Viv Richards & Allan Donald vs Brian Lara & Curtly Ambrose

[subshakerz]

the fact that the majority thinks Ponting was a better Batsmen than Waugh already proves that consciously or subconsciously, we do make the distinction of NOs when comparing Waugh to genuine 50+ average batters.

Or that folks who never saw Waugh bat assume he was selfish and scored easy runs, which isn't true at all.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Most people that watched them both play rate Ponting higher for batting style/strike rate. Same reason Ponting is generally rated higher than Kallis, Border, and Dravid.

 

[subshakerz]

Most people that watched them both play rate Ponting higher for batting style/strike rate. Same reason Ponting is generally rated higher than Kallis, Border, and Dravid.

Yes. A more dominant player. Also a bias as Waugh wasn't aesthetic.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I can see why lower order bats should be penalised for not batting higher and facing the fresher bowlers.

But how exactly is a no.5/6 going to have the same RPI as a 3/4 over a long stretch? Especially in a stronger batting team?
Seems like an odd thing to penalise then for.

If a batsman bats lower down the order (which is an easier job) in a stronger team (again, easier), and makes fewer runs per innings despite having these advantages, isn't it perfectly fair to say he's worse because of that imo.

Part of this is because if you bat lower down, you need an attacking game to maximize run output instead of just staying not out. Which is why batsmen like Sobers and AB de Villiers managed much higher RPI despite batting at 5 and 6.

 

[peterhrt]

Honestly you're sure a treasure trove of knowledge and of the history of the game.

You don't have agendas and very arguably the best poster on the forum.

You're appreciated Sir.

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

 

[subshakerz]

If a batsman bats lower down the order (which is an easier job) in a stronger team (again, easier), and makes fewer runs per innings despite having these advantages, isn't it perfectly fair to say he's worse because of that imo.

Part of this is because if you bat lower down, you need an attacking game to maximize run output instead of just staying not out. Which is why batsmen like Sobers and AB de Villiers managed much higher RPI despite batting at 5 and 6.

No because:

- RPI, like overall average, is a raw stat and depends on many factors and quality of runs and where they were scored. It is inherently unreliable to use as a quick reference to who is better.

- Ignoring NOs for bats in the top 6 doesn't make sense unless you can prove they got off easy

- It ignores how they actually played. no 5/6 guys like Border and Waugh were grinders whose game was built on consistently bailing out their teams in pressure situations (moreso in Borders case tho)

- We don't make an automatic jump to consider no.4s defacto inferior to openers, why should we do that for no.5/6s respective to no.4s? We never say that Tendulkar wasn't capable of opening so therefore he had to bat down at 4. We just accept that this position suited him the most and where he could maximize.

- There is an assumption here also that its guaranteed success for any top order bat to transition to the lower order but it isn't the necessarily the case. Didn't work with Viv for example.

 

[subshakerz]

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

Not boring at all sir.

 

[Johan]

Or that folks who never saw Waugh bat assume he was selfish and scored easy runs, which isn't true at all.

never saw anyone claim that, but the fact of the matter is that without minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Early 90s Sri Lanka), Waugh averages 47 and his run output is 39-40, that just doesn't compete with true ATGs, he stands with them due to the quality of his runs but it's almost undeniable that his quantity is lacking.

 

[Johan]

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

Not boring at all, your posts are the ones I look most foward to by a large margin on this site.

 

[Thala_0710]

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

Especially for newcomers, your posts are goldust for someone like me, who just wants to learn more about great players of the past

 

[subshakerz]

never saw anyone claim that, but the fact of the matter is that without minnows (Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Early 90s Sri Lanka), Waugh averages 47 and his run output is 39-40, that just doesn't compete with true ATGs, he stands with them due to the quality of his runs but it's almost undeniable that his quantity is lacking.

It's that very quality that doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations though. I've seen several posters here make those claims about Waugh over the years.

But I don't see how his output is a problem for a specialist no.5 which is how he should be evaluated.

 

[Johan]

It's that very quality that doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations though.

But I don't see how his output is a problem for a specialist no.5 which is how he should be evaluated.

I mean, every Waugh discussion is his output quality being discussed, the Two Ws, Ambrose and Walsh and so forth, that's his whole claim to fame.

I don't see why a specialist batter in the position where specialist batters usually play should get any leniancy on his lack of output compared to ATGs.

 

[Thala_0710]

I mean, every Waugh discussion is his output quality being discussed, the Two Ws, Ambrose and Walsh and so forth, that's his whole claim to fame.

I don't see why a specialist batter in the position where specialist batters usually play should get any leniancy on his lack of output compared to ATGs.

Waugh gets regularly rated above guys like Dravid, Root and Sanga here, which is testimony to his tough runs

 

[capt_Luffy]

No, just a boring old fogey living in the past. There are plenty of more interesting posters here including yourself. Thank you for the kind words though.

Definitely not Sir!! The insights you provide which Stats lacks to do many a times are a treasure trove. I really look forward to your posts on matters I am not the most familiar with. Thanks.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Yeah because he bats down the order. It's not because of some lesser run scoring capacity.

I mean, that's kinda the point. If you are your team's best batsman and not scoring that many runs, you really should just move up the order.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't see why a specialist batter in the position where specialist batters usually play should get any leniancy on his lack of output compared to ATGs.

Yeah except we know batting no.5/6 means you are going to score less on average as the top three or four. You will end up with the tail often and won't have time for longer innings. So why make it some big revelation that his RPI is less or put the same expectations.

 

[subshakerz]

I mean, that's kinda the point. If you are your team's best batsman and not scoring that many runs, you really should just move up the order.

What if you are more suitable down the order?

 

[Johan]

Waugh gets regularly rated above guys like Dravid, Root and Sanga here, which is testimony to his tough runs

yup, he makes up for the lack of volume by the quality of runs, he pretty much buried English Cricket during Ashes 1989 and it was dead until the 2005 Ashes, ATG tours in Windies and smacking Donald too, that's why I've him in that Ponting/Root/Greg tier even though his output is not there.

 

[Johan]

Yeah except we know batting no.5/6 means you are going to score less on average as the top three or four. You will end up with the tail often and won't have time for longer innings. So why make it some big revelation that his RPI is less or put the same expectations.

should've been good enough to make runs in the top 4 then

instead he went to top 4 and made 448 @ 34.4

on top, his output (minus minnows) is less than Clive Lloyd and AB De Villiers, two bonafide NON ATGs, who also played at 5 and 6.

 

[capt_Luffy]

What if you are more suitable down the order?

That just means you aren't that great against fresher bowlers.