoke laughter on indian grounds then he will be called a complete batsman. no one laughs at glenn mcgrath anywhere.

That's the problem, Ponting has had one very bad low; but many more highs than others can't match. Think of this: Ponting can very realistically end his career averaging 50+ against every test nation in the world. That's as complete as you get without being called "The Don".

Anyway, your statement is like saying Sobers is considered a laughing stock because he couldn't average above 15 in NZ (much worse than Ricky) and 24 overall (again, much much worse than Ricky).

 

[bagapath]

Neither could Tendulkar against S.Africa till last series (remember, he averaged 27 then).

but, unfortunately, not any more!!! he was a flop against SA at home. he has fixed it.

Anyway, your statement is like saying Sobers is considered a laughing stock because he couldn't average above 15 in NZ (much worse than Ricky) and 24 overall (again, much much worse than Ricky).

yes. sobers was a flop show in new zealand. no doubt about that.

 

[Streetwise]

Tendulkars record against SA in India is not all that flash.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

No batsman since wickets were covered or since helmets have been invented are 'complete' until they've proven that they can survive on a sticky or face fast bowlers without the relative safety of head protection.

Is scoring runs in Bangladesh, Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka more important than the circumstances above? I don't think so.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

If it was compensating with another team, I'd agree. Compensating against the same team, albeit either home or away, makes much more sense. To me, if you average less than 40, overall, against a team it is much worse and averaging above 35 both home and away but less than 40 - i.e. Tendulkar v S.Africa - doesn't change that. That means you were done both home and away. Whereas in Ponting's case failure is split in this regard. He averages 79 (!) against India at home in as many matches he averages 20 away - 47 overall. That is much more of a success IMO than Tendulkar's S.Africa. Tendulkar in neither case has been helpful whereas Ponting was at least in one.

Again, for me, Tendulkar can't be considered as complete as Ponting even as it is. Nevermind that his record against Pakistan was also comparable until 2004 - when Pakistan lost any semblance of a world class attack - to that of S.Africa. We'll never agree in this regard, which I why I suppose we let it be.

You keep trying to take cheap shots against Tendulkar and keep implying that he made runs only against weak attacks.

Let us get a few things straight -

Tendulkar did well against Walsh/Ambrose - Ponting filled his boots against the crappy WI attacks of the 00s - mention that as well.

Tendulkar didn't do all that great against W-W but he played his greatest tets innings with a sore back on a 5th day pitch - Ponting scored 2 ducks only time he faced them.

Now obviously Ponting didn't face Mcgrath/Warne so what great attack did Ponting score against that Tendulkar didn't ? You will probably say Donald-Pollock but then Ponting's average against Donald/Pollock is more or less the same as Tendulkar's against Mcgrath and Warne. As for going on implying that Tendulkar was a failure against SA, go tell that to Donald who considers him to be the best batsman he bowled to. Tendulkar has struck 3 sublime centuries against SA IN SA and averages almost 40 - an aberration he will likely correct by the end of this year. Ponting has looked nowhere near as assured in India.

 

[Ikki]

\So if a batsman averages less than 40 against a team then he does not have a complete record, so only batsmen that have an average of over 40 against every team have a complete record. How many batsmen have an average of over 40 against every non minnow team.

Not sure, I haven't looked at every batsman's record close enough. There wouldn't be many. Most fall one short: Tendulkar, Dravid, Kallis, Viv, Gavaskar and many more.

At the top of my head only Chappell, Ponting and Bradman I know to have done it. If you round-up Weekes gets in there. Walcott is there. Gotta search more I guess.

 

[bagapath]

how about jack hobbs? didnt he do well in test cricket for over 20 years playing in completely different circumstances with rule changes etc. and eras separated by a world war? and don bradman? and sir len hutton?

these batsmen overcame every challenge thrown at them during their long careers and came out on top.

i wonder who among postwar batsmen other than sachin tendulkar and allan border would have had either successful or satisfactory records against everyone everywhere. greg chappell would also come close but though he averaged 36 against NZ in austalia he never scored a hundred against them at home. I guess that would count against being called "complete"

 

[Ikki]

but, unfortunately, not any more!!! he was a flop against SA at home. he has fixed it.

Yes, but against a new and different attack. That's the point. He also "fixed" his Pakistan record - once the bowlers that kept him to a poor record retired. What kind of argument is that to demonstrate a complete record?

yes. sobers was a flop show in new zealand. no doubt about that.

Maybe you think so, but I'd hazard to bet that most people wouldn't write him off being a complete batsman totally because of it. Theoretically, a batsman can average 36 home and away against all test nations and be more complete than Sobers. It sounds daft when you put it that way.

You keep trying to take cheap shots against Tendulkar and keep implying that he made runs only against weak attacks.

No, that's not the implication at all. The implication is that only last year Tendulkar had a record arguably as worse as Ponting's (at home v SA) and only improved that once the bowlers that troubled him retired. So it makes his SA record look "complete" when his record against through throughout was anything but. The same goes for his record against Pakistan.

He has scored against quality bowlers, that is not the argument. The argument is did he score across them all consistently - in a way that pertains to the thread. To me he didn't.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Yes, but against a new and different attack. That's the point. He also "fixed" his Pakistan record - once the bowlers that kept him to a poor record retired. What kind of argument is that to demonstrate a complete record?



Maybe you think so, but I'd hazard to bet that most people wouldn't write him off being a complete batsman totally because of it. Theoretically, a batsman can average 36 home and away against all test nations and be more complete than Sobers. It sounds daft when you put it that way.



No, that's not the implication at all. The implication is that only last year Tendulkar had a record arguably as worse as Ponting's (at home v SA) and only improved that once the bowlers that troubled him retired. So it makes his SA record look "complete" when his record against through throughout was anything but. The same goes for his record against Pakistan.

He has scored against quality bowlers, that is not the argument. The argument is did he score across them all consistently - in a way that pertains to the thread. To me he didn't.

A complete record doesn't mean a better or more complete batsman.Who said it? I thought this was merely a statistical exercise.

 

[Ikki]

how about jack hobbs? didnt he do well in test cricket for over 20 years playing in completely different circumstances with rule changes etc. and eras separated by a world war? and don bradman? and sir len hutton?

these batsmen overcame every challenge thrown at them during their long careers and came out on top.

i wonder who among postwar batsmen other than sachin tendulkar and allan border would have had either successful or satisfactory records against everyone everywhere.

Yep, Hobbs also scored 40+ against every opponent. Tendulkar and Border didn't though.

You could say Sutcliffe did if you ignore his one and only test against India. Probably a few more.

A complete record doesn't mean a better or more complete batsman.Who said it? I thought this was merely a statistical exercise.

But complete in what terms? Not going below a certain level? There is also the other side of the coin: doing well against many more.

Which is why I bring up Davidson. He may have never gone below a certain average, but his SR (which is good for his time, it must be said) hardly compares to that of later bowlers like McGrath.

Again, if you agree with Bagapath's notion then you have to agree that even a batsman that averages 37 overall, who averages 37 against every opponent home and away, is by definition more complete than someone like Lara or Ponting.

Or Damien Martyn is more complete than him . The only instances he has less than 35 is 1 inning against Bang and 2 innings in UAE. If Dravid scores some runs in S.Africa he'll be alongside Tendulkar as "complete" as well. Sangakkara not far off either.

 

[bagapath]

It sounds daft when you put it that way.

not as daft as calling someone complete when he averages 20 in a country. look elsewhere dude. you cant sell ponting in this thread.

 

[bagapath]

Or Damien Martyn is more complete than him . The only instances he has less than 35 is 1 inning against Bang and 2 innings in UAE.

well.. there is someone who averages above 35 even if you include minnows.. guess who?