Viv Richards & Allan Donald vs Brian Lara & Curtly Ambrose

[capt_Luffy]

He was mid 90s and they had Slater, Taylor, M Waugh, Boon by then. Quite a good order. And it just got stronger as he became captain.

Anyone who saw Waugh in the 90s knows he wasn't scoring easy runs.

Just tell me, why should I rate a batsman higher who scores less runs giving samish average???

 

[subshakerz]

93-98 before Ponting and Hayden came good, Australia wasn't exactly a batting monster really, and again, De Villiers had a monster batting too, if anything it helped him.

Slater, Taylor, Boon, M Waugh in mid 90s. Quite good and better than what Chanders had in his top four.

And Waugh didn't stop in 98 he continued until 2003. So basically in his entire 90s onwards career he likely had a stronger top four than maybe any other bat in cricket history.

when did I call Lloyd superior to Waugh?

You are considering the other ATGs superior to Waugh based solely on RPI.

 

[subshakerz]

Just tell me, why should I rate a batsman higher who scores less runs giving samish average???

Better quality bowling faced and regularly bailing out his team with key knocks.

And I am not demanding you rate Waugh higher but don't use this raw RPI metric to determine that.

 

[Johan]

Slater, Taylor, Boon, M Waugh in mid 90s. Quite good and better than what Chanders had in his top four.

And Waugh didn't stop in 98 he continued until 2003.

it also balances out with Downhill skiing though, you make it seem like his average and lot of big knocks aren't directly the result of position.

You are considering the other ATGs superior to Waugh based solely on RPI.

dude, I literally rated Waugh over Sangakkara, I'm a complete quality elitist, you can ask @capt_Luffy and he'd confirm

 

[subshakerz]

it also balances out with Downhill skiing though, you make it seem like his average and lot of big knocks aren't directly the result of position.

Dude you know Waugh wasn't a downhill skier he was much the opposite to score when it really mattered or match in balance and many of his best series reflected that.

dude, I literally rated Waugh over Sangakkara, I'm a complete quality elitist, you can ask @capt_Luffy and he'd confirm

I don't mind where you rate Waugh actually. I just think RPI is too raw and broad a metric to use. It's one step from average and has many compounding factors.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Better quality bowling faced and regularly bailing out his team with key knocks.

And I am not demanding you rate Waugh higher but don't use this raw RPI metric to determine that.

I have Waugh over Ponting - Dravid - Sangakkara - Root. I think I rate him plenty highly. But RPI is a very valid criticism. Not outs means nothing to your team really.

 

[Johan]

Dude you know Waugh wasn't a downhill skier he was much the opposite to score when it really mattered or match in balance and many of his best series reflected that.

You don't have to be a downhill skier to do it lol, Waugh did both, he could come at 30/3 against a raging Ambrose at Sabina Park or 200/3 on a dead oval wicket against Graham Dilley.

I don't mind where you rate Waugh actually. I just think RPI is too raw and broad a metric to use. It's one step from average and has many compounding factors.

sure, but his RPI is astonishingly poor, Waugh without Early 90s Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Waugh: 9,732 @ 47.01, only 39.4 runs/inning, a ton almost every 10 innings.

you tell me bro, does that seem ATG output to you? average, RPI, or ton/inning.

 

[subshakerz]

But RPI is a very valid criticism.

Then just say you don't rate those down the order. Otherwise why aren't you automatically rating openers with higher RPIs higher than no.4s?

 

[subshakerz]

You don't have to be a downhill skier to do it lol, Waugh did both, he could come at 30/3 against a raging Ambrose at Sabina Park or 200/3 on a dead oval wicket against Graham Dilley.

Downhill skier though is reserved for those who scored much do their runs as a result of latter type of situations.

sure, but his RPI is astonishingly poor, Waugh without Early 90s Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.

Waugh: 9,732 @ 47.01, only 39.4 runs/inning, a ton almost every 10 innings.

you tell me bro, does that seem ATG output to you? average, RPI, or ton/inning.

Again, perhaps this is the result of having an astonishlgly awesome top 4.

 

[Coronis]

I’d be willing to bet Waugh has the highest amount of not outs in declared innings

 

[subshakerz]

I’d be willing to bet Waugh has the highest amount of not outs in declared innings

Yes quite a few.

 

[Johan]

Again, perhaps this is the result of having an astonishlgly awesome top 4.

so batting lower decreased his average too? low

 

[capt_Luffy]

Then just say you don't rate those down the order. Otherwise why aren't you automatically rating openers with higher RPIs higher than no.4s?

I already said if everything else is the same, yes.

 

[subshakerz]

I already said if everything else is the same, yes.

So Hutton over Tendulkar?

 

[subshakerz]

so batting lower decreased his average too? low

In 15 innings spread from 86 to 93 until he took over Borders spot.

 

[Johan]

In 15 innings spread from 86 to 93 until he took over Borders spot.

?

dude, 47 is his general average without minnows, literally no restrictions or filters

 

[Johan]

So Hutton over Tendulkar?

two players with no weakness

 

[Coronis]

So Hutton over Tendulkar?

Sutcliffe easily over Hutton. Hutton barely makes 50 RPI

 

[Coronis]

two players with no weakness

There’s no such thing.

 

[Johan]

Sutcliffe easily over Hutton. Hutton barely makes 50 RPI

Sutcliffe over Hobbs?