Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[Ashes81]

At the moment there is a pretty strong case for making Smith the 2nd best test batsmen ever.

There's also a case to be made for several other players - we all know who they are.

When Smith retires, we'll have a better idea of his final standing. However unless he ends up averaging mid 60's or mid 50's then it'll come down to a personal view.

When comparing players, there's often no right or wrong answer, as there is so little to split them. Is Lara better than Tendulkar or Richards? Is Marshall better than McGrath?

With these comparisons some are looking for an answer that doesn't exist - is about a personal viewpoint of 2 brilliant players with very similar records.

 

[subshakerz]

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.

So if he continues averaging 60 up till 160 tests he is no.2 for sure.

If he averages 52/53, he is what? No.3? No.4? No.5? No 6 to 10? What is the range?

 

[shortpitched713]

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

We're missing the context of what it will look like if he drops that precipitously. We won't be able to say "ah he must have lost .07 ms of reaction time, of course his performance would decline". It will look like he got found out. Bowlers would have a reliable mode of dismissal and/or plan to target. Something like setting up a fast inswinger, for example. It will look a bit foolish, and we wouldn't be ignoring it. We'd just wonder why we didn't see the chink in the armor earlier.

I don't expect him to drop like that though lol, so this is all a bit hypothetical.

 

[OverratedSanity]

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

Agree, he should retire immediately to preserve his status as the greatest since Bradman

 

[shortpitched713]

Agree, he should retire immediately to preserve his status as the greatest since Bradman

I mean, if that's his only motivation for playing, sure. He's done enough.

 

[trundler]

So if he continues averaging 60 up till 160 tests he is no.2 for sure.

If he averages 52/53, he is what? No.3? No.4? No.5? No 6 to 10? What is the range?

I'm not Thanos BC. It depends on the context of those runs.

 

[trundler]

I mean, if that's his only motivation for playing, sure. He's done enough.

If he has done enough to you then how can what happens from now on undo what he's already achieved?

 

[subshakerz]

We're missing the context of what it will look like if he drops that precipitously. We won't be able to say "ah he must have lost .07 ms of reaction time", of course his performance would decline. It will look like he got found out. Bowlers would have a reliable mode of dismissal and/or plan to target. Something like setting up a fast inswinger, for example. It will look a bit foolish, and we wouldn't be ignoring it. We'd just wonder why we didn't see the chink in the armor earlier.

I don't expect him to drop like that though lol, so this is all a bit hypothetical.

This is what these guys are missing. Once a player goes into a slump or even a middling phase, he suddenly looks vulnerable in a way that affects that image he built in his peak years. It's not just aging, it's coping with changes in technique, etc.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not Thanos BC. It depends on the context of those runs.

Is it possible that his performance here on can take him to a confirm no.2 or down to no.6? Is that conceivable, that's all.

 

[shortpitched713]

If he has done enough to you then how can what happens from now on undo what he's already achieved?

It doesn't. It just shows his image of invincibility (which so many of us feel when we're watching batsmen great batsmen with our eyes) to be a bit of a fraud.

 

[trundler]

Is it possible that his performance here on can take him to a confirm no.2 or down to no.6? Is that conceivable, that's all.

If he manages to become the confirmes #2 by test 110 with some freaky run of performances then he's not going to drop down.

 

[Coronis]

There's also a case to be made for several other players - we all know who they are.

Voges, Pollock and Headley imo.

 

[subshakerz]

If he manages to become the confirmes #2 by test 110 with some freaky run of performances then he's not going to drop down.

Not talking about 110 tests. Talking about 160 tests and a variation of 8-10 runs in averages from his current to below that. Does that conceivably alter his ranking by 3 to 4 places? Is that possible to you?

 

[shortpitched713]

If he manages to become the confirmes #2 by test 110 with some freaky run of performances then he's not going to drop down.

What's magical about the number 110? Is this some sort of magical cricket number lore that I'm missing, like 99.94, or some ****? Please, elucidate from your font of arcane knowledges...

 

[subshakerz]

What's magical about the number 110? Is this some sort of magical cricket number lore that I'm missing, like 99.94, or some ****? Please, elucidate from your font of arcane knowledges...

It's close to the 107 tests that Ponting played when he averaged 60. He finished his career averaging 51 after 160 odd tests.

 

[trundler]

The difference between Smith and Ponting is down to eras and their away records. Even peak Ponting wasn't as well rounded as Smith is now. That's why Smith can be rated better than him. It's not just a straight average after x matches comparison. I'll put you out of your misery here if you're trying to set me up for some sort of gotcha with this tedious posting. You've already had the crux of the point explained to you in the simplest terms several times.

 

[subshakerz]

The difference between Smith and Ponting is down to eras and their away records. Even peak Ponting wasn't as well rounded as Smith is now. That's why Smith can be rated better than him. It's not just a straight average after x matches comparison. I'll put you out of your misery here if you're trying to set me up for some sort of gotcha with this tedious posting. You've already had the crux of the point explained to you in the simplest terms several times.

Nah, the point was that I said Ponting got downgraded from 2007 peak to end of his career which you contested, not just compared to Chappell but overall as a bat.

Now you don't want to admit the same logic for Smith because it would undermine your point, even tho from above you all but agree that Smith will lose some places if his average slips compares to other contestants for the no.2 spot.

 

[trundler]

Nah, the point was that I said Ponting got downgraded from 2007 peak to end of his career which you contested, not just compared to Chappell but overall as a bat.

By morons and idiots. Wrongly so.

Now you don't want to admit the same logic for Smith because it would undermine your point, even tho from above you all but agree that Smith will lose some places if his average slips compares to other contestants for the no.2 spot.

**** no I didn't. You made that reach based on your own assumptions. I never said he's definite #2 now or would be if he carries on like this for 20 more tests.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking you tricked me somehow then go ahead. I've played this tedious scenario out just because and you still don't have a point.

 

[Coronis]

The difference between Smith and Ponting is down to eras and their away records. Even peak Ponting wasn't as well rounded as Smith is now. That's why Smith can be rated better than him. It's not just a straight average after x matches comparison. I'll put you out of your misery here if you're trying to set me up for some sort of gotcha with this tedious posting. You've already had the crux of the point explained to you in the simplest terms several times.

Neither was as well rounded as Kallis.

 

[subshakerz]

**** no I didn't. You made that reach based on your own assumptions. I never said he's definite #2 now or would be if he carries on like this for 20 more tests.

If you want to delude yourself into thinking you tricked me somehow then go ahead. I've played this tedious scenario out just because and you still don't have a point.

You said the below:

'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.'

So if he continues averaging like he does then definite no.2

If he drops, then he is not definite no.2 (so maybe no.3, 4, 5 or 6)

Which means you basically agree with my point. Latter career and post-peak performance affects ranking.

Thanks for playing the game.