lara vs tendulkar

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Maybe. You are assuming player 1 is good enough to play for the entire duration of those 10 years. Tendulkar definitely was not for his last two years and falls in my estimation as a result.

Viv is an interesting case. He averaged 60 for half his career and 40 for the other half, and was good enough for his entire career.

If player 1 played just 10yrs and finished with career avg of 60
And player 2 played 15 yrs and finished with career avg of 50, but he avgd 60 in a stretch of 10 yrs.
In that case, player 2 should be rated at least equal to player 1.

Player 2 was bad for 5yrs. Ok, but player1 played zero matches in those 5yrs.
Longevity gets positive points, dont use it for punishing.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not when even after removing parts of a career, the remainder is still literally the longest career of all time.

Is it not a pretty incredible feat that this "peak" was longer than the careers of most batsmen that have ever played cricket.

This is true, Sachin's ability to play at that level for as long as he did shows how good he was. That said, you're naturally still introducing bias. In this case, I don't think it changes much but.

 

[Bolo]

If player 1 played just 10yrs and finished with career avg of 60
And player 2 played 15 yrs and finished with career avg of 50, but he avgd 60 in a stretch of 10 yrs.
In that case, player 2 should be rated at least equal to player 1.

Player 2 was bad for 5yrs. Ok, but player1 played zero matches in those 5yrs.
Longevity gets positive points, dont use it for punishing.

You only get points for longevity if you are an asset to your team. Take a spot and prevent a good player from playing and you are a liability and should be treated accordingly.

Your logic dictates that a player who plays for 40 years and averages 25 deserves some consideration. This is the worst player of all time. Negative points for longevity.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Your logic dictates that a player who plays for 40 years and averages 25 deserves some consideration.

Definitely not his logic at all

 

[Bolo]

Definitely not his logic at all

"Ok, but player1 played zero matches in those 5yrs.
Longevity gets positive points, dont use it for punishing."

Its an oversimplification, but it's an extension of the logic followed

 

[Coronis]

You only get points for longevity if you are an asset to your team. Take a spot and prevent a good player from playing and you are a liability and should be treated accordingly.

Your logic dictates that a player who plays for 40 years and averages 25 deserves some consideration. This is the worst player of all time. Negative points for longevity.

Poor Rhodes.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

You only get points for longevity if you are an asset to your team. Take a spot and prevent a good player from playing and you are a liability and should be treated accordingly.

Your logic dictates that a player who plays for 40 years and averages 25 deserves some consideration. This is the worst player of all time. Negative points for longevity.

He can still be an asset to a team like bangladesh. If he is a liability, its the fault of selectors.

 

[_00_deathscar]

He can still be an asset to a team like bangladesh. If he is a liability, its the fault of selectors.

And maybe the players scheduled to come in just aren't very good? It wasn't like Sachin was keeping out Kohli from the side...

 

[OverratedSanity]

And maybe the players scheduled to come in just aren't very good? It wasn't like Sachin was keeping out Kohli from the side...

Him hanging on prevented Rahane from playing at home that season. Which turned out to be a good thing, really.

 

[Bolo]

He averaged in the 20s over his last couple of years. He was keeping someone better out, whoever it was

 

[vcs]

He really should have seen the writing on the wall after the NZ series at home in 2012 where he was owned by Boult, Bracewell etc. (got bowled on a couple of occasions), and retired after that series. Maybe it might have given us a better chance against England in the next series. The last good Test knock he played was in the first innings of the first match against Australia in 2013.

 

[_00_deathscar]

He averaged in the 20s over his last couple of years. He was keeping someone better out, whoever it was

2011: 17 innings @ 47.25
2012: 15 innings @ 23.80
2013: 9 innings @ 34.50

Late 20s in 2012 and 2013, but yea 2011 was his last true good year (and would still be considered sub par for him). But as it is with these players, they typically go on too long for so many reasons (especially with a cricket board like BCCI) - and none of them have to do with selfishness despite what you think; they often truly believe they're still capable of greatness and it's just a slump and they'll rise out of it. Beyond that, especially for players who got into cricket and professional cricket from such a young age, they know nothing else other than the sport. It's not easy to just go 'Okay I'm going to call it a day'. A lot of these players have also often gone through long slumps and risen out of it (in some cases, perhaps even better than before, age considering - such as Federer).

See also, Steven Gerrard.

Sure, some players do find it easy to just quit it altogether, but there are so many examples of great players across all sports who just didn't know when to retire.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Cricket Records | Records | 1990s | Test matches | Highest averages | ESPNcricinfo

Sachin stands atop the 1990s rankings with an average of 58.00 in 69 tests. Wright and Kambli both averaged 55+ and 54+ respectively, but both played <20 tests. Gower, with a 53 average, similarly only played 11 tests.
Next is Waugh, playing 20 more tests than Sachin, with a 53.10 average (so underrated by the way)
Lara, playing a similar number of tests to Sachin, averaged 51.60, and Gooch rounds off those with a 50+ average in the 90s with 51.55 in 45 tests.

Tough batting era!

Funnily enough, the player who plundered the most runs in the 1990s was *drum roll*/surprise ALEC STEWART.

Anyway, this really should give you an indication of why pure averages really don't mean much - but I suppose that's more relevant to the other discussion with the lunatic who said Kohli is arguably as good as Sachin in tests because he averages similar.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Cricket Records | Records | 1990s | Test matches | Highest averages | ESPNcricinfo

Sachin stands atop the 1990s rankings with an average of 58.00 in 69 tests. Wright and Kambli both averaged 55+ and 54+ respectively, but both played <20 tests. Gower, with a 53 average, similarly only played 11 tests.
Next is Waugh, playing 20 more tests than Sachin, with a 53.10 average (so underrated by the way)
Lara, playing a similar number of tests to Sachin, averaged 51.60, and Gooch rounds off those with a 50+ average in the 90s with 51.55 in 45 tests.

Tough batting era!

Funnily enough, the player who plundered the most runs in the 1990s was *drum roll*/surprise ALEC STEWART.

Anyway, this really should give you an indication of why pure averages really don't mean much - but I suppose that's more relevant to the other discussion with the lunatic who said Kohli is arguably as good as Sachin in tests because he averages similar.

Kohli = Sachin

Means

Bradman
Smith
Rest

 

[Engle]

Stats are but a piece of the pie and averages are the most often used stats. But neither tell the full story.

Generally I see Sachin as a batting accumulator and Kohli as a batting leader. Or to put it in explosive terms, one plays for himself, the other for his team.

 

[Bolo]

Stats are but a piece of the pie and averages are the most often used stats. But neither tell the full story.

Generally I see Sachin as a batting accumulator and Kohli as a batting leader. Or to put it in explosive terms, one plays for himself, the other for his team.

I don't agree with the logic. Kohli is more ruthless when he gets on top. Sachin is better at not letting the opposition get on top

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Stats are but a piece of the pie and averages are the most often used stats. But neither tell the full story.

Generally I see Sachin as a batting accumulator and Kohli as a batting leader. Or to put it in explosive terms, one plays for himself, the other for his team.

Comparatively
Kohli safe mode player
Tendulkar risk taker

 

[_00_deathscar]

I don't agree with the logic. Kohli is more ruthless when he gets on top. Sachin is better at not letting the opposition get on top

The 'bats for himself' stuff is such bullshit.

I do agree with the above assessment though. And certainly, the latter half of Sachin's career, he was someone who wouldn't let the opposition get on top of you. But Kohli in form will hurt you far more (a bit like Sehwag I suppose, though not as extreme - Kohli has a few gears, Sehwag only had one).

 

[vcs]

Kohli's career trajectory is so reminiscent of Ponting.

 

[stephen]

Kohli's career trajectory is so reminiscent of Ponting.

He reminds me of Ponting with the bat and in the field but Trump in press conferences.