By when do you think India will become number one team in the World?

[vcs]

Na it's not equivalent. Any player can have poor skills, not every player can acquire top-of-the-range skills. You could argue that consistency over a career is in itself an important skill - and indeed it is. So ultimately it just comes down to whether or not you value consistency (across a career) or peak performance differently. I value the latter more...I see cricket as an art, you clearly see it as a science.

AWTA. For example, Zaheer > Srinath. The former played a vital role in India getting to No. 1 and staying there for a while (albeit in a stronger team), the latter did not. Similarly Anderson > Gough if he keeps it up for a couple more years and takes England to the top. Can't believe Marcuss is being pedantic over this minor point.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, it does tell us that, I didn't dispute it. I don't think Anderson should have played as many Tests as he has.

If you were comparing two bowlers at the end of their careers, who is better? The one who has a career average of 28 and it was steadily around that his whole career, or the one who averages 30, but averaged 36 for a few years and then 24 for the second half of his career?

Ryan Sidebottom averages about 28, but he played just one Test as a youngster, was picked at his peak, and discarded as soon as it was clear he wasn't hitting such heights again. Or Swann, he's averaging 27-28 IIRC, had he played the few years when Panesar was a regular, there's a fair chance this would be about 30-31. Would he then be a better bowler?

I guess what I'm saying is that a career average can tell us as much about whether a player was picked too early, kept too long etc as it does about how good they actually are/were.

And then you have players like Tendulkar who are picked young and maintain an amazing average. Something to be said for that, obviously.

Yeah, this is why longevity is so important, particularly if (like me) you put a lot more importance in a player's overall career than his peak.

The ultimate example is the hypothetical batsman who averages 70 over a 10-year career, then declines to a point where he's only going to average 50 for the next 10 years if he plays on. He'd definitely go down as the better player in my book if he played on, even though he'd average less, as he's still producing a positive output to his team by playing, and the change in career average wouldn't change the actual output of the previous 10 years. As long as you're performing to a better standard than the 12th man could, you're only adding to your resume even if your average is decreasing.

Anderson (who is the ***, I should add) may average more than Sidebottom but, as you say, that's comparing apples with oranges as Sidebottom wasn't forced to play outside his peak. Sidebottom's career is a sample size of his best (and only) 22 Tests and in that time he took 79 wickets at 28. Anderson's best period of 22 Tests was between May 14, 2009 and January 26, 2011 in which he took 96 wickets at 25. Recognising that isn't really prioritising peaks in that way that someone might if they preferred Botham to Imran, but it recognises that Anderson clearly has Sidebottom's career covered, particularly when you add in all those other Tests in which he was deemed good enough to play for his country and performed to a decent even if often underwhelming standard.

I don't consider myself a peak man at all; the DeusEx idea that cricket is only about achieving the highest level of skill possible and to hell with how useful you are to your team across your career seems absolutely absurd to me, but that doesn't mean I don't like to break down performances in time periods and acknowledge that players improve and decline. That Sidebottom wasn't selected outside of his peak doesn't make him a better player than Anderson, for example, as Anderson was of more use to England when he was blowing out his average than Sidebottom was when he wasn't playing at all, and he was more useful during his best 22 games (the entire length of Sidebottom's career) as well. It only really gets confusing when you compare a short career to a long one and the long one doesn't actually have a segment in it as good as the short one; then it's really a balancing act in deciding which was more useful.

 

[GIMH]

Good post EWS.

You forgot to add the following at the end:

Jimmeh is the ***.

Other than that, excellent. Bravo.

 

[Prince EWS]

Good post EWS.

You forgot to add the following at the end:

Jimmeh is the ***.

Other than that, excellent. Bravo.

Fixed.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't consider myself a peak man at all; the DeusEx idea that cricket is only about achieving the highest level of skill possible and to hell with how useful you are to your team across your career seems absolutely absurd to me, but that doesn't mean I don't like to break down performances in time periods and acknowledge that players improve and decline.

That's not what I said. The example was about two players who have essentially the same stats across their careers. In that case, then yes I would say the player who has achieved the higher peak (as long as its for a reasonable amount of time - in the example it was the second half of their career) is better. I'm assuming here the player who averaged 24 over the second half of their career has done so because they have developed better skills (e.g. an ability to swing the ball better, more pace, more accuracy etc. etc.).

I think your view on cricket is far too cerebral...it's like you could have two batsmen who have the exact same stats over their careers, yet one scores their runs with the full array of shots, and the other only ever scores runs off cover drives (i.e. they have no ability whatsoever to play the other strokes). Assuming both players would be of the exact same use to the team, according to you, then, both are equal. I'm sorry but I just don't think that's all there is to cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's not what I said. The example was about two players who have essentially the same stats across their careers. In that case, then yes I would say the player who has achieved the higher peak (as long as its for a reasonable amount of time - in the example it was the second half of their career) is better. I'm assuming here the player who averaged 24 over the second half of their career has done so because they have developed better skills (e.g. an ability to swing the ball better, more pace, more accuracy etc. etc.).

I think your view on cricket is far too cerebral...it's like you could have two batsmen who have the exact same stats over their careers, yet one scores their runs with the full array of shots, and the other only ever scores runs off cover drives (i.e. they have no ability whatsoever to play the other strokes). Assuming both players would be of the exact same use to the team, according to you, then, both are equal. I'm sorry but I just don't think that's all there is to cricket.

Yeah I still think what you're saying is absurd but I promised myself not to actually debate anything with you along time ago because I think you've been sent here from cricketing hell to spread myth and misunderstanding across the world, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Ruckus]

It's just comes to down to a difference of opinion mate. There's not much point in debating it anyway. You see cricket as some kind of elaborate mathematical exercise, I don't, and I guess that's where it ends.

 

[vcs]

PEWS nails it.

 

[Teja.]

I think your view on cricket is far too cerebral...it's like you could have two batsmen who have the exact same stats over their careers, yet one scores their runs with the full array of shots, and the other only ever scores runs off cover drives (i.e. they have no ability whatsoever to play the other strokes). Assuming both players would be of the exact same use to the team, according to you, then, both are equal. I'm sorry but I just don't think that's all there is to cricket.

Must say I disagree with this thoroughly.

 

[vcs]

Yeah, if they were of equal use to the team (assuming their teams were of comparable strength, they performed comparably against top opposition etc.) then by definition the two players are equal, no matter how they scored the runs (obviously not aesthetically). That was a strange post by DeusEx.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, if they were of equal use to the team (assuming their teams were of comparable strength, they performed comparably against top opposition etc.) then by definition the two players are equal, no matter how they scored the runs (obviously not aesthetically). That was a strange post by DeusEx.

Yeah they are equal in terms of stats, but they are not equal in terms of the skills they have. It just depends on whether you value skills or not. It's like even if Nadal achieves the same amount of GS's as Federer, I would still always rank Federer higher because imo he has a more complete/balanced game - Nadal's game is highly defensive and relies on athleticism/fitness which I don't rate as highly as the all-court stroke making expertise of Federer.

 

[Prince EWS]

From hell I tell you.

 

[vcs]

Yeah they are equal in terms of stats, but they are not equal in terms of the skills they have. It just depends on whether you value skills or not. It's like even if Nadal achieves the same amount of GS's as Federer, I would still always rank Federer higher because imo he has a more complete/balanced game - Nadal's game is highly defensive and relies on athleticism/fitness which I don't rate as highly as the all-court stroke making expertise of Federer.

I was just trying to pretend that tennis doesn't exist and you bring Federer/Nadal into it.

 

[silentstriker]

Don't worry tennis actually doesn't exist.

 

[honestbharani]

Probably because India has such a great attacking batting attack while bowling line ups throughout the other test teams are pretty low aside from South Africa and England

The bowling average of 30 odd should be taken in conjunction with the fact that our batting has generally put up big runs for us on most occassions.... So relatively speaking, that is actually a pretty decent bowling average..

 

[Bun]

PEWS do you believe someone like Gilchrist actually benefitted from debuting at the start of his peak period? I mean had he debuted at say 21, would he have had such good records he ended up with in test cricket with the bat?

 

[Bun]

Yes , it is a funny joke. but please some body will tell me why they are not playing in Srilankan Premier League 2011 ??? . well i think they are jealous from Srilanka Premier League ( SLPL ) . But Srilankans play many times in Indian Premier League . But Indian don't want to play in SLPL 2011 because they did not want to promote Srilankan Premier League . i think the Srilankan's also stop playing for Indian Premier League (IPL) . visit SriLanka Premier League 2011

Heh...

 

[vcs]

PEWS do you believe someone like Gilchrist actually benefitted from debuting at the start of his peak period? I mean had he debuted at say 21, would he have had such good records he ended up with in test cricket with the bat?

He also played on well past his best. I actually think his average underrates him.

 

[Top_Cat]

PEWS do you believe someone like Gilchrist actually benefitted from debuting at the start of his peak period? I mean had he debuted at say 21, would he have had such good records he ended up with in test cricket with the bat?

Possibly a better record. Gilchrist always scored quickly but back then more more likely to hit the gaps than smash zacks every ball. Has always been a bloke who could get on a roll and string together a series of big scores too and, years before he actually got picked for Australia, was one of WA's grittiest and most competitive players. Really, his batting was what got him in the WA side when he moved from NSW because his keeping wasn't anywhere near good enough to knock Emery or Zoehrer out. His 'keeping only had to be mildly good because Zoehrer was a **** and WA were dying to get rid of him*.

Makes a dangerous player in anyone's language. Might not have lit up as quickly as he did but his history suggests he'd have adjusted fairly quickly if picked earlier. Once he smashed the bejeesus out of SA for 189*, that's when everyone took notice (especially since it was in a Shield final). Then, once the attention focussed in on him, he got better. That factor alone generally marks anyone as a player to watch.

*source:

EDIT: Yes I've read it and yes I still own it. In my defence, it was $2 in a 2nd hand bookstore somewhere. Was an entertaining read if nothing else, especially for the chapters on the 'conspiracy' to boot him from WA and for doing his part for India-Australia relations in the tied Test.

 

[Furball]

That's not what I said. The example was about two players who have essentially the same stats across their careers. In that case, then yes I would say the player who has achieved the higher peak (as long as its for a reasonable amount of time - in the example it was the second half of their career) is better. I'm assuming here the player who averaged 24 over the second half of their career has done so because they have developed better skills (e.g. an ability to swing the ball better, more pace, more accuracy etc. etc.).

I think your view on cricket is far too cerebral...it's like you could have two batsmen who have the exact same stats over their careers, yet one scores their runs with the full array of shots, and the other only ever scores runs off cover drives (i.e. they have no ability whatsoever to play the other strokes). Assuming both players would be of the exact same use to the team, according to you, then, both are equal. I'm sorry but I just don't think that's all there is to cricket.

Batsman A in your hypothetical would definitely be more fondly remembered but at the end of the day batting is about scoring as many runs as you can. How you score those runs isn't particularly important.

When you score your runs is also important