-
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.
DoG's Test Innings and Bowling Performances. Updates thread.
- Thread starter Days of Grace
- Start date
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well, the 281 was clearly the superior knock, so I don't see why?
One Dravid innings which probably won't be ranked high is the 148 he got at Headingley 2002. The conditions on day 1 were ridiculously difficult to bat in and because Bangar (of all people) was able to hang around, and Tendulkar and Ganguly smashed around the English attack the next day when the sun came out, it looks like a typical hundred on a flat pitch against a mediocre attack. Such a great knock in reality, though. EVen the most intricate statistical ranking won't capture how good innings of those kind really were.
One Dravid innings which probably won't be ranked high is the 148 he got at Headingley 2002. The conditions on day 1 were ridiculously difficult to bat in and because Bangar (of all people) was able to hang around, and Tendulkar and Ganguly smashed around the English attack the next day when the sun came out, it looks like a typical hundred on a flat pitch against a mediocre attack. Such a great knock in reality, though. EVen the most intricate statistical ranking won't capture how good innings of those kind really were.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
You are pointing out the problem with cricket statistics in general here... Stats are a measure of how a particular player fared as part of a certain team in certain conditions against a given opposition. We always assume that stats even out over a decent period of time and then try to generalize and compare them to draw our conclusions. But honestly, I have often felt that while overall, it gives a decent representation (a batsman averaging 30 is almost always not as good as one averaging 40) it is really really very difficult to draw GOAT type conclusions based on cricket stats because the game has so many more variables compared to some of the other sports I follow, that the stats, beyond a point, can become almost pointless in debating the quality of players.
watson
Banned
Colin McDonald is a case in point. From 1952 to 1961 he played 47 Tests and faced the likes of Trueman, Statham, Laker, Adcock, Heine, Tayfield, Hall, Ramadhin, and Valentine with few difficulties. Consequently he should be remembered as of Australia's greatest opening batsman.
Unfortunately he had a poor final series against England before he retired which pushed his average down from the 40s to finish at 39.33. This 0.7 difference seems to make all the psychological difference so that while openers like Simpson and Lawry get discussed often, McDonald doesn't.
The major black mark against McDonald's name, and the reason that he didn't average 50, is that he didn't convert the majority of his starts into big hundreds (50s = 17, 100s = 5, Top Score = 170), However, there would be numerous Australian middle-order batsman who would be very grateful for his half-century against some of crickets greatest new ball fast bowlers. McDonald's reputation for being 'courageous' was well earned.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Yeah, I did not much about McDonald but from what you said, it is something that happens way too often these days with cricket fans... but my biggest pet peeve is this idea that a team of 4 fast bowlers will automatically do better than a team with 3 seamers and a spinner, just because they have lesser bowling averages. Cricket does not work that way... All you needed to do was watch that stupid Super Series. Even I was excited at first by that idea, but as I saw the games, I realized how big it is to be able to play as part of a team and be able to do defined roles, even if you have ATG stats.
Last edited:
Spark
Global Moderator
Absolutely spot on IMO.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Similar story with Kim Hughes. He had back to back home and away series against the West Indies at the end of his career which dipped his average below 40. That, and how he ended his captaincy reign always detract from how he's viewed. Jeez he could bat.
Days of Grace
International Captain
AM Rahane 103 England Lord's 2014 12.85
AM Rahane 147 Australia Melbourne 2014 9.94
AM Rahane 118 New Zealand Wellington 2014 7.94
I do agree that a consistent batsman more worth to a team. But I am curious by what measure do you find Lara/Sanga inconsistent & Sachin/Waugh as consistent?
I too felt similarly about Lara. But I wonder if it is more of a perception thing or if there is more to it.
I generally use the frequency with which a batsman scores 50+ runs as a measure of consistency. Using this measure the difference between the above players doesn't appear that significant.
Lara has 82 50+ scores in his 232 innings (he reaches 50 once every 2.83 innings).
Sachin has 119 50+ scores in his 329 innings (he reaches 50 once every 2.77 innings).
If Sachin had batted as many times as Lara did (232 innings), he would have had a maximum of 2 more 50+ scores than Lara did. He would have had 84 50+ scores as opposed to Lara's 82.
Interestingly Sanga, as of now, has significantly better consistency rate than both Sachin & Lara (reaches 50 every 2.53 innings)
Waugh has the worst, but his batting bloomed when he was much deeper into his Test career.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Thanks. Is it possible to find out where that sits among all innings by all batsmen within the first 7 test matches in their career?
Days of Grace
International Captain
No, because I do this all manually.
Looking to collaborate with someone who can code scorecards and somehow get my formula to go across every test in history, ITBT.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
PEWS is your man IMO.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
I'm not asking for Darvid's innings to be rated higher, so I don't don't see how your statement is relevant in the slightest.
Put simply, Dravid's knock wasn't 40 ranking spots inferior to Laxman's. I can only assume his knock ranked so low because of the flawed 'someone else played a comparable knock in the same innings' penalty that all these ranking systems are beset with.
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There are only 40 innings out of the 700 billion ever played in history between the two innings. 40 is a minuscule difference in terms of position in such lists.
Last edited:
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Just noticed something about the list. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't have a single knock from the 4th innings in a losing cause. Now, I do understand that there should be a modifier factoring in that a batsman failed to get the team over the line (relative to one that did), but I still expected atleast one of maybe Gavaskar's 96 or Randall's 174 in the Centenary test or Tendulkar's 136 or the Kohli knock at Adelaide, or even that Bevan Congdon hundred vs England.
Don't want you to change anything in the methodology again and again, but what's the difference in the modifier for an innings which saved/won the match against one that fell just short. Might explain why Gavaskar's 221 is so high and the 96 is nowhere to be seen.
Don't want you to change anything in the methodology again and again, but what's the difference in the modifier for an innings which saved/won the match against one that fell just short. Might explain why Gavaskar's 221 is so high and the 96 is nowhere to be seen.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Ya I think in such cases losing margin should be a factor. A 150 in the 4th innings should not be rated highly if your team lost by 100+ runs; but it should definitely be rated highly if your team lost by just 8 runs. Of course, winning the match in the end should contribute much more though.
watson
Banned
For starters, Dravid could never played Laxman's innings in the first place as only Laxman could have demolished Warne that day like Laxman.
If Dravid was at No.3 then his passive technique would have enabled the Australian bowlers to maintain both inititive and pressure. But Laxman taking on McGrath, and Warne especially, made an Indian win a distinct possibility. Seen in that context Laxman's innings was miles ahead of Dravid's.
It's the difference between a genius and someone who is merely great.
Last edited:
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
Ya, plus if Dravid scores a 180 and noone else scores a big daddy hundred then there's no chance in hell that India win the match from such a situation. On 5th day, the situation was somewhat tight mind you (Harbhajan and Tendulkar bowled well to win us the game - if Indian lead was smaller we wouldn't have won the game).
Days of Grace
International Captain
Partnership runs are factored into a player's rating, so if you take out the massive partnership that Dravid had with Laxman, his rating would suffer. And who would he have had a partnership with if not Laxman? Therefore, it's impossible to give Dravid's innings a rating without Laxman's innings.