Steven Smith vs Dale Steyn

[Johan]

India, Pakistan and NewZealand were minnows during Sobers time period(1954-1973).

Record against Eng, Aus & WestIndies
India (1954-1969) : Won 5 & lost 30
India (1971-1973) : Won 4 & lost 1
Pak (1954-1973) : Won 4 & lost 18
NZ (1954-1973) : Won 2 & lost 23

No they weren't.

their batting was below par

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

bowling wise, their bowling is equivalent to the indian bowling of the 2000s

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

35 each, we don't count runs against Kumble/Harby India as minnow runs last I checked.

 

[DrWolverine]

Sobers(1954-1973)

Ind, Pak and NZ were weak teams back then.

Record against Eng, Aus & WestIndies:

Overall :
India (1954-1969) : Won 5 & lost 30. 0 wins away
India (1971-1973) : Won 4 & lost 1. 2 wins away.
Pak (1954-1973) : Won 4 & lost 18. 2 wins away.
NZ (1954-1973) : Won 2 & lost 23. 0 wins away.

 

[subshakerz]

Sobers(1954-1973)

Ind, Pak and NZ were weak teams back then.

Record against Eng, Aus & WestIndies:

Overall :
India (1954-1969) : Won 5 & lost 30. 0 wins away
India (1971-1973) : Won 4 & lost 1. 2 wins away.
Pak (1954-1973) : Won 4 & lost 18. 2 wins away.
NZ (1954-1973) : Won 2 & lost 23. 0 wins away.

Pakistan were crap once Fazal retired.

 

[Johan]

Pakistan of Sobers's career and New Zealand of Sachin's career has the same bowling average overall, I don't agree with removing either

 

[Bolo.]

Nah, more so

2000s —

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

1990s —

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

just seem like normal teams, 35+ is pretty bad, 40+ seems minnow.

It's not that they were full on minnows. Just very weak. And possibly weaker than win rates suggest- they took a bunch of games off each other.

Anyway, personally, when I criticize Sobers for this, I don't say he was a minnow basher. Just that he played a much higher percentage of games against weak teams than other bats recently. People get very stuck on record against minnows in 5 or 10% of games. Playing 40% (or whatever) against a level above minnows is a far more serious indictment in my book.

 

[centurymaker]

Nah, more so

2000s —

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

1990s —

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

just seem like normal teams, 35+ is pretty bad, 40+ seems minnow.

Why are you clumping it all together?
Why arbitrarily decide Jan 2000 as the cut off?

Zimbabwe won at home vs India even in 2001-

ZIM vs IND Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Harare, June 15 - 18, 2001

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, ZIM vs IND, India tour of Zimbabwe 2001 at Harare Sports Club dated June 15 - 18, 2001.

www.espncricinfo.com

And Bangldesh had improved by late 00s with the development of Tamim, Shakib, Rahim, etc. I would argue there were periods when WI were worse than Bangladesh bowling wise. And up until recently even Sri Lanka had regressed significantly.

 

[Johan]

Why are you clumping it all together?
Why arbitrarily decide Jan 2000 as the cut off?

Zimbabwe won at home vs India even in 2001-

ZIM vs IND Cricket Scorecard, 2nd Test at Harare, June 15 - 18, 2001

Get cricket scorecard of 2nd Test, ZIM vs IND, India tour of Zimbabwe 2001 at Harare Sports Club dated June 15 - 18, 2001.

www.espncricinfo.com

And Bangldesh had improved by late 00s with the development of Tamim, Shakib, Rahim, etc. I would argue there were periods when WI were worse than Bangladesh bowling wise. And up until recently even Sri Lanka had regressed significantly.

Their overall average went above 40 which is minnow tier, even 80s Sri Lanka had superior bowling output.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

their 90s Output as a unit is actually pretty respectable, likely influenced by pitches but eh beggers can't be choosers.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

also, let's not act like upset wins don't exist lol, Sri Lanka in 80s iirc beat Pakistan once, doesn't mean they weren't Minnows. also let's not act like 2000s Bangladesh weren't Minnows, the one series Shakib played against Sachin he was aided by the attack of Shafiul Islam (55 avg), Shahadat Hossain (52 average), Rubel Hossain (76 avg) and Mahmudullah (45 avg), that's a minnow attack and runs against them are lottery.

story for all the runs against them, I mean, their output as a team is above 50 average lol, what do you expect?

as @subshakerz said, Windies sometimes have been semi minnows in the 2000s, don't think they were ever a consistently worse attack than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of 2000s though

 

[subshakerz]

as @subshakerz said, Windies sometimes have been semi minnows in the 2000s, don't think they were ever a consistently worse attack than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of 2000s though

Sure. But they were pretty poor.

 

[Johan]

Sure. But they were pretty poor.

another reason Ponting is in the dirt

 

[Coronis]

I think a big turning point was Bangers vs a Shivless Windies.

 

[honestbharani]

Steyn, clearly.

 

[kyear2]

Looks like without 2000s Zimbabwe and Bangladesh minnow bashing, Sachin averaged 50.65, interesting.

Well that's interesting.

 

[kyear2]

more ATG tours, tougher conditions, much higher SR, destruction of ATGs like no one ever has done.

Succinct and to the point.

I'm talking about career averages, 90s included his average away falls to 50.6 without minnow (2000s Ban and Zimbabwe) bashing, interesting as in that's quite a drop.

Very interesting, and Subz loves to say Lara wasn't ATG vs express pace without saying Sachin wasn't that much better either. Averaged weren't that dissimilar as @Sliferxxxx has been pointing out for quite a while now.

I'll maintain as I've always have that all 4 of those guys at the top are equal, and if there's an argument for any it's Hobbs. Though ironically he has the biggest draw back with regards to era.

And there after the smallest of gaps are Smith, Lara and for me Hutton.

Those guys just separated themselves from the rest.

 

[centurymaker]

Their overall average went above 40 which is minnow tier, even 80s Sri Lanka had superior bowling output.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

their 90s Output as a unit is actually pretty respectable, likely influenced by pitches but eh beggers can't be choosers.

Team records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

also, let's not act like upset wins don't exist lol, Sri Lanka in 80s iirc beat Pakistan once, doesn't mean they weren't Minnows. also let's not act like 2000s Bangladesh weren't Minnows, the one series Shakib played against Sachin he was aided by the attack of Shafiul Islam (55 avg), Shahadat Hossain (52 average), Rubel Hossain (76 avg) and Mahmudullah (45 avg), that's a minnow attack and runs against them are lottery.

story for all the runs against them, I mean, their output as a team is above 50 average lol, what do you expect?

as @subshakerz said, Windies sometimes have been semi minnows in the 2000s, don't think they were ever a consistently worse attack than Bangladesh and Zimbabwe of 2000s though

Your cut off date for Zimbabwe is clearly off. Because you obviously were a kid to have actually watched anything from that time.

Zimbabwe beat India in 2001.




Then they almost beat India in India in 2002 in Delhi. So you are wanting to remove this Zimbabwe? Tendulkar never played Zimbabwe after 2002. Here's Bangladesh in one match in 2010.



Not every hundred vs a small team is a freebie hundred. Some come in low scoring conditions (243 v 242). They are a lot "better" than freebie downhill tons that Root scores in the 3rd innings with a lead of 500+ already in the bank. Thats real stat-padding.
So you can't blanket remove a weaker opponent.

 

[kyear2]

@Coronis May I know why you placed Viv behind Kallis, Chappell, Barrington and Sanga?

Because he think s/r is over rated, despite the fact that if Viv had retired at the same time as Chappell his average would still have been higher.

There's literally no case for the other 3, so basically instead of not rewarding him for being able to accelerate the innings, it's almost become a punishment.

 

[Johan]

Very interesting, and Subz loves to say Lara wasn't ATG vs express pace without saying Sachin wasn't that much better either. Averaged weren't that dissimilar as @Sliferxxxx has been pointing out for quite a while now.

I'll maintain as I've always have that all 4 of those guys at the top are equal, and if there's an argument for any it's Hobbs. Though ironically he has the biggest draw back with regards to era.

And there after the smallest of gaps are Smith, Lara and for me Hutton.

Those guys just separated themselves from the rest.

Yeah, I think Hobbs, Sobers, Viv and Sachin are all about the exact same level as each other, just don't think one has a statistical edge as blunt as people make it out to be.

 

[subshakerz]

Very interesting, and Subz loves to say Lara wasn't ATG vs express pace without saying Sachin wasn't that much better either. Averaged weren't that dissimilar as @Sliferxxxx has been pointing out for quite a while now.

Sure let's just ignore the fact that Sachin played the 2Ws and Donald as teen, never struggled against them in a series and Lara never scored a ton against them and pretend they are equal.

Sachin may not have dominated high pace but he unlike Lara he didn't have a weakness either.

Lara simply had a bad technique against quality pace, particularly that directed towards his body, that affected his entire career.

Devon Malcolm vs "CLUELESS" Brian Lara

#cricket

m.youtube.com

I'll maintain as I've always have that all 4 of those guys at the top are equal, and if there's an argument for any it's Hobbs. Though ironically he has the biggest draw back with regards to era.

And there after the smallest of gaps are Smith, Lara and for me Hutton.

Those guys just separated themselves from the rest.

We agree more than we disagree but you still so disagreeable.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, I think Hobbs, Sobers, Viv and Sachin are all about the exact same level as each other, just don't think one has a statistical edge as blunt as people make it out to be.

Longevity is a clear statistical edge. It just depends if that suits a person more than having an unbelievable peak or period of dominance.

 

[kyear2]

WSC doesn’t really count imo

Why?

It's literally where all of the best players were. So we're going labels over quality and quite frankly common sense?

Is the quality of test cricket over that time even comparable to WSC?

Richards, Chappell etc proved the distance they had over their peers with the bat in that competition.

If the ICC changed their minds tomorrow, would that change your mind about the status? Cricket was cricket and that was as good as it gets and better than what was otherwise being played.

 

[subshakerz]

Richards, Chappell etc proved the distance they had over their peers with the bat in that competition.

How about the bowlers records?