What made the mid-1980s Indian ODI team so good?

[pardus]

I guess because they aren't real tests. What are his stats in those?

How do you think Viv ranked so high in DoG's ratings? He just used an objective formula, right?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to show you down. I am genuinely curious.
Maybe Viv's stats aren't as bad as you (and I) think they are. They have to be taken relative to
how batsmen around Viv performed.

 

[h_hurricane]

Viv, in his long career, only played 6 series where he batted more than 8 innings a series. Atherton, on the other hand played a freaking 11 series where he batted more than 8 innings a series.

While opening the batting is not an easy job, it also allows you to play a full innings far more frequently than a player down the order.

I think that puts into perspective why Viv couldn't put in too many humongous series aggregates.

 

[mr_mister]

How do you think Viv ranked so high in DoG's ratings? He just used an objective formula, right?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to show you down. I am genuinely curious.
Maybe Viv's stats aren't as bad as you (and I) think they are. They have to be taken relative to
how batsmen around Viv performed.

no idea. strike rate perhaps? maybe % of wins he played in? therefore his innings might have been deemed match winning more often or something

i forget the details of the criteria of DoG's formula. I know he had an adjusted century stat which might have helped someone like Viv whos centuries/tests ratio is a little on the low side among greats. Or maybe he had a really good peak in the formula due to that 1976 and maybe that helped him too

 

[mr_mister]

Viv, in his long career, only played 6 series where he batted more than 8 innings a series. Atherton, on the other hand played a freaking 11 series where he batted more than 8 innings a series.

While opening the batting is not an easy job, it also allows you to play a full innings far more frequently than a player down the order.

I think that puts into perspective why Viv couldn't put in too many humongous series aggregates.

fair enough. It's an explanation that certainly allows for him to be rated above Atherton then haha. But I still can't see much evidence why he should be held on the level of Sachin, Sobers, Lara, Smith

 

[ankitj]

I was looking forward to discuss Madan Lal and Sandhu in this thread

Can we get back to this?

 

[mr_mister]

Madan Lal's dibbly dobbler's helped India win the 83 WC. there

 

[vcs]

It makes sense that Madan Lal, Roger Binny, Sandhu etc. were effective when they were able to nibble the ball around a bit in England, but I don't know how they managed to be so good in the 1985 World Series tournament. Gavaskar seems to have batted in a "finisher role" of sorts at No. 6 in that tournament, Srikkanth and Sivaramakrishnan were probably relatively unknown quantities back then and ended up on top of the statistical tables. Probably like Pakistan's victory in the 2017 CT, with Fakhar Zaman, Hasan Ali, Shadab Khan etc.?

 

[morgieb]

I guess because they aren't real tests. What are his stats in those?

He averaged 55. Only two others I could see that averaged over 40 (Greg Chappell, Barry Richards)

There's little doubt that from 76-80/81 Viv was a genuinely outstanding long format batsman. The 82-88 one is probably over-rated by stats but he still seemed a batsman capable of brilliant innings. 88 onwards he was clearly past it.

Is he over-rated because of the intangibles? Probably a little, but calling him another Mohammad Yousuf is a disservice.

 

[Teja.]

Roger Binny surprisingly seems to have been a very decent test cricketer prima facie tbh.

27 tests, 830 runs @ 23 and 47 wickets @ 32.

Most sides would take that.

 

[trundler]

Saying Tendulkar only has longevity over other great batsmen is the most brain-dead, simplistic crock of revisionist bullshit I keep encountering on here. By 2001 both Bradman and Benaud put him in their all time XIs. Benaud rated him just a touch above Greg Chappell, Lara and all other middle order batsmen he'd seen. Do better.

 

[mr_mister]

'do better' sounds like something my boss would say after ive ****ed up at work. ouch

 

[vcs]

Think Sangakkara and Kallis ending up with such brilliant averages and a very short period of end-career decline sort of spoiled Tendulkar's legacy a bit (though it's got nothing to do with him). Certainly it's a bit tricky to argue his case over blokes who themselves had pretty long careers, excelled in another discipline and ended with a 3-4 point average advantage over him.

 

[morgieb]

So I pulled some stats up. From the start of 1976 to the end of the 1980/81 season Viv averaged 72.56 at Test level, and that's not even considering his WSC record. That is genuinely fantastic and would be beyond a mere one year wonder.

Between 1981/82 and 1988/89 he averaged 44.26, which admittedly is.....kinda meh by his reputation? It's still good, especially for the era he played in (though he did have the fortune of never facing the best attack in the game), but it's not as stellar as it should've been. I guess this was where the intangible ratings come into it? Feels very Pietersen post-captaincy esque.

The back end of his career he was definitely past it (averaging 36.36 after the 88/89 season), but he does have the excuse of being in his late 30's by that point.

EDIT: One test should've been in the first than the second category, with that taken into account he averages 71.38 in the first period and 44.59 in the second.

 

[Teja.]

Think Sangakkara and Kallis ending up with such brilliant averages and a very short period of end-career decline sort of spoiled Tendulkar's legacy a bit (though it's got nothing to do with him). Certainly it's a bit tricky to argue his case over blokes who themselves had pretty long careers, excelled in another discipline and ended with a 3-4 point average advantage over him.

It's not though, considering he played 7-10 years more than them. It depends on whether you actually are looking to assess the value added by a batsman across their career in which case longevity is a paramount and multiplying variable in itself or whether you're looking at assessing player 'quality/skill level' while using a minimum longevity threshold as a qualification test.

If you are correctly doing the former, Sachin playing for 24 years is ridiculously more valuable than another great batsman playing for 15.

 

[h_hurricane]

Kapil Dev of course was the big reason for keeping the indian ODI team competitive in the 1980s. Made telling contributions when it really mattered.

That 175* has been inspirational and often spoken, but couple of his under-rated performances came up in the 1985 WCC SF and Final.

Scored 50 of 30 balls when the required rate was around 6 in SF, ripping off Hadlee in the process. Then cleaned up the top order in the final in the first half an hour or so to make it lop sided.

His numbers during the ten year period 1980-89 are ridiculous.

Average of 26.25 at economy rate of 3.68 with the ball. 26.81 with the bat at a strike rate of 101.91(!).

The likes of Mohinder Amarnath and Roger Binny pulled their weight when it mattered too.

 

[vcs]

It's not though, considering he played 7-10 years more than them. It depends on whether you actually are looking to assess the value added by a batsman across their career in which case longevity is a paramount and multiplying variable in itself or whether you're looking at assessing player 'quality/skill level' while using a minimum longevity threshold as a qualification test.

If you are correctly doing the former, Sachin playing for 24 years is ridiculously more valuable than another great batsman playing for 15.

True, I might be underrating his longevity. Statistically (I mean the checklist kind of way CW sometimes tends to assess careers), I think Tendulkar's CV would look incredible if he had called it quits after the 2011 WC. It's counterintuitive but there you go.

 

[Teja.]

Roger Binny surprisingly seems to have been a very decent test cricketer prima facie tbh.

27 tests, 830 runs @ 23 and 47 wickets @ 32.

Most sides would take that.

He was also the leading wicket taker in the 1983 WC with 18 wickets. WAG.

For some reason, I had him pigeonholed in my mind as a total jobber but he had a nice little career.

 

[vcs]

Presumably Burgey rates Madan Lal and Binny very, very highly. #BigMatchPerformers

 

[mr_mister]

So I pulled some stats up. From the start of 1976 to the end of the 1980/81 season Viv averaged 72.56 at Test level, and that's not even considering his WSC record. That is genuinely fantastic and would be beyond a mere one year wonder.

Between 1981/82 and 1988/89 he averaged 44.26, which admittedly is.....kinda meh by his reputation? It's still good, especially for the era he played in (though he did have the fortune of never facing the best attack in the game), but it's not as stellar as it should've been. I guess this was where the intangible ratings come into it? Feels very Pietersen post-captaincy esque.

The back end of his career he was definitely past it (averaging 36.36 after the 88/89 season), but he does have the excuse of being in his late 30's by that point.

EDIT: One test should've been in the first than the second category, with that taken into account he averages 71.38 in the first period and 44.59 in the second.

Why cut that middle period off at 88/89?

Why not continue it from 81 to the end so we can see he was basically Mark Waugh for a whole decade after his peak years

 

[trundler]

What irks me is that Ponting and Harvey aren't afforded the same luxury of not being judged by the period in which they were clearly past it