The greatest batsman from each Test team

[Ikki]

I consider Zimbabwe substandard from 2003 onwards, not 2000. And no, you haven't shown anything - I look at results, not runs-per-wicket average. Zimbabwe have been thrashed in every "Test" bar 1 since 2003. This makes them not close to Test standard. Try again with the putting words into mouth to manufacture non-existant inconsistencies.

Whether they lost/won/draw says little about how many runs they made. The number of runs batsmen make influence the average of bowlers. This is just plain, undeniable logic.

Post 2003, Zimbabwe average 22 runs per batsman. So Sri Lanka were a bit better than the poor Zimbabwean team post 2003. Great argument you got there. It's still not the point. You said I cannot call a team a minnow side and gave your own crappy reasoning yet you find it fit to decide when a team is Test standard or not. You are hitting new lows mate.

I don't care whether Sri Lanka was test standard in the 80s. I care that they were far and away the worst side of the decade. I care that Imran Khan has played 10/88 of his tests against them and has done ridiculously well. When I judge the greats, I don't tend to look at how well they bashed the minnows/weak sides of the day.

 

[Richard]

Whether they lost/won/draw says little about how many runs they made. The number of runs batsmen make influence the average of bowlers. This is just plain, undeniable logic.

But batting isn't what makes a team Test-class. How it plays is. If a team isn't being outclassed, regardless of whether it's not scoring many runs, it's up to the standard.

Post 2003, Zimbabwe average 22 runs per batsman. So Sri Lanka were a bit better than the poor Zimbabwean team post 2003. Great argument you got there. It's still not the point. You said I cannot call a team a minnow side and gave your own crappy reasoning yet you find it fit to decide when a team is Test standard or not. You are hitting new lows mate.

I said "minnow" is a poor term. Sri Lanka were considerably better at any point in their history than Zimbabwe ever have been since 2003. Sri Lanka were never substandard. I don't care at all for the term "minnow", only whether a team is Test-standard or not.

I don't care whether Sri Lanka was test standard in the 80s. I care that they were far and away the worst side of the decade. I care that Imran Khan has played 10/88 of his tests against them and has done ridiculously well. When I judge the greats, I don't tend to look at how well they bashed the minnows/weak sides of the day.

And I don't tend to look at players who were solely bashers of weak teams. However, if they repeated their performances against stronger ones, I see no reason not to.

 

[Beleg]

Ultimately, Jayasuria improved as a batsman and has performed better than Arvinda did even though the later is who I'd like to watch if I were given a choice.

 

[aussie]

Not really. There's no fun in rating only players whose career has been during your time following.

Fun lol, Rich you are problems yo. Of course nothing is wrong with saying in a Lillee vs Marshall thread or Chappell vs Richards thread for those who NEVER SAW them play you think X or Y is better & that should be it. But when you get into stupid arguments by just looking at what the stats tell you thats where the ignorance comes in & thats what been happening unfortunately on CW.

No it's not. Apart from the fact I have seen Richards bat plenty enough, you don't have to do so to understand how they worked.

On tapes or DVD because i know you never saw Richards live at his peak.

There are some that have, and we've all read much from those who did.

But yet many like yourself seem to want to question & debate that which you have not seen.

 

[Ikki]

But batting isn't what makes a team Test-class. How it plays is. If a team isn't being outclassed, regardless of whether it's not scoring many runs, it's up to the standard.

Which is why we're talking about Sri Lanka. But batting is the most relevant point here as we are talking about Imran Khan's bowling vs. their batting.

I said "minnow" is a poor term. Sri Lanka were considerably better at any point in their history than Zimbabwe ever have been since 2003. Sri Lanka were never substandard. I don't care at all for the term "minnow", only whether a team is Test-standard or not.

Minnow means one side is smaller/inferior to another. It's a comparative and relative term. Sri Lanka in the 80s was a minnow - you can disagree whether you think it's the right term, but you know what I mean by 'minnow'. Their batsmen weren't strong and bowlers like Imran Khan - Hadlee averages 12 and SR is 38 vs them - shellacked them. End of story.

And I don't tend to look at players who were solely bashers of weak teams. However, if they repeated their performances against stronger ones, I see no reason not to.

But that's the point. We are talking about whether Imran Khan bowled to the same extent as he did with Sri Lanka when compared to the other teams. He didn't. Imran has ridiculous figures against Sri Lanka that were not replicated against any of the stronger sides. A subtraction of Sri Lanka shows how much his overall record is affected by it. Still an all-time great, but to imply Wasim Akram is not in his league is pushing it. As far as I am concerned, if one cannot be considered the best of X, neither can the other - they're that close.

 

[Richard]

Which is why we're talking about Sri Lanka. But batting is the most relevant point here as we are talking about Imran Khan's bowling vs. their batting.

No, the only relevance is whether their team was Test-class or not. Assessing calibre of batsmen dismissed is a different thing entirely and obviously good bowlers will almost always do better against poor batsmen than good.

Minnow means one side is smaller/inferior to another. It's a comparative and relative term. Sri Lanka in the 80s was a minnow - you can disagree whether you think it's the right term, but you know what I mean by 'minnow'. Their batsmen weren't strong and bowlers like Imran Khan - Hadlee averages 12 and SR is 38 vs them - shellacked them. End of story.

Yes, because they were very good. They'd not have done if they weren't. Sri Lanka still had good batsmen who scored against some other bowlers. Shane Warne has made a living out of preying on batsmen who are crap at playing spin. There's no point discussing this issue with you, you only see paucity you wish to see.

But that's the point. We are talking about whether Imran Khan bowled to the same extent as he did with Sri Lanka when compared to the other teams. He didn't. Imran has ridiculous figures against Sri Lanka that were not replicated against any of the stronger sides. A subtraction of Sri Lanka shows how much his overall record is affected by it. Still an all-time great, but to imply Wasim Akram is not in his league is pushing it. As far as I am concerned, if one cannot be considered the best of X, neither can the other - they're that close.

A subtraction of certain teams (or many other factors - like certain grounds) affects the records of many players. You can do the same with Wasim against New Zealand, who were very poor on one or two occasions in the early-1990s too.

I don't care in the slightest for deducting teams from anything unless that team obviously doesn't merit Test status.

 

[Ikki]

We've done this dance before. You make no sense and haven't for a long time. When you do, I'll engage again. Right now, you're wrong and per usual you can't see past your nose.

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

A subtraction of certain teams (or many other factors - like certain grounds) affects the records of many players. You can do the same with Wasim against New Zealand, who were very poor on one or two occasions in the early-1990s too.

I don't care in the slightest for deducting teams from anything unless that team obviously doesn't merit Test status.

Wasn't Kazoholic's point that Sri Lanka in the 80's were as poor as Bangladesh/Zimbabwe nowadays, so if you take away Wasim's tests against them, you should take away Imrans against Sri Lanka?

 

[Richard]

That wasn't true at all, though - no Tests should be deducted from the record of either bowler, apart from 1 from Wasim's where he bowled something like 2 overs.

 

[Ikki]

Wasn't Kazoholic's point that Sri Lanka in the 80's were as poor as Bangladesh/Zimbabwe nowadays, so if you take away Wasim's tests against them, you should take away Imrans against Sri Lanka?

Exactly. This is ridiculous, Imran Khan bashed a minnow for some 10 odd tests. Take the minnows out of Wasim too and compare. Easy, very similar record.

 

[JBH001]

I have disagreed with that sort of reasoning, and I still do.

All that matters is whether a side is test class or not, and if a bowler (or batsman) has performed against the better sides of his time. In this case the SL batting line-up was not as strong as some of the other batting line-ups of his time (although I note that Imran's worst bowling record is against NZ, hardly a bastion of batting) but the batsman concerned (Mendis, Dias, Wettimuny, Ranatunge etc) were sure as hell better than some of the lower order batsmen of other countries. If these werent worthy test wickets then we should start discounting all lower middle and lower order wickets as well which leads to a very slippery slope, all sorts of qualifications, and complications, and makes further discussion almost impossible. The only time I can see factoring in 'minnows' is if a batsman or bowler is clearly only a minnow basher and nothing else, but this is hardly the case with either Imran or Wasim. However, I do agree that choosing between Imran and Wasim is very difficult indeed.

 

[Richard]

All that matters is whether a side is test class or not, and if a bowler (or batsman) has performed against the better sides of his time. In this case the SL batting line-up was not as strong as some of the other batting line-ups of his time (although I note that Imran's worst bowling record is against NZ, hardly a bastion of batting) but the batsman concerned (Mendis, Dias, Wettimuny, Ranatunge etc) were sure as hell better than some of the lower order batsmen of other countries. If these werent worthy test wickets then we should start discounting all lower middle and lower order wickets as well which leads to a very slippery slope, all sorts of qualifications, and complications, and makes further discussion almost impossible. The only time I can see factoring in 'minnows' is if a batsman or bowler is clearly only a minnow basher and nothing else, but this is hardly the case with either Imran or Wasim.

This post could not possibly sum-up my thoughts on the matter more accurately.

 

[SJS]

SJS, one more you prove the point that unless you have seen players play, this ridiculous phase the CW is currently going through in comparing players they have not seen & getting all worked up in a depate is fairly useless.

Its fairly good for CW that guys like you, archie mac, LT, Swervy, Goughy, Baggpath etc are around it keeps the other younger memeber on this site in check.

You are right about this 'phase'. It can be very frustrating/annoying/irritating for people like me. So at times, I just stay away from many debates and sticvk to the quiz threads. At others,I just decide who I can and who I cant have a meaningful discussion with. Once in a blue moon I lose my cool, mostly because someone is very rude, and thats very upsetting and I go away from the CW for long stretches of time.

But the high quality of some of the posters always brings me back as does the great enthusiasm of some of the youngsters.

I really wish though that reading about the game's history and players of old was a more widespread habit then it is for there is untold pleasure available in cricket books besides the broadening of one's perspective.

If I could somehow lend all my cricket books to people here, or post excerpts from them without infringing copyrights as well as without having to type away with two fingers I would do so and nothing would give me greater pleasure.

Its still such a delight to discuss cricket though sometimes one is lost a bit

 

[SJS]

I have disagreed with that sort of reasoning, and I still do.

All that matters is whether a side is test class or not, and if a bowler (or batsman) has performed against the better sides of his time. In this case the SL batting line-up was not as strong as some of the other batting line-ups of his time (although I note that Imran's worst bowling record is against NZ, hardly a bastion of batting) but the batsman concerned (Mendis, Dias, Wettimuny, Ranatunge etc) were sure as hell better than some of the lower order batsmen of other countries. If these werent worthy test wickets then we should start discounting all lower middle and lower order wickets as well which leads to a very slippery slope, all sorts of qualifications, and complications, and makes further discussion almost impossible. The only time I can see factoring in 'minnows' is if a batsman or bowler is clearly only a minnow basher and nothing else, but this is hardly the case with either Imran or Wasim. However, I do agree that choosing between Imran and Wasim is very difficult indeed.

Very well said indeed.

 

[Perm]

Ultimately, Jayasuria improved as a batsman and has performed better than Arvinda did even though the later is who I'd like to watch if I were given a choice.

IMO Aravinda de Silva is the best Test batsman Sri Lanka has ever produced (excluding M. Jayawardene and Sangakarra whose careers are still going) and Jayasuriya doesn't come that close to rivalling him.

As a middle order batsman de Silva was very, very good. An average of 44.35 is imposing once you consider the standard of bowlers around during the length of his career. He made runs against the likes of Kapil, Kumble, Srinath, Hughes, Alderman, Lawson, Gough, Caddick, Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir, Streak, Donald, Ambrose, Walsh. Unfortunately for himself he only had limited chances to prove his worth against the West Indies, and struggled somewhat against South Africa. Top class batsman though, and extremely under-rated. No offence, I just don't think Jayasuriya can compare.

 

[Richard]

Fun lol, Rich you are problems yo. Of course nothing is wrong with saying in a Lillee vs Marshall thread or Chappell vs Richards thread for those who NEVER SAW them play you think X or Y is better & that should be it. But when you get into stupid arguments by just looking at what the stats tell you thats where the ignorance comes in & thats what been happening unfortunately on CW.

No, it doesn't. Because no-one with any sense looks just at stats, similarly as no-one with any sense completely ignores them. Testimony alone is as flawed as stats alone.

On tapes or DVD because i know you never saw Richards live at his peak.

No, nor did so many of his advocates. Yet I fully understand how good he was in those short periods of time, by watching replays and reading of those who speak of it.

But yet many like yourself seem to want to question & debate that which you have not seen.

Yes. To only debate what you have seen is pointless IMO. Even most of the cricket that's come during my time of watching I haven't actually seen - I've just read scorecards. The only matches I am able to regularly follow ball-by-ball are England ones.

 

[Ikki]

Each period has it's own minnows and some players play these minnows moreso than other players. If you don't take these into account you have no business comparing players. If one player plays a minnow 10 times and another 5 times, it is more likely to impact on the players' record. Simple math, simple logic. Unless you put their overall record aside and look at things objectively, any other way of looking at the stats is flawed.

 

[Richard]

And each bowler takes different ratios of tailenders too. If you try to take account of one, you must do the same with the other.

 

[Ikki]

And each bowler takes different ratios of tailenders too. If you try to take account of one, you must do the same with the other.

When two bowlers like Imran Khan and Wasim Akram are compared, if one strikes 10% more top order wickets and the other 10% more tail-enders than that is something to consider. If that kind of argument is put forth and makes sense, it is hard to deny. Just like one bowler playing many more times against minnows than another bowler. I am not aware if Imran/Akram took a disproportionate amount of tail-enders, if that was your point. I am more than willing to listen if such a difference should be addressed.

 

[Richard]

Until you're willing to look at all things relating to calibre of batsmen, rather than just the easy things to find-out, no-one is going to take anything that seriously.