Kallis vs Sobers, Donald vs Steyn, Trott vs Pollock

[Jarquis]

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

54.41 puts him top of the tree (batting average) when talking about batsmen to have played 20 games since Tendulkar's debut (minnows excluded).

Nice work. Is there a website containing "minnow excluded" stats, or are you just a statsguru guru?

Just spotted link in previous post

I see you haven't counted NZ as a minnow.. guess you can't be an Ozzie then

 

[benchmark00]

looks like it's contagious

Jono wouldn't dare admit it, but that was a quality comeback.

 

[Jarquis]

Nice work. Is there a website containing "minnow excluded" stats, or are you just a statsguru guru?

Haha, I know how to use Statsguru a little bit and it can be quite a cool tool.
Anyway, the link for the complete list is in the post above yours.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Haha, I know how to use Statsguru a little bit and it can be quite a cool tool.
Anyway, the link for the complete list is in the post above yours.

Interesting that not only is he number 1 on the list, but also has 236 wickets, the next highest being Steve Waugh on 50, and noone else to speak of really. Guess he must be the only real batting all rounder of the past 20+ years

I extended the filter to all matches and it looks like Sobers and Kallis may be the only 2 players ever to have a decent batting average and more than 100 wickets..

And don't tell me less than 40 is decent, or Tony Greig

 

[Prince EWS]

Nah this really is the ****test post; it can **** right off.

You came in here pointing out the absolutely startling fact that, shock horror, one good player was not able to defeat one of the best teams of all time by himself. The fact that Kallis happened to play for South Africa and not Australia does not make him a worse batsman or a player than if it was the other round. Your inability to separate individual performance from team performance is a common flaw in poor judges of sport and you've made yourself look a complete fool by dredging up absolutely useless facts that show us nothing other than the fact that Australia were better than South Africa.

That was fine though; it's everyone's right here to have some pretty stock-standard dire opinions and you're free to think I'm full of ****. What wasn't fine was that when Marcuss - who was no doubt being a bit of a **** in his post, and I'm sure he won't mind me saying that for the sake of argument - pointed out the flaw, you realised you had nothing of substance to reply with (not even a snarky sarcastic sentence like you were presented with) and posted a ****ing ****house gif image of a baby crying, as if that was in any way relevant to anything. You want to see someone having a cry? This post of mine is someone having a cry. Marcuss's post was just, again in a bit of a ****ish fashion I will give you, countering you point by pointing out its logical flaw; it was no more having a cry than you were when you came in here tossing off about Kallis playing for a worse team than Ponting makes him a worse player somehow. He was just arguing against your point; and you can't take that without resorting to ad hominem then you're in the wrong place.

Everyone feel free to reply to this post with babycry.gif images because, unlike the one that got such treatment, this one deserves it. But FMD it was needed.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah because Marcuss' post was of the highest quality also.

Didn't deserve a proper reply.

 

[Jarquis]

Yeah because Marcuss' post was of the highest quality also.

Didn't deserve a proper reply.

And uvelocity's initial post did?

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah because Marcuss' post was of the highest quality also.

Didn't deserve a proper reply.

Yeah and I absolutely said it was, several times, in that post. It was a long post though so you probably only read the first line and then didn't bother with the rest; missing where I admitted Marcuss's post was crap several times. Marcuss presented his point in ****house fashion; uvelocity presented nothing other than ad hominem and was ironically having a cry by accusing Marcuss of having a cry far, far more than Marcuss was.

Bringing up a point of interest with a snarky, sarcastic comment >>>>> that **** uvelocity pulled. Pisses me off no end.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah and I absolutely said it was, several times, in that post. It was a long post though so you probably only read the first line and then didn't bother with the rest; missing where I admitted Marcuss's post was crap several times. Marcuss presented his point in ****house fashion; uvelocity presented nothing other than ad hominem and was ironically having a cry by accusing Marcuss of having a cry far, far more than Marcuss was.

Bringing up a point of interest with a snarky, sarcastic comment >>>>> that **** uvelocity pulled. Pisses me off no end.

I read your whole post, it was equally **** all over because you're having a whinge at uvelocity for doing the same as what Marcuss did only because Marcuss is your little cricsim and MSN buddy.

 

[Jarquis]

I read your whole post, it was equally **** all over because you're having a whinge at uvelocity for doing the same as what Marcuss did only because Marcuss is your little cricsim and MSN buddy.

Yeah, pointing out that somebody made a ******** point in a ****ish fashion (something you're not too unfamiliar with yourself might I suggest) is exactly the same as what uvelocity proceeded to do. Spot on.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Sorry I just had to.. it reminded me of this

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, pointing out that somebody made a ******** point in a ****ish fashion (something you're not too unfamiliar with yourself might I suggest) is exactly the same as what uvelocity proceeded to do. Spot on.

You pointed out he made a **** post in a **** fashion, he pointed out that your post was a **** post in a **** fashion.

They're the same thing. I wouldn't have a cry about any of them, bit rich for someone to have a whinge about one and not the other though.

 

[Prince EWS]

I read your whole post, it was equally **** all over because you're having a whinge at uvelocity for doing the same as what Marcuss did only because Marcuss is your little cricsim and MSN buddy.

Didn't do the same as what Marcuss did even remotely. Would have thought exactly the same if it happened the other way around.

Admittedly I wouldn't have bothered having a huge rant though; probably just would've told Marcuss in private that he'd made a ****ing **** post (as I often do tbh ).

 

[benchmark00]

Didn't do the same as what Marcuss did even remotely. Would have thought exactly the same if it happened the other way around.

Admittedly I wouldn't have bothered having a huge rant though; probably just would've told Marcuss in private that he'd made a ****ing **** post (as I often do tbh ).

So instead all you've done is started a flame sesh?


Cool story bro (Y)

 

[Burgey]

And I'd rather watch Daren Ganga bat than Chris Gayle; I'd never bring that into a debate over who the better batsman was though, if anyone was stupid enough to compare the two on performance.

That doesn't apply here. Here you're comparing two batting all rounders from different eras with similar stats.

 

[Prince EWS]

That doesn't apply here. Here you're comparing two batting all rounders from different eras with similar stats.

How good someone is to watch just isn't a factor in how good they are though; whether they have similar stats or not. That's the point.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

How good someone is to watch just isn't a factor in how good they are though; whether they have similar stats or not. That's the point.

Yeah, of course looks shouldn't > substance.. but in some peoples world....

The other thing I think is wrong is to take a serene scoring rate (~50 SR) to assume the player is an ugly grafter/grinder/accumulator. Many players of around that scoring rate (which isn't exactly slow anyway) are elegant, stylish and very watchable. It seems as though (some) people think a higher strike rate is automatically better quality to watch.

 

[Prince EWS]

So instead all you've done is started a flame sesh?


Cool story bro (Y)

Meh; he made a particularly ****house post and I called him on it. Don't see how that makes it a flame war. I have no problem with him in general (quite enjoy his posts in tour threads); I played the post and it was awful. Something that particularly grates me.

 

[Burgey]

How good someone is to watch just isn't a factor in how good they are though; whether they have similar stats or not. That's the point.

But when their numbers are similar, it can be a factor which makes you prefer one player over another.