• 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.

Viv Richards & Allan Donald vs Brian Lara & Curtly Ambrose

Choose one combo

  • Total voters
    27
OverratedSanity

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sliferxxxx said:
Actually on face value, Lara’s away record seems very good not great. But a minute ago, someone put the RPI stuff into my head which had me thinking. I was curious to seenhow Lara compares using that metric ie the actual runs scored away. I'm going to show lara relative to a select few players:

Lara : 47.40

Sachin: 49.5
Smith: 49.6
Waugh S: 43.5
Kallis: 45
Dravid: 46.3
Hutton: 49.8
Viv: 47

The most surprising was S Waugh who averages 55 away but actually scored way less. Anyway, Lara does have his issues away but imo, it's not that far off his near contemporaries and other greats in terms of actual output.
Click to expand...
This is precisely why I don't rate Waugh as highly as others. Average isn't everything, run production matters.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
peterhrt said:
The reason for the blip was county cricket. Gibbs' weakness was bowling round the wicket. He didn't like it. But he was a big spinner of the ball and to get lbws in England he had to do it, especially with all the left-handers in the county game. He lost rhythm and form and was dropped by West Indies.

Gibbs had done well in Tests in England in the past but his spell with Warwickshire from 1967 to 1973 only included one good season in 1971. He also spent a season with South Australia in 1969-70 which wasn't successful either.

After a good home series against Australia in 1973 some of the old form returned.
Click to expand...
Honestly you're sure a treasure trove of knowledge and of the history of the game.

You don't have agendas and very arguably the best poster on the forum.

You're appreciated Sir.
 
kyear2

kyear2

International Coach
subshakerz said:
If you don't doubt his greatness then you have to believe he can transcend eras. Maybe there might be a shortfall even if does since we cant see him playing but I am fairly confident given his abilities it wouldn't make him less than top tier. Just don't think he can be no.2 without footage though.
Click to expand...
I can believe in his greatness without believing he can transcend eras. It's clear he was so much better than anyone else from his era, we just don't know how good everyone else was.

And he can most definitely be no. 2 without me seeing him, he just wouldn't make my specific team.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
kyear2 said:
I can believe in his greatness without believing he can transcend eras.
Click to expand...
If he is great in something that is incompatible with modern cricket, he isn't really great as we understand it.

I think based on how adaptability and skill required for that, he could transcend.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
OverratedSanity said:
This is precisely why I don't rate Waugh as highly as others. Average isn't everything, run production matters.
Click to expand...
This is going to be a bit situational. A not out in a loss is obviously never going to be a useful thing. You have either not protected the tail long enough, or produced enough runs to change a result.

In a win, you have produced enough runs already. And there are (occasional) times that producing more and getting out will cost wins. But lower production is putting the team under more pressure and relying on better performances from others.

Draws can go either way.

In general, if you don't want to parse every game imdividually, I would just settle for average, except in lost games. Then RPI is more meaningful. This will penalise lower order bats, but thats kinda fine as batting lower in the specialist positions is easier.

Lara 0 NOs in 63 losses.
Waugh 8 NOs in 36 losses.
Chanderpaul 19 NOs in 77
Sachin 2 NOs in 56.

IDK how representative these numbers are of all bats. Or how much meaning to attach to them. But they do support the criticism of Waugh and defense of Lara as they stand.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
This is going to be a bit situational. A not out in a loss is obviously never going to be a useful thing. You have either not protected the tail long enough, or produced enough runs to change a result.

In a win, you have produced enough runs already. And there are (occasional) times that producing more and getting out will cost wins. But lower production is putting the team under more pressure and relying on better performances from others.

Draws can go either way.

In general, if you don't want to parse every game imdividually, I would just settle for average, except in lost games. Then RPI is more meaningful. This will penalise lower order bats, but thats kinda fine as batting lower in the specialist positions is easier.

Lara 0 NOs in 63 losses.
Waugh 8 NOs in 36 losses.
Chanderpaul 19 NOs in 77
Sachin 2 NOs in 56.

IDK how representative these numbers are of all bats. Or how much meaning to attach to them. But they do support the criticism of Waugh and defense of Lara as they stand.
Click to expand...
I can see why lower order bats should be penalised for not batting higher and facing the fresher bowlers.

But how exactly is a no.5/6 going to have the same RPI as a 3/4 over a long stretch? Especially in a stronger batting team?
Seems like an odd thing to penalise then for.
 
B

Bolo.

International Captain
subshakerz said:
I can see why lower order bats should be penalised for not batting higher and facing the fresher bowlers.

But how exactly is a no.5/6 going to have the same RPI as a 3/4 over a long stretch? Especially in a stronger batting team?
Seems like an odd thing to penalise then for.
Click to expand...
If a 5/6 is ending up with a bunch of NOs in losses, they need to start strike farming better/ hit out more. Or just move up the order. If you are good enough to get a significant amount of NOs, you should be good enough to bat higher.

In a strong batting team where moving up is not an option, you should be seeing a low number of losses and minimal impact on overall record.

This is going to hit the guys who played with weaker lower orders harder than it should FTR. None of these stats are ever perfect.
 
subshakerz

subshakerz

Hall of Fame Member
Bolo. said:
If a 5/6 is ending up with a bunch of NOs in losses, they need to start strike farming better/ hit out more. Or just move up the order. If you are good enough to get a significant amount of NOs, you should be good enough to bat higher.

In a strong batting team where moving up is not an option, you should be seeing a low number of losses and minimal impact on overall record.

This is going to hit the guys who played with weaker lower orders harder than it should FTR. None of these stats are ever perfect.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am thinking folks are overthinking these things.

Waugh has a fair share of NOs in wins or draws. I don't think he should be penalised.
 
Johan

Johan

International Captain
the fact that the majority thinks Ponting was a better Batsmen than Waugh already proves that consciously or subconsciously, we do make the distinction of NOs when comparing Waugh to genuine 50+ average batters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top