Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[trundler]

He would be better than Kallis but no way would his case as best after Bradman be as solid as it is now.

To you but not to me. He'd be up there with Tendulkar, Hobbs, Sobers and far ahead of the rest.

 

[Archer6K]

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?

You don't judge anyone from just their overall stats with such little context

 

[trundler]

A 'peak' that's better and longer than a whole career should absolutely be rated higher regardless of what happens either side of it. Because it was better and longer.

 

[subshakerz]

Not compared to players of shorter career length who just retired. Yes.

If they kept performing in their letter years, of course they'd be even greater.

I asked if Smith averaged 58 after 110 tests and retired, or played 170 tests and retired averaging 53.5, do you think he would be rated the same?

You said, yes he would. You didn't mention against any particular player of any particular career length. Basically, based on that, your opinion of Smith is frozen in time, regardless if there are others like Kallis who would have been more successful than Smith in their latter years and ended up with a higher average.

 

[Coronis]

Yawn this Smith tripe is boring. He’ll never average 58, let alone 53

 

[trundler]

I asked if Smith averaged 58 after 110 tests and retired, or played 170 tests and retired averaging 53.5, do you think he would be rated the same?

You said, yes he would. You didn't mention against any particular player of any particular career length. Basically, based on that, your opinion of Smith is frozen in time, regardless if there are others like Kallis who would have been more successful than Smith in their latter years and ended up with a higher average.

It's frozen compared to guys who achieved less than him and played less. Smith with 110 tests or 170 tests is still far ahead of Greg Chappell regardless of what happens between tests 110 and 170.

 

[subshakerz]

A small decline from peak is understandable. It will be more than made up for by the longevity, and their aggregate achievements. A huge fall-off is what is going to be held against someone, imo.

Not according to their logic.

 

[trundler]

Not according to their logic.

Only compared to someone who didn't play at all after the point at which such a decline occurred.

 

[subshakerz]

Only compared to someone who didn't play at all after the point at which such a decline occurred.

Does Steve Smith's late career performance from now on affect his standing compared to Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers?

 

[shortpitched713]

Only compared to someone who didn't play at all after the point at which such a decline occurred.

What if a guy was bashing minnows in the earlier "peak" part of his career. And then his later career shows him to be consistently fraudulent against strong opposition?

 

[subshakerz]

What if a guy was bashing minnows in the earlier "peak" part of his career. And then his later career shows him to be consistently fraudulent against strong opposition?

Fraudulent part doesn't count because it's post-peak apparently.

 

[shortpitched713]

Does Steve Smith's late career performance from now on affect his standing compared to Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers?

They're saying it only effects comparison between Smith and those who have a longer career than him. So right now, Smith is better than any batsman who has a less than 13 year career, regardless of how he performs from here on out.

 

[trundler]

Does Steve Smith's late career performance from now on affect his standing compared to Tendulkar, Hobbs and Sobers?

Yes

 

[subshakerz]

Yes

Then you agree he can fluctuate.

How far can he drop if he has five years averaging 40 and then retiring? What position does he end up in on the ATG batters list?

 

[shortpitched713]

To be honest, the company of players that Smith could fall below, are all ATGs. So he might not be the best example.

Kohli is a guy who was batting ATG level, and is now batting himself into the ATVG group. And that includes guys who have played less than 13 years, imo.

 

[trundler]

Then you agree he can fluctuate.

How far can he drop if he has five years averaging 40 and then retiring? What position does he end up in on the ATG batters list?

If he retired after 110 tests with his current record he wouldn't automatically be better than those guys but he'd have demonstrated a level of dominance and performance that would put him in the conversation at least. He wouldn't have longevity in his favour but he has other things going for him that his competitors do not. There are other factors at play too. He's not dropping below anyone that played less than him though.

 

[subshakerz]

If he retired after 110 tests with his current record he wouldn't automatically be better than those guys but he'd have demonstrated a level of dominance and performance that would put him in the conversation at least. He wouldn't have longevity in his favour but he has other things going for him that his competitors do not. There are other factors at play too. He's not dropping below anyone that played less than him though.

And if he played 160-170 tests and averaged 52/53 overall, where would he end up on the listing? How many places would it cost Smith?

 

[shortpitched713]

If he retired after 110 tests with his current record he wouldn't automatically be better than those guys but he'd have demonstrated a level of dominance and performance that would put him in the conversation at least. He wouldn't have longevity in his favour but he has other things going for him that his competitors do not. There are other factors at play too. He's not dropping below anyone that played less than him though.

If he ends up with an average of 51, I'm rating Weekes, Barrington, Sutcliffe ahead of him. Sorry.

 

[trundler]

And if he played 160-170 tests and averaged 52/53 overall, where would he end up on the listing? How many places would it cost Smith?

He wouldn't lose any ground he's gained up to that point though. If he continues doing well he'd be #2 for sure, otherwise he's still in the mix but not definie #2. And in no case does he suddenly become worse than guys who averaged more over much shorter careers assuming other factors are constant.

If he ends up with an average of 51, I'm rating Weekes, Barrington, Sutcliffe ahead of him. Sorry.

And I will continue my crusade against this logic. You should feel bad.

 

[subshakerz]

If he ends up with an average of 51, I'm rating Weekes, Barrington, Sutcliffe ahead of him. Sorry.

Yay we agree!