Matty Hayden v SUnil Gavaskar - better test opener ?

[Top_Cat]

Quite. Tbh i try never to compare players across eras. Players i can see now are often, i feel, better than their stats would suggest- Daniel Vettori for instance. But even though i find cricketing history rather interesting, there's no way i could compare Sunil Gavaskar, based on a series of writings and an analysis of his stats, to Matthew Hayden who i've seen play countless times. Stats, writings and even performances are all relevant to the time at which they happen, so it can't really be done by anyone who hasn't seen both in the flesh IMO.

Even then, there's the issue of time; no-one remembers all aspects of events, your brain is trained to remember heuristics. And when piecing together a picture of the past, the brain generally only remembers the positive stuff (such as Gavaskar's amazing cover drives) and not the negative stuff (I dunno, is there any with him?!).

 

[SJS]

And when piecing together a picture of the past, the brain generally only remembers the positive stuff (such as Gavaskar's amazing cover drives) and not the negative stuff (I dunno, is there any with him?!).

Yes there is. and I have written about it in detail somewhere on CW. Maybe someone will dig it out

 

[Precambrian]

To be fair, some work done by posters like Days of Grace (and others elsewhere) has simply analysed stats for all players using a system into which you put each player's numbers and just see who comes out on top. There were of course still rankings that most would consider highly questionable, but you couldn't say it wasn't a fair, unbiased analysis.

I agree. However developing a statistical model invariably involves assigning weights etc. Now wouldnt that be subjective?

Just to put an example, there was this model developed by the eminent statistician Ananth Narayanan as to "Who is the best ODI batsman ever". In the first model he developed, It was Viv Richards who came top, followed by Tendulkar. Based on inputs from his readers, he changed the weights of some parameters and lo, and presto, Tendulkar became first, and Richards second. Regardless to say, the model and the weights assigned were same across all players.

Clearly, that showed how much can statistics be the "end of all" regarding arriving at a conclusion.

 

[Precambrian]

Even then, there's the issue of time; no-one remembers all aspects of events, your brain is trained to remember heuristics. And when piecing together a picture of the past, the brain generally only remembers the positive stuff (such as Gavaskar's amazing cover drives) and not the negative stuff (I dunno, is there any with him?!).

So true. People are talking about each and every "perceived" shortcomings in Tendulkar's statistics. A few years after his retirement, he will be seen as "Uncomparable" to be even talked of while making a comparison with a player of that time.

As to Richards, people talk about how good a player he was, and how he was a nightmare to the bowlers of his time. People hardly remember how badly he struggled during his last few years.

 

[archie mac]

So true. People are talking about each and every "perceived" shortcomings in Tendulkar's statistics. A few years after his retirement, he will be seen as "Uncomparable" to be even talked of while making a comparison with a player of that time.

As to Richards, people talk about how good a player he was, and how he was a nightmare to the bowlers of his time. People hardly remember how badly he struggled during his last few years.

I think we all remember, his average would have been about 53 if he had retired when it was time, takes nothing away from him at his best

 

[Ikki]

Who said it is not? The question is how to figure that in the statistical model that you seem to be suggesting?

Well, I am not a statistician but I have an idea. I mean, you should probably direct your questions to Top_Cat seeing as this is his job.

But, what you can do is separate the eras in question (better bats, inferior bats). See how each batsmen does against their contemporaries, create an index and compare.

I mean, how do you judge past tennis greats with current ones? They used different racquets. Just look at what they won in their time, their dominance in their period and compare it with someone now.

What you're always doing is predicting. But doing so in a less impartial and statistical matter is just more accurate than simply going off subjective analysis. Yes, I agree that you really can't rely on one any more than you can the other, but the pros for statistical analysis cannot be denied.

Again, how do you define "subjectivity without bias"? Wouldn't that then become "objective"?

Yes, to be objective. There is a certain level of objectivity you guarantee with statistics that you cannot do with simple opinion.

Exactly the point I was making.

The point is: it doesn't have to be perfect. Just to be close enough to give us the best measure.

Stats are not perfect even to get to a round figure, let alone decimals. "I saw played X bat, and he is WAY better than player Y" statements are as reliable as statistics. Because both are not free from subjective-bias.

Whilst they are neither free from subjective bias, it is misleading to imply that they are so to the same extent. There is also an issue of accuracy. Depending what you are gauging (e.g. a player's run making capacity) then you HAVE to have stats. You cannot say "I believe player X was a much better run maker than player Y" when the stats can show that not only did played Y make more runs on an aggregate basis but on an average basis as well.

Very simple, you were arguing that Ponting-Tendulkar warrants a comparison. Why?

Because you think Ponting's better. Isnt that subjective bias? Then you proceed to process statistics supporting your view. So how can they not be subjective?

No, it isn't really that subjective. In my mind the person who scores more runs at a higher clip in a variety of situations is usually the superior choice. The fact is the statistics back up Ponting very very well. Enough so that even if you disagree with my assertion, they are close enough to warrant comparison. This is not a value-judgement, really.

I think Tendulkar is better than Ponting. And I proceed to process another set of numbers that support the same. So how is my analysis free from subjective bias?

It won't be, like mine. However, if you are basing your opinions on statistics at least your analysis can be measured properly. And frankly, it depends what you regard as "better". I have no qualms about you saying Tendulkar is better. There are things statistics don't measure and may not even be measurable: e.g. the pressure on Tendulkar from Indian fans. It depends what variables you hold dear.

For example, for me Warne is superior to McGrath. If you look at plain statistics, a lot of them favour McGrath. A certain amount favours Warne. Why I think Warne is better is based on something that just isn't measurable: his ability to deliver when the pressure is on hard and his ability to seemingly win matches by himself. For me, those traits make up whatever difference they have in their average or SR. It depends how you see it.

HOWEVER, if I were to say Warne and McGrath are not comparable, then you can say I'm full of crap.

You say that Ponting's bad average in India is ignorable and he's much rounded player than Tendulkar. I say he's not since his averages are terrible in India. Now, how do we define "Roundedness" of a player? That again is subjective.

Roundedness would assume we are talking about many variables because by definition we want to know how he is overall.

The fact is, if we were to only concentrate on India we are not concerned about his roundedness but simply his Indian record. Which is why I bring up the rest of his record, because it is so great that it's simply better than Tendulkar's. Think about this: overall, with India, he averages about 53. However, in every other country, but India, he averages 62. That average of 62 shows a lot of success in many countries...all but one.

So, statistics are merely tools in the hands of a person to arrive at some conclusion that he wants to get. To say that they are end of everything is sadly an argument that has no basis.

LOL. No, it depends on the person rather then. If they want to say Tendulkar is better come hell or high water, they will show that, whether statistically or purely on an opinionated basis. You will never find a model that declares: player x is DEFINITELY better than player y. In the end, little difference here and there between greats can mean different outcomes to different people. HOWEVER, what has happened here is that people have even disregarded that this really not that much difference between players (Gavaskar/Hayden, Tendulkar/Ponting) and even go to the extent at cracking jokes at the comparison.

 

[Precambrian]

I think we all remember, his average would have been about 53 if he had retired when it was time, takes nothing away from him at his best

AWTA, and precisely why I adore that guy.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, I am not a statistician but I have an idea. I mean, you should probably direct your questions to Top_Cat seeing as this is his job.

But, what you can do is separate the eras in question (better bats, inferior bats). See how each batsmen does against their contemporaries, create an index and compare.

I mean, how do you judge past tennis greats with current ones? They used different racquets. Just look at what they won in their time, their dominance in their period and compare it with someone now.

What you're always doing is predicting. But doing so in a less impartial and statistical matter is just more accurate than simply going off subjective analysis. Yes, I agree that you really can't rely on one any more than you can the other, but the pros for statistical analysis cannot be denied.



Yes, to be objective. There is a certain level of objectivity you guarantee with statistics that you cannot do with simple opinion.


The point is: it doesn't have to be perfect. Just to be close enough to give us the best measure.



Whilst they are neither free from subjective bias, it is misleading to imply that they are so to the same extent. There is also an issue of accuracy. Depending what you are gauging (e.g. a player's run making capacity) then you HAVE to have stats. You cannot say "I believe player X was a much better run maker than player Y" when the stats can show that not only did played Y make more runs on an aggregate basis but on an average basis as well.



No, it isn't really that subjective. In my mind the person who scores more runs at a higher clip in a variety of situations is usually the superior choice. The fact is the statistics back up Ponting very very well. Enough so that even if you disagree with my assertion, they are close enough to warrant comparison. This is not a value-judgement, really.



It won't be, like mine. However, if you are basing your opinions on statistics at least your analysis can be measured properly. And frankly, it depends what you regard as "better". I have no qualms about you saying Tendulkar is better. There are things statistics don't measure and may not even be measurable: e.g. the pressure on Tendulkar from Indian fans. It depends what variables you hold dear.

For example, for me Warne is superior to McGrath. If you look at plain statistics, a lot of them favour McGrath. A certain amount favours Warne. Why I think Warne is better is based on something that just isn't measurable: his ability to deliver when the pressure is on hard and his ability to seemingly win matches by himself. For me, those traits make up whatever difference they have in their average or SR. It depends how you see it.

HOWEVER, if I were to say Warne and McGrath are not comparable, then you can say I'm full of crap.



Roundedness would assume we are talking about many variables because by definition we want to know how he is overall.

The fact is, if we were to only concentrate on India we are not concerned about his roundedness but simply his Indian record. Which is why I bring up the rest of his record, because it is so great that it's simply better than Tendulkar's. Think about this: overall, with India, he averages about 53. However, in every other country, but India, he averages 62. That average of 62 shows a lot of success in many countries...all but one.



LOL. No, it depends on the person rather then. If they want to say Tendulkar is better come hell or high water, they will show that, whether statistically or purely on an opinionated basis. You will never find a model that declares: player x is DEFINITELY better than player y. In the end, little difference here and there between greats can mean different outcomes to different people. HOWEVER, what has happened here is that people have even disregarded that this really not that much difference between players (Gavaskar/Hayden, Tendulkar/Ponting) and even go to the extent at cracking jokes at the comparison.

I am no way suggesting that you should not compare Sachin with Ponting. You may very well. But doing so on the basis of a few parameters and number that you think is good enough, and giving a blind eye to "subjective" opinions of him from knowledgable guys(Who have seen them both bat - like Benaud, Chappell), will lead to only a flawed analysis. That again is my line of thinking.

As to your idea of comparing the quality of bats etc, I might as well be tempted to put a weight for far-fetched but equally important factors like "Quality of dressing room", "Availability of coaching facilities", "Global Warming" etc.

 

[Ikki]

I am no way suggesting that you should not compare Sachin with Ponting. You may very well. But doing so on the basis of a few parameters and number that you think is good enough, and giving a blind eye to "subjective" opinions of him from knowledgable guys(Who have seen them both bat - like Benaud, Chappell), will lead to only a flawed analysis. That again is my line of thinking.

As to your idea of comparing the quality of bats etc, I might as well be tempted to put a weight for far-fetched but equally important factors like "Quality of dressing room", "Availability of coaching facilities", "Global Warming" etc.

In the end, the weightings you give will be under scrutiny. Frankly, if you are giving ridiculous weightings, people will have as little regard for your opinion as they may if you have no statistical data to back up any of your assertions.

For me, the whole Ponting/Tendulkar thing revolves around the fact that whilst Ponting was just getting his feet, Tendulkar was already established. So there always seems to be people looking at Tendulkar's past glory. From 2000 onwards, Ponting has been just so much better than Tendulkar and unfortunately it is not being as appreciated. What he has done in this era is unmatched. If you remove minnows from all batsmen, in this era he is the only one to average 60+ runs (actually, apart from Hussey, who hasn't played as long) and he has done so compiling one of the most complete records in Test history.

 

[aussie]

We've been through this one quite a few many times. Listed the stats of Donald and the others for the year prior and they were a very very strong attack. Donald not being at his peak is one thing, but Donald was still one of the best bowlers in the world.

By this same reasoning the Gillespie/Kaprowicz part of the Australian attack that went to the Ashes was very strong then too?. But it wasn't.

Same thing with the SA Attack en route to those 20001/02 6 test matches. They may have bowled well againts weaker teams before but fact is IN THAT SERIES, it was an average SA attack.

You couldn' have watched that series if you consider Donald "still one of the best bowlers in the world". He was CLEARLY past his best, seeing him limping of in the Jo'Burg test was a sad end to a glorious career. Fact is too is that after the ENG 99/00 series Donald was no longer his ferocious/fiery self.

If I were to pick at the attacks like this, then there are things in Gavaskar's record to pick off as well: Marshall's debut, Gibbs' retirement, Roberts' debut too IIRC. I'm sure I can find more..

Well go ahead, because it pretty clear to me that Gavaskar never faced really testing attacks compared to Hayden.

In Gavaskar's time, the 3 attacks that could be considered strong, he failed against one (England), he was very successful against the other (Pakistan), and his Windies has more than a few question marks. Let's not pretend he was facing strong attacks on a regular basis.

Attacks faced by both players

Gavaskar: Pakistan were stronger then, WIndies were stronger then. That's it.
Hayden: Sri Lanka stronger now, S.Africa playing now, NZ stronger now.

England is about a tie, depending how much you rate the attacks Hayden has faced, India are better now and Australia are much better now. Overall, the attacks of the 2000s were at least as good, if not better than those of the 80s.

Edit/add: Actually, even the Pakistan attack he faced in the 80s was really not that strong until he played his last test series - he averaged 49 against them.

Essentially, most of the teams in the 80s had an attack with one great bowler and mediocrity in between.

All of this seems accurate yes, but it doesn't change the fact that Hayden is way behind Gavaskar in the amount of top-class attack each have faced in testing conditions.

 

[Precambrian]

In the end, the weightings you give will be under scrutiny. Frankly, if you are giving ridiculous weightings, people will have as little regard for your opinion as they may if you have no statistical data to back up any of your assertions.

For me, the whole Ponting/Tendulkar thing revolves around the fact that whilst Ponting was just getting his feet, Tendulkar was already established. So there always seems to be people looking at Tendulkar's past glory. From 2000 onwards, Ponting has been just so much better than Tendulkar and unfortunately it is not being as appreciated. What he has done in this era is unmatched. If you remove minnows from all batsmen, in this era he is the only one to average 60+ runs (actually, apart from Hussey, who hasn't played as long) and he has done so compiling one of the most complete records in Test history.

AWTA, but Tendulkar's been a special case, his career has a touch of romanticim to it. He made it upto the Test Level, without the help of any academies, and stood up tall against the pacers of that age with courage at such a young age. Then proceeded to become the World's best batsman at an age when Ponting was being weaned into International Cricket, was the pillar for the team for most of the 90s till Dravid found his feet in 99-00. And then, at his peak, started to get injured regularly which affected the momentum of cricket (partially due to excessive ODIs, partially due to lack of quality back-staff), and inspite of all these, continues to be the No.1 name on Team India sheet.

Ponting's performance since 2003 is phenomenal, but he tends to receive lesser acclaim as you believe probably because he's the evidence of the excellence of the system in place. He was identified as potential at a young age, groomed to become the next best thing in the best academy and facilities available. Had the luxury of a top class back-up staff. Maybe you have a case to desperately show Ponting as deserving of the International acclaim that Tendulkar is getting.

It also doesnt help that while Sachin can claim he was the best for nearly a decade from 94 to 2002, a much longer period than Ponting, who can claim from 03-06. From 06 onwards on the basis of numbers, Hussey's been superior to Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

AWTA, but Tendulkar's been a special case, his career has a touch of romanticim to it. He made it upto the Test Level, without the help of any academies, and stood up tall against the pacers of that age with courage at such a young age. Then proceeded to become the World's best batsman at an age when Ponting was being weaned into International Cricket, was the pillar for the team for most of the 90s till Dravid found his feet in 99-00. And then, at his peak, started to get injured regularly which affected the momentum of cricket (partially due to excessive ODIs, partially due to lack of quality back-staff), and inspite of all these, continues to be the No.1 name on Team India sheet.

Ponting's performance since 2003 is phenomenal, but he tends to receive lesser acclaim as you believe probably because he's the evidence of the excellence of the system in place. He was identified as potential at a young age, groomed to become the next best thing in the best academy and facilities available. Had the luxury of a top class back-up staff. Maybe you have a case to desperately show Ponting as deserving of the International acclaim that Tendulkar is getting.

It also doesnt help that while Sachin can claim he was the best for nearly a decade from 94 to 2002, a much longer period than Ponting, who can claim from 03-06. From 06 onwards on the basis of numbers, Hussey's been superior to Ponting.

I do not care for romanticism. Ponting may have had it better, but that has made him better - if you conceded that - and so he IS better.

And it depends when you start counting. For me Ponting has been the best since 2000. That year he averaged 67. Even now, whilst Hussey has a great average, I would not consider him superior to Ponting and I know few who would.

 

[Top_Cat]

It also doesnt help that while Sachin can claim he was the best for nearly a decade from 94 to 2002, a much longer period than Ponting, who can claim from 03-06. From 06 onwards on the basis of numbers, Hussey's been superior to Ponting.

Find it somewhat difficult to believe that Lara's time at the very top stops before 1994, though. Surely he and Sachin were at least level until '96.

 

[Ikki]

By this same reasoning the Gillespie/Kaprowicz part of the Australian attack that went to the Ashes was very strong then too?. But it wasn't.

Not sure how that compares at all. Gillespie had a terrible series. To say he was past his best even before that would have been quite a claim. Kasper doesn't even enter the discussion.

Same thing with the SA Attack en route to those 20001/02 6 test matches. They may have bowled well againts weaker teams before but fact is IN THAT SERIES, it was an average SA attack.

We went through this and looked at the team average even - they were pretty god damn good. They just started getting tonked like no other side has been tonked for a while. I mean, I don't think even Hayden was the top run getter, it was Martyn, wasn't it?

You couldn' have watched that series if you consider Donald "still one of the best bowlers in the world". He was CLEARLY past his best, seeing him limping of in the Jo'Burg test was a sad end to a glorious career. Fact is too is that after the ENG 99/00 series Donald was no longer his ferocious/fiery self.

He didn't have to be his ferocious self. He just had to be quite good, which he was. Something you cannot mention for some of the WIndian quicks that Gavaskar faced.

Well go ahead, because it pretty clear to me that Gavaskar never faced really testing attacks compared to Hayden.

What? That is my assertion as well. That Gavaskar didn't dominate an attack like Hayden.

All of this seems accurate yes, but it doesn't change the fact that Hayden is way behind Gavaskar in the amount of top-class attack each have faced in testing conditions.

That's a fact? Prove it. I went through each of the attacks that Gavaskar faced. Some were top-class sure...but he didn't succeed against them. His record against the English, is just bad. The Aussies, he never faced a good Aussie attack. He didn't face a very good Pakistan attack till his last series either. Sri Lanka were crap, South Africa weren't in the fold and I already went through all the WIndies line-ups where he was a success.

So go, prove it.

 

[SJS]

Ian Chappell said another interesting thing yesterday - though in case something everyone (almost everyone) already knows.

When asked by the pompous Faisal Sharief (now editor of New Sports) why most of the really big hundreds are coming now from openers and why so many openers are dominating world cricket where it was earlier the middle order batsmen who were the 'kings', Chappell said it was due to the complete lack of quality pacers around the world in this decade. The 90's and the 80's before that were so rich in new ball bowlers all around the globe that opening the innings was the most difficult job in a batting line up. Today it is the easiest.

Hear, hear !!

 

[Ikki]

Ian Chappell said another interesting thing yesterday - though in case something everyone (almost everyone) already knows.

When asked by the pompous Faisal Sharief (now editor of New Sports) why most of the really big hundreds are coming now from openers and why so many openers are dominating world cricket where it was earlier the middle order batsmen who were the 'kings', Chappell said it was due to the complete lack of quality pacers around the world in this decade. The 90's and the 80's before that were so rich in new ball bowlers all around the globe that opening the innings was the most difficult job in a batting line up. Today it is the easiest.

Hear, hear !!

Yes, most teams had one good new ball bowler. But then, once surviving that, the rest of the support were...not good - well, in Gavaskar's case, at least.

And here's why hearsay is not reliable:

Average of Openers:
1980s: 34.76
2000s: 36.61

So for all that fussing about pitches and poor quality bowlers, that's the difference.

Even more compelling:

Averages of Openers on a decade by decade comparison

 

[Ikki]

And more:

Average of Openers in Hayden's career: 35.8

Average of Openers in Gavaskar's career: 36.37

Edit/add: for those who would like to discount Hayden's contributions in the 90s, since it was only 7 tests for those 6 years, from 31 Mar 2000 (his recall)the Hayden figure is: 36.96.

A difference of 0.59 runs on average per Opener.

 

[aussie]

Not sure how that compares at all. Gillespie had a terrible series. To say he was past his best even before that would have been quite a claim. Kasper doesn't even enter the discussion.

You are saying the SA attack "pace attack" to be specific lead up the the 2001/02 of Donald/Pollock/Ntini/Kallis was doing well in the lead up to that series.

I am saying so was the Gillespie/Kasper part of the AUS attack of McGrath/Dizzy/Warne/Kasper in the lead of to the Ashes.

But DURING THE RESPECTIVE SERIES, they weren't and thats all that matters.

We went through this and looked at the team average even - they were pretty god damn good. They just started getting tonked like no other side has been tonked for a while. I mean, I don't think even Hayden was the top run getter, it was Martyn, wasn't it?.

Really did you watch those 6 test in 2001/02?



He didn't have to be his ferocious self. He just had to be quite good, which he was. Something you cannot mention for some of the WIndian quicks that Gavaskar faced.

We will deal with Gavaskar just now. The argument here is whether Hayden ever faced a top-quality attack in testing conditions so the Donald he needed to face Donald at his fiery best not Donald in the wayyyyy past him prime.

What? That is my assertion as well. That Gavaskar didn't dominate an attack like Hayden.

, sorry. The other way around i mean.

That's a fact? Prove it. I went through each of the attacks that Gavaskar faced. Some were top-class sure...but he didn't succeed against them. His record against the English, is just bad. The Aussies, he never faced a good Aussie attack. He didn't face a very good Pakistan attack till his last series either. Sri Lanka were crap, South Africa weren't in the fold and I already went through all the WIndies line-ups where he was a success.

So go, prove it.

, waitttttttt a minute Ikki you are Kazoic or something you changed your name. We had this argument before, you know my position on Hayden son.

 

[Ikki]

You are saying the SA attack "pace attack" to be specific lead up the the 2001/02 of Donald/Pollock/Ntini/Kallis was doing well in the lead up to that series.

I am saying so was the Gillespie/Kasper part of the AUS attack of McGrath/Dizzy/Warne/Kasper in the lead of to the Ashes.

But DURING THE RESPECTIVE SERIES, they weren't and thats all that matters.

We're rehashing. We know they were totally annihilated. What I am saying is that it was just as unlikely to say Gillespie was past his best before the Ashes. We only started thinking that after, and frankly because of our promising bowlers we didn't wait to find out.

Really did you watch those 6 test in 2001/02?

Admittedly, I watched only the 1st, 2nd and 3rd test. The ones in S.Africa.

We will deal with Gavaskar just now. The argument here is whether Hayden ever faced a top-quality attack in testing conditions so the Donald he needed to face Donald at his fiery best not Donald in the wayyyyy past him prime.

Donald wasn't wayyyy past his prime. Donald was still one of the better wicket-takers of the time, until he met Hayden. I think after the series Hayden did a good job convincing Donald and everybody else his career was over. But, in terms of he strength of that attack, it was very good.

On return, Hayden was pounding the crap out of every attack he faced. Hayden has a good record against qualtiy quicks - especially when playing for Australia A or Queensland. You talk as if it was beyond him to have dismantled Donald. In that form, it seems much more likely that happened...than Donald all of a sudden going from pretty good to retired in one series.

The fact is, he was outstanding for 4-5 series pre-Australia. I can appreciate Donald was not at his best but to say he was "wayyyy past it" is not something I'll ever agree with you on.

, waitttttttt a minute Ikki you are Kazoic or something you changed your name. We had this argument before, you know my position on Hayden son.

Yes, this is Kaz. And I know, I kept saying we've discussed this before. But still, I am interested to see the top-quality attacks Gavaskar dominated.

 

[Precambrian]

And more:

Average of Openers in Hayden's career: 35.8

Average of Openers in Gavaskar's career: 36.37

Edit/add: for those who would like to discount Hayden's contributions in the 90s, since it was only 7 tests for those 6 years, from 31 Mar 2000 (his recall)the Hayden figure is: 36.96.

A difference of 0.59 runs on average per Opener.

Beauty of you to include Bangaldesh and Zimbabwe openers in that, not to mention the pathetic Windies openers of 2000s, as compared to the Greenidges and Gavaskars of the 1980s.