Depends what you're actually measuring. The former player has IMO actually batted better and has been unlucky to run out of partners, while the latter player has obviously had more of an impact on the matches he's played (not for the fault of the former player).
Red inks = not outs.
Consistency v regularity of big scores.
impact will have to be seen in the context of the match. Might be the 100s might be made on a road in drawn matches and the 50s made on a minefield with teams getting out in less than 200.
Yeah, I'm obviously assuming all other things are equal in that hypothetical comparison.
Agrred. Usually not-outs are taken as negatives for a batsman just because they boost the average.
Well if anything I actually think they lower the average in many cases. For most batsmen, it's a lot easier to play when set than right at the start of your innings, so having to basically re-start your innings against a different set of bowlers on a different pitch etc is a disadvantage to your average.
Well.. I am not really into the Imran Vs Kapil debate... I was making a more general point. Reg. Kapil Vs Imran as batters, once again, while Imran may have got more 100s and a better average or whatever, it is important to remember the circumstances when the runs were made. Sometimes, as with the Laxman Samaraveera example, the context of the runs matter too.
well... if you are running oout of partners, u shud have accelerated earlier... 50 is amazingly low even if you are bating at 7 or 8.. But all this s so hypothetical..
No, my point is not incorrect as I was not referring to Imran Vs Kapil.
With a Pak batting line-up it is not that simple. And at any rate batting with the tail is never easy. And how is 50 amazingly low at number 8????well... if you are running oout of partners, u shud have accelerated earlier... 50 is amazingly low even if you are bating at 7 or 8.. But all this s so hypothetical..
imran was a world class allrounder; he could even be called the best ever - which automatically means he was a good batsman too. i understand this fact, so i am not running him down here. all that i am trying to underline is that he did not turn matches around with the bat as many times as kapil. i could not think of anything he did as a batsman that could match the kapil knocks i had listed before. we should try to look at the impact a player has on a game rather than rely on stats to assess people.
I just counted a few off the top of my head as i mentioned in my earlier post. They may not have matched Kapil's innings in terms of impact but to say that they had no impact on the game or that he had close to zero innings that had an impact on the game is a little harsh IMO and a little misleading (especially a few match saving knocks are there that I can recall top of mind, which I mentioned earlier).
And it is also that Kapil found himself in a lot many situations where India were in trouble compared to Imran. Under Imran Pakistan were easily in the top 3 of the world and gave the best of that time a real run for their money. So it is also that a lot of times that Imran did come in to bat, the team was not really in that much trouble.
Yes, but should a few innings outweigh a career's worth of runs on Imran's part? Not so IMO. Simply put, I'd rather Kapil had fewer memorable knocks if his away record was much better. It's really not even comparable to Imran's. People keep pointing to a few knocks as if that makes up the difference; it doesn't IMO.
Not if the rest of the time, the guy was junk with the bat. But Kapil wasn't. Imran was slightly better on his off days than Kapil was on his off days. But Kapil did so much more on HIS days as a batsman more often than Imran did.
I am not sure how you quantify the first part. What are the "on" days? When they scored 100s or 50s? Because that occurred with the same frequency for both batsmen. If anything with batsmen like these, it is their "off" days that make up a large majority of their careers and Imran was far more consistent.