Gundappa Viswanath vs Ian Bell

[Socerer 01]

It's probably Viswanath, particularly given the Indian batting line-ups he often had to play in and the focus on he and Sunny to make runs, though I really don't think there's much in it.

In fact, playing devil's advocate for just a moment - Viswanath got to play 17 Tests against the weakened Australian and West Indian sides decimated by WSC, in which he averaged 64. Over his other 74 Tests, he averaged 37.

this is a good eg of how to present a critical argument against Gundappa instead of just waahing that everyone hates you so your opinion should matter

 

[Socerer 01]

Standardised averages are a pretty niche (and controversial) topic but I think most people would agree that scoring 1 run per dismissal on average is not a meaningful difference. At that point context depends way more - when you scored runs vs how many etc

its still better than “numbers slightly bigger on one side so he is better” argument

Gundappa is supposed to time travel to 2000s England team to play more tests on flat roads to be a better player than Bell if we go by Carty’s hypothesis

 

[Prince EWS]

Standardised averages are a pretty niche (and controversial) topic but I think most people would agree that scoring 1 run per dismissal on average is not a meaningful difference. At that point context depends way more - when you scored runs vs how many etc

I will also add that someone playing 2-3 years longer at Test level is a 'meaningful difference' to your average.

 

[Spark]

its still better than “numbers slightly bigger on one side so he is better” argument

Gundappa is supposed to time travel to 2000s England team to play more tests on flat roads to be a better player than Bell if we go by Carty’s hypothesis

Oh yeah for sure, I'm just pointing out that most people won't have heard about it and it's not universally popular amongst those have. I'm a huge fan, but they have limits for sure (as do all statistical measures).

I will also add that someone playing 2-3 years longer at Test level is a 'meaningful difference' to your average.

Sure but then we get into the "sheer quantity is more important than career average" argument which I think is a good argument but not one often made.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sure but then we get into the "sheer quantity is more important than career average" argument which I think is a good argument but not one often made.

Oh you don't necessarily - like at all.

I think it just entitles you to cherry-pick.

If we're comparing two players and one's Test average is dragged down through their bad start/finish, and the other is not selected at 24 or dropped at 34... we've gotta account for that.

 

[peterhrt]

Bell was often one of six or seven batsmen in the team averaging over forty. As such he didn't always stand out. Comparison with his English contemporaries might be more interesting.

Likewise Viswanath with Indian middle order batsmen before and since. He played several significant innings. A cool 33 at The Oval (after Gavaskar had gone for a duck) to give India a first victory in England. Unbeaten 97 out of 190 at Madras against Roberts at his fastest contributing towards another win. Next highest score was 14. He also got a hundred when India chased down 400 in Trinidad.

 

[Chin Music]

Make that two.

on other topics I was the one shaking with rage…

As I am sure you are aware, that particular phrase was an obvious hook to get you to comment! Great that you did....

 

[CartyDurham]

It’s only an opinion

how many on here have seen Viswanath play?

 

[CartyDurham]

have you never heard of something called standardised averages? by your logic Warner is better than Mark Taylor because his stats are slightly better with zero context added

Only opinion. All the other players are a different subject

I feel bell was a better player, all these things you are throwing at me is not relevant to this question

bell or Viswanath

did you see a lot of Viswanath play?

as I said it’s very slightly in bells favour. That doesn’t make Viswanath a bad player at all. He was a good player

 

[CartyDurham]

Is it allowed to have another opinion than the majority? And if so do you have to field questions to justify it?

all I’ve done is have an opinion. If you look at the poll there are three others with that opinion

I don’t see them questioned constantly

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

It’s only an opinion

how many on here have seen Viswanath play?

I think this needs to be addressed but dont think I hate you or something. Someone disagreeing with you does not mean they hate you. Debates are healthy and thought provoking. Rather than always affirming each other all the time, its better to argue nicely. To your point, seeing someone play can not be among top criteria to judge between two. Sure its good to have footages but its hard to get those from that era compared to this era. If you mean whether someone watched him live or continuously in tv or something then everyone needs to be burgey to have opinion on players from that era. How many footages have you seen of Bradman? Don’t you think hes atleast among the best if not the best? How did you come to that conclusion regarding bradman?

 

[CartyDurham]

[


I think this needs to be addressed but dont think I hate you or something. Someone disagreeing with you does not mean they hate you. Debates are healthy and thought provoking. Rather than always affirming each other all the time, its better to argue nicely. To your point, seeing someone play can not be among top criteria to judge between two. Sure its good to have footages but its hard to get those from that era compared to this era. If you mean whether someone watched him live or continuously in tv or something then everyone needs to be burgey to have opinion on players from that era. How many footages have you seen of Bradman? Don’t you think hes atleast among the best if not the best? How did you come to that conclusion regarding bradman?

I’m getting hate across the forum though. all I’ve done here is say I rate bell as the slightly better player . That is all

I asked how many have seen viswanath play, that’s all. Nothing about bradman or the other players that have been mentioned

this thread was about bell and viswanath . I said bell is the slight winner as his career stats show

that doesn’t mean I don’t rate viswanath as a good player as he clearly was

I’m making simple points here but I’m asked about things the thread was not about to justify myself

it’s only opinion and I accept fully the majority who have viswanath as a better player .

 

[CartyDurham]

re asking about seeing viswanath play. That’s a simple question to ask who has seen him play. No ulterior motive, no questioning anyones belief

just who had seen him play? That’s all it was

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

I’m getting hate across the forum though. all I’ve done here is say I rate bell as the slightly better player . That is all

I asked how many have seen viswanath play, that’s all. Nothing about bradman or the other players that have been mentioned

this thread was about bell and viswanath . I said bell is the slight winner as his career stats show

that doesn’t mean I don’t rate viswanath as a good player as he clearly was

I’m making simple points here but I’m asked about things the thread was not about to justify myself

it’s only opinion and I accept fully the majority who have viswanath as a better player .

I think others are just questioning the method by which you came to conclusion that Bell is better and trying to establish the flaw in that method. If you are gonna have an opinion then must be prepared to take the hit on that opinion and justify it. I dont think its the forum where you can have an opinion and ppl not gonna question you if they feel its question worthy. Above all its up to you whether you will address those or not. But I don’t think anyone has any motive to attack CartyDurham because CartyDurham said so.

 

[peterhrt]

how many on here have seen Viswanath play?

Probably a few.

He was a very wristy player, with plenty of time against the quicks. Not as stylish as Bell though.

Gavaskar said Viswanath was better than himself - but they were brothers-in-law.

 

[CartyDurham]

Probably a few.

He was a very wristy player, with plenty of time against the quicks. Not as stylish as Bell though.

Gavaskar said Viswanath was better than himself - but they were brothers-in-law.

Thank you for replying. I appreciate the answer. I thought it was a easy question but others are wanting to forensically destroy it

I do like seeing the wristy type of player myself. I saw a bit of viswanath but it’s that long ago , it’s something I had forgotten

 

[GIMH]

Ian Bell. Scored more Ashes runs

 

[Coronis]

You’re being extremely oversensitive. You think literally every post asking a question re: your opinion is a personal insult against you. Nobody has been calling you names, nobody has been attacking you or your viewpoint personally.

Nobody is hating on you, people just wanted to know why you felt Bell was better and then responded with why they disagreed. The whole point of these comparisons is a healthy debate over the value of 2 comparable players.

As to seeing Viswanath play, I wasn’t alive when he was playing, but I have seen footage of him. Many on this forum are olderand probably saw him play.

 

[CartyDurham]

You’re being extremely oversensitive. You think literally every post asking a question re: your opinion is a personal insult against you. Nobody has been calling you names, nobody has been attacking you or your viewpoint personally.

Nobody is hating on you, people just wanted to know why you felt Bell was better and then responded with why they disagreed. The whole point of these comparisons is a healthy debate over the value of 2 comparable players.

As to seeing Viswanath play, I wasn’t alive when he was playing, but I have seen footage of him. Many on this forum are olderand probably saw him play.

It’s all over the forum, I’m getting ridiculed, accused and basically driven from having an opinion.

I gave my reasons. I gave their test career stats

I was then hit with questions re other players from different eras , which were not relevant to this question , Bradman etc

I asked an innocent question on who has seen viswanath play? That was answered in an aggresive manner, bar one person

what I said and I still believe is that based on the test stats of the two, that Bell is the SLIGHTLY better player. That is all

I also think Viswanath was a good player

that is my opinion. Others disagree but I don’t know how much further I would go.

 

[CartyDurham]

There are others who voted for bell

only I am being questioned over why