The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[harsh.ag]

Static way of looking at things does harm.

Hayden struggled against SA in the 90s. Did well in 2001/02 in Donald's last 2 series where he averaged 59 and 72 with the ball. A waned Donald meets a waxing Hayden.

People have good and bad phases. Saying "he did well against Donald" means nothing.

Similarly he faced Waqar when Waqar was a pale shadow of "Waqar".

Hayden was bad in the 90s when the pacers were at their peak. He became good in the 00s but by then the pacers were past it. Take from that what you will. Maybe he would have been good against them in the 00s even if they weren't past it. We'll never know.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Static way of looking at things does harm.

Hayden struggled against SA in the 90s. Did well in 2001/02 in Donald's last 2 series where he averaged 59 and 72 with the ball. A waned Donald meets a waxing Hayden.

People have good and bad phases. Saying "he did well against Donald" means nothing.

Similarly he faced Waqar when Waqar was a pale shadow of "Waqar".

Hayden was bad in the 90s when the pacers were at their peak. He became good in the 00s but by then the pacers were past it. Take from that what you will. Maybe he would have been good against them in the 00s even if they weren't past it. We'll never know.

Exactly. Him being "bad against pacers" in what little Test cricket he played in the 90s could be considered meaningless given that he was a different, less experienced, player in the 90s.

Furthermore, he literally only played 7 matches in the 90s. 4 against SA and 3 against WI, the first 7 of his career, the last of which was 5 years before his return to the side as the Hayden that we all know.

Laughable to use that against him or to claim that it means he "couldn't play good pace", yet we have people here still trying to do it as if it's a given

 

[stephen]

What about Pollock, who's peak coincided with Hayden's? 10 tests, 4 times out to Pollock, average 53. 5 centuries and 2 half centuries.

Or Akhtar, average 40 over 5 tests, dismissed by Shoaib 3 times.

These are all small sample sizes (though Pollock's is ten tests, which is more than Barry Richard's entire career) so there will be variability.

My point is that players are often pigeon holed into being "a ftb" or "bad against pace/ spin". But the truth is that every player has holes in their record. If Hayden averaged overseas what he did at home he'd be regarded as better than Hobbs. It's difficult to split Hayden/Sehwag and Smith. They all had different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[stephen]

Similarly, I can discredit Gavaskar's record against the West Indies by pointing out that his first series was against rubbish Windies bowlers. The rest of his runs against them were in draws. Given the quality of India at the time that means the pitches played on were roads so poor that the likes of Roberts/Holding/Croft etc couldn't force a result. I'm sure some of his knocks in these draws were very good but his average against the West Indies after the 71 series in matches with results was 23. Even including those 71 matches, his average in matches with a result was only 27.

Averaging 27 in matches with a result is horrendous. Gavaskar was no doubt a fine player but using his record against the West Indies does nothing but indict him as the biggest flat track bully of them all.

 

[stephen]

In fact, Gavaskar averaged 38 across his career in matches with a result (regardless of opposition).

 

[smash84]

In fact, Gavaskar averaged 38 across his career in matches with a result (regardless of opposition).

This is such a bad statistic to use.

 

[stephen]

This is such a bad statistic to use.

Not really, especially if broken into home and away stats. Sehwag averaged 45 in matches with a result, Smith 47 and Hayden 49, suggesting that they didn't perform much differently in draws than they did in matches where at least one side could force 20 wickets.

Gavaskar averaged 38 in matches where one side could force a result. In wins he averaged a shade under 44 and in losses he averaged 35. It's typical for the best batsman in a side to have a lower average in losses because theirs is usually the key wicket. But he averages substantially lower in India's 23 wins during that time. This suggests that batting was substantially easier in the games he scored the most runs.

 

[stephen]

Now this is a bad stat to use but Gavaskar got 5 player of the match awards in 125 tests. Sehwag got 8, Hayden 10 and Smith 12. Given the quality of the teams involved, one would expect Gavaskar to get it more frequently if he really was the best post- war opener, especially playing for a weak team.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is such a bad statistic to use.

Not any worse than using Hayden's record in the 90s

 

[morgieb]

Draws were much easier to obtain in the 70's compared to the 2000's though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Draws were much easier to obtain in the 70's compared to the 2000's though.

why is that?

 

[morgieb]

why is that?

Looser over rate restrictions + slower scoring.

 

[vcs]

This page is proof that you can find some statistic that you can use to **** on anyone if you look hard enough.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This page is proof that you can find some statistic that you can use to **** on anyone if you look hard enough.

True. Yet some are used a lot more often than others, or are even widely accepted.

Unless you've played 300 Tests over 30 years then there will be some opponent or style of opposition that you've got a poor record against purely due to luck and small sample size

 

[h_hurricane]

There is a lot of Gavaskar hate going on here. The guy was great against WI regardless of whom he played against.

Averages 49 in matches involving any one of Marshall, Garner, Holding or Roberts.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...71;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[h_hurricane]

Interestingly, for the same criteria, TOTAB averages 41.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...er_involve=1571;template=results;type=batting

 

[TheJediBrah]

There is a lot of Gavaskar hate going on here. The guy was great against WI regardless of whom he played against.

Averages 49 in matches involving any one of Marshall, Garner, Holding or Roberts.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...71;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

I think stephen was just using Gavaskar as an example of how you unreliable judging someone based on cherry picking stats is, because he is so widely respected (as a cricketer, not so much for race relations)

 

[trundler]

The 70/71 series was his debut and in 4 tests he scored more than what Barry Richards managed against a similarly inept attack. Sure it means he didn't do as well versus peak WI as his record suggests but c'mon, he did as well as anyone against them. Discrediting his first series entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And Gavaskar's record against Lillee in Australia is pure samplesizelol. It's the equivalent of Lillee in SC. It's silly to say he's only remembered for luckily averaging 50. Doesn't have a disparity between home and away averages, great centies: matches ratio, no technical weakness. He's very clearly way better than the likes of Hayden and Sehwag. And before getting into wins and losses, go watch a video of Madan Lal's bowling.

 

[stephen]

I think stephen was just using Gavaskar as an example of how you unreliable judging someone based on cherry picking stats is, because he is so widely respected (as a cricketer, not so much for race relations)

It's a little of both. I really do think he's completely overrated and isn't the best post- war opener. But I'm also showing how stats can be picked apart quite easily.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The 70/71 series was his debut and in 4 tests he scored more than what Barry Richards managed against a similarly inept attack. Sure it means he didn't do as well versus peak WI as his record suggests but c'mon, he did as well as anyone against them. Discrediting his first series entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And Gavaskar's record against Lillee in Australia is pure samplesizelol. It's the equivalent of Lillee in SC. It's silly to say he's only remembered for luckily averaging 50. Doesn't have a disparity between home and away averages, great centies: matches ratio, no technical weakness. He's very clearly way better than the likes of Hayden and Sehwag. And before getting into wins and losses, go watch a video of Madan Lal's bowling.

lost me there