Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[centurymaker]

It's less about remembering the way they ended and more about where they actually end up.

A player's late career performance definitely impacts their standing. If Tendulkar ended his career in 2011, he would be rated higher. If Viv ended his career in 1988, he would be rated higher. If Ponting ended his career in 2007, he would be rated higher.

Sehwag's last three years took the shine off his standing. Sanga, by comparison, had no dip but just extended his peak which obviously should make his standing higher.

But it shouldn't matter! Even if someone plays on a few years but does okay.... it shouldn't affect their standing.

Someone averages 60 for 12 years, then averages 40 for 4 years, finishes with 54 is not something that should bring down the player in my honest opinion. They still contributed at 40+ for another 4 years...on top of 12 year dominance!!

1) Suppose the players retires after 12 years...
their total contribution to the national team is 12 years of top level performances.

2) But if they play another 4 years averaging 40, they have 12 years of top level contribution + 4 years of reasonable contribution.

I don't see how scenario 2 makes a player's total contribution to the national team any worse than scenario 1 does (unless a player averages 30 and makes his team worse because of his substandard performances). If you are still contributing at a reasonable level then obviously you should continue to play for the team and it shouldn't affect your overall standing.

This is where we maybe wrong in using end of career averages. We should use a player's averages at several intervals to see their true level and worth over their ENTIRE career span!

 

[trundler]

Sanga's career wasn't that much shorter than the other 00s stars but you've successfully convinced me that he's worse than YK because longevity and minnows, thanks.

 

[subshakerz]

But it shouldn't matter! Even if someone plays on a few years but does okay.... it shouldn't affect their standing.

Someone averages 60 for 12 years, then averages 40 for 4 years, finishes with 54 is not something that should bring down the player in my honest opinion. They still contributed at 40+ for another 4 years...on top of 12 year dominance!!

1) Suppose the players retires after 12 years...
their total contribution to the national team is 12 years of top level performances.

2) But if they play another 4 years averaging 40, they have 12 years of top level contribution + 4 years of reasonable contribution.

I don't see how scenario 2 makes a player's total contribution to the national team any worse than scenario 1 does (unless a player averages 30 and makes his team worse because of his substandard performances). If you are still contributing at a reasonable level then obviously you should continue to play for the team and it shouldn't affect your overall standing.

This is where we maybe wrong in using end of career averages. We should use a player's averages at several intervals to see their true level and worth over their ENTIRE career span!

You are judged on the entirety of your playing career, not just your peak years.

Maintaining performance past your peak is one of the challenges every cricketer faces and should be factored into your standing. Basically, how do you adapt to aging.

Your system is way too arbitrary. You can start chopping off early career phases too from consideration based on the same logic.

 

[ZK$]

Batsman A: Averages 60 for 10 years, then retires with average of 60.

Batsman B: Averages 70 for 10 years, then averages 40 for next 10 years, then retires with an average of 55.

Batsman B >>> Batsman A.

 

[Coronis]

Batsman A: Averages 60 for 10 years, then retires with average of 60.

Batsman B: Averages 70 for 10 years, then averages 40 for next 10 years, then retires with an average of 55.

Batsman B >>> Batsman A.

Well yes on the face of it. Ever wonder why Tendulkar is rated so highly?

Anyway Sehwag never averaged 60 for 10 years so another win for Sanga.

 

[trundler]

Well yes on the face of it. Ever wonder why Tendulkar is rated so highly?

Anyway Sehwag never averaged 60 for 10 years so another win for Sanga.

Yeah but it's silly to rate a guy like Barrington over Ponting when Barrington simply never played past the point at which the latter declined.

 

[subshakerz]

Batsman A: Averages 60 for 10 years, then retires with average of 60.

Batsman B: Averages 70 for 10 years, then averages 40 for next 10 years, then retires with an average of 55.

Batsman B >>> Batsman A.

Completely disagree. Consistency matters.

The first is a batsman who sustained excellence 100% of his career.

The next is a batsmen who reached unparalleled heights for half of his career, and was a goodish bat for half of his career.

You can only say B is better than A by ignoring half of his career, which is just plain silly.

Otherwise Botham is the greatest player of all time and Imran the greatest bowler.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah but it's silly to rate a guy like Barrington over Ponting when batting simply never played past the point at which the latter declined.

Fortunately, thats not the only reason I rate him so highly.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Completely disagree. Consistency matters.

The first is a batsman who sustained excellence 100% of his career.

The next is a batsmen who reached unparalleled heights for half of his career, and was a goodish bat for half of his career.

Otherwise Botham is the greatest player of all time and Imran the greatest bowler.

CW needs a face-palm emoji for posts like this

 

[ZK$]

Completely disagree. Consistency matters.

The first is a batsman who sustained excellence 100% of his career.

The next is a batsmen who reached unparalleled heights for half of his career, and was a goodish bat for half of his career.

Otherwise Botham is the greatest player of all time and Imran the greatest bowler.

No.

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

Yeah but it's silly to rate a guy like Barrington over Ponting when batting simply never played past the point at which the latter declined.

I agree with the general theory here, but this is a pretty random example to introduce. Barrington and Ponting retired at almost exactly the same age. Barrington took longer than most greats to get good, but then he played on late, and definitely past the age Ponting declined.

In terms of the perception of Sanga, @Bolo. made the point in another thread that he'd be rated higher in general consensus if his peak had come earlier in his career. There's definitely an effect where, if someone dominates for a bit and establishes themselves as a 'great', they are viewed as a great from then on, however long they play. Whereas if someone starts slower they get pigeon holed as a lower tier of player and it's hard for them to shake that even if they get great later.

In 'hypothetical player' speak, if Player X averages 60 for 7 years then 40 for 7 years they will likely be heralded as a great for their entire career. Meanwhile at the same time Player Y averages 40 for 7 years and then 60 for 7 years and they will be seen as 'competent', then 'reliable', then a 'veteran' but they will be viewed as being a level below Player X (initially correctly, but ultimately not) in a way that does take some late- or even post-career re-evaluation to correct.

Or, to work in my own random Barrington analogy, none of Barrington's peers nor the pundits of his time rated him as highly as Peter May. Because May got great early and was hailed as a prodigy whereas Barrington was a late bloomer who wasn't seen on his level. But looking back now, most would say that Barrington achieved more than May over their careers.

 

[subshakerz]

Well yes on the face of it. Ever wonder why Tendulkar is rated so highly?

Anyway Sehwag never averaged 60 for 10 years so another win for Sanga.

Tendulkar averaged 60 for 75 percent of his career. It's because of the other 25 percent that he isn't a confirmed lock for best after Bradman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Holy **** make it stop

 

[Coronis]

Completely disagree. Consistency matters.

The first is a batsman who sustained excellence 100% of his career.

The next is a batsmen who reached unparalleled heights for half of his career, and was a goodish bat for half of his career.

You can only say B is better than A by ignoring half of his career, which is just plain silly.

Otherwise Botham is the greatest player of all time and Imran the greatest bowler.

The case presented there is only a random example which will never happen. You have to take each case individually and can compare peak, career length and consistency (amongst other factors) to determine the better player.

 

[ZK$]

@Prince EWS Please ban subshakerz from this forum.

 

[subshakerz]

No.

You say that but I can tell you with confidence, that if a batsman came who you followed and averaged 70 for a decade, but then followed that up with averaging 40 for another decade, by the end of that second decade you wouldnt rate him so highly. 10 years is a long time to be that averagish.

Just think of Ponting. By the time he retired in 2012 after averaging almost 40 for six years, nobody rated him the same way they did in 2007.

 

[subshakerz]

The case presented there is only a random example which will never happen. You have to take each case individually and can compare peak, career length and consistency (amongst other factors) to determine the better player.

Yeah but I gave the similar example of Ponting who after playing 11-12 years averaged 60, and then averaged 38 for six years, and likely lost around 5-6 places at least in the eyes of posters as a result.

 

[StephenZA]

In terms of the perception of Sanga, @Bolo. made the point in another thread that he'd be rated higher in general consensus if his peak had come earlier in his career. There's definitely an effect where, if someone dominates for a bit and establishes themselves as a 'great', they are viewed as a great from then on, however long they play. Whereas if someone starts slower they get pigeon holed as a lower tier of player and it's hard for them to shake that even if they get great later.

See J Anderson...

 

[trundler]

Fortunately, thats not the only reason I rate him so highly.

I forgot there's exclusively black and white footage of him too.

 

[Coronis]

Just to bring this thread slightly back to its original point, when the last post was made back in 2010, their stats looked like this.

Sanga: 8016 @ 56.86
Sehwag: 7039 @ 54.14

I forgot there's exclusively black and white footage of him too.

Get a new shtick. You’re boring everyone