Careers are similar enough that there is a lot of debate over who is better. My opinion is that openers are more valuable than middle-order batsmen unless the middle-order batsman is clearly better.all else being equal being defined how, debris? records and performances will never be equal, surely.
Average is not everything, of course, and there are other ways to judge a batsman. In this case, though, I actually do rate Gavaskar a more valuable player if entire careers are considered.fair enough. by that token, would gavaskar trump richards?
That sentence would actually have any meaning if you actually provided some little man.Welcome to the world of statistics, kid.
Hey man, an eye for an eye. If you take petty attacks at someone you should expect it back. Not here to make friends.Mate, this is not the way to be taken seriously around here.
fair enough. their averages were reasonably close and their careers coincided for the most part. in your estimation, is "more valuable" equivalent to "better"?Average is not everything, of course, and there are other ways to judge a batsman. In this case, though, I actually do rate Gavaskar a more valuable player if entire careers are considered.
+1hey man, an eye for an eye. If you take petty attacks at someone you should expect it back. Not here to make friends.
Zimbabwe needed Andy Flower more than Pakistan needed Inzy and Australia needed Hayden. Would you say he's better than both?I would term this on which country needed them more... So Inzy hands down, but Hayden is my favourite OZ player hands down.
Umm, I am inclined to say so regardless. Anyone who averaged 50+ through the 1990s has to be a damn good test batsmen.Zimbabwe needed Andy Flower more than Pakistan needed Inzy and Australia needed Hayden. Would you say he's better than both?
Oh yes, I was wrong about that. He must have had an awesome 2000 to finish with a career average of 51+ by the end of the year. Still inclined to rate him higher that Hayden and Inzamam.Not sure about Flower averaging 50 plus in the 90s. Think he averaged less than 45.
You can actually go further than that. Andy Flower was more important to Zimbabwe than Sachin Tendulkar was to India, considering the number of other great batsmen India had at the same time. Don't think I would rate him more highly as a batsman than Tendulkar, though.Oh yes, I was wrong about that. He must have had an awesome 2000 to finish with a career average of 51+ by the end of the year. Still inclined to rate him higher that Hayden and Inzamam.
fair enough. though the value to the side argument makes it a little too relative in my humble.Better is a really hard term to define. How do you actually judge that if not in value to the side? Richards was certainly more talented and had a higher peak. Also more fun to watch.