Sehwag vs Sangakkara - as batsman

[trundler]

I agree with the general theory here, but this is a pretty random example to introduce. Barrington and Ponting retired at almost exactly the same age. Barrington took longer than most greats to get good, but then he played on late, and definitely past the age Ponting declined.

In terms of the perception of Sanga, @Bolo. made the point in another thread that he'd be rated higher in general consensus if his peak had come earlier in his career. There's definitely an effect where, if someone dominates for a bit and establishes themselves as a 'great', they are viewed as a great from then on, however long they play. Whereas if someone starts slower they get pigeon holed as a lower tier of player and it's hard for them to shake that even if they get great later.

In 'hypothetical player' speak, if Player X averages 60 for 7 years then 40 for 7 years they will likely be heralded as a great for their entire career. Meanwhile at the same time Player Y averages 40 for 7 years and then 60 for 7 years and they will be seen as 'competent', then 'reliable', then a 'veteran' but they will be viewed as being a level below Player X (initially correctly, but ultimately not) in a way that does take some late- or even post-career re-evaluation to correct.

Or, to work in my own random Barrington analogy, none of Barrington's peers nor the pundits of his time rated him as highly as Peter May. Because May got great early and was hailed as a prodigy whereas Barrington was a late bloomer who wasn't seen on his level. But looking back now, most would say that Barrington achieved more than May over their careers.

Barrington was dropped like a hot potato as soon as his output fell off thereby protecting his average. He only had a 9ish period of dominance and if Ponting retires after 100 tests averaging 58.xx with a longer period of dominance this wouldn't even be a discussion. He achieved more either way. PS: both played in a roady era.

 

[subshakerz]

Just to bring this thread slightly back to its original point, when the last post was made back in 2010, their stats looked like this.

Sanga: 8016 @ 56.86
Sehwag: 7039 @ 54.14



Get a new shtick. You’re boring everyone

Yeah, Sanga improved his average, Sehwag dropped five points. Hence easier to say the former is better.

 

[ZK$]

Just think of Ponting. By the time he retired in 2012 after averaging almost 40 for six years, nobody rated him the same way they did in 2007.

How would you rate Ponting if he retired in 2007? Would you rate him higher than Tendulkar?

 

[Coronis]

Barrington was dropped like a hot potato as soon as his output fell off thereby protecting his average. He only had a 9ish period of dominance and if Ponting retires after 100 tests averaging 58.xx with a longer period of dominance this wouldn't even be a discussion. He achieved more either way. PS: both played in a roady era.

Barrington was dropped at the beginning of his career, after failing in his first series. He came back with his stonewalling technique and dominated for the rest of his career. He retired because of a heart attack.

 

[ZK$]

In terms of the perception of Sanga, @Bolo. made the point in another thread that he'd be rated higher in general consensus if his peak had come earlier in his career. There's definitely an effect where, if someone dominates for a bit and establishes themselves as a 'great', they are viewed as a great from then on, however long they play. Whereas if someone starts slower they get pigeon holed as a lower tier of player and it's hard for them to shake that even if they get great later.

Anderson definitely gets massively underrated due to this.

 

[subshakerz]

How would you rate Ponting if he retired in 2007? Would you rate him higher than Tendulkar?

In the top 5-6 of all-time since he still had the India weakness in his record. As he is right now, he is outside the top 10.

 

[trundler]

Barrington was dropped at the beginning of his career, after failing in his first series. He came back with his stonewalling technique and dominated for the rest of his career. He retired because of a heart attack.

He was dropped several times in his career for slow scoring and for sucking against pace. You're right about his retirement though. Either way, Ponting's record until 2008 >>> Barrington's whole career and anything that happened after that is irrelevant. Also, let's be honest, you wouldn't give a guy with Barrington's record who played after 1970 the time of day.

I don’t mind admitting either that I probably have a bit of a bias for pre-70’s players in general.

 

[trundler]

In the top 5-6 of all-time since he still had the India weakness in his record. As he is right now, he is outside the top 10.

You're wrong though.

 

[subshakerz]

You're wrong though.

why?

 

[trundler]

why?

Because he achieved the same things either way. Retiring early is not a skill or achievement. He had done enough to be rated ahead of say, Greg Chappell which he was rated ahead of at the time, but not Tendulkar and afterwards he still hadn't done more than Tendulkar but those last few years didn't undo his previous accomplishments.

 

[subshakerz]

Because he achieved the same things either way. Retiring early is not a skill or achievement. He had done enough to be rated ahead of say, Greg Chappell which he was rated ahead of at the time, but not Tendulkar and afterwards he still hadn't done more than Tendulkar but those last few years didn't undo his previous accomplishments.

Nope. Guarantee you that retired 2007 Ponting would be argued by posters here equal if not ahead of Tendulkar because he simply had a supreme record that 2012 Ponting did not. Chappell wouldn't even have come into the conversation. Retired 2012 Ponting not so because by that point he had diluted his records with six years of average performance.

You can't ignore 1/3rd of a players' career. It's not like a player's peak can justify long periods of mediocrity. Otherwise why do you ignore half of Botham's career or judge Imran based only on the insane 40 tests when he peaked?

The only consistent criteria is taking the good with the bad. There is no retiring early or late when it comes to a players record that he takes ownership of. You retire when you retire.

 

[trundler]

Nope. Guarantee you that retired 2007 Ponting would be argued by posters here equal if not ahead of Tendulkar. Chappell wouldn't even have come into the conversation. Retired 2012 Ponting not so.

You can't ignore 1/3rd of a players' career. It's not like a player's peak can justify long periods of mediocrity. Otherwise why do you ignore half of Botham's career or judge Imran based only on the insane 40 tests when he peaked?

But even excluding that third he was already better than Chappell for longer. It's a slam dunk either way. People may have a different opinion if he'd retired earlier but then they're wrong too. And the problem with Botham is that he peaked for 5 years, not that he played past his prime. He fell off before he turned 30 and that's a longevity issue. I'm not just cherry picking peaks. It's inherently unfair to judge careers that varied significantly in length on overall averages because averages aren't static. You keep bringing up 'x portion of player Y's career can't be ignored' whilst ignoring the length of the period in which they dominated and outperformed guys with shorter careers. You're just rewarding retiring early.

Imran is better than some hypothetical all rounder who averaged 40/20 over 30 tests for sure though. And so is Botham.

 

[subshakerz]

But even excluding that third he was already better than Chappell for longer. It's a slam dunk either way. People may have a different opinion if he'd retired earlier but then they're wrong too. And the problem with Botham is that he peaked for 5 years, not that he played past his prime. He fell off before he turned 30 and that's a longevity issue. I'm not just cherry picking peaks. It's inherently unfair to judge careers that varied significantly in length on overall averages because averages aren't static. You keep bringing up 'x portion of player Y's career can't be ignored' whilst ignoring the length of the period in which they dominated and outperformed guys with shorter careers. You're just rewarding retiring early.

Imran is better than some hypothetical all rounder who averaged 40/20 over 30 tests for sure though. And so is Botham.

You do a poll on Ponting vs Chappell on this forum and it will be close. If Ponting retired in 2007, do you think the poll would be close?

You can get points from me for sustained success in a longer career ala Tendulkar but you don't get free passes for mediocre stretches in a longer career ala Ponting.

There are some players who cope well with aging, others who don't. Both are judged.

 

[trundler]

You do a poll on Ponting vs Chappell on this forum and it will be close. If Ponting retired in 2007, do you think the poll would be close?

You can get points from me for sustained success in a longer career ala Tendulkar but you don't get free passes for mediocre stretches in a longer career ala Ponting.

You say that like Kallis didn't just beat McGrath in a poll here.

Also, the point is that stretch came after the point at which Chappell retired. Pointing didn't gain any points but he it's crazy to deduct him points for doing ok in comparison to someone who did nothing. 100 tests averaging 60 with 30 tons > Greg Chappell's whole career.

 

[ZK$]

Kohli could retire with an average in the 30s and he’d still be better than Sehwag.

 

[subshakerz]

Kohli could retire with an average in the 30s and he’d still be better than Sehwag.

If Kohli had that rotten a stretch that his average dropped that much, any sane person would argue Sehwag was better. In fact, you have Indian posters on this forum who were comparing him to Laxman. and ranked him below Sehwag and Dravid as he currently stands.

 

[subshakerz]

You say that like Kallis didn't just beat McGrath in a poll here.

Also, the point is that stretch came after the point at which Chappell retired. Pointing didn't gain any points but he it's crazy to deduct him points for doing ok in comparison to someone who did nothing. 100 tests averaging 60 with 30 tons > Greg Chappell's whole career.

The only question is if a player played long enough for him to be properly assessed compared to other cricketers of his time. If he played longer than another, that doesnt mean we cut off the tailend of his career to arbitrarily compare equal lengths.

Chappell played 87 tests plus WSC tests. Your argument maybe can be that he didnt play long enough to justify being ranked compared to other ATGs though perhaps for his time it was full career. Regardless, we don't ignore Ponting's last 50-60 tests.

 

[Gob]

Some excellent points being made by Subshakerz as usual.

Tendulkar fanbois just can't handle his truthbombs

 

[trundler]

Regardless, we don't ignore Ponting's last 50-60 tests.

We absolutely should when comparing him to blokes who played 12 years and under though.

 

[anil1405]

Kohli could retire with an average in the 30s and he’d still be better than Sehwag.

I'll have what you're smoking for a good night's sleep.