Who will win this battle of champs?

[Perm]

And as I said before, general output doesn't have that much substance in the grand scheme of things (when we get to this level of discussion I mean). I have no problems with you saying that any of the above are better batsmen than Viv. I do find it odd that for the reasons I listed above in my first post on the subject, you would say that the better player is the one with the greater average. That for me is missing the point and one of the reasons I've come to loathe how stats are used around here. But anyways, to be argued again another time.

So scoring runs isn't that important? I'm not specifically stating that because Player X has a higher average than Player Y that he is a better batsman, that would be silly. I'm saying that if Player X scores his runs more consistently and generally at a better average, then it shouldn't matter how destructive Player Y is, because if he averages significantly less then it would be hard to justifty that he is a better batsman.

For example. Mohammad Yousuf averages 56.28 but if you were to argue he was a better batsman than Greg Chappell or Javed Miandad then you'd be crazy, IMO. Averages aren't everything, and they can be inflated significantly for a variety of reasons.

 

[pasag]

So scoring runs isn't that important? I'm not specifically stating that because Player X has a higher average than Player Y that he is a better batsman, that would be silly. I'm saying that if Player X scores his runs more consistently and generally at a better average, then it shouldn't matter how destructive Player Y is, because if he averages significantly less then it would be hard to justifty that he is a better batsman.

For example. Mohammad Yousuf averages 56.28 but if you were to argue he was a better batsman than Greg Chappell or Javed Miandad then you'd be crazy, IMO. Averages aren't everything, and they can be inflated significantly for a variety of reasons.

When did I say scoring runs isn't that important? I said general output isn't an important factor in this discussion and more runs and higher averages doesn't necessarily mean you're a better batsmen, in a stand alone match, series, or career. It's the quality of the runs, not the quantity. I thought my position on this was pretty clear

 

[Perm]

When did I say scoring runs isn't that important? I said general output isn't an important factor in this discussion and more runs and higher averages doesn't necessarily mean you're a better batsmen, in a stand alone match, series, or career. It's the quality of the runs, not the quantity. I thought my position on this was pretty clear

I interpreted "general output doesn't have that much substance in the grand scheme of things" as you attempting to say that scoring runs isn't that important. Having the higher average doesn't automatically make you the better batsman, I agree. Scoring the most runs doesn't automatically make you the better batsman, I agree. However, if a batsman consistently outscores another batsman, then style shouldn't make the lesser scoring batsman superior, which it is quite clearly doing in the case of Richards.

It's the quality of the runs, not the quantity

It's a combination of both, but I would say that scoring more runs is of greater importance than scoring better looking runs.

 

[Burgey]

Is it to be played in an era where the Windies can gambol their way through 65 overs a day, or an era where they have to bowl close to 90?

IMO it would make a difference.

Just browsed through this thread - I think if you take Gillespie at his best, he's not out of his depth in this company. Not quite McGrath, not quite Marshall or Garner, but having seen them both play, I don't think he's a lot worse than Roberts.

Edit: would Lee be in the best of Australia from 95 onwards? Was mcDermott still around then? Wouldn't Fleming also come into the equation?

 

[pasag]

I interpreted "general output doesn't have that much substance in the grand scheme of things" as you attempting to say that scoring runs isn't that important. Having the higher average doesn't automatically make you the better batsman, I agree. Scoring the most runs doesn't automatically make you the better batsman, I agree. However, if a batsman consistently outscores another batsman, then style shouldn't make the lesser scoring batsman superior, which it is quite clearly doing in the case of Richards.



It's a combination of both, but I would say that scoring more runs is of greater importance than scoring better looking runs.

Nah not better looking runs, I never once said that, I'm talking about more difficult runs under greater pressure in harder situations and have more effect on the match. That is were many see Richard's greatness and the ultimate greatness of any sportsman, the impact they have on the state of a game. One of the reasons I considor Warne so brilliant, but that's for another time.

 

[bagapath]

I'd like to know where you got Richard's strike rate from because both www.cricinfo.com and www.howstat.com have no strike rate listed for him, due to the number of balls he faced in few of his innings not being accurate recorded. Until you do this, and have a solid basis for this claim, then I can't really argue this particular point.

http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html

i was wrong. richards scored at 68.9. even bettter than i thought.

 

[Perm]

http://www.sportstats.com.au/hotscore.html

i was wrong. richards scored at 68.9. even bettter than i thought.

No offence, but if a reputable website like www.cricinfo.com doesn't have a career strike rate then I'd be a bit hesitant to accept this data.

 

[Perm]

Nah not better looking runs, I never once said that, I'm talking about more difficult runs under greater pressure in harder situations and have more effect on the match. That is were many see Richard's greatness and the ultimate greatness of any sportsman, the impact they have on the state of a game. One of the reasons I considor Warne so brilliant, but that's for another time.

If a batsman can put more uns on the board in all conditions and circumstances more consistently than a batsman who will turn matches, then I consider him to be better. No doubting players like Gilchrist, Richards and Warne can turn a game, but more often than not the consistent performers will have quite an impact, if not quite as visible. Because they have perhaps a smaller impact on an individual game, but do it more often, I consider them greater.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah not better looking runs, I never once said that, I'm talking about more difficult runs under greater pressure in harder situations and have more effect on the match. That is were many see Richard's greatness and the ultimate greatness of any sportsman, the impact they have on the state of a game. One of the reasons I considor Warne so brilliant, but that's for another time.

Richards is the best batsman I've ever seen or am likely to see, but the above argument doesn't really add up. I don't think Richards did score more runs in tough situations than many others, mainly because he had Greenidge, Fredericks, Haynes, Lloyd, Richardson, Kallicharran etc in the side with him and a bowling attack of Marshall, Holding, Garner, Croft, Roberts etc. He wasn't called upon to dig his team out of a hole very often, if he had been in a poorer side his personal record would possibly have been greater.

 

[pasag]

If a batsman can put more uns on the board in all conditions and circumstances more consistently than a batsman who will turn matches, then I consider him to be better. No doubting players like Gilchrist, Richards and Warne can turn a game, but more often than not the consistent performers will have quite an impact, if not quite as visible. Because they have perhaps a smaller impact on an individual game, but do it more often, I consider them greater.

It depends what the rift is really, if we're talking about winning one match and then going missing for 10 then yeah, I'd agree. But once we get into the upper echelon of players it gets murkier.

 

[Perm]

It depends what the rift is really, if we're talking about winning one match and then going missing for 10 then yeah, I'd agree. But once we get into the upper echelon of players it gets murkier.

I wouldn't say Richards goes missing, but the impact you speak of isn't as consistent as other batsman. The match-winning ability that Richards displayed will be on show every now and then, but the consistency of other batsman is what keeps the team going.

 

[pasag]

I wouldn't say Richards goes missing, but the impact you speak of isn't as consistent as other batsman. The match-winning ability that Richards displayed will be on show every now and then, but the consistency of other batsman is what keeps the team going.

Right and you need consistency and it's important but it's the match-winning ability that puts certain players ahead for mine. Granted that they're relatively consistent also. So even though I hate to bring stats here but just as an example, even though a player might be a few points below another one (not too much though), that ability to win a match, to turn a game on it's head, (setting Richards aside here for a sec and as a general rule) means ALOT more to me then the small drop in ave points.

And yeah, it's not as if I don't rate those consistent players who churn out the runs constantly that's pretty obvious that they're the lifeblood of the team, it's that I so highly value the match-winning ability, as a general rule, enough to propel one player over another one even if they're a tad less consistent. If you value it the other way around, that's fine as well I have no problems with that.

 

[Ikki]

Right and you need consistency and it's important but it's the match-winning ability that puts certain players ahead for mine. Granted that they're relatively consistent also. So even though I hate to bring stats here but just as an example, even though a player might be a few points below another one (not too much though), that ability to win a match, to turn a game on it's head, (setting Richards aside here for a sec and as a general rule) means ALOT more to me then the small drop in ave points.

And yeah, it's not as if I don't rate those consistent players who churn out the runs constantly that's pretty obvious that they're the lifeblood of the team, it's that I so highly value the match-winning ability, as a general rule, enough to propel one player over another one even if they're a tad less consistent. If you value it the other way around, that's fine as well I have no problems with that.

Agree completely.

 

[Ikki]

No offence, but if a reputable website like www.cricinfo.com doesn't have a career strike rate then I'd be a bit hesitant to accept this data.

Perm, for your own curiosity though, check some of Richard's innings (50s/100s). His SR is pretty high, especially for his time.

 

[Dasa]

No offence, but if a reputable website like www.cricinfo.com doesn't have a career strike rate then I'd be a bit hesitant to accept this data.

CricInfo often misses out a lot of details on older scorecards. Also, CricInfo don't put the strike rate info in their Player Profiles if they're missing the info from even a single innings. The sportstats figures are made piecing together many old scorecards and extrapolating the average strike rate. The guy who owns/writes the sportstats site (Charles Davis) is a respected cricket statistician and has done the stats for The Age and Wisden among others.

 

[bagapath]

No offence, but if a reputable website like www.cricinfo.com doesn't have a career strike rate then I'd be a bit hesitant to accept this data.

Perm. I can see you closing your ears when I speak and then you repeat what you had stated before without answering my questions. And you are refusing to take in any statistic that doesnt suit you.

 

[bagapath]

I wouldn't say Richards goes missing, but the impact you speak of isn't as consistent as other batsman. The match-winning ability that Richards displayed will be on show every now and then, but the consistency of other batsman is what keeps the team going.

Perm!!

Here is what you wanted, mate! A proof from cricinfo that viv richard's strike rate was indeed 69+ in days of uncovered wickets, no helmet and great fast bowling. do you agree with my opinion now?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...0;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting