Richard Hadlee vs Sachin Tendulkar

[DrWolverine]

Primary discipline in test cricket

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin. More diverse success. Hadlee was three favorable countries mainly.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sachin. More diverse success. Hadlee was three favorable countries mainly.

Just checked. If you exclude Bang & Zim

Sachin played in 8 countries(minimum of 10 Tests in every place) and averaged 40+ in every place

He played against 7 countries(minimum of 18 Tests against everyone) and had 40+ average against all

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[ataraxia]

Sachin. More diverse success. Hadlee was three favorable countries mainly.

Who cares lol, Tendulkar had a massive advantage to make his stats appear nice to checklist-lovers, being playing approximately 370 tests.

 

[subshakerz]

Who cares lol, Tendulkar had a massive advantage to make his stats appear nice to checklist-lovers, being playing approximately 370 tests.

The more you play over a long period is less advantage actually. You can rectify mistakes but also harder to maintain consistency

 

[Johan]

Sachin lacks that ONE series away from home, he was constantly competent away but never really had something like Hadlee's 1985-86 Australia, consistency is great and all but I'd like my player to have that ONE series, so I'll go Hadlee.

 

[ataraxia]

The more you play over a long period is less advantage actually. You can rectify mistakes but also harder to maintain consistency

That is categorically false. Over a greater sample size, consistency is increased.

 

[ankitj]

That is categorically false. Over a greater sample size, consistency is increased.

You get a greater sample size only if you are consistent. Consistency is the cause not effect.

 

[ankitj]

That is categorically false. Over a greater sample size, consistency is increased.

OK I see what you are saying. But that's only true if your "true" averages in all conditions are consistent. Then over a larger sample they will all converge with much less likelihood of random large deviations. But if your "true" averages in all conditions are not consistent, higher sample will do nothing. Like Sehwag's averages in India and SA would never converge even if he played a lot more matches in SA too.

 

[subshakerz]

OK I see what you are saying. But that's only true if your "true" averages in all conditions are consistent. Then over a larger sample they will all converge with much less likelihood of random large deviations. But if your "true" averages in all conditions are not consistent, higher sample will do nothing. Like Sehwag's averages in India and SA would never converge even if he played a lot more matches in SA too.

This is the point. Someone with a weakness for a particular country will have that exposed more easily with larger samples.

 

[ataraxia]

OK I see what you are saying. But that's only true if your "true" averages in all conditions are consistent. Then over a larger sample they will all converge with much less likelihood of random large deviations. But if your "true" averages in all conditions are not consistent, higher sample will do nothing. Like Sehwag's averages in India and SA would never converge even if he played a lot more matches in SA too.

I suppose I do refute the belief that these true averages are that lopsided. Most weaknesses that get pointed out in this subforum are guys averaging 35 off 10 tests – and if you played 10 tests each against 10 countries given a true average of 50, you'd expect some outliers. As all those ATGs with gaping holes in their records against Bangladesh and NZ show, it's largely just white noise.

Of course, analysis by checklist is bad regardless of this point under contention, but this is why I personally think it's intrinsically misleading.

 

[ankitj]

I suppose I do refute the belief that these true averages are that lopsided. Most weaknesses that get pointed out in this subforum are guys averaging 35 off 10 tests – and if you played 10 tests each against 10 countries given a true average of 50, you'd expect some outliers. As all those ATGs with gaping holes in their records against Bangladesh and NZ show, it's largely just white noise.

Of course, analysis by checklist is bad regardless of this point under contention, but this is why I personally think it's intrinsically misleading.

Yeah you got to apply some eye test verification to those checklist numbers.

 

[akilana]

Hadlee easily. sachin lacks the killer instinct most great players have.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

So he’s like the LeBron James of cricket?

 

[sayon basak]

So he’s like the LeBron James of cricket?

No he's like the God of Cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

Of course, analysis by checklist is bad

What's the difference between checklist versus pointing out someone has a poor record in a country?

 

[DrWolverine]

Pointing when someone has a poor record is done by us and check listing is done by others.

 

[ataraxia]

What's the difference between checklist versus pointing out someone has a poor record in a country?

Unless you're actually analysing how a player's record in a country demonstrates a weakness in their game, there is no appreciable difference.

 

[ataraxia]

Thank you @PlayerComparisons. I know I can always rely on you when it comes to your unwavering commitment to *checks notes* oppose analysis by checklist.