DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[h_hurricane]

You can look at in different ways. Averaging 15 against your weakest opposition is a statistical anomaly.

 

[Logan]

Sobers is regularly rated as second only to Bradman in terms of batting.

Akram was rated very highly. I would rate him behind Ambrose, McGrath and Donald.

 

[Logan]

You can look at in different ways. Averaging 15 against your weakest opposition is a statistical anomaly.

Never saw him play. So can judge him on statistics only.

Unless it is someone who was a statistical outlier like Bradman, I find it difficult to rate someone like Sobers over Sachin or Richards who were very good everywhere.

Sobers barely played in Asia. The best Asian team back then was India and India in the 50s/60s was as good as Bangladesh now.

 

[OverratedSanity]

India had the spin quartet. Much better than any attack they had in the late 70s and 80s.

 

[h_hurricane]

Akram was rated very highly. I would rate him behind Ambrose, McGrath and Donald.

Akram to Sobers is a false equivalence. Ambrose, Mcgrath and Donald are statistically better than Akram. Sachin and Richards are not statistically better than Sobers. In fact he was better than them.

Sobers barely played in Asia.

Sobers played quite a bit in Asia, scored over 1000 runs and averaged 75 odd

The best Asian team back then was India and India in the 50s/60s was as good as Bangladesh now.

India and Pakistan were both pretty poor during Sobers era as you could see in the below numbers.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

The worst undoubtedly was NZ. Have a look at the horrific numbers. Which is why nearly no one holds it against Sobers.

If Kohli or Smith has poor numbers in Afghanistan for instance, will you be holding it against them ? This is not similar to Ponting in India or Dravid in SA where they had to overcome extremely difficult challenges and failed.

 

[ankitj]

No one should care about Sobers record in NZ unless that team or those conditions presented a specific kind of challenge showing Sobers had a weakness which I don't think is the case.

 

[Days of Grace]

No.39 will drop within the hour. Who will it be?

 

[Days of Grace]

Anyone keen to name the trifecta of 37,38,39?

 

[h_hurricane]

Fantastic. Long wait comes to an end. My guess is Joe Root. Clive Lloyd had a balanced home-away record and was an attacker. Might push him up a bit.

37-Lloyd
38-Clarke
39-Root

I could be wrong though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Absolutely not a fan of the idea that it's ok to fail against the weaker teams tbh. At the end of the day, they're test matches you're failing to contribute in. Plus, WI actually lost several of the tests Sobers didn't get runs in vs NZ, so it's not like they didn't need him to get runs.

 

[Flem274*]

exactly. it's a bit like richard discounting all those performances against the bangers back in the day when they would have lost to them in some cases if those players didn't stop the rot.

 

[h_hurricane]

Yep, it is a fair point. it is just that it is not a glaring, gaping hole in his record or something of that sorts.

 

[Flem274*]

39 - root
38 - bradman
37 - watling

 

[Jarquis]

Root
Lloyd
Clarke

 

[ankitj]

Absolutely not a fan of the idea that it's ok to fail against the weaker teams tbh. At the end of the day, they're test matches you're failing to contribute in. Plus, WI actually lost several of the tests Sobers didn't get runs in vs NZ, so it's not like they didn't need him to get runs.

If you keep slicing the data you will inevitably find some section where the player did not perform well no matter how good the player. The slicing has to be relevant and should tell us something about the ability of the player. If you are able to justifiably argue Sobers tended to lower motivations against weaker oppositions, you may have a point. But is that what you are concluding?

Ponting's poor record in India is relevant for instance. It tells you something about his struggles against potent spin attacks in helpful conditions.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you keep slicing the data you will inevitably find some section where the player did not perform well no matter how good the player. The slicing has to be relevant and should tell us something about the ability of the player. If you are able to justifiably argue Sobers tended to lower motivations against weaker oppositions, you may have a point. But is that what you are concluding?

I don't have the slightest clue. But you can't just say NZ were a weak team and hence Sobers' poor performance against them literally doesn't matter (even though NZ beat them a few times). Whether there is a larger point to be made about whether NZ had bowlers of a specific kind against whom Sobers was uncomfortable, making it a unique challenge for him, i dont know. Maybe there are some match reports or articles that can shed light on that,would like to read them.

Point remains that you can't pretend they are irrelevant when looking at Sobers' career. I'd definitely rate him higher than I already do if he'd smashed a triple against them and won one of the tests they ended up losing.

 

[Logan]

No one should care about Sobers record in NZ unless that team or those conditions presented a specific kind of challenge showing Sobers had a weakness which I don't think is the case.

None of us saw Sobers play. So we can judge him only statistically.

Sobers hit a total of 151 runs in 7 Tests in NZ without a single fifty or century. His highest score was 39.

That means he must have struggled there.

 

[Jarquis]

Jayawardene might be around somewhere? Average away record and maybe his 50 innings peak won't be as high as some others? Horrible record against the best attack of the 2000s too.

 

[ankitj]

I don't have the slightest clue. But you can't just say NZ were a weak team and hence Sobers' poor performance against them literally doesn't matter (even though NZ beat them a few times). Whether there is a larger point to be made about whether NZ had bowlers of a specific kind against whom Sobers was uncomfortable i dont know. Maybe there are some match reports or articles that can shed light on that,would like to read them.

Point remains that you can't pretend they are irrelevant when looking at Sobers' career. I'd definitely rate him higher than I already do if he'd smashed a triple against them and won one of the tests they ended up losing.

I am not saying it literally doesn't matter. I am not asking for it to be removed from Sobers' overall average. He averages 57.xx including failures in NZ and I take that as true reflection of his ability. If he had smashed NZ, his average would have been higher which would persuade me too to rate him higher.

I am not asking record against weaker team to be removed like is done for many players who score mountain of runs against them. I just don't see if that unique slice of data is telling us anything useful on its own.

 

[OverratedSanity]

But maybe there is something unique about it, that's what I'm saying. We can't completely dismiss that there wasn't something about NZ that troubled Sobers without researching what happened in those games and what nz's bowlers did. I readily admit I have no idea tbh.