Alastair Cook vs Graham Gooch?

[BackFootPunch]

It just misses the cut, even with a big bonus for being a unique follow-on to victory ton. The biggest reason is that he had great support from Dravid, and even though the Aussie bowling looks amazing, it was in 2001 when only McGrath was near his peak.

His 167 comes in at #53 instead.

Why is having someone else playing a good/great knock alongside not seen as a positive thing? I mean I understand why you'd highly rate someone who genuinely plays a lone hand and does it all on their own. But building a partnership with someone else is just as impressive.

You said we may not be talking about that Lara knock if someone else had batted along with him but we definitely wouldn't be talking about Laxman if Dravid hadn't been there also. There's skill involved in building a partnership and dragging your team back from the brink together. Equally, whoever the other guy is, he's not the one scoring your runs. Doesn't matter who you've got down the other end, you've still got to score them all. So I don't get why Laxman's 281 is devalued, at all, by Dravid's presence. It was an immense innings.

 

[viriya]

Why is having someone else playing a good/great knock alongside not seen as a positive thing? I mean I understand why you'd highly rate someone who genuinely plays a lone hand and does it all on their own. But building a partnership with someone else is just as impressive.

You said we may not be talking about that Lara knock if someone else had batted along with him but we definitely wouldn't be talking about Laxman if Dravid hadn't been there also. There's skill involved in building a partnership and dragging your team back from the brink together. Equally, whoever the other guy is, he's not the one scoring your runs. Doesn't matter who you've got down the other end, you've still got to score them all. So I don't get why Laxman's 281 is devalued, at all, by Dravid's presence. It was an immense innings.

His 281 isn't devalued in terms of the sheer runs he scored, it's devalued in terms of the % of the team's runs and the fact that he had major support. Laxman and Dravid did it together like you said, and that's why Laxman doesn't get extra credit for the "lack of support" factor.

If you agree that Lara's 153* is one of the greatest innings you also have to agree that it's partly because he didn't have a lot of support. The same argument works negatively for Laxman.

 

[BackFootPunch]

His 281 isn't devalued in terms of the sheer runs he scored, it's devalued in terms of the % of the team's runs and the fact that he had major support. Laxman and Dravid did it together like you said, and that's why Laxman doesn't get extra credit for the "lack of support" factor.

If you agree that Lara's 153* is one of the greatest innings you also have to agree that it's partly because he didn't have a lot of support. The same argument works negatively for Laxman.

But where's the bonus for Laxman building a partnership that allowed them to make a comeback/win the game? If Dravid hadn't scored runs Laxman might have got 100* in a big loss. Surely it's more important that India were actually able to win the game than it is that Laxman had one other guy batting there with him?

 

[viriya]

But where's the bonus for Laxman building a partnership that allowed them to make a comeback/win the game? If Dravid hadn't scored runs Laxman might have got 100* in a big loss. Surely it's more important that India were actually able to win the game than it is that Laxman had one other guy batting there with him?

You forget that they didn't win them the game. Harbhajan did - Laxman + Dravid gave them a chance. This is all hindsight.

Also, yes if Dravid wasn't around Laxman might've gotten 100* in a loss, but then how is that a positive for Laxman? It's more a plus for Dravid for playing an underrated hand (no one really talks about his 180-odd).

 

[OverratedSanity]

It just misses the cut, even with a big bonus for being a unique follow-on to victory ton. The biggest reason is that he had great support from Dravid, and even though the Aussie bowling looks amazing, it was in 2001 when only McGrath was near his peak.

His 167 comes in at #53 instead.

Dwta.

 

[BackFootPunch]

You forget that they didn't win them the game. Harbhajan did - Laxman + Dravid gave them a chance. This is all hindsight.

Also, yes if Dravid wasn't around Laxman might've gotten 100* in a loss, but then how is that a positive for Laxman? It's more a plus for Dravid for playing an underrated hand (no one really talks about his 180-odd).

Right, so that's why Botham's 149* isn't in your Top 100 batting performances either then? That seems like a bias in your statistical model, you don't seem to rate innings that stave off defeat and allow the bowlers to do their job (and yes often the bowlers do an amazing job, like Harbhajan or Willis in the Kolkata & Headingley matches, respectively). Were it not for those runs being scored the bowlers wouldn't have had any runs to play with at all, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the batsmen didn't win them the game. The batsmen, in fact, had to stop them from losing the game first, before the team could even consider getting a win.

It's a positive for Laxman because working in a partnership is a major aspect of batting. It's hard to quantify but there's definitely something to it.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Let me get this straight.

Laxman's innings gets devalued because Dravid scored a 180 from the other end.

However if five other batsmen had scored 36 each from the other end instead of a Dravid masterpiece, Laxman's innings would have hit the stratosphere, despite there being no change in the inherent quality of his innings - simply because the statistical model now sees a "lack of support".

Do you see the problem here, viriya?

 

[Riggins]

No idea how that Mumbai ton isn't in the top 10 tbh.

Wasn't one of his 10 highest scores ever, so isn't one of his best 10 innings ever.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Right, so that's why Botham's 149* isn't in your Top 100 batting performances either then? That seems like a bias in your statistical model, you don't seem to rate innings that stave off defeat and allow the bowlers to do their job (and yes often the bowlers do an amazing job, like Harbhajan or Willis in the Kolkata & Headingley matches, respectively). Were it not for those runs being scored the bowlers wouldn't have had any runs to play with at all, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the batsmen didn't win them the game. The batsmen, in fact, had to stop them from losing the game first, before the team could even consider getting a win.

.

Very much Awta.

 

[Dan]

Wasn't one of his 10 highest scores ever, so isn't one of his best 10 innings ever.

For a guy with over 25 Test tons, it's mighty impressive that his 9th highest score ever is 34*.

 

[viriya]

Right, so that's why Botham's 149* isn't in your Top 100 batting performances either then? That seems like a bias in your statistical model, you don't seem to rate innings that stave off defeat and allow the bowlers to do their job (and yes often the bowlers do an amazing job, like Harbhajan or Willis in the Kolkata & Headingley matches, respectively). Were it not for those runs being scored the bowlers wouldn't have had any runs to play with at all, so it's disingenuous to suggest that the batsmen didn't win them the game. The batsmen, in fact, had to stop them from losing the game first, before the team could even consider getting a win.

It's a positive for Laxman because working in a partnership is a major aspect of batting. It's hard to quantify but there's definitely something to it.

I only brought up the fact that Harbhajan actually won the game to point out that it wasn't like a 4th innings run chase where the batsmen literally won them the game. Laxman already gets credit for making a significant contribution in a win - there is no "he didn't win it" factor. Botham's 149* also just misses the top 100.

 

[viriya]

Let me get this straight.

Laxman's innings gets devalued because Dravid scored a 180 from the other end.

However if five other batsmen had scored 36 each from the other end instead of a Dravid masterpiece, Laxman's innings would have hit the stratosphere, despite there being no change in the inherent quality of his innings - simply because the statistical model now sees a "lack of support".

Do you see the problem here, viriya?

I'm gonna answer this in a more relevant thread so as to not derail this thread any further:
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/62989-cricrate-new-cricket-ratings-website-22.html

 

[Furball]

Why are people taking virya's stupid rankings seriously?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Why are people taking virya's stupid rankings seriously?

I questioned the validity of it on 27th April last year and was given 5 points for it for harassing other members, so I guess viriya is someone else in disguise.

Anyway besides that, everyone is missing the obvious fact that Cook is morphing into Freddie Mercury.

 

[Days of Grace]

Why are people taking virya's stupid rankings seriously?

Let's just all agree that my ratings are the best.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Let's just all agree that my ratings are the best.

Not until you stop capping career points

 

[Dan]

CPL database imo

 

[Johan]

bump

 

[BazBall21]

Graham Gooch.

 

[ImpatientLime]

gooch possibly the better peak but can't ignore the fact that he was middling at best for so much of his career.

cook overall is clear.