Rank your 5 best bats from Australia post-Bradman

[Coronis]

I doubt that his rating has changed at all

So you haven’t been on this forum the past few years I take it?

 

[subshakerz]

Ponting's weakness was exposed in India where Chappell never toured. Ponting was also a top, top player of pace and very gifted.

Ponting's weakness was more spin in India than spin in general.

 

[subshakerz]

This doesn’t really make sense to me. Ponting playing for a couple years longer than he should have to help his team doesn’t make him a worse batsman for me. With your logic, a player should retire when he’s at the end of his peak even if he’s still good enough to be selected and his team would benefit from him continuing to play.

It is easy to say in hindsight a player played longer than than should have but ultimately every player is responsible for their performances on the field.

The thing is, once you are a great cricketer, it is not easy to immediately retire once you are past your peak. It usually takes a year or so before it is clear that you are not as great as before and then the challenge is to try and recover form which can take another year or so. Ponting basically from 2008 to 2012 was averaging 38 or so in an extended slump in which he had spurts of good form mixed with crap. He wasn't really outright droppable in that time especially as captain.

 

[ZK$]

Would Kohli be rated higher if he’d retired at the end of 2019?

My rating of him hasn’t really changed at all, but yes. Most people probably would rate him higher if he just retired then.

 

[Gob]

It is easy to say in hindsight a player played longer than than should have but ultimately every player is responsible for their performances on the field.

The thing is, once you are a great cricketer, it is not easy to immediately retire once you are past your peak. It usually takes a year or so before it is clear that you are not as great as before and then the challenge is to try and recover form which can take another year or so. Ponting basically from 2008 to 2012 was averaging 38 or so in an extended slump in which he had spurts of good form mixed with crap. He wasn't really outright droppable in that time especially as captain.

Plus no immediate replacement

Another reason why I don't rate Hussey very highly. He was in the chopping block for a while leading up to 12/13 home summer but selectors kept faith hoping it would be a good investment in the medium term and just after having a really good season, he retired leaving Clarke as the only test quality batsman ahead of an away BG series and an Ashes series, acid test for any young Aust bat. Aust got trounced as expected

Paved way for a bloke call S Smith so things eventually turned out ok

 

[ZK$]

What if Gilly retired after 68 tests averaging 55

Do we consider him Chappell tier? Should we really hold the last 2 years against him

It’s not really about the number of tests, but the number of years they played.

Chappell had a 13 year career averaging around 54. Gilchrist had a 8 year career averaging 48. You can’t ignore Gilchrist’s last 2 years because his entire 8 year career is already 5 years shorter than Chappell’s career.

A better example is Ponting. In my opinion, what Ponting did from 2009-2012 isn’t really relavent when comparing him to Chappell, because he had already played for around 13 years by 2009.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Ponting also dominated McGrath and I'm not basing this entirely on robelinda videos

McGrath an overrated hack who never had to face his own team confirmed

 

[subshakerz]

It’s not really about the number of tests, but the number of years they played.

Chappell had a 13 year career averaging around 54. Gilchrist had a 8 year career averaging 48. You can’t ignore Gilchrist’s last 2 years because his entire 8 year career is already 5 years shorter than Chappell’s career.

A better example is Ponting. In my opinion, what Ponting did from 2009-2012 isn’t really relavent when comparing him to Chappell, because he had already played for around 13 years by 2009.

I think numbers of years alone is misleading.

Regardless, Ponting's slump phase began in 2007 to 2012 and is six years out of a total of 17 years of his career and around 59 out of 168 tests. That is more than one third of his career. How can you ignore that?

 

[ZK$]

I think numbers of years alone is misleading.

Regardless, Ponting's slump phase began in 2007 to 2012 and is six years out of a total of 17 years of his career and 59 out of 168 tests. That is more than one third of his career. How can you ignore that?

I’m not ignoring all 6 years when comparing him to Chappell. I’m ignoring his last 4 years. If I was comparing him to Clarke, then I’d probably ignore his last 6 years. I don’t see how numbers of years is misleading.

 

[Coronis]

Plus no immediate replacement

Another reason why I don't rate Hussey very highly. He was in the chopping block for a while leading up to 12/13 home summer but selectors kept faith hoping it would be a good investment in the medium term and just after having a really good season, he retired leaving Clarke as the only test quality batsman ahead of an away BG series and an Ashes series, acid test for any young Aust bat. Aust got trounced as expected

Paved way for a bloke call S Smith so things eventually turned out ok

iirc he announced his retirement prior to the 12/13 season. Besides, he was 37, there’s nothing wrong with retiring at that age. The only blokes who are that old and still playing tests I can think of are Anderson and Azhar Ali.

 

[subshakerz]

I’m not ignoring all 6 years when comparing him to Chappell. I’m ignoring his last 4 years. If I was comparing him to Clarke, then I’d probably ignore his last 6 years. I don’t see how numbers of years is misleading.

So your formula is to simply compare only the same length of careers of two batsmen and just ignore all the years after?

So if I am comparing batsman A with 10 years and batsman B with 20 years, I only look at the first 10 years for batsmen B?

 

[vicleggie]

Lol at people who put Smith first...you know nothing about cricket.

He's not in the top 8

 

[ZK$]

So your formula is to simply compare only the same length of careers of two batsmen and just ignore all the years after?

So if I am comparing batsman A with 10 years and batsman B with 20 years, I only look at the first 10 years for batsmen B?

In most comparisons, yeah. I don’t really penalize players for playing on too long (or for being selected too early) when comparing them to players with significantly shorter careers.

Like I said, with your logic a player should retire pretty much when he’s at his peak even if he could still benefit his team which really makes no sense. Sri Lanka probably would have benefited if Sangakkara decided to keep playing for another 3 years even if he averaged only 40. I wouldn’t rate him any lower if he did this though just like I don’t rate Ponting lower for his last few years.

 

[subshakerz]

In most comparisons, yeah. I don’t really penalize players for playing on too long (or for being selected too early) when comparing them to players with significantly shorter careers.

Like I said, with your logic a player should retire pretty much when he’s at his peak even if he could still benefit his team which really makes no sense. Sri Lanka probably would have benefited if Sangakkara decided to keep playing for another 3 years even if he averaged only 40. I wouldn’t rate him any lower if he did this though just like I don’t rate Ponting lower for his last few years.

If a player chooses to play past the point they can perform well, shouldn't they be penalized?

No, our approach assumes every player has a whole career that include early year, peak and post-peak, and their assessment is based on the entirety of their output. Yeah, a player who retires at his peak will get rated higher but virtually no cricketer does because you never know when how long your peak will last nor do you assume you will go into decline. Ultimately, you are responsible for both your peak and poor performances. Players will an extended run of poorer performances mixed with peak years will get rated lesser than those who managed to have smaller post-peak phases because they adapted to older age better.

Many problems with your approach. You are devaluing later year performances for one. And you are assuming only peak years represent a cricketer too. Cricketers who manage their success over a much longer time will also get less value.

Just keep it simple and assess their overall career.

 

[ZK$]

If a player chooses to play past the point they can perform well, shouldn't they be penalized?

I guess it depends on the player. Ponting playing longer to help his team instead of retiring early and protecting his average doesn’t make him a worse player for me. If it does make him a worse player for you, then that’s fine although it doesn’t really make sense to me.

Many problems with your approach. You are devaluing later year performances for one. And you are assuming only peak years represent a cricketer too. Cricketers who manage their success over a much longer time will also get less value.

None of these are really true. If a player manages his success over a longer period of time, I rate them much higher. Tendulkar averaging averaging 54 over 24 years (averaged 60 for 18 years) is why I rate him higher than Ponting who averages 52 over 17 years (averaged 60 for 11 years).

 

[Jayro]

Personally I think it is premature while he's mid career. If he retired today then yep I got no problem ranking him No2 behind The Don. BUT, if he has a career trajectory like Ponting's from here then surely he'll drop down the list?

Possibly

 

[subshakerz]

Possibly

I think its beyond speculation at this point that Smith is past his peak based on the last three years averaging 40.

 

[subshakerz]

I guess it depends on the player. Ponting playing longer to help his team instead of retiring early and protecting his average doesn’t make him a worse player for me. If it does make him a worse player for you, then that’s fine although it doesn’t really make sense to me.

The time Ponting declined was over a third of his career and nearly 60 tests, averaging 38, which is way too long a period to ignore. You cant struggle that long and not have that affect your standing.

Your issue is that you assume a player should just be judged based on their best years, as opposed to those years when they struggle too. I think both need to be assessed together.

None of these are really true. If a player manages his success over a longer period of time, I rate them much higher. Tendulkar averaging averaging 54 over 24 years (averaged 60 for 18 years) is why I rate him higher than Ponting who averages 52 over 17 years (averaged 60 for 11 years).

I agree on longevity of success being a factor of difference in favor of Tendulkar over other bats.

 

[BazBall21]

Short career and easy era. Ponting, Dravid etc averaged 60 after a decade too. I think he's retrospectively overrated if anything. Him over Dravid or Younis doesn't compute to me.

Tbh also worth mentioning Barrington wasn’t great at home to West Indies, South Africa and Australia. Don’t agree on the final comparison though ofc?

 

[BazBall21]

On volume of work, I actually regard it higher than I used to. I think if there is a clear and obvious winner between two players then the superior player just needs a big enough sample. If there isn’t a clear winner, then volume of work should definitely be a factor in the judging.