• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Ranking the Batsmen

aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
silentstriker said:
Very true, but Sachin's consistency wins out against Lara's ability to score massive hundreds: Tendulkar. And he scores more hundreds too, though not as many doubles.
Click to expand...
Well now Lara has just as many hundreds (34) as Tendulkar :)

EDIT: whoops, forgot Sachin broke the record and scored 35...anyway, the way Lara's batting we probably only have to wait 1-2 more tests for my statement to be true:)
 
Last edited:
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
aussie tragic said:
Well now Lara has just as many hundreds (34) as Tendulkar :)
Click to expand...
One less, but yea that point is moot. The consistency factor still is valid though.

But Lara has now passed Bradman with most scores over 150, with 19. Bradman is second at 18, and third is Tendulkar 15.

Very similar records, Lara has 34 centuries from 230 innings where Sachin has 35 from 211. The difference is pretty small, maybe a difference of 1-2 centuries or so.

So Lara is clearly better at the big ones, whether that offsets his consistency...its a matter of opinion.
 
Last edited:
PhoenixFire

PhoenixFire

International Coach
It would be interesting to see some stats to show really how consistent a batsman is. Off the top of my head, you could look at the median(?) average to find out.
 
D

dass

Banned
Standard deviation is not the best way to measure cricketers simple as that. it can be used in other things but in cricket or any other sport, there are a lot of other factors
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
dass said:
Standard deviation is not the best way to measure cricketers simple as that. it can be used in other things but in cricket or any other sport, there are a lot of other factors
Click to expand...
Um, it doesn't judge who is better, it shows who is more consistent. And then you use that data, as part of your own criteria, along with a whole bunch of other criteria (i.e big scores, perform against best attacks, match winning knocks, etc) to decide who is best.
 
D

dass

Banned
well for example if Lara scores . 0. 200. 0

and Rantunga scores 35. 35. 35, Now i agree that Ranatuga is more consistent but, Lara's 200 could easily win the game, while all 3 of Ranatunga's innings are not worthy of victory
 
silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
dass said:
well for example if Lara scores . 0. 200. 0

and Rantunga scores 35. 35. 35, Now i agree that Ranatuga is more consistent but, Lara's 200 could easily win the game, while all 3 of Ranatunga's innings are not worthy of victory
Click to expand...
And thats why I said its one of many criteria. And if someone scores 0, 200, 0, their average is still 66.6. A better comparison would be:

200, 0, 0 , 0, 0, 0
vs.
35, 35, 35, 35, 35, 35
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top