-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman
- Thread starter Avada Kedavra
- Start date
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
The tricky ones are players like Waqar and Botham who almost have two separate careers.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The ideal cricketer by subshakerz logic would be one that was **** when he was young, only got picked in tests when he hit his peak and the minute he started showing the smallest signs of decline, he decided to pack it in and retire. He was thus great for "100%" of his career.
I don't think many people realise how stupid that line of thinking is. And the constant strawmamning about longevity is irritating. This is not about longevity. Its about actual utility. Deciding to not play cricket is not a skill.
I don't think many people realise how stupid that line of thinking is. And the constant strawmamning about longevity is irritating. This is not about longevity. Its about actual utility. Deciding to not play cricket is not a skill.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
You mean a situation that almost never happens.
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That's why I said "ideal", look up what it means . That would literally be your perfect cricketer by your own admission.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Mike Hussey if he retired a year earlier, I guess.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
There is a whole spectrum between "retired to preserve stats" to "stayed on too long blocking others". Why are we only arguing the extremes?
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Voges!
Migara
International Coach
Lets take a hypothetical situation.
Player A averages 40 in first five years of the career and 60 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player B averages 60 in first five years of the career and 40 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player C averages 50 for ten years and , and ends up with an average of 50
Now how do you judge their performances?
Player A averages 40 in first five years of the career and 60 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player B averages 60 in first five years of the career and 40 in next five, and ends up with an average of 50
Player C averages 50 for ten years and , and ends up with an average of 50
Now how do you judge their performances?
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Gilly is close to this though.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Can't really split them.
Coronis
International Coach
I keep saying he’s the best after Bradman but nobody listens…
If Smith retires today, he is better than Sachin. If he plays on for 6 more years and averages 50ish in that time, he is worse than Sachin's 18 year peak. Pretty sure this is not the conclusion you want to draw?
Not happy with just giving Sachin a free ride on his very late career rubbish, but I guess this is a pretty unusual example for multiple reasons.
There's no discussion. Sanga was the no1 batsman of that era by a mile. Tendulkar 2nd.
Sehwag isn't even in the top 5
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
I agree word for word.
Total utility above replacement value is the most logical way. And Longevity matters, though for instance each subsequent year after say a 15 year career is less & less important.
But if a batsman has not had for eg a 15 year career, it means they were not good enough either at the beginning or end. So their lack of selection should be factored in, just like a late career decline, if you want to keep things 'consistent'! @subshakerz
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
For example, a batsman finally does enough and manages get selected at age 24 and plays till 35 and retires. Averages 60 for 10 years and avgs 45 in their 11th year. Finishes with avg of 58.5.
How can that player be rated above someone who had a career peak of avging 60 for 12 years?! It wouldn't matter even if they had years of avging 40 at the end.
How can that player be rated above someone who had a career peak of avging 60 for 12 years?! It wouldn't matter even if they had years of avging 40 at the end.
Last edited:
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Batsman A gets selected late at 24.
Avgs 45 in their 1st year
Avgs 60 for next 9 years
Avgs 45 in their last year and retires aged 35.
Finishes with avg of 58
Batsman B gets selected early at 20 as they are already good enough!
Avgs 45 for 2 years
Avgs 60 for 11 years
Avgs 40 in their last 5 years
Retires aged 38 with avg of 53.5
Who is better?? @subshakerz
Avgs 45 in their 1st year
Avgs 60 for next 9 years
Avgs 45 in their last year and retires aged 35.
Finishes with avg of 58
Batsman B gets selected early at 20 as they are already good enough!
Avgs 45 for 2 years
Avgs 60 for 11 years
Avgs 40 in their last 5 years
Retires aged 38 with avg of 53.5
Who is better?? @subshakerz
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
How many tests did each play?
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
110 vs 170
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
Imagine if Batsman A was made to start their career at age 20 (as opposed to age 24) their avg would be destroyed and if they played till age 38 (and not 35) their average would take a beating again!
We always forget about factoring in these 'missing' years when we compare players with different career lengths.
In this case an average of 53.5 achieved over a 18-year career is better than an average of 58 achieved over a 11-year career (or even 12 year career).
We always forget about factoring in these 'missing' years when we compare players with different career lengths.
In this case an average of 53.5 achieved over a 18-year career is better than an average of 58 achieved over a 11-year career (or even 12 year career).