Modern-day batsmen and flat pitches

[Black_Warrior]

Well, isn't helping your team win what cricket is all about? I mean, if we aren't measuring cricketing ability as how good a player is at helping his team win cricket matches, then what exactly ARE we measuring? I thought that was a universal standard.

You know I used to consider ability to win matches a very very important factor when assessing a player's ability but over the years I have realized that often it is beyond the scope of one player to win a match for his team. I am not saying it cant be done, Mohammad Asif won a series against Sri Lanka in 2006 almost singlehandedly. But its very rare.

Consider these two performance

1 by Shakib al Hasan
2 by Brian Lara

how would you assess those performances?

 

[Black_Warrior]

I would think that there are few players in the history of the game who failed extensively on flat tracks while succeeding often on seamer friendly tracks. The point that I would make is that a player who can score runs on *both* (Lara, Waugh, Dravid, Ponting etc) is a better player than a player who can only score on flat decks (Hayden, Youhana, Smith, Tendulkar).

Can you back that claim about only scoring on flat deck about Smith (I am assuming Graeme Smith?) and Tendulkar ( I am assuming Sachin Tendulkar?) with some evidence? Thanks..

 

[Ikki]

Yeah, Sobers's runs against New Zealand were less beneficial than his runs against Australia. But KP's runs against New Zealand were more beneficial than his runs against Australia. Do you give those a higher rating?

Not as such. Instead I'd be less impressed with his record against Australia than be overly impressed with his record against New Zealand. I expect a batsman of that caliber to score runs against such sides. If he didn't, he wouldn't be in the discussion to begin with.

 

[Uppercut]

Not as such. Instead I'd be less impressed with his record against Australia than be overly impressed with his record against New Zealand. I expect a batsman of that caliber to score runs against such sides. If he didn't, he wouldn't be in the discussion to begin with.

So now what you're saying is, failing against crap bowlers and succeeding against the good ones is worse than the other way round?

 

[Uppercut]

You know I used to consider ability to win matches a very very important factor when assessing a player's ability but over the years I have realized that often it is beyond the scope of one player to win a match for his team. I am not saying it cant be done, Mohammad Asif won a series against Sri Lanka in 2006 almost singlehandedly. But its very rare.

Consider these two performance

1 by Shakib al Hasan
2 by Brian Lara

how would you assess those performances?

They were awesome performances. Completely agree regarding match-winning being beyond any single player. All you can do is take as many wickets and score as many runs as you can and hope it's enough.

The point I'm making here isn't that runs that turn out to be in a losing cause are useless and should be treated as such when analysing a player. The point is just that there's no correlation between how useful runs are and how good the opposing attack is. Lara scored all those runs but the West Indies lost heavily anyway, whereas runs against New Zealand could conceivably have won his side a test series. Why would runs against South Africa count more heavily than runs against New Zealand?

 

[GIMH]

Out of interest then, why don't you count runs against Bangladesh?

 

[Uppercut]

Because Bangladesh aren't capable of beating a test side. Runs against them usually only determine how much you're going to win by.

Well, they might be capable of it. But considering they've tried 52 times and lost every time, it's reasonable to assume that they're not.

 

[vic_orthdox]

So now what you're saying is, failing against crap bowlers and succeeding against the good ones is worse than the other way round?

Well, why isn't Laxman talked of as a great?

 

[Uppercut]

Well, why isn't Laxman talked of as a great?

Probably because his record's fairly mediocre?

I'm missing your point. Are you just saying that most people don't consider failing against the worst preferable to failing against the best?

 

[GIMH]

Uppercut, who was better, Flintoff or Botham?

We both know the answer.

But then ask another question. Who performed better against the best team in the world when they were both at their peaks.

Again, the answer is easy, alas, different.

I don't have a point tbh

 

[Uppercut]

Well, was Freddie's performance in the Ashes so worthy of your eternal love because it was against the best team in the world, or was it because it won you back the Ashes? I think we know

 

[GIMH]

Both tbh

 

[honestbharani]

They were awesome performances. Completely agree regarding match-winning being beyond any single player. All you can do is take as many wickets and score as many runs as you can and hope it's enough.

The point I'm making here isn't that runs that turn out to be in a losing cause are useless and should be treated as such when analysing a player. The point is just that there's no correlation between how useful runs are and how good the opposing attack is. Lara scored all those runs but the West Indies lost heavily anyway, whereas runs against New Zealand could conceivably have won his side a test series. Why would runs against South Africa count more heavily than runs against New Zealand?

Again.. all this is retrospective bs, pardon the strongness of the expression..


When playing, Lara would have thought EACH of those knocks had a great chance of resulting in success...

 

[Ikki]

So now what you're saying is, failing against crap bowlers and succeeding against the good ones is worse than the other way round?

No, not that it is worse. But you won't have a good overall record since the "best" teams aren't plentiful and that would mean you'd never enter these debates to begin with. Whereas if you succeed against all the other sides and fail against the best, you'll probably still be looked on favourably.

But that shouldn't mean performing against the best shouldn't be deemed more important as a) it is more difficult to do and b) will likely benefit your team more.

 

[Uppercut]

No, not that it is worse. But you won't have a good overall record since the "best" teams aren't plentiful and that would mean you'd never enter these debates to begin with. Whereas if you succeed against all the other sides and fail against the best, you'll probably still be looked on favourably.

But that shouldn't mean performing against the best shouldn't be deemed more important as a) it is more difficult to do and b) will likely benefit your team more.

a) Evidently not for this particular batsman and b) No correlation!

 

[Ikki]

a) Evidently not for this particular batsman and b) No correlation!

Which particular batsman and what doesn't correlate to what?

 

[Uppercut]

The batsman in question. If, for example, Ponting succeeds against South Africa but fails against India, then obviously succeeding against India was more difficult for him than succeeding against South Africa. On a personal level, the attack you don't score against is always the hardest one for you to face.

Granted, the ability to bat against South Africa would be a rarer skill. It's not the same thing though, and being rarer doesn't make it more useful. Which brings me to the second point- no correlation. There's no correlation between how much your runs help your team and how good the attack you're facing is.

 

[Ikki]

I am not referring to what said batsman happened to achieve when I mentioned difficulty, but generally who is the more difficult opponent for everyone, best ranked team, etc.

While it's true that you could make runs against Bangladesh (i.e. Gilchrist) and it could help your team more than if for example your whole line-up bats well against S.Africa; I think to say that there is no correlation is to miss the point.

Your runs are more likely to be of value against the harder opponent because they are harder to come by - your teammates are less likely to help you out adding more runs - and we assert as such because we know A is better team than B generally, not that the player in question finds them hard or not. And with easier opponents we know your failings are less likely to hinder your team as the easier team is less likely to stop your teammates for making up for you.

 

[Uppercut]

Does the fact that your teammates are less likely to help you out make your runs more useful, or does it make them more likely to be insufficient?

Runs for Bangladesh against New Zealand are undoubtedly more useful than runs against India, while runs for South Africa against India are more useful than runs against New Zealand. Really, what matters in the context of your runs making a real difference to the result is how close the two teams are, no?

 

[Ikki]

Does the fact that your teammates are less likely to help you out make your runs more useful, or does it make them more likely to be insufficient?

Whether they are useful is only a point if you care about the result. The more relevant point IMO is that they are more difficult to make because of the team you are facing. If, hypothetically, Ponting, Hayden and Gilchrist all scored tonnes against the WIndies 4some of the 80s in the same match, on a lively pitch; does that mean the runs were easy to make? Not in my view; although if only one had done so in a low scoring match it would add value to that batsman's innings. But I think the fact that the attack is great is primary and whether your team will help you score them secondary.

Runs for Bangladesh against New Zealand are undoubtedly more useful than runs against India, while runs for South Africa against India are more useful than runs against New Zealand. Really, what matters in the context of your runs making a real difference to the result is how close the two teams are, no?

Again, "useful" in terms of getting results...sure. Bangladesh are more likely to beat New Zealand but would you say a batsman who scored more runs against NZ is better than the Bangladeshi batsman that scored more runs against Australia?