kyear2
International Coach
The snide comment apart, your telling me that you would take Jadeja as a player over Tendulkar, Richards, Lara or Steve Smith?
-
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.
Javed Miandad vs Ravindra Jadeja
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
Absolutely
ataraxia
International Coach
Yes. And also, that post was completely serious (a sentence that I'm aware sounds like the most sarcastic thing in the world, but I do mean it genuinely).
kyear2
International Coach
Specifically meant the cordon comment, lol
kyear2
International Coach
Tendulkar is arguably the end best batsman ever. Consistent as hell and as good as almost anyone for being the best vs the best.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Jadeja is probably the most overrated player on this board. Miandad is anything but overrated.
You should just start with these arguments next time, it makes it easier since your standards of judging cricketers are too far out of what can argued with.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Why are you even addressing such an argument? Have some standards, man.
If they want to rate Jadeja above Tendulkar, that is an opinion outside the bounds of what can be reasoned with.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
This is close. I think Miandad's batting is a bit underrated here and Jadeja's bowling slightly overrated overall, but I'm a big reason people think allrounders are fetished here so I've gone for Jadeja anyway.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
What was Miandad like a catcher? I'd like to factor that in more than I do but I don't know enough about how good a lot of players before my time actually were at it.
If you want to believe that, sure.
ataraxia
International Coach
I don't see how I haven't always been upfront about this. It's not even a particularly hot take.
There are 4.5 to 5 average bowlers–equivalent in a test team, while there are 7.5 to 8 average batters–equivalent. There are definitely some mitigating factors, but it still comes out to batters being approximately 1.4 times as important as bowlers to a team. Which from my time watching cricket, sounds about right.
Jadeja is maybe 0.6 times a bowler as Tendulkar is a batter, shall we say. So some raw maths inputting the above, by primary discliplines Jadeja is 0.84 times as good as Tendulkar. His batting and fielding easily makes up the remainder however much you value it.
I'm not even trying to be contrarian. It's just why I inherently dislike rating very different players as cricketers: logically it ends up merely being about impact rather than actually who was better in their role. And ranking very different players by their success in their own role seems even dumber IMO – some seem to treat this as just some jumbly merge of their respective ratings of batters, bowlers, and all-rounders. Something in the middle doesn't really seem right to me either. If it is all about impact, that's no fun either. There's all-rounders and bowlers heading the pack, leaving batters in their shadow. "Cricketers" is dumb, it's stupid, it's very dumb, it's silly, ok.
ankitj
Hall of Fame Member
Jadeja easily. Jadeja vs Imran would be closer.
Because Imran is better than Miandad. Duh.
kyear2
International Coach
Was asking was Jadeja easily.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Come on bro. Your above average bowler would end up being rated a better cricketer than a worldclass bat just because there are less spots for him in a team. Your top 20 or 30 cricketers of all-time then should have no bats at all, just bowlers and all-rounders.
If you think that is a serious measure of overall greatness, well, let's just agree to disagree.
kyear2
International Coach
He pops up a fair bit in score cards, especially to Imran, but never referenced with regards to his aptitude. His catch ratio is also not the best. He's not in my top 30, but that's not definitive, and sadly yes I have one of those, and I should also explain how they are formed.
For the ones well before our time, I first read through bios (like on Cricinfo for Barlow and Bruce Mitchell), then read up on everything you can about them. When you're in that tier, it tends to be mentioned along with batting or bowling exploits. The catching ratio tends to support to some extent. Also reading up on any and everything you can find on the top lists from those eras.
For players of more modern eras (and that's including everything from the 60's) there's video evidence to support those claims. But again you scour the lists and for specific mentions. So it's bios, references, lists, stats and video evidence. The mentions and catch ratios basically prompts further research.
Guys like Hammond, Simpson and Sobers are locked in, there's as much spoken about them for their fielding as anything else, along with Mark they possibly make up my Mount Rushmore. Of course for Hammond there's the possibility of hyperbole, but he seems to have been universally acclaimed and accepted as the early GOAT. Sobers, there's lots of examples of spectacular catches, falling forward for the low fast ones of Hall and Griffith, the diving ones to the side and everything in-between. He made it look so damn easy. The rest I've seen to some extent, with the notable exception of Richards who for some reason I can't recall or find evidence of to that extent, but he appears on lists and I have managed to find some spectacular efforts at 3rd, but yeah.
With regards to Javed, he never stood out in videos, featured in literature and the stats never demanded a closer look. Guys the the subcontinent also tend not to get featured to that extent, if for nothing else, for the lowness of the Pakistani pitches, heavy emphasis on spin for most of India's and SL's history etc. but the great ones still stand out... Azhar, Dravid, VVS, Sunny, Younis and Jayawardene. Yes there are a couple more contemporary options, but those guys stand out.
It is harder than with batting and bowling, and as with them, it still requires a closer look. A mixture of stats, journalistic references and ratings, and eye test. Stats probably factors in least here, but is telling. For as many catches that, let's say Root had, he's never featured on a list or even garnered mention. And that's fair, warranted and validates what we've seen. Also validates the system to some extent.
And as I've said in the past, yes you look for consistency and safe hands, but also the difficult ones, the half chances, those leaning forward low ones, less the diving ones, those are stick or not, but yeah, that too factors in. Cathing with hands and not body, the high fast ones and ability to transition from pace to spin. Yes I also favor 2nd over first, those are where the more difficult ones tend to go and they also cover for first with the low ones that wouldn't carry. That's where the best ones tend to stand. Might be a personal bias, but that's where I stand.
Sorry for the ridiculously long ramble, hope it made some sense.
ataraxia
International Coach
Have you read the final paragraph?
Oh, and also, just to be clear, it isn't "number of spots in team", it's impact.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Ok but then there is a consensus among most here that we have some level of parity between bats and bowlers in their respective disciplines, at most some put a preference for the latter.
Your standard is so out of this norm it is best to not opine on these comparisons then unless between bowlers or all-rounders frankly.
kyear2
International Coach
Answered your question?
Last edited:
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yep! Thank you. I really want to learn more about how good some of players were as catchers and you're the best source short of reading through biography after biography.