Langer a great cricketer

[tooextracool]

Two 100 runs partnership = One 200 runs partnership + One zero runs partnership, if we're considering winning a game, which can be decided by the total number of runs scored by a team in their two innings.

id say the 200 run partnership,because that puts you completely on top. a 100 partnership is usefuly but certainly doesnt make it match winning.

 

[Sudeep]

id say the 200 run partnership,because that puts you completely on top. a 100 partnership is usefuly but certainly doesnt make it match winning.

100+100 is not equal to 200+0?

I'm talking purely in terms of runs you score. A match is ultimately decided by the number of runs you score.

 

[Sudeep]

Anyway, I gotta head off. So, well - my point - I'd pick Langer over Richardson if I were to manage a team. I'm not saying Langer is a great batsman, he's only good yet, and neither am I saying Richardson is a bad player, he's good as well. But both goods are not equal, as far as I'm concerned, as Langer gets the nod ahead of Richardson, at least from me.

 

[Pratters]

Australia - above average? That's it?

There are teams average, above average and below average. Most teams are average. Australia is above average. Its a superlative. Not derogatory to how good they are.

 

[Scallywag]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scallywag
I would have thought that you could come to the conclusion that Border is not the best batsman ever because for the amount of runs he scored in the amount of games he played is not as good as the runs Bradman scored in the amount of games he played.

Thats only my theory though.

err they invented something called the 'average' to show that...... .

I think you missed my point Tooextracool, Dravid has a higher average than Tendulkar but when you look at games played it changes things.

 

[C_C]

Scully-
Amount of runs scored in # of games played is a banal comparison at best, fit for people with a very crude understanding of cricket....like the average american for example.

There are several factors that influences runs/tests, many of which are out of a batsman's control.

For one, if you play in a weak team, you are forced to bat twice in a test match far more often than if you were in a stronger team ( contrast WI of recent years to that of 20 years ago for my point).
As such, an individual batsman has very little control if he can bat again and batting twice increases the probability of increasing your runs/tests ratio significantly.
Ie, someone scoring 60 and 40 in one match has a higher runs/test ratio than somene who's scored 80 & DNB in one match.

For two, your batting position is of consequence too, along with the strength of your team.
if you bat lower down the order, often enough you find yourself stranded at 20 not out or 70 not out and the match is over. A batsman higher up the order has more time and higher target to chase when he comes to the wicket.

You simply cannot ignore these factors.

As per your Greg Chappell vs Brian Lara goes, it is difficult to compare cross-era wise, but i hold Lara to be marginally better than Greg Chappell.
He's scored more runs against an attack of comparable strength and he's been the mainstay in a very weak batting lineup.
Plus Chappell cannot match Lara's stupendous appetite for humongous scores.
In terms of batsmen alltime, i rate the top 10 in the following order:

1. Bradman
<daylight>
2. Viv
3. Sachin
4. Gavaskar
5. Sobers
6. Lara
7. Greg Chappell
8. Len Hutton
9. Neil Harvey
10. Rahul Dravid


And incase you wanna broach the subject of bowlers in the future, the following is my top 10 alltime pacer and spinner lineups:

Pace:

1. Malcolm Marshall
2. Denis Lillee
3. Imran Khan
4. Curtley Ambrose
5. Richard Hadlee
6. Glenn McGrath
7. Wasim Akram
8. Fred Trueman
9. Michael Holding
10. Sid Barnes.

Spinners:

1. Muralitharan
2. Warne
3. Subhash Gupte
4. Clarie Grimmett
5. Bishen Bedi
6. Bill O'Reiley
7. Chandrasekhar
8. Lance Gibbs
9. Jim Laker
10. Anil Kumble

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

1. Bradman
<daylight>
2. Viv
3. Sachin
4. Gavaskar
5. Sobers
6. Lara
7. Greg Chappell
8. Len Hutton
9. Neil Harvey
10. Rahul Dravid

So no George Headley then?

 

[vic_orthdox]

oh no, this is just going to turn into a thread criticising C_C for all the people who he left out of his top ten. its only his opinion people. a well researched opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

i think it has been confirmed in *most* of the minds that langer is a good batsman who has contibuted to australia's successes of recent times, but certainly not "one of the greats".

 

[C_C]

oh no, this is just going to turn into a thread criticising C_C for all the people who he left out of his top ten. its only his opinion people. a well researched opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

i think it has been confirmed in *most* of the minds that langer is a good batsman who has contibuted to australia's successes of recent times, but certainly not "one of the greats".

Precisely.......its an opinion.
And i concur- langer is a good bat...not a great bat.

Mxy- it was tough to leave out headley- he figures in my top 25 though. Simpy put, he had only 20-odd matches of excellence and there are many many players who've done as well as Headley over a 20-match period.....

 

[SJS]

I would like someone to make a list of the 'great' players playing in the world today.

It must be an all time record by miles

 

[Steulen]

Taking the bait:

present day legends: McGrath Warne Tendulkar Dravid Inzamam Muralitharan Jayasuriya Lara and the Hayden/Langer partnership

present day greats: Hayden Langer (individual) Ponting Martyn Clarke Gillespie Sehwag Laxman Kumble Harbhajan Gayle Sangakkara Pollock Kallis Gibbs Harmison Flintoff Shoaib Youhana Fleming

Which is, of course, all totally inconsequential to this thread other than to put me firmly in the Langer Fan Camp. Which I am not ashamed to admit. He is my favourite cricketer, ooh yeah.

 

[C_C]

Players playing today who would be considered for alltime great status:

AUS:

Matty Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Adam Gillchrist
Glenn McGrath
Shane Warne

BANG:
nobody

ENG: Nobody

IND:

Sachin Tendulkar
Rahul Dravid
Anil Kumble

NZ:

Nobody

PAK:

Inzamam Ul-Haq

RSA:
Shaun Pollock

SL:
Muralitharan

WI:

Brian Lara

ZIM:

Nobody

-----------------------

Note: the reason I've excluded Jacques Kallis is because he has one of the most skewed records in cricketing history- his record against good bowling sides are pretty darn mediocre and even against mediocre teams he's bombed when their bowlers had the once-in-ablue-moon romp. far too often.
As such, i do not consider Kallis a great batsman and I would pick the likes of Martyn, Kirstien, Laxman,Chanderpaul,Lehmann, etc. to be better batsmen than Kallis.

 

[Beleg]

How does Clarke become a modern day great after playing for what, 3 years? Same goes for Shoaib, Youhana, Fleming, Flintoff, Harmison, Sangakara, Gayle, Laxman and Sehwag.

 

[Beleg]

I am a big fan of Inzy, heck he is my favorite cricketer, but I'd contest his admittal into the all-time great club.

On what grounds do you base it?

 

[Steulen]

Legend status should not be based solely on statistics. Inzamam has been the pivotal figure in Pakistan cricket for nearly the last ten years. He is one of theb est known cricketers of this time, hence he deserves to be called a legend.
I was at the Videocon Cup in Amsterdam this year, and when he came out to bat, there was a feeling of expectation in the crowd that wasn't matched by any of the Australian or Indian entries.

 

[Beleg]

Legend status should not be based solely on statistics.

I agree, this is why I don't contest Inzamam being one of the greats of the modern era. [And by modern era I mean 1996 up]

But he doesn't have the statistics nor the inherent ability to be counted among the all-time greats.

He is one of theb est known cricketers of this time, hence he deserves to be called a legend.

Well, If this is your criteria for choosing legends then I don't think I can objectively contest it.

 

[Sudeep]

ENG: Nobody

If Flintoff continues the form he's displayed this year, I'd definitely put him there.

 

[C_C]

How does Clarke become a modern day great after playing for what, 3 years? Same goes for Shoaib, Youhana, Fleming, Flintoff, Harmison, Sangakara, Gayle, Laxman and Sehwag.

Shoaib,Youhana,Fleming,Flintoff,Harmison,Sangakkara,Gayle,Laxman and Sehwag are either not good enough( Youhana,Fleming) or have not done enough YET to merit consideration.

I am a big fan of Inzy, heck he is my favorite cricketer, but I'd contest his admittal into the all-time great club.

On what grounds do you base it?

being the best batsman of the 90s behind the likes of Tugga,Sachin and Lara.
Being a much better pressure player than either three.

If Flintoff continues the form he's displayed this year, I'd definitely put him there.

If.
ie, up for future consideration. At present, he isnt a contender.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Mxy- it was tough to leave out headley- he figures in my top 25 though. Simpy put, he had only 20-odd matches of excellence and there are many many players who've done as well as Headley over a 20-match period.....

I see your point, but keep in mind the value of Headley at the time. He was the only genuinely top class batsman in the team at the time and basically carried the West Indies batting.

 

[tooextracool]

100+100 is not equal to 200+0?

I'm talking purely in terms of runs you score. A match is ultimately decided by the number of runs you score.

obviously they are both equal in terms of runs you score, but that is besides the point. the point is that scoring 40 doesnt count as a match winning or a match saving innings, even if it is in a partnership of 100, it may count as a contribution towards the overall result but thats it. an 80 however does count as one.