Best batsman after Lara and Sachin

[a10khan]

......and scoring centuries in the fourth innings of a test , which he hasnt done even once in his entire career.

dont just stick 2 ur 4th innings agenda. dont we all know that he was a crisis man n saved aussie blushes whenevr they were in a spot of bother. he was the ICEMAN. who would u say had a better crisis man then stevie? dun worry abt the stats coz if u go solely on stats, it just wont help much...

 

[criclover]

Here are some good statistics which will help us decide who is the best

Great batsmen over the past few years

 

[masterblaster]

Very interesting read, I think it sums up what Ive been thinking for a while.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bugger the stats (this from a former statistician); I don't need to look at figures to decide who I think the best players are. And for me, below Sachin and Lara, is Haydon, Ponting and Dravid currently. I'd put Waugh in that group but he's no longer playing. Guys like Gibbs/Kallis/Martyn/Lehmann/Vaughan/Thorpe/etc. are in the next bracket.

Even saying that, though, Ponting, Dravid and Hayden would surely be rated in the same bracket as Lara and Tendulkar for their results and 'match-winning contributions'. What, however separates them is subjective; to me, Lara and Sachin just look like they have a little more 'raw talent'. Can't explain it, really.

To whomever brought up the 4th innings average; those figures at face value mean little. Who's to say a player with a high 4th innings average hasn't done so because he's failed in the first innings of a given Test and when the pressure is less in the second dig (i.e. the match is almost over and he may have 'nothing to lose'), gets more runs? Or how about the idea that averages are likely to be higher in the 4th innings because quite a few runs for players in the 4th innings end up as not outs in chasing for wins/surviving draws (when obviously the scoing rate is less so the probability of getting a lower score after batting for a given period of time is higher)? And in using the Steve Waugh example, how about the idea that because Steve Waugh scored most of his runs in the first innings, he would have been fatigued and so in the second dig more likely to get a low score? After all, centuries in each innings of a Test are rare so after scoring runs in the second innings, the probability of a player backing it up in the second innings is much lower when energy levels are taen into account. There are quite a few scenarios one could raise similar to these.

Putting those figures up as proof of a 'certain deficiency' is highly disingenuous as it doesn't really highlight anything other than more questions. The scores in isolation say nothing about the context of the match, the innings' played and doesn't relate to what happened in the first innings. I'm afraid if you want to highlight a weakness in Waugh's game, you'll have to do MUCH better than that.

As for second innings issues, the only example of a player I can think of where second innings' figures might say something about his ability was Andy Caddick. His bowling average in the second innings' of all Tests was FAR lower but even then, what does this say; does it say similar to what was a popular hypothesis that his better figures in the 4th innings are due to him trying harder to atone for poor bowling when the game is on the line in the first innings or does it say he excels at bowling his team to victory?

Stats, like everything, are nothing more than a tool and are in of themselves not proof of anything either way (by definition; and yes I can give you a long and lurid description of why if you wish). They can be either used properly or misused and intentially or otherwise, I'd say you've misused them on this one.

Sachin has not recieved the kind of support SRW has from the lower order , hence the perception of being a choker.

Steve Waugh played most of his career with a lower-order consisting of names sych as Healy, McDermott, McGrath, Hughes, Warne, etc. Interesting choice to term that 'support'. Since Gilchrist came along in 1999 during a career which started in 1985 and ended in 2003, I'd say that's pretty late. Other than Gilchrist, the lower-order support has barely improved at all if Lee, Gillespie and Warne are any indication.

 

[Sudeep]

Not quite sure what you mean - are you having a light dig at Neil for forgetting Sehwag or are you having a light dig at me for not realising he just wasn't in the list which would have answered my question?

Don't mean to be confrontational or start anything between you and Neil, just confused is all!

No, it means I totally agree with Neil for not putting him in either of his top three groups, as I myself don't rate Sehwag that highly. Simple.

 

[Deja moo]

. Who's to say a player with a high 4th innings average hasn't done so because he's failed in the first innings of a given Test and when the pressure is less in the second dig (i.e. the match is almost over and he may have 'nothing to lose'), gets more runs?

An argument which completely ignores the factthat players with high 4th innings averages also have high first , second , third innings scores , unlike SRW who has high 1st and 2 nd innings averages alongwith poor 3rd and 4 th innings averages.

BtW ," the match is almost over and he may have 'nothing to lose'), gets more runs " kind of situation is more likely to have been faced by Steve waugh than players from other countries considering that the Aussie bowling would more often than not ensure that their batsmen had low scores to chase , and hence "less pressure" (as you said).

Or how about the idea that averages are likely to be higher in the 4th innings because quite a few runs for players in the 4th innings end up as not outs in chasing for wins/surviving draws (when obviously the scoing rate is less so the probability of getting a lower score after batting for a given period of time is higher)?

Again , steve waugh batting at 6 chasing low scores (or any score for that matter if you like) would have had more chances to enhance his average with not outs than an opener or number 3...Still he ended up with just 6 not outs in those 31 innings with plenty of low score dismissals .

Putting those figures up as proof of a 'certain deficiency' is highly disingenuous as it doesn't really highlight anything other than more questions. The scores in isolation say nothing about the context of the match, the innings' played and doesn't relate to what happened in the first innings. I'm afraid if you want to highlight a weakness in Waugh's game, you'll have to do MUCH better than that.

On the contrary ......... lower 3rd and 4th innings averages suggest a weakness in playing on 4th or 5th day pitches , which is a different ball game from batting on late 1st day and 2 nd day pitches which are the best periods for batting .

Stats, like everything, are nothing more than a tool and are in of themselves not proof of anything either way (by definition; and yes I can give you a long and lurid description of why if you wish). They can be either used properly or misused and intentially or otherwise, I'd say you've misused them on this one.

No , I havent misused them , as proven in this and the next post.

 

[Deja moo]

And in using the Steve Waugh example, how about the idea that because Steve Waugh scored most of his runs in the first innings, he would have been fatigued and so in the second dig more likely to get a low score?

Poor excuse .Other batsmen do not seem to fall away like that when fatigued .For instance compare Steve Waugh and Rahul Dravid based on match innings performance......

1st match innings averages: Steve waugh :62.24 .Rahul Dravid: 58.27 .

2nd match innings averages: Steve Waugh : 58.77 .Rahul Dravid: 67.18 .

So far , so good. SRW is 4 points better than RD in setting targets , while RD is 9 points better than SRW in reacting to the total set by the opposition batting first . Both perform well on an average in their teams first innings.

.....The eye opener........

3rd match innings averages : Steve waugh: 35.83 .rahul Dravid :49.51 .

RDravid comes a huge 14 points better than the "match saver" SRW when it comes to setting the opposition a target or compensating for a poor first innings .

......It gets worse.........

4th innings averages: Steve waugh: 25.54 .Rahul Dravid: 52.18 .


Dravid is a whopping 26 points ahead of SRW when it comes to winning/ saving a match in the 4th innings , playing on 4th or 5th day pitches .

So , it seems that Steve Waugh , despite the perception of being a match saver , does most of his scoring in the teams first innings , and is abely matched by Rahul Dravid on that count.

But when it comes to the second team innings of the match , Rahul dravid is much much much more adept at pulling his team out of a hole than is Steve Waugh. ( Dont tell me that SRW does not allow his team to fall into the hole in the first place. Rahul Dravid proves himself equal to that task and is truly able to perform in his second innings too , which SRW does not seem able to do )

 

[marc71178]

And that takes everything into consideration does it?

Like the nature of the pitches these respective players face?

I would wager that Dravid has played a lot more cricket on Indian and sub-continental pitches, which tend to have higher scores made on them.

 

[Deja moo]

And that takes everything into consideration does it?

Like the nature of the pitches these respective players face?

I would wager that Dravid has played a lot more cricket on Indian and sub-continental pitches, which tend to have higher scores made on them.

Dravid averages more than SRW does in Aus , NZ , Eng .The only hole to be picked in his record in Aus is that he hasnt played a test in Perth.

Dravid averages 63 to SRWs 67 in the Windies , having played 10 and 14 matches there respectively.



The only place where Dravid hasnt made as great an impact as elsewhere is in SA , where SRW averages 51 in 9 tests to Dravids 41 in 5 tests .


Dravid averages 51 to SRWs 41 in the subcontinent . If subcontinental pitches tend to have higher scores as you mention, SRW must be a poor batsman to average just 41 here in 23 tests .

 

[masterblaster]

Check mate to Deja Moo

It is a well documented fact that Rahul Dravid has a significantly better record overseas than at home. (Although his home record is outstanding too)

 

[Top_Cat]

An argument which completely ignores the factthat players with high 4th innings averages also have high first , second , third innings scores , unlike SRW who has high 1st and 2 nd innings averages alongwith poor 3rd and 4 th innings averages.

Which, yet again, can be explained by a million other reasons than the ones you're giving. You cannot be conclusive about this because of the myriad of factors and situations involved.

Again , steve waugh batting at 6 chasing low scores (or any score for that matter if you like) would have had more chances to enhance his average with not outs than an opener or number 3...Still he ended up with just 6 not outs in those 31 innings with plenty of low score dismissals .

For one thing, Steve Waugh batted 5 for most of his career.

For two, yet again, there are dozons of situations I can personally think of where Steve Waugh would be on a hiding to nothing and would be more likely to get out early other than what your conclusion supports.

This is getting into the realms of ludicrous.

On the contrary ......... lower 3rd and 4th innings averages suggest a weakness in playing on 4th or 5th day pitches , which is a different ball game from batting on late 1st day and 2 nd day pitches which are the best periods for batting .

It also suggests that a player who is in a side chasing low scores (as the Aussies have done many times) can't score as many runs in that situation and also suggests quite a few other things than what you're saying. Your conclusion isn't supported as heavily as you think by the facts at hand and is easy to debunk. Your rebuttals are basically doing the same thing as you are; 'suggesting', not 'proving'. Why not? Because the facts support an inconclusive end to the argument. Anyone who is reading this thread could probably think of a few situations where the facts you quote suggest something entirely different to what you're saying. The conclusion you're making is simply not supported by the premisses.

No , I havent misused them , as proven in this and the next post.

Again, yes you have. You're claiming conclusive proof when the reality is far from it. 'Proof' suggests 'beyond reasonable doubt' and as I'm sure anyone here could show, there is plenty of room for doubt and different conclusions to be drawn which are equally valid in the stuff you're saying.

1st match innings averages: Steve waugh :62.24 .Rahul Dravid: 58.27 .

2nd match innings averages: Steve Waugh : 58.77 .Rahul Dravid: 67.18 .

So far , so good. SRW is 4 points better than RD in setting targets , while RD is 9 points better than SRW in reacting to the total set by the opposition batting first . Both perform well on an average in their teams first innings.

.....The eye opener........

3rd match innings averages : Steve waugh: 35.83 .rahul Dravid :49.51 .

RDravid comes a huge 14 points better than the "match saver" SRW when it comes to setting the opposition a target or compensating for a poor first innings .

......It gets worse.........

4th innings averages: Steve waugh: 25.54 .Rahul Dravid: 52.18 .


Dravid is a whopping 26 points ahead of SRW when it comes to winning/ saving a match in the 4th innings , playing on 4th or 5th day pitches .

What a load of rubbish. All those stats say is exactly what they are; that Dravid has a higher average in 3rd and 4th innings' of Tests. It says nothing about the state of the match, what the player did in the first innings, the opposition, the pitches, conditions, etc. ALL important factors. No kidding, I'm glad you aren't a lawyer because your standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' for your conclusions is laughable. Your conclusions aren't just not 'beyond a reasonable doubt' but they're not even 'beyond any doubt' right now.

Personally, as someone who's been a professional statisticians for years, I'm deliberately avoiding making any conclusions about Waugh, Dravid or anyone because I don't actually think it's possible to construct an argument one way or the other which is above reproach.

So , it seems that Steve Waugh , despite the perception of being a match saver , does most of his scoring in the teams first innings

Yup and that perception comes from testimonials from players who've played with AND against him. Effectively with your statistical argument, you're dismissing all of them. If you proof was stronger, maybe, but at this stage, you're way off.

But when it comes to the second team innings of the match , Rahul dravid is much much much more adept at pulling his team out of a hole than is Steve Waugh.

That's a strong statement not entirely backed up by the facts. As I said, you'll have to do much much much better.

Rahul Dravid proves himself equal to that task and is truly able to perform in his second innings too , which SRW does not seem able to do

Yet I've personally WATCHED him do it on many occasions and again, there are former and current players lining up to say 'if anyone could bat for their lives, they'd let Steve Waugh do it'. Explain that. Your numbers certainly don't.

 

[neilm]

I reckon Dravid is the 3rd best after Tendulkar and Lara, although Hayden comes close.

 

[Deja moo]

Yup and that perception comes from testimonials from players who've played with AND against him. Effectively with your statistical argument, you're dismissing all of them. If you proof was stronger, maybe, but at this stage, you're way off.

A listing of all his individual innings in the 3rd and 4th innings seem to suggest otherwise.

Yet I've personally WATCHED him do it on many occasions and again, there are former and current players lining up to say 'if anyone could bat for their lives, they'd let Steve Waugh do it'. Explain that. Your numbers certainly don't.

Yes , and there are equally many who claim that Sachin Tendulkar is second only to Bradman . His performances do not support that claim. Explain that

 

[nightprowler10]

What about Saeed Anwar? Did every one forget his 194?

 

[nookie_lk]

how can u forget saeed anwar...hes the master...

 

[marc71178]

He's no longer playing though, and hasn't for a fair while, thus rendering him ignoreable.

 

[Top_Cat]

A listing of all his individual innings in the 3rd and 4th innings seem to suggest otherwise.

And to me, they don't and to others they might agree with you and a whole bunch of other people would disagree with you. Hence, the inherent fallibility in your argument; nothing you've posted is 'conclusive' proof of anything. You say it suggests one thing, I say it doesn't. This is why your rather absolutist statements aren't thoroughly proven.

Yes , and there are equally many who claim that Sachin Tendulkar is second only to Bradman . His performances do not support that claim. Explain that

I'll ignore the fact that you're not even going to bother asking my question obviously.

Well, if you're SOLELY going on averages (which is pretty extraneous in my mind but that's another debate) here's al list of highest averages above Sachin:

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGHEST_AVS.html

Okay well in that list, we can automatically assume that the reasons for Pollock's, Headley's, Sutcliffe's, Paynter's higher averages was mainly due to the small number of Tests they played. Other than that, we have Barrington, Weekes, Hammond, Haydon, Dravid and Sobers. All of them are within 1 average point of each other so if average is the sole meaure of ability or performance (which I don't believe it is), there's absolutely bugger-all between them.

All of them have great fifty-to-hundred conversion rates, they all have high averages so, again, if averages were it, they'd all be considered as good as each other.

But Sachin just *looks* gifted. He has a near perfect technical command of batting and just makes it look so easy. This is why people rate him so highly; not just by looking at numbers. Would you count the number of notes in a Beethoven symphony, compare them to a Wagnerian Aria and say that Wagner was the 'better' composer? Of course not. Talent can't just be judged by number, particularly not just averages.

Anyway, what you're saying isn't strictly true; only Steve Waugh has said he's the best player since Bradman. Bradman himself just said he LOOKED as close to himself as anyone he'd seen. He never said he was as good or near it. Pollock was a freakishly talented player but if his stats are anything to go by, he wasn't as good as others. But most who saw him play thought he was outstanding. I saw him bat in the Bradman Tribute game at 54 and he STILL looked awesome.

So in reality, taking away those who played few Tests, Sachin is average-wise as close to Bradman as any of those I mentioned above. You just can't separate them (well, other than by one lousy run). So no, he's not second only to Bradman on average but he's equal second with a few others.

 

[masterblaster]

Well said Corey, very well said.

Once again, you know exactly how to post something that I've been wanting to say for a long time so eloquently.

Well said mate.

 

[dudeurfriend]

Ponting,Dravid,Kallis are the persons fighting it out currently for number 3 spot.
1.Sachin
2.Lara
3.Ponting or Dravid or Kallis

 

[honestbharani]

I would say Kallis, but only just.