Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[honestbharani]

Zimbabwe weren't full on minnows in the late 90s. Especially in this context when India were losing tests to them.

Not in India though. They were very much minnows when we played them in India.

 

[Coronis]

The more statements you make like this, the less objective you stance appears, lol

He's not Ponting and the the fact that he's arguably the best ever player of pace and the rate of knots that he could take over or turn the tide of a game vs quality bowling is unparalleled.

If you rate that guy 15th, it begs questions.

I make statements like this because I’ve had similar arguments many times before and yes I don’t feel like repeating myself over and over.

As has been previously stated we do not see eye to eye wrt to SR and that will never change.

Actually I think Ponting and Viv is a rather apt comprison thinking more on it.

They started out young (20 going on 21 and 22), peaked for 5 years from around 24-29 and were world class for a period after that with a heavy decline at the end. Both had 17 year careers and both were excellent against pace. One played in a easier era for batting and against against weaker bowling, and that’s why I rate Viv ahead.

That still coincided with Australia's dominance, but understood.

And again, don't believe in the more bowling friendly discussion, just the great bowlers mostly retired.

You’re not really saying mid-2000’s wasn’t an easier time for batting than mid-90’s pitch wise are you?

If it's his average, it's because Lara has very few not outs compared to the others. But he churned out the same RPI (more or less) as a few of the others: Sachin, Hammond, Hobbs.

In retrospect yeah, that is true. Its also true imo though that being not out - not actually dismissed - in an innings is an important factor and that’s why its used in the calculation of an average. I understand Lara had a different situation and yeah I might not be quite doing him justice but it is an important factor. (whilst the gap becomes halved about 2-3 runs looking at RPI, its still the lowest of the players being discussed)

 

[kyear2]

I make statements like this because I’ve had similar arguments many times before and yes I don’t feel like repeating myself over and over.

As has been previously stated we do not see eye to eye wrt to SR and that will never change.

Actually I think Ponting and Viv is a rather apt comprison thinking more on it.

They started out young (20 going on 21 and 22), peaked for 5 years from around 24-29 and were world class for a period after that with a heavy decline at the end. Both had 17 year careers and both were excellent against pace. One played in a easier era for batting and against against weaker bowling, and that’s why I rate Viv ahead.



You’re not really saying mid-2000’s wasn’t an easier time for batting than mid-90’s pitch wise are you?


In retrospect yeah, that is true. Its also true imo though that being not out - not actually dismissed - in an innings is an important factor and that’s why its used in the calculation of an average. I understand Lara had a different situation and yeah I might not be quite doing him justice but it is an important factor. (whilst the gap becomes halved about 2-3 runs looking at RPI, its still the lowest of the players being discussed)

I'm trying to figure out if you don't rate Viv because you don't value s/r or if you don't rate s/r because you don't live Viv.

It's also not all about the s/r, it's who he faced and dominated during said career and peak and the impact of same.

Even if one believes his peak was too short, that doesn't diminish what he did during said peak. Every team he faced during that era had ATG bowlers, and he didn't play against any minnows and still averaged over 50. That's mighty impressive

 

[Coronis]

I'm trying to figure out if you don't rate Viv because you don't value s/r or if you don't rate s/r because you don't live Viv.

It's also not all about the s/r, it's who he faced and dominated during said career and peak and the impact of same.

Even if one believes his peak was too short, that doesn't diminish what he did during said peak. Every team he faced during that era had ATG bowlers, and he didn't play against any minnows and still averaged over 50. That's mighty impressive

I’ve never said it wasn’t impressive. And yes, I agree about who he faced, and that’s why I rate him above others such as Ponting.

And its SR in general, it always has been before I even learned about Viv. I believe its a relevant part of rating a player but I don’t consider it that big of a thing. Its also why I don’t inherently give openers such as Sehwag, Hayden, Smith and Warner an advantage over Sutcliffe, Hutton, Simpson, Boycott, Gavaskar and Cook.

 

[Line and Length]

Yes and no. He nor Tendulkar were particularly successful vs the elite pacers of the '90's, but at times Lara did look particularly uncomfortable vs the likes of White Lightning. But that's the difference between Lara and the likes of Hammond. Lara struggled vs the 2 Ws and Donald. Hammond, vs Constantine and Martindale, and who were the guys he did dominate?

That was Bodyline ... and we know who else struggled against that sort of attack.

Bradman is obviously head and shoulders above everyone else while Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar deservedly are regarded as the next tier.
I would regard Hutton, Gavaskar, Headley and Sutcliffe in the same grouping as the four being discussed. Any of these 4 deservedly rank alongside or above Hammond and Smith (who is harder to judge without a complete career).

 

[subshakerz]

I’ve never said it wasn’t impressive. And yes, I agree about who he faced, and that’s why I rate him above others such as Ponting.

And its SR in general, it always has been before I even learned about Viv. I believe its a relevant part of rating a player but I don’t consider it that big of a thing. Its also why I don’t inherently give openers such as Sehwag, Hayden, Smith and Warner an advantage over Sutcliffe, Hutton, Simpson, Boycott, Gavaskar and Cook.

I don't think anyone here is going to place batsmen ahead just based on SR. Overall record, quality of opposition and reputation matter more which is why Gavaskar is ahead of Sehwag.

But faster rate of scoring definitely is a point in favor of a batsmen who is otherwise equal. It's why I put Sangakarra ahead of Kallis who are roughly equal on other measures.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Slow top order batsmen (openers, sometimes the number 3) who average the same are consuming more of the new ball and have a very clear positive effect on the rest of the batting lineup.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Strike rate is good to split players who are about equal (Lara is better than Sanga and Kallis) but sometimes it gets used to overrate players like Ponting who was mediocre after the age of 32 unlike Sanga and Kallis

 

[kyear2]

Slow top order batsmen (openers, sometimes the number 3) who average the same are consuming more of the new ball and have a very clear positive effect on the rest of the batting lineup.

Or gets stagnated and let the bowlers settle into a rhythm. It works both ways.

Openers possibly, but you want a positive, proactive no 3 that's capable of both and dominating the bowling where possible, that too sets the tone, gets the bowlers off their lines and can have a positive effect on the rest of the line up.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Or gets stagnated and let the bowlers settle into a rhythm. It works both ways.

Ok? Who said it doesn't? As does getting out earlier exposing the middle order to the new ball.

This is what is frustrating even attempting to have a discussion with you blokes when it comes to strike rate, the high strike rate believers like you and subshakerz are allowed to have your preferences but always ignore the benefit of the slower approach entirely. You have a stubborn refusal to admit both high and low strike rate have their benefits (more benefits for high SR if you wish) and it's situational. Also dont agree about number 3s, it again depends on the composition of the team. Anyway, most people dont even disagree fast scoring is not useful. The argument just is that it is nowhere near important enough to bring it up in conversations about every single cricketer.

Also, have said it before: Quick wickets >>>>>>>>>> Quick runs in terms of having an impact on the result on the game. Quick wickets in bunches have always changed the complexion of a game far more than quick runs ever do and I have never seen this being acknowledged on CW when it comes to debating bowlers, despite it being obviously true. Very strange stuff tbh.

 

[kyear2]

That was Bodyline ... and we know who else struggled against that sort of attack.

Bradman is obviously head and shoulders above everyone else while Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar deservedly are regarded as the next tier.
I would regard Hutton, Gavaskar, Headley and Sutcliffe in the same grouping as the four being discussed. Any of these 4 deservedly rank alongside or above Hammond and Smith (who is harder to judge without a complete career).

I personally have Hutton above Hammond and Gavaskar just about equal to Walter, so wouldn't argue from that front, but don't think they are quite on the same level of Viv, Smith or Lara.

Headley and Sutcliffe I have a fair bit lower (around 15th and 16th) and below some others.

Also you referenced the 4 as alongside or above Hammond or Smith, you believe they are also possibly ahead of Lara and Richards as well?

 

[kyear2]

Ok? Who said it doesn't? As does getting out earlier exposing the middle order to the new ball.

This is what is frustrating even attempting to have a discussion with you blokes when it comes to strike rate, the high strike rate believers like you and subshakerz are allowed to have your preferences but always ignore the benefit of the slower approach entirely. You have a stubborn refusal to admit both high and low strike rate have their benefits (more benefits for high SR if you wish) and it's situational. Also dont agree about number 3s, it again depends on the composition of the team. Anyway, most people dont even disagree fast scoring is not useful. The argument just is that it is nowhere near important enough to bring it up in conversations about every single cricketer.

Also, have said it before: Quick wickets >>>>>>>>>> Quick runs in terms of having an impact on the result on the game. Quick wickets in bunches have always changed the complexion of a game far more than quick runs ever do and I have never seen this being acknowledged on CW when it comes to debating bowlers, despite it being obviously true. Very strange stuff tbh.

That's the thing though, it is situational. Fully agree, yes, fully.......

Literally what I said is that I want a no. 3 that's capable of both. And from my decades of watching the sport, it's easier for a quicker scorer to shut it down and defend as required than for a slower one to accelerate. Viv, Smith nor Lara goes gung-ho from ball one, none of the try to hit every ball to the fence. They're just capable of accelerating when it's required much more easily than the others.

And a s/r of mid 40's, fine it's acceptable, but if you're striking in the mid or low 30's that's just a bridge too far unless you're really on a weak batting team, and even then. We can adjust for eras, but Hobbs didn't strike that low did he?

But again, you want a batsman that capable of both, I believe that's more ideal.

 

[Coronis]

That's the thing though, it is situational. Fully agree, yes, fully.......

Literally what I said is that I want a no. 3 that's capable of both. And from my decades of watching the sport, it's easier for a quicker scorer to shut it down and defend as required than for a slower one to accelerate. Viv, Smith nor Lara goes gung-ho from ball one, none of the try to hit every ball to the fence. They're just capable of accelerating when it's required much more easily than the others.

And a s/r of mid 40's, fine it's acceptable, but if you're striking in the mid or low 30's that's just a bridge too far unless you're really on a weak batting team, and even then. We can adjust for eras, but Hobbs didn't strike that low did he?

But again, you want a batsman that capable of both, I believe that's more ideal.

So that only really applies to Boycott. Cool.

Actually from what I’ve seen its harder for an attacking player to slow it down. e.g Warner and others

 

[subshakerz]

Slow top order batsmen (openers, sometimes the number 3) who average the same are consuming more of the new ball and have a very clear positive effect on the rest of the batting lineup.

I agree in the case of openers. I don't demerit them all for low SR. A good counterattacking no.3 is a boon though.

Strike rate is good to split players who are about equal (Lara is better than Sanga and Kallis) but sometimes it gets used to overrate players like Ponting who was mediocre after the age of 32 unlike Sanga and Kallis

Ponting gets ahead of Sanga/Kallis based on super high peak and peer rating moreso than SR.

This is what is frustrating even attempting to have a discussion with you blokes when it comes to strike rate, the high strike rate believers like you and subshakerz are allowed to have your preferences but always ignore the benefit of the slower approach entirely. You have a stubborn refusal to admit both high and low strike rate have their benefits (more benefits for high SR if you wish) and it's situational. Also dont agree about number 3s, it again depends on the composition of the team. Anyway, most people dont even disagree fast scoring is not useful. The argument just is that it is nowhere near important enough to bring it up in conversations about every single cricketer.

It depends on the batsman we are talking about. Low SR I don't consider a plus in and of itself, but it is excusable in situations where as mentioned a batsman has to open and consume new ball deliveries, or if someone like Dravid has plenty of attacking batsmen around him to allow balance for his slow scoring and build partnerships. But between middle order bats, a fast scoring rate generally is a plus based on the ground realities of a game and momentum shifting.

Also, have said it before: Quick wickets >>>>>>>>>> Quick runs in terms of having an impact on the result on the game. Quick wickets in bunches have always changed the complexion of a game far more than quick runs ever do and I have never seen this being acknowledged on CW when it comes to debating bowlers, despite it being obviously true. Very strange stuff tbh.

Bowling SR is an entirely different conversation.

 

[subshakerz]

That's the thing though, it is situational. Fully agree, yes, fully.......

Literally what I said is that I want a no. 3 that's capable of both. And from my decades of watching the sport, it's easier for a quicker scorer to shut it down and defend as required than for a slower one to accelerate. Viv, Smith nor Lara goes gung-ho from ball one, none of the try to hit every ball to the fence. They're just capable of accelerating when it's required much more easily than the others.

And a s/r of mid 40's, fine it's acceptable, but if you're striking in the mid or low 30's that's just a bridge too far unless you're really on a weak batting team, and even then. We can adjust for eras, but Hobbs didn't strike that low did he?

But again, you want a batsman that capable of both, I believe that's more ideal.

Good point. A number 3 like Dravid ain't capable of regularly accelerating, yet literally any major test no.3 bat like Viv, Ponting, etc can take their time to settle before attacking.

Now, Dravid may have an advantage in grinding out in tough conditions versus those others, but as a norm, attacking bats are preferred.

I think both you and I agree that the operating norm for test cricket success is aggressive play and faster scoring, and there are exceptions where a slower batsman can work well in their respective lineup, but we would still opt in our ratings towards bats who are capable of quicker damage.

 

[kyear2]

So that only really applies to Boycott. Cool.

Actually from what I’ve seen its harder for an attacking player to slow it down. e.g Warner and others

We're talking about the greats through, not Warner. And wasn't only referencing Boyc's btw.

 

[Line and Length]

I personally have Hutton above Hammond and Gavaskar just about equal to Walter, so wouldn't argue from that front, but don't think they are quite on the same level of Viv, Smith or Lara.

Headley and Sutcliffe I have a fair bit lower (around 15th and 16th) and below some others.

Also you referenced the 4 as alongside or above Hammond or Smith, you believe they are also possibly ahead of Lara and Richards as well?

Not necessarily. I'm just saying the 4 I named fit within the group of 4 in the OP. Some are above Hammond and on a par with Smith. I see Lara and Richards above the other two in the OP. It's all very subjective.

 

[kyear2]

Not necessarily. I'm just saying the 4 I named fit within the group of 4 in the OP. Some are above Hammond and on a par with Smith. I see Lara and Richards above the other two in the OP. It's all very subjective.

Understood

 

[Coronis]

We're talking about the greats through, not Warner. And wasn't only referencing Boyc's btw.

Well the others you usuallu are high 30’s and he’s mid 30’s so thats what I figured.

And Warner was just an example, many aggressive players (including some of those greats you’ve mentioned) have a lot of trouble digging in at the beginning of the innings and get out to rash starts trying to get their innings going.

 

[kyear2]

Well the others you usuallu are high 30’s and he’s mid 30’s so thats what I figured.

And Warner was just an example, many aggressive players (including some of those greats you’ve mentioned) have a lot of trouble digging in at the beginning of the innings and get out to rash starts trying to get their innings going.

You do know that slow scoring batsmen get out early as well, and sometimes at the same rate.