-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
West Indies vs Australia
- Thread starter salman85
- Start date
salman85
International Debutant
I can see where you're coming from,but i think excluding Martyn from an Australian side is easier than excluding Walsh from a WI side.Shifting away from the 1980s and 2000s,Martyn does not rank alongside the greatest cricketers Australia has ever produced,while Walsh has a very strong case to be up there alongside the greatest players WI has produced.The difference between Ambrose and Walsh is smaller compared to the difference between Martyn and 'junior'.
Last edited:
throw in the minnow factor as well, it reduces even more , doesn't it ?
no, it doesn't. Have you even seen cricket before the 2000s ?
You don't think in matches like these when there is movement in the first session, an opener who can see off the new ball isn't more useful ?
2nd Test: India v South Africa at Ahmedabad, Apr 3-5, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st Test: India v New Zealand at Mohali, Oct 10-14, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
if you want to avoid ambrose, then roberts is a stronger candidate to lead the attack along with holding, marshall and garner.
@ikki! WI ODI XI would be the same as the test xi because that is how international teams played both versions with the same line line-up those days.
salman85
International Debutant
I disagree.Ambrose is a superior bowler than Walsh,though i don't think the difference between them is huge.Speaking strictly in terms of 80s however,Walsh deserves a nod ahead of Ambrose.
But shifting away from the 1980s and 2000s,Ambrose will most definiatley make a West Indies All-Time 11 ahead of Walsh,but if we ignore Ambrose,then Walsh has to be ahead of Roberts in the pecking order.
But shifting away from the 1980s and 2000s,Ambrose will most definiatley make a West Indies All-Time 11 ahead of Walsh,but if we ignore Ambrose,then Walsh has to be ahead of Roberts in the pecking order.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I've already excluded minnows. Otherwise the difference would be like 7 points on average.
It always is. It is scoring more runs in less time. Whilst time is not always a problem in Test cricket, as a rule the more time you have to bat the more runs you can score and the more time your bowlers have to bowl the opposition out. "Seeing the ball off" is an archaic tactic which in the days when teams settled for draws it was fine. Now you have players taking the initiative from the get-go and putting pressure on the opposition. Disregard the quality of attacks or pitches and look at runs and SR; who would you have, Gavaskar or Sehwag? What is better? A player that eats up balls and scores relatively few runs or a player that is scoring more runs whilst taking the shine off the ball in the process. So if you go on the field with every intention to win; then SR matters.no, it doesn't. Have you even seen cricket before the 2000s ?
You don't think in matches like these when there is movement in the first session, an opener who can see off the new ball isn't more useful ?
2nd Test: India v South Africa at Ahmedabad, Apr 3-5, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
1st Test: India v New Zealand at Mohali, Oct 10-14, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo
The team collapses you are illustrating are irrelevant and can hardly be cited as proof. Being crap and getting out for <100 has little to do with not seeing off the ball.
Last edited:
bagapath
International Captain
I disagree salman. roberts was to the windies pacers what allan border was to the new generation of aussie cricketers. he literally set the pace for the bowlers to bowl at. developed different kind of deliveries and passed on the knowledge to younger bowlers. he was the automatic choice to take the new ball as long as he was around. garner, croft and marshall owe a lot to him for showing them the way. (and of course, i love walsh too
)
Mike5181
International Captain
Yeah, most people would i guess.
no, it isn't. The overall difference in actual records is ~ 6.
If we remove minnows from haydos' overall record, its ~4. If we compensate for the home away skew, it reduces furher
all this just goes to show is you have hardly seen any cricket before the 2000s. How are the examples I provided irrelevant ? If someone in the top order had stuck around, on both occasions, Ind would not in that much of trouble ......The pitches flattened out pretty quickly .
Seeing the new ball off is NOT an archaic tactic. You need to do it when the conditions are tough [or you have to be absolutely brilliant and take on the bowling if you have the skill ( but that is not 30 off 40 balls , you need to score more ) ]
@ bold part, why the hell should we disregard the pitches and attacks ?
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Hell no. Seeing off the new ball is not an archaic tactic by any means. Ask the Pakistan batting line-up. Heck ask even the English or Aussie line-up when they had to face Amir and Asif with the new ball in England.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
No, that's different. There is a difference when the new ball bowlers are bowling extremely well and you have to take caution than when you see off 50 balls as a matter of routine simply because you are the opener. In fact, when any bowler is bowling well and the conditions are helping them there should be a modicum of sense. But again, I am referring to batsmen that merely see the shine off the ball as if it helps them. For me, such a batsman has less ability than the one who is scoring the same or more with less balls used as well.
yeah, none of the teams could do anything much ( minus trott ) In such conditions trott > sehwag .
How much would the teams want to have a gavaskar or a boycott in that situation ?
Last edited:
so , you'd rather have a batsman who's seen off 'half' the danger scoring 5 more runs rather than a batsman who's seen off the 'full' danger ?
Imagine Waqar/Wasim are on a roll with the new ball . Would you rather have someone survive them fully or just score 5 more at a much faster rate, but expose the rest of the batsmen to their hostile bowling ?
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Nope. I've already removed minnows. 50.62 is his average in 00s without minnows and adjusted so he has played the same amount away and at home. 52.42 is the figure with minnows included. Greenidge's adjusted figure is 45.42. So he is 5.2 runs less than Hayden with minnows excluded. With minnows included, the difference is exactly 7.
I grew up watching cricket in the 90s and whilst I can appreciate a time when bowlers were not only skilled but the pitches suited them; it had also become the fashion to be conservative almost regardless of what was going. Again, 30 off 40 is better than 25 off 80. If team collapses happened in the difference of 40 balls as you are illustrating here, I could agree with you. But they don't happen because an opener didn't see off 20-30 more balls. That is absurd. You are in essence trying to paint that the only way you can help others in the line-up is by eating up balls. How about debilitating the bowlers that they'll have to face whilst putting runs on the board? How about giving them more time to bat if they need to?
When I said "disregard pitches and bowlers" I meant of their own respective eras. I don't want you to compare Gavaskar and Sehwag exactly as they are but the types of batsmen they are. If all else were equal, and they were facing the same bowling, would you rather Gavaskar-like batsman or Sehwag-like batsman?
Where do you come up with your figures? How does it halve the danger by seeing off twice as many balls? As if the danger of bowlers or pitch help can be halved just like that. It may, at best, take the shine off the ball to slow it down a few kph but it isn't going to "halve the danger". That doesn't even make sense.so , you'd rather have a batsman who's seen off 'half' the danger scoring 5 more runs rather than a batsman who's seen off the 'full' danger ?
Imagine Waqar/Wasim are on a roll with the new ball . Would you rather have someone survive them fully or just score 5 more at a much faster rate, but expose the rest of the batsmen to their hostile bowling ?
If the Ws are bowling I'd want to score as much runs as possible so it is always 30 off 40 > 25 off 80. Of course, we are assuming both get out at these scores otherwise the comparison is irrelevant. Even if the opener scored the same amount of runs but at twice the speed I'd rather him. This is what I mean by archaic: if you have the ability to score faster but don't through some belief that by halving your SR you may help your other batsmen. I'd rather 50 off 67 than 50 off 150. And before you say that is a different comparison; that is only 27 balls more faced at the same SR. So if you'd also pick 50 off 67, you are essentially saying the difference of 27 balls is what saves a batting collapse.
Last edited:
why should we completely disregard hayden's record before 2001 ?
No, its not. See the above 2 examples , even the first test of the Ind-Sa series in SA
As far as putting the bowlers on the back-foot by taking them to the attack is concerned, yes, that is correct, but you'd have to rack up a significant enough score for that
It'd depend on the opposition, conditions etc . If the bowling were a quality attack on a tough track, I'd chose gavaskar, if it is quality attack on an easy track, I'd go with sehwag etc etc
150-67 != 27
When I said seeing off half the danger, I mean the no of balls for which a bowler/bowlers were bowling very well ... its just an example
@ bold part: really now ? you are not even taking into consideration that the batsman could see of the Ws spell and then score off or allow the others to score of inferior bowling ?
Its not black and white in the first innings of a test ( and obviously while saving a test, surviving more balls is usually more useful than scoring runs ) ... This is one area where the averages of a greenidge take a hit when compared to that of a hayden or that of gavaskar when compared to a sehwag
P.S. Agree with the 'fashion' bit, but I didn't say just seeing off the new ball is always better, did I ? I only said it is better at times ( in response to your statment that scoring at a faster rate is always better ! )
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
agree with abmk here. You have to see off the good bowlers and try to take runs off the lesser bowlers. One of the basics of competitive cricket really. In test cricket I don't see why a batsman with a high SR is always necessarily better than a batsman with a low SR given the fact that there is an infinite amount of deliveries to be bowled (theoretically speaking).
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
It disregards his series in the 90s...you know, since we are talking about Hayden's record in the weak era his crap series in the 90s have nothing to do with weaker bowlers and flatter pitches.
Answer this question: would you rather have 50 off 67 or 50 off 150?
And I find it ironic that you are saying you need to bat long enough to dent the bowlers' confidence (not that I disagree) yet you think the difference of 40 balls halves the danger for the rest of the line-up face. I think you are crediting one approach with more effect than it actually carries.
You misunderstood the question. If the two batsmen grew up on the same pitches and have compiled their records on the same pitches, would you rather have a Gavaskar-like batsman or a Sehwag-like batsman? Essentially the same question as the above. Stop assuming that the slower batsman automatically scores more runs or is more successful if the attack is tougher. Consider them both facing the Windies quartet for all their careers and they have the same average but one is more than twice as fast at scoring those same amount of runs. Who do you want?
You misunderstood my point.
I said if you pick the batsman that scores 50 in 67 over the the batsman that scores 50 in 150, yet you would have picked 25 in 80 over 30 in 40; you are essentially changing your mind based on 27 balls. Because 67-40=27.
And that's the problem; it doesn't halve the danger. Not even close. You cannot possibly attribute the kinds of batting collapses you've cited because one batsman stayed at the crease for 40s ball longer.
Your point regarding the seeing off bowlers and scoring more later is what I was referring to when I said "Of course, we are assuming both get out at these scores otherwise the comparison is irrelevant."
If you are assuming 30/40 batsman gets out because he hasn't seen off the ball and the 25/80 bowler stays on more and increases his rate...then the comparison is irrelevant. You have essentially handicapped one and given the other all the benefit of doubt. What more 25/80 no longer represents his true SR, or avg. If you are arguing that he'd go onto score 60/120 for example, then 60/120 > 30/40 no question, so that's not the point.
If the 30/40 batsman keeps batting he will not only see off the danger, he will be putting his team in an imperious position. Hence my original position that scoring the same amount but doing it faster is always better. But that is predicated on the assumption that both batsmen are scoring the same or similar amount.
Last edited:
yeah, ok ...so on that basis of comparison, we agree that the difference in those 2 records ( gordon's career and haydos in the 2000s ) is lesser than what the difference of ~6 suggests , how much we can't say exactly , right ? Now factor in hayden's record in the 90s ( no need to make 'adjustments' here ) , the difference reduces further.... get it ?
fine, fair enough, we'll assume the slower batsmen sees off the danger, but gets out, the other batsmen scores a quick cameo, but doesn't survive the tough patch .. my point stands. Surviving tough conditions is of more importance there than say an extra 5-10 runs ..
Again, how is it always better ?????? It is better only if he carries on, otherwise it is not. I don't see what is so complicated about this !
Even then, its not black and white. Like I said how the innings were compiled, what effect they have on the rest of the team etc ... There are many factors. Cricket is not merely stats. You have to see the situation ....
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I had already used the 90s stats as well. IIRC the difference went from 7 to 3-4. But, really, you've used every possibly quantifier (some even unfairly) and yet the difference remains. To go back to the original discussion; I think Hayden is better - slightly - but enough so. I objected to the inference that Greenidge had it so tough and Hayden easy.
Because scoring 30 runs is always better than scoring 25 runs. I think that's as simple as it gets. If he does it faster, even better.
The essential comparison is between two players who are equal in every way and have scored the same exact runs against the same opponents, in the same matches, etc, but one scores 2-3 times faster. He is always more beneficial unless you are trying to draw a match on purpose. We've had this discussion a few times on CC and I haven't been convinced by an argument of batting slower, over faster, in the cause of a win.
But it's not IMO; it is that black and white. If you are talking about conditions of the match then it no longer is about SR; it is about the ability to score runs in a certain condition (i.e. swinging). But if you want to equate it again you ask: is a batsman who can play great swing bowling yet scores 2-3 times as another batsman who scores the same amount better or worse? Meaning, whatever scenario you can think of; do not automatically assume one scoring slower means that batsman is going to score more. Because you have automatically given one a higher average in that scenario and the whole benefit of the faster scorer is that he is going to have the same average (or output)...just faster.
No matter what situation; let's say it is 4/50 and the team is in trouble. The question should be framed as: in this situation; 50 off 67 better or 50 off 150? Don't even assume that the other batsmen will score more or less because who knows what their reaction could be. They may take to dominating alongside their partner or go into a shell like them; or the opposite of those where they may take less risk because their partner is already doing it or take more because their partner is incapable of it. The longer innings is better is if you want to draw the match. If you still want to win it; the quicker you score runs the more time you give yourself to do it - regardless if it is day 3 of day 5. If it only buys you 30 minutes, then 30 minutes is still better than 0.
Last edited: