Vaas vs Srinath vs Lee vs Zaheer vs Sobers

[Avada Kedavra]

We should also remove the matches Lee played in NZ. He averaged 17 but 3 matches is hardly a sample

In fact lets remove every country in which Lee played less than 7 matches as you say 6 is not a good enough sample and then have a look at his away record.

West Indies 7 tests 35 wickets @ 26.22
England 10 tests 29 wickets @ 45.44

Overall in these two countries, 17 tests 64 wickets @ 35. Great away record that


Lets also discount everywhere where Vaas played less than 7 tests.

NZ 8 tests 36 wickets @ 22.55
Pakistan 10 tests 39 wickets @ 29.28
Zimbabwe 8 tests 30 wickets @ 24.63

Overall in these countries , 26 tests, 105 wickets @ 25.6

All hail Ikki

 

[Ikki]

You missed the point, again. The reason I removed them from "minnows" is because you expect a class player to do well having played enough. If they weren't the kind of player to expect it they're not a class player to begin with and we wouldn't be discussing this.

You're continuously using 6 as the sample...it's not; it's 4 and 2. If he had played 6 against either one that would be enough for me. And LOL at you removing every country they played less than 7 tests in. If you're going to stat-dig, at least don't make yourself look desperate. Even by your own measure you're wrong; Lee played 0 Tests in Zimbabwe and 2 in Bangladesh. So you should be removing all countries where he has played less than 2 tests against them...using your own stat-digging.

FTR, I didn't remove any stats when comparing Lee and Vaas - I used Lee's 6 tests against the minnows. When Sir Alex brought the point of how many sides Lee did well against, I showed him against 2 different sides he barely played them - and these would be sides you would expect him to do well against, and he probably would have if he had played them enough.

It's still him superior to Vaas by 13 balls in SR and Vaas superior to him by 1 run on average. Keep clutching.

 

[Ikki]

Of course!!!!!

Well, yes, that's the whole point. These records are past. If you wish to talk about them in terms of ability, in terms of how they'd do against those opponents again or similar opponents, you look at the record to gauge the probability. The bigger the sample the more accurate your analysis will be.

However, your sample is small enough to be pretty meaningless, especially since evidence to the contrary - i.e. Lee's performances overall against the other better sides - shows that it's unlikely to recur with more Test matches.

Whereas with the Pietersen sample of 8 tests against the same pair of bowlers (not 2 and 4 against 2 different teams) is enough to suggest that he had success against them and it wasn't a flash in the pan.

None of this really should need explaining to anyone honest enough with themselves or intelligible enough. But I put it out anyway in hope that the penny drops. You seem to be too upset to see the woods for the trees.

 

[Migara]

As I expemplified, Vaas himself has as many disappointing performances against Bangladesh in the midst of his very good ones; it's the fact that he played them enough to make his record respectable that it is good against them. Imagine he had those bad performances in few, but consecutive, tests and didn't play them anymore. It's meaningless.

But you included 2 matches Lee played against SL which he averages 17.56. Same should be applied to that stat as well. If he could come back against BAN and ZIM with good performances, so is SL team against him. Stop clutching straws Ikki

PS. The sides that Lee played frequently have done much better against him than sides who played him less regularly (except WI for obvious reasons!). So your argument of getting better when played more looks little suspect

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You missed the point, again. The reason I removed them from "minnows" is because you expect a class player to do well having played enough. If they weren't the kind of player to expect it they're not a class player to begin with and we wouldn't be discussing this.

You're continuously using 6 as the sample...it's not; it's 4 and 2. If he had played 6 against either one that would be enough for me. And LOL at you removing every country they played less than 7 tests in. If you're going to stat-dig, at least don't make yourself look desperate. Even by your own measure you're wrong; Lee played 0 Tests in Zimbabwe and 2 in Bangladesh. So you should be removing all countries where he has played less than 2 tests against them...using your own stat-digging.

FTR, I didn't remove any stats when comparing Lee and Vaas - I used Lee's 6 tests against the minnows. When Sir Alex brought the point of how many sides Lee did well against, I showed him against 2 different sides he barely played them - and these would be sides you would expect him to do well against, and he probably would have if he had played them enough.

It's still him superior to Vaas by 13 balls in SR and Vaas superior to him by 1 run on average. Keep clutching.

Ya because 6 is so much better than 4. Keep clutching at straws and then pretend others are.

If Lee > Vaas because of SR, then Waqar > mcgrath. Use the same standards for everyone, it's not that difficult. Oh and Vaas has played a lot of cricket in a place where Lee averages 56

 

[Avada Kedavra]

But you included 2 matches Lee played against SL which he averages 17.56. Same should be applied to that stat as well. If he could come back against BAN and ZIM with good performances, so is SL team against him. Stop clutching straws Ikki

PS. The sides that Lee played frequently have done much better against him than sides who played him less regularly (except WI for obvious reasons!). So your argument of getting better when played more looks little suspect

Lee is crap in the subcontinent or must I say everywhere in the subcontinent.It seems that Asian players have to prove themselves outside the subcontinent, but non Asians don't have to in the SC

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Lee is an absolute God in the SC. 15 wickets @ 60.86 SR 104.7
Vaas outside the SC : 119 wickets @ 32.9

 

[vcs]

^^^

It's pretty obvious that you'd much rather have Vaas as a stock new-ball bowler in subcontinental conditions and Lee as an impact bowler on wickets with pace and bounce. It's really like comparing apples and oranges. That's why the argument that "Lee is superior to Vaas because their averages are comparable and Lee's strike rate is superior by 13 points" makes no sense at all. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

^^^

It's pretty obvious that you'd much rather have Vaas as a stock new-ball bowler in subcontinental conditions and Lee as an impact bowler on wickets with pace and bounce. It's really like comparing apples and oranges. That's why the argument that "Lee is superior to Vaas because their averages are comparable and Lee's strike rate is superior by 13 points" makes no sense at all. It just doesn't work that way.

Very true. But if I had to choose one of the 2 irregardless of the conditions, I'd go for Vaas because his performance isn't half as horrible outside the SC as Lee is in the SC.

 

[Sir Alex]

Lee is an absolute God in the SC. 15 wickets @ 60.86 SR 104.7
Vaas outside the SC : 119 wickets @ 32.9

How many tests?

 

[Migara]

Lee is crap in the subcontinent or must I say everywhere in the subcontinent.It seems that Asian players have to prove themselves outside the subcontinent, but non Asians don't have to in the SC

Have been calling this for a long time.

 

[Ikki]

But you included 2 matches Lee played against SL which he averages 17.56. Same should be applied to that stat as well. If he could come back against BAN and ZIM with good performances, so is SL team against him. Stop clutching straws Ikki

PS. The sides that Lee played frequently have done much better against him than sides who played him less regularly (except WI for obvious reasons!). So your argument of getting better when played more looks little suspect

No, mate they shouldn't. You've essentially missed the point. I am not suggesting we ignore any side merely because of a lack of decent sample. I suggest that only for minnows. SL during Lee's career has certainly been no minnow.

There is a reason why we remove minnows, they are not equal to the other test sides so I am not about to treat them the same way by removing all records because of an inadequate sample.

Ya because 6 is so much better than 4. Keep clutching at straws and then pretend others are.

Yes, it is much better. Especially when you are referring to away Tests. Just how many players have played 6+ tests in every Test country? That in itself would be 60 matches away; and probably as many if not more home. Which means you can only talk about a small group of players who've played 120 tests plus. It's nonsensical.

And in your own stat-digging you've managed to make the sample 2 tests

If Lee > Vaas because of SR, then Waqar > mcgrath. Use the same standards for everyone, it's not that difficult. Oh and Vaas has played a lot of cricket in a place where Lee averages 56

It's not Lee > Vaas because of SR...there are many other factors. Granted, I don't think the difference is much; but McGrath has a tonne more longevity to his aid; a more consistent record across the board; he persevered in one of the hardest eras to bowl too and that is why many people will disagree with the assertion that Waqar > McGrath. Frankly, you're singing to the choir. I think McGrath is a tad overrated in some ways and Waqar a tad underrated in many ways. However, stop pretending as if those two players are exactly the same as these two players and that this one facet of SR should separate both in both cases.

Lee and Vaas have inconsistent records where they AVERAGE well against some teams and not well against others. They share that in common. However, where Lee differs is that when he IS doing badly he is still STRIKING at a very fast rate. Whereas with Vaas that is not the case - he is both expensive and slow to strike.

Apart from that I've mentioned their home and away records which show how mediocre Vaas has been, whereas Lee, even if he is going for more runs away from home, is still striking at a very fast rate. Averaging 33 away from home and striking at 55 is much better - by a country mile - than averaging 32 away from home and striking at 70. It's not even a debate.

Lee is crap in the subcontinent or must I say everywhere in the subcontinent.It seems that Asian players have to prove themselves outside the subcontinent, but non Asians don't have to in the SC

The subcontinent is only 4 countries. It's better to be stronger everywhere bar the subcontinent than vice-versa.

 

[Sir Alex]

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka makes it 4 and 4/8 teams = 50%.

 

[Ikki]

India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka makes it 4 and 4/9 teams = almost 50%.

You're right I wasn't including Bangladesh. Still, what I say stands. 5/9>4/9 (or actually 6/10>4/10).

 

[Sir Alex]

You're right I wasn't including Bangladesh. Still, what I say stands. 5/9>4/9 (or actually 6/10>4/10).

Teams don't play against themselves. Zimbabwe is no more a test nation. Subcontinent makes it 50% of the teams you compete (slightly lower if you belong to a SC team), so it indeed is a big chunk for judging a player.

Admit it mate, Lee is dire in the SC.

 

[Ikki]

Teams don't play against themselves. Zimbabwe is no more a test nation. Subcontinent makes it 50% of the teams you compete (slightly lower if you belong to a SC team), so it indeed is a big chunk for judging a player.

Admit it mate, Lee is dire in the SC.

Who is talking about teams? We are talking about conditions. You still play at home. And Zimbabwe were a test nation while these two were playing, hence my optional parenthesis.

 

[Sir Alex]

Who is talking about teams? We are talking about conditions. You still play at home. And Zimbabwe were a test nation while these two were playing, hence my optional parenthesis.

Fair enough. Still the point is equally as valid. 4/9 is more or less 45% of the entire population and IS significant.

 

[Ikki]

Fair enough. Still the point is equally as valid. 4/9 is more or less 45% of the entire population and IS significant.

My point wasn't that it wasn't significant; the point is that Lee is successful enough in enough places to make that essentially a moot point. If Lee were successful in India and Pakistan instead of New Zealand and WIndies and still retained the same proportion of successful countries it'd help his cause no more than it does now. It would just be that he had mixed results in the sub-continent and mixed results in the non-sub-continent (er?). It's not like all sub-continent pitches are the same anyway.

These two are certainly not two players where failure in one place tips the balance as they failed enough away from home equally.

 

[Sir Alex]

My point wasn't that it wasn't significant; the point is that Lee is successful enough in enough places to make that essentially a moot point. If Lee were successful in India and Pakistan instead of New Zealand and WIndies and still retained the same proportion of successful countries it'd help his cause no more than it does now. It would just be that he had mixed results in the sub-continent and mixed results in the non-sub-continent (er?). It's not like all sub-continent pitches are the same anyway.

Subcontinent may consist of different pitches but in spirit they are considered to be less pacer friendly and more spinner friendly. The real test of a pace bowler is supposed to be in the subcontinental pitches than the Australian/NZ/SA pitches which are traditionally helpful for the pacers. Of all You know it (arguing for Ponting's record in SA).

So it takes more effort and skill to succeed in the subcontinent and that's where Lee has come a cropper.

 

[Ikki]

Subcontinent may consist of different pitches but in spirit they are considered to be less pacer friendly and more spinner friendly. The real test of a pace bowler is supposed to be in the subcontinental pitches than the Australian/NZ/SA pitches which are traditionally helpful for the pacers. Of all You know it (arguing for Ponting's record in SA).

In his defence; Lee played 1 test in Sri Lanka and 2 in Bangladesh. He only played India some 4 times and 0 in Pakistan. Can't take a whole lot away from that.

So it takes more effort and skill to succeed in the subcontinent and that's where Lee has come a cropper.

Vaas himself wasn't too brilliant in Bangladesh or India and had mixed success overseas. It's not so much about difficulty as it is about needing different tools. Lee didn't swing the ball well or consistently with much control until the end of his career. He was a player with speed and bounce which wouldn't aid him in the subcontinent's slow and low pitches.