lara vs tendulkar

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hayden smashing the Nehras, Samis, Dillons, and other players from sub-standard attacks is much less of an accomplishment than Dravid, Sachin, Lara and co. scoring amazing tons against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and co.

That is why these players are so highly held.

And I don't think its fair holding Clarke's average of over 50 alongside other players' averages such as Lara. He's been playing test cricket since October, and though he has been absolutely spectacular, its still silly to compare it to a player that has played as long as Lara

I should perhaps add that much of what I said was intended as a tongue-in-cheek response to those on this board who insist on statistics as the only valid method of measuring the worth of a player, as seen in the "Hadlee is absolutely and without question better than Lillee because his average is 2 runs less per wicket" thread recently. I don't actually consider Ponting a better player than Viv Richards, nor do I think Clarke is better than Lara because he averaged more after two series.

 

[C_C]

I should perhaps add that much of what I said was intended as a tongue-in-cheek response to those on this board who insist on statistics as the only valid method of measuring the worth of a player, as seen in the "Hadlee is absolutely and without question better than Lillee because his average is 2 runs less per wicket" thread recently. I don't actually consider Ponting a better player than Viv Richards, nor do I think Clarke is better than Lara because he averaged more after two series.

Clearly that is a very faceteous statement.
Statistics is not just the career statistical summary.
I believe in FACTS over reputation and all that brouhaha.

How good was the bowling attack of the time ? How did the person do agaist the top bowling/batting attack ? how was his home-n-away performance ?
Who are the greats he went up against ?
How long has he sustained excellence ?
What are his weaknesses ? What are his strengths ? Who did he succeed against ? who did he fail against ?
All these questions are critical and all these are there in the statistics.
And factually, Lillee has more holes in his resume than Hadlee does. its just that simple.

As per ponting vs Richards, Ponting hasnt faced the quality Richards faced. He didnt have to negotiate McGrath,Gillespie or Warne and the absence of those three tilt the scales in Richards's favour. Also, Richards didnt have an obvious weakness to spin on spin-conductive pitches like in India like Ponting does.
But Ponting is a great batsman nonetheless.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How good was the bowling attack of the time ? How did the person do agaist the top bowling/batting attack ? how was his home-n-away performance ?
Who are the greats he went up against ?
How long has he sustained excellence ?
What are his weaknesses ? What are his strengths ? Who did he succeed against ? who did he fail against ?
All these questions are critical and all these are there in the statistics.

But that's just the thing - not all of those things ARE in statistics. How for example do you judge how good the bowling a player faced was, purely by statistics? Taking Ponting and Richards as examples, you can say that Richards faced bowlers with good statistical records such as Hadlee, Lillee, Botham, Willis, Imran etc, but equally Ponting faced the likes of Murali, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Pollock, Donald etc who also have good statistical records. If one batsman faces a bowler averaging 20 and another batsman faces a different bowler averaging 22, all you can say is that both batsman faced a bowler who performed well against the opposition of the day unless you examine things more closely and take things other than statistics into account.

Ponting's average of 55 is clearly superior to Richards average of 50, and both of them faced a number of bowlers with great statistical records throughout their careers and both had the advantage of playing in the best side of their era and therefore avoiding the best bowling lineup that destroyed many other good batsmen. You can seperate the two by looking past statistics, and considering for example the fact that Richards was regarded for much of his career as simply peerless in the world by pretty much everybody involved in international cricket, which is more than can be said for Ponting.

 

[marc71178]

Clearly that is a very faceteous statement.
Statistics is not just the career statistical summary.
I believe in FACTS over reputation and all that brouhaha.

How good was the bowling attack of the time ? How did the person do agaist the top bowling/batting attack ? how was his home-n-away performance ?
Who are the greats he went up against ?
How long has he sustained excellence ?
What are his weaknesses ? What are his strengths ? Who did he succeed against ? who did he fail against ?

All these questions are critical and all these are there in the statistics.

No, all of those cannot be proven by facts as they're personal opinions.

 

[C_C]

No, all of those cannot be proven by facts as they're personal opinions.

I repeat. *ALL* of these are in the statistical columns, if you know where to look.

How for example do you judge how good the bowling a player faced was, purely by statistics? Taking Ponting and Richards as examples, you can say that Richards faced bowlers with good statistical records such as Hadlee, Lillee, Botham, Willis, Imran etc, but equally Ponting faced the likes of Murali, Ambrose, Walsh, Akram, Pollock, Donald etc who also have good statistical records

Look at the bowlers who bowled in those days. Lot less bowlers who averaged 35+ and 40+. This is not the case of JUST facing great bowlers....this is a case of facing an overall higher quality of attack than the last 3-4 years.
Ponting did well before that period and that is why i consider him to be a great.
Since Richards faced more # of great/good bowlers ( Lillee, Botham,Willis,Underwood,Bedi,Prasanna,Chandrasekhar,Kapil,Imran,Akram,Qadir and Hadlee) and the overall bowling attack was better, i rate him higher.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You miss the point, which is that averages alone don't tell the story. For example, you say that Richards faced less bowlers who averaged 35-40+, and you may well be right, but statistics alone to not show that this is because the bowling quality is worse now. Remember that bowling and batting averages are dependant on one another, and the higher bowling averages today could simply be caused by better batting. After all, if Ponting is a better player than Richards, then surely bowlers of equal quality would average more playing against him than they would against Richards.

So, how exactly do you determine that Richards is a better player than Ponting (keeping in mind that I agree that he is) simply by using statistics? You cannot tell the comparitive value of the bowlers through statistics, you cannot compare the conditions they played in through statistics, and you cannot suggest that Richards dominated the bowling more comprehensively in his time because his average is lower than Ponting's.

 

[C_C]

You miss the point, which is that averages alone don't tell the story.

which average ? career average ? Yes i agree. Career average doesnt tell the whole story. One needs to look much deeper.

Remember that bowling and batting averages are dependant on one another, and the higher bowling averages today could simply be caused by better batting.

This would be true if most of the batsmen started off dominating the bowlers.
However, that isnt the case and one sees almost every batsman's average jump since 2000....thats when some really great bowlers like Ambrose,Walsh,Akram,Waqar,Donald,Pollock etc. and good bowlers like Saqlain,Srinath etc. started waning or quit. You see far more bowlers with 35-40 bowling averages around these days.

This suggests that the batting isnt dominating because the batsmen today are far better than yesteryears but because quality bowling all of a sudden took a deep plunge.

So, how exactly do you determine that Richards is a better player than Ponting (keeping in mind that I agree that he is) simply by using statistics?

Simple.
How well did he do against bowlers of his era,how many great/worldclass bowlers he faced, how well did he do compared to others of his era, etc. etc.
A much deeper statistical analysis.

and you cannot suggest that Richards dominated the bowling more comprehensively in his time because his average is lower than Ponting's.

Actually you can. Even though crickinfo doesnt carry strike rates in test cricket for all batsmen(it carries for batsmen from the 90s onwards i think), Bill Frindall from 'Ask Bearders' in BBC once answered a question about Richards' strike rate. And it is significantly higher than Punter's.

Not everything is there in the stats, i agree(how elegant is a batsman, for example ) but when it comes to having an impact on the game, almost everything is there in respective statistics field.
Ie, i dont care if Bradman or even God said X is a better player of pace than Y, if X has inferior batting stats against the WI fourprong than Y, Y is superior. simple as that.

 

[marc71178]

I repeat. *ALL* of these are in the statistical columns, if you know where to look.

No, because who decides what is a good attack and what isn't?

That immediately becomes a personal opinion.

 

[C_C]

No, because who decides what is a good attack and what isn't?

That immediately becomes a personal opinion

Their records deciede whether an attack is good or bad.

 

[Jono]

I should perhaps add that much of what I said was intended as a tongue-in-cheek response to those on this board who insist on statistics as the only valid method of measuring the worth of a player, as seen in the "Hadlee is absolutely and without question better than Lillee because his average is 2 runs less per wicket" thread recently. I don't actually consider Ponting a better player than Viv Richards, nor do I think Clarke is better than Lara because he averaged more after two series.

Lol fair enough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

However, that isnt the case and one sees almost every batsman's average jump since 2000....thats when some really great bowlers like Ambrose,Walsh,Akram,Waqar,Donald,Pollock etc. and good bowlers like Saqlain,Srinath etc. started waning or quit. You see far more bowlers with 35-40 bowling averages around these days.

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean they are worse than the bowlers in Viv Richards time, merely that they don't do as well against the good batsmen of today. As I have said, it is impossible to compare players from different eras purely on statistics because statistics alone do not take into account differences in quality of players. If you play club cricket and average 50 that does not mean you are better than a player who averages 45 in test cricket, even if you happen to belt runs off a bowler who averages 20 in club cricket. See my point now? You cannot say "this player is better despite his lower average because he scored runs against bowlers with lower averages", because those bowlers and their statistical records are just as dependant on the opposition they faced as the batsman in question.

How well did he do against bowlers of his era

That's his batting average right there... and Ponting's batting average is higher.

how many great/worldclass bowlers he faced

That's dependant on opinion, obviously. Unless you are just using statistics to measure those bowlers, in which case said statistics are influenced by the other batsmen they bowled to... and so it goes on.

Bill Frindall from 'Ask Bearders' in BBC once answered a question about Richards' strike rate. And it is significantly higher than Punter's.

I'll take your word on that. There was a study recently which took some time and attempted to obtain a scoring rate for all batsmen in test history. As I recall, the top 4 were Gilchrist, Kapil Dev, Maurice Tate and Victor Trumper. Based on that list though, Graeme Smith has a better scoring rate than Viv Richards, so again such statistics don't tell a particularly complete story.

if X has inferior batting stats against the WI fourprong than Y, Y is superior. simple as that.

Sure. If they played the fourprong at the same time, in the same conditions, in the same match circumstances, at the same point in their career relative to their peak, under the same level of pressure, at the same altitude, in the same clothes... then maybe you can say they are better... at least at facing the West Indies fourprong. Facing Warne or Murali might be a different kettle of fish, so we begin again... Using statistics in this way is ludicrous because a valid comparison can so rarely be made. You certainly can't say that Viv Richards is a better player than Ponting because of his results against X bowler.

 

[marc71178]

Their records deciede whether an attack is good or bad.

The records still require a personal view.

Where do you cut off between good and bad?

 

[C_C]

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean they are worse than the bowlers in Viv Richards time, merely that they don't do as well against the good batsmen of today.

Which automatically means worse. DUH!

As I have said, it is impossible to compare players from different eras purely on statistics because statistics alone do not take into account differences in quality of players.

Agreed. An accurate comparison is harder once the players are of different eras but a fair comparison can be done.

That's dependant on opinion, obviously. Unless you are just using statistics to measure those bowlers, in which case said statistics are influenced by the other batsmen they bowled to... and so it goes on.

yes, said statistics are influenced by other batsmen. But like i said, if the batting average of the entire planet starts to rise by a few factors cumulatively when several good/great bowlers retire in a span of 2-3 years, it means that the bowling has suddenly weakened.

I'll take your word on that. There was a study recently which took some time and attempted to obtain a scoring rate for all batsmen in test history. As I recall, the top 4 were Gilchrist, Kapil Dev, Maurice Tate and Victor Trumper.

Top three are Gillchrist, Sehwag and Kapil....

Sure. If they played the fourprong at the same time, in the same conditions, in the same match circumstances, at the same point in their career relative to their peak, under the same level of pressure, at the same altitude, in the same clothes... then maybe you can say they are better... at least at facing the West Indies fourprong.

Dont get pedantic.
All that is required is the bulk of their careers to intersect, as if you play long enough, one faces most kinds of conditions.

Based on that list though, Graeme Smith has a better scoring rate than Viv Richards, so again such statistics don't tell a particularly complete story.

One has to compare Smith's experience level with Richards. If Graeme continues to outshine richards's rate for another 50-60 matches while playing some quality bowlers, i would have no problems granting that, as its commonsense that its harder to average 55 over 15 years than 60 over 5.

You certainly can't say that Viv Richards is a better player than Ponting because of his results against X bowler.

if there are several bowlers that Viv faced that are superior to the ones ponting faced, then one can say so.

The records still require a personal view.

Where do you cut off between good and bad?

no personal view. Good and bad is simply a question of better record.
50 batting average is better than 40. There is no personal view on that.
Just raw numbers.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Which automatically means worse. DUH!

Err, no. Bringing it back to the club side example, if bowler A averages 20 in club cricket and bowler B averages 40 in test cricket, that indicates that bowler A did better against the batsmen he faced than bowler B, but it does NOT indicate that bowler B is an inferior bowler.

But like i said, if the batting average of the entire planet starts to rise by a few factors cumulatively when several good/great bowlers retire in a span of 2-3 years, it means that the bowling has suddenly weakened

Actually, it's really neither here nor there. It indicates that EITHER the batting has improved generally, or the bowling has declined generally, or both. Or, it could perhaps be related to changes in playing conditions. Regardless, based PURELY on statistics with no personal opinions involved, you cannot possibly say that higher batting and bowling averages means that the bowling has declined while the batting has remained largely static. Chances are it is a bit of both, but any scenario is possible, with only statistics to guide you. Since the discussion here is comparing Viv Richard's era with Ricky Ponting's era, the higher bowling averages in the Ponting era could quite easily indicate that the batting has improved generally, along with the bowling declining. Which, in combination with Ponting's higher average, would not indicate at all that Richards was the better player.

Top three are Gillchrist, Sehwag and Kapil....

Actually yes, the other player in the top 5 with Gilchrist, Kapil, Tate and Trumper is Sehwag. I thought he came in 4th or 5th personally, but regardless those players make up the rest of the top 5. I believe the highest ranked current player other than Gilchrist and Sehwag is Hayden, who for what it's worth also has a superior average to Richards.

Dont get pedantic.

It's not being pedantic to acknowledge that "average against the West Indies fourprong" does not take into account any of the things I mentioned... unless that average is against the same set of bowlers in similar conditions at the same stage of their careers (and the bowlers) relative to their peak, the average alone does not tell the full story, which is what you claimed as your measurement of quality in your last post.

if there are several bowlers that Viv faced that are superior to the ones ponting faced, then one can say so.

Yes, but using statistics alone without personal opinion it is impossible to judge whether the bowling Richards faced was superior or not! Lower averages are attributable to all sorts of things besides superior quality of bowling, if statistics are your only measurement.

no personal view. Good and bad is simply a question of better record. 50 batting average is better than 40. There is no personal view on that. Just raw numbers.

So... Ponting is a better player than Viv Richards then? Shoaib Akhtar is a better bowler than Jason Gillespie or Shane Warne? Ian Botham was inferior to Darren Gough?

 

[C_C]

Err, no. Bringing it back to the club side example, if bowler A averages 20 in club cricket and bowler B averages 40 in test cricket, that indicates that bowler A did better against the batsmen he faced than bowler B, but it does NOT indicate that bowler B is an inferior bowler.
Quote:

If you are playing on the same level (Test/FC/club/whatever) and you've played for a long period of time, you have had your share of running into great players and pathetic players.
It balances out and if you have an inferior record, then you are worse. Simple as that.

Actually, it's really neither here nor there. It indicates that EITHER the batting has improved generally, or the bowling has declined generally, or both.

Incorrect.
If the batting suddenly improves by a leaps and bounds right after the retirement of several tried, tested and quality bowlers, it directly means that the bowling has deteriorated.
That is elementary logic.

nce the discussion here is comparing Viv Richard's era with Ricky Ponting's era, the higher bowling averages in the Ponting era could quite easily indicate that the batting has improved generally, along with the bowling declining.

That would've been true if the batting averages were higher in Ponting's era when great/good bowlers like Ambrose,Walsh,Akram,Donald,deVillers,Waqar, Srinath,Gough,Caddick were operating as normal. However, thats not the case.The case is that the batting average rose when several of these bowlers retired or were very near the end of their careers.
Which suggests that today's batting boom is much more a result of lack of quality bowlers than anything else.

I believe the highest ranked current player other than Gilchrist and Sehwag is Hayden, who for what it's worth also has a superior average to Richards.

perhaps but Hayden has very limited experience against great bowlers and he has failed more than succeeded against them even in this brief foray.

It's not being pedantic to acknowledge that "average against the West Indies fourprong" does not take into account any of the things I mentioned... unless that average is against the same set of bowlers in similar conditions at the same stage of their careers (and the bowlers) relative to their peak, the average alone does not tell the full story,

Like i said, the only condition that has to be fulfilled is to play against the same WI four prong for most of their careers.
Say have 12 intersecting years out of 15.
As per conditions, career stage, peak etc. etc., they all balance out if you play against the same opposition long enough.

Yes, but using statistics alone without personal opinion it is impossible to judge whether the bowling Richards faced was superior or not! Lower averages are attributable to all sorts of things besides superior quality of bowling, if statistics are your only measurement.

no it isnt.
Like i said, everything is there in the numbers if you know where to look and want to look.

So... Ponting is a better player than Viv Richards then? Shoaib Akhtar is a better bowler than Jason Gillespie or Shane Warne? Ian Botham was inferior to Darren Gough?

Again, this is a classic case of twisting words.
I gave you an example where if you have one parameter only, 40< 50.
Who is better and who isnt is a uqestion of several parameters, individually compared and then the net total being compared.

 

[Anil]

an article from viv richards about tendulkar...

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1016946,curpg-1.cms

 

[SJS]

You miss the point,

Rather gives it the miss

 

[SJS]

an article from viv richards about tendulkar...

http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1016946,curpg-1.cms

There is an even more interesting one from Viv at the same time in the Indian express.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=64355

 

[RhyZa]

Update?

Statistically speaking, at least.

 

[Richard]