Mahela Jayawardene

[Furball]

(Excluding BAN)

Ponting averages 50+, bur averages 39.5 in SC -> called "Legend"
Steve Waugh averages 50+, but 32.2 in SC -. Called legend
Pietersen averages 50+, on SC 34.6 -> not a "FTB"


MJ averages 50+, 36 out side SC -> FTB
Sam averages 50+, 38 outside SC -> FTB
Sehwag averages 50+, 36 outside SC -> FTB

See the hypocrisy?

No, because there isn't any.

And why would you exclude Bangladesh? They're on the subcontinent last I looked.

 

[miscer]

no point arguing man ive made this argument a million times. u'll hear some garbage about subcontinent pitches being so similar and so subcontinent batsmen having some unfair advantage. and then u'll hear crap about pitches being more sporting outside the subcontinent bla bla bla. u'll also hear crap about how more countries play outside the subcontinent and so a clear distinction can't be made. all these points are ridiculous because it's not like these "FTB's" all fail in every country outside the SC. (sehwag is great in AUS and WI. samaraweera has a high ave in NZ SAF and WI. Idk jayawardene's stats.)

and u would exclude bang because they have a piss poor attack. so either reduce their weight tremendously or exclude them.

are u serious? there is some serious hypocrisy. tell me who's better hussey or samaraweera? or hussey or jayawardene?

Hussey Eng 31
NZ 31
SAF 32
WI 22

is he a FTB?

Samaraweera
Aus 22
Eng 27
IND 24

that's it. he's succeeded everywhere else.

 

[Howe_zat]

(Excluding BAN)

Ponting averages 50+, bur averages 39.5 in SC -> called "Legend"
Steve Waugh averages 50+, but 32.2 in SC -. Called legend
Pietersen averages 50+, on SC 34.6 -> not a "FTB"


MJ averages 50+, 36 out side SC -> FTB
Sam averages 50+, 38 outside SC -> FTB
Sehwag averages 50+, 36 outside SC -> FTB

See the hypocrisy?

It's almost as if people have formed their opinions by watching cricket.

Who knows?

 

[Migara]

No, because there isn't any.

And why would you exclude Bangladesh? They're on the subcontinent last I looked.

Have excluded ZIM as well.

Now the minnows count when the numbers are not supporting the theory. Bua ha ha!

 

[Migara]

It's almost as if people have formed their opinions by watching cricket.

Who knows?

They have formed the opinions based on that spinning pitches are ****.

 

[Spark]

no point arguing man ive made this argument a million times. u'll hear some garbage about subcontinent pitches being so similar and so subcontinent batsmen having some unfair advantage. and then u'll hear crap about pitches being more sporting outside the subcontinent bla bla bla. u'll also hear crap about how more countries play outside the subcontinent and so a clear distinction can't be made. all these points are ridiculous because it's not like these "FTB's" all fail in every country outside the SC. (sehwag is great in AUS and WI. samaraweera has a high ave in NZ SAF and WI. Idk jayawardene's stats.)

and u would exclude bang because they have a piss poor attack. so either reduce their weight tremendously or exclude them.

are u serious? there is some serious hypocrisy. tell me who's better hussey or samaraweera? or hussey or jayawardene?

Hussey Eng 31
NZ 31
SAF 32
WI 22

is he a FTB?

Samaraweera
Aus 22
Eng 27
IND 24

that's it. he's succeeded everywhere else.

I've seen quite a few Aus fans say that Muss is an HTB/FTB tbh.

 

[weldone]

I have a genuine question by the way. I had heard the term 'FTB' first here in CW. Now, it is used elsewhere. Has the term really been coined here?

I am not talking about the argument that some people make merry on flat tracks. That argument is as old as the game, perhaps. But this specific term to describe it - 'FTB' - was it present before CW?

 

[Athlai]

I reckon Hussey doesn't get called out for his performances away because of his ODI exploits tbh. Averages 80 in NZ, 46 in SA and Eng 44.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I have a genuine question by the way. I had heard the term 'FTB' first here in CW. Now, it is used elsewhere. Has the term really been coined here?

I am not talking about the argument that some people make merry on flat tracks. That argument is as old as the game, perhaps. But this specific term to describe it - 'FTB' - was it present before CW?

Are you referring to the shortening of it - FTB - or the term "flat track bully"?

Pretty sure neither were coined here, really.

 

[Spikey]

I've seen quite a few Aus fans say that Muss is an HTB/FTB tbh.

Yeah, the performance in SA, and even in the NZ series, wasn't a shock. the SL 1st test was a shock tho

 

[Spark]

Yeah, the performance in SA, and even in the NZ series, wasn't a shock. the SL 1st test was a shock tho

He's a good player of spin when he wants to be, not that surprising. Good footwork, picks up the length quickly.

 

[Furball]

Have excluded ZIM as well.

Now the minnows count when the numbers are not supporting the theory. Bua ha ha!

What theory?

You're the clown who brought up players' records in the subcontinent. It's a bit dishonest to then exclude certain parts of that record based on what ever criteria you've pulled out of your arse.

 

[L Trumper]

(Excluding BAN)

Ponting averages 50+, bur averages 39.5 in SC -> called "Legend"
Steve Waugh averages 50+, but 32.2 in SC -. Called legend
Pietersen averages 50+, on SC 34.6 -> not a "FTB"


MJ averages 50+, 36 out side SC -> FTB
Sam averages 50+, 38 outside SC -> FTB
Sehwag averages 50+, 36 outside SC -> FTB

See the hypocrisy?

KP was poor in SL, Ponitng was poor in IND no one argues otherwise. Its good that you combined all that countries together, even though you know pitches in IND and SL are completely different to each other.

Bottom line is every pitch is different from other. You can pull stats in any which way, if you want to play a victim of a conspiracy of sorts, but if a batsman is great majority will recognize the greatness.

 

[Black_Warrior]

erm, inzamam was never troubled by donald. he performed very well against south africa in the 1990s and was unlucky not to be able to convert two 90s to hundreds. in the 2000s it were the likes of ntini and pollock that troubled inzamam more than others - and i cannot think of any reason apart from a lack of concentration to explain his failure against ntini. he also gifted his wicket away on a number of occasions - he was stumped thrice.

inzamam was a wee bit suspect against left arm seamers bringing the ball back in (his shuffle, specially later on in his career, became very pronounced) and that's about the only technical susceptibility you can levy at him. since he played the ball so late he generally had no trouble leaving stuff outside off. i remember mcgrath getting him a couple of times with balls that climbed on to him but those were the type of deliveries worse players than him wouldn't have been able to lay a bat on.

Statistically Donald only got him out once but Inzamam had issues with the South African pace attack in the 90s and yes you are right..he was troubled by Pollock and Ntini in 2002 series. His footwork was a bit suspect early on in his innings against the moving ball and at times he had this inexplicable tendency to not offer a shot against an incoming delivery. But I totally agree with you that his failures are due to lack of focus, determination and concentration. Otherwise a batsman of his ability should have scored more runs and more centuries. This is why I said that his record is unacceptable considering his potential and ability.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Why on earth would you want uniformity? Christ.

By uniformity I do not mean same pitches, I mean a similar standard..to have fairness..
There is a reason why you have to 'earn' test status and there is a reason why majority of people believe Bangladesh and Zimbabwe should not be playing test cricket..because they are not up to the standard.. Every time you compare players, you have to leave out Bangladesh and Zimbabwe..and then some great players tend to have a poor record in the handful of matches they played against them..and then you have someone calling out "why are you leaving them out''

It creates these problems because there is a huge difference between scoring against Bangladesh and scoring against Australia..a difference a bit too large..
To elaborate my point..say the current Indian bowling line up which is pretty weak compared to Australian bowling attack now..which is doing well..but the difference between them is not so large that you have to leave out India when comparing players records..
But the difference between BD and Australia is just too much to have a reasonable discussion.

Similarly, if certain pitches in the world are extremely easy to bat on, and certain pitches in the world are extremely difficult to bat on, then it becomes unfair to compare players..especially when Player A tends to play most of his cricket in the more difficult region and Player B tends to play most of his cricket in the easier region.

What I was talking about is slightly more uniformity..so you have batsmen being tested by pace/bounce/swing in places like England, Australia, South Africa and batsmen being tested by spin, bounce and turn in the subcontinent. Now some pitches in the subcontinent do offer that however there are a few places which have seen high scoring draws precisely because there was no challenge for the batsmen

Just to go back on Jayawardene, I know started this topic but my objective not to prove that he is a flat track bully. I do think he is a very very good batsman but here lies my argument. When someone scores over 10000 test runs, he should not just be a very very good batsman but a great batsman. But now what has happened is, because certain pitches do not provide the sufficient challenges to batsmen, we see very good batsmen like Jayawardene with 10000 test runs at 51.

GF made a good point, although perhaps in a different context. Anyone with over 10000 test runs is a great batsman..what I would add is a great batsman in my view should have a slightly better record in difficult conditions than the one that Jayawardene has.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But then batsmen A could play for six more years and be a worse batsman than Jayawardene, but still play enough games to make 10000 runs. It's more a product of the amount of cricket being played than what the supposed class of the batsmen is.

 

[Black_Warrior]

But then batsmen A could play for six more years and be a worse batsman than Jayawardene, but still play enough games to make 10000 runs. It's more a product of the amount of cricket being played than what the supposed class of the batsmen is.

But then you look at their averages...the more matches you play, the more difficult it is to maintain a higher average theoretically.

I'll elaborate with an example.
Inzamam and Jayawardene.
Jayawardene has more runs, more centuries and a higher average than Inzamam but I do not believe he is a better batsman than Inzamam..simply because I saw Inzamam score some difficult centuries against bowlers like Ambrose, Walsh, McGrath, Warne, Kumble, Muralitharan in difficult conditions..I haven't seen Jayawardene top that despite having more runs and centuries. But end of the day, he is the one with 10000 test runs and Inzamam has 8000. Ideally, the one with more runs at a higher average should be the greater batsman provided they played at the same time which they did.

 

[Migara]

Bah! square turners are "easy" conditions!

 

[amanuensis]

Bah! square turners are "easy" conditions!

Which wickets would these be & when did they start "turning square"?