Rahane's future

[maniac]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Laxman ka 281 sabko yaad hai, Dravid ka 180 sab bhool jate hain.

“Silver laaoge to aaj nahi to kal sab bhool jayenge, gold laaoge to tiranga lahrayega”

 

Pre-Steroid Amir Khan in Dangal

[zen]

9 hours ago, rkt.india said:

Laxman ka 281 sabko yaad hai, Dravid ka 180 sab bhool jate hain.

I don’t think ppl are necessarily forgetting that. It is only that ppl are not making a comprehensive list. 

[Jimmy Cliff]

On 7/20/2020 at 1:47 AM, zen said:

That is fine as by and large, wins in tests is a team effort. If you have a strong team even a random 50 will be for a winning cause. If I have to consider individual batting performance that drove wins, it would be  Laxman's 281, Lara's 153, Sehwag's 300, Pujara's performance in Aus, etc. .... Here, I am focused on how the individual is able to rack up a big series for his team and not be satisfied with for e.g. 1 100 = job done type of attitude.  

Wins in Tests are a result of team effort but it's not as if the West Indies weren't winning Test series in the 90s and 00s. They clearly were and other batsmen in the West Indian side were stepping up with MOTS performances in those series wins. The excuse of not playing in a strong team doesn't fly here as he is not being compared to other batsmen playing for strong teams but his own team-mates from that era. Chanderpaul (twice), Adams, Sarwan, Hinds, heck even an aging Desmond Haynes were able to deliver standout MOTS performances in those series wins. Lara couldn't despite playing way more series than most of those guys. 

[zen]

18 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Wins in Tests are a result of team effort but it's not as if the West Indies weren't winning Test series in the 90s and 00s. They clearly were and other batsmen in the West Indian side were stepping up with MOTS performances in those series wins. The excuse of not playing in a strong team doesn't fly here as he is not being compared to other batsmen playing for strong teams but his own team-mates from that era. Chanderpaul (twice), Adams, Sarwan, Hinds, heck even an aging Desmond Haynes were able to deliver standout MOTS performances in those series wins. Lara couldn't despite playing way more series than most of those guys. 

You can’t control in which series you win a MOTS - but you can control your performances, which can be reflected through MOTS (which can go to a bowler as well) and/or with a big series with the bat whether you win MOTS or not 

For me Sehwag or Lara’s performance in SL for e.g. is legendary whether their team won or lost the series.  They did their best to make their team competitive in difficult conditions or when others did not put their hand up. Lara performs well vs. strong teams like Aus, which is likely to be a favorite esp. in the 2nd half of his career.

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by zen

[maniac]

wrong thread

Edited July 22, 2020 by maniac

[zen]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Alright let’s see your X1. Also please don’t pick and/or options. Let’s see a pure X1 that can man to man destroy this team.

 

Also 7-3,8-2 means there are no flukes. an ATG team at least in a hypothetical scenario should be unbeatable. 
 

For example, all the weapons in the world should make me invincible in a war, shouldn’t it?

Wrong thread  but I ll do that on the right one 

 

a) 9-1 = best case (1 upset)

b) 8-2 = likely (1 bad performance by my team + 1 performance where everything clicks for your team)

c) 7-3 = worst case (b + losing in a dead rubber due to taking it easy)

Edited July 22, 2020 by zen

[raki05]

3 hours ago, zen said:

The point is that to know where it is easier to bat follow guys like Tendulkar and Rahane. When he comes to bat when the score is 0-20, his avg is only 41. He is not good enough to bat in top 3 relative to many top ATG batsmen. 
 

2nd, Tendulkar has batted at various positions including at #3 in tests (for 1 test iirc) and did not do well. As mentioned, he has a low avg as well when he comes in early. As for guys like Lara and Richards, they have batted in the top order, averaging 60+ there. 
 

what or how Manju is though is irrelevant to the numbers being discussed where Tendulkar is usually only able to compete with likes of Kallis when he comes in at a score of 100 or more. 

Unfortunately it's your weired idea to defined greatness. If you go on finding loopholes I can share mainey loopholes another great batsmen which you have mentioned.  For me at the end of the day he is the only one who stood up against great bowlers of 90s and included as second batsmen after Bradman in Wisden. So it doesn't matter what you or I think to downgrade some of the greats 

[zen]

1 minute ago, raki05 said:

Unfortunately it's your weired idea to defined greatness. If you go on finding loopholes I can share mainey loopholes another great batsmen which you have mentioned.  For me at the end of the day he is the only one who stood up against great bowlers of 90s and included as second batsmen after Bradman in Wisden. So it doesn't matter what you or I think to downgrade some of the greats 

Among Test ATG batsmen, there are better batsmen even after considering their pros and cons. 

[raki05]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

Among Test ATG batsmen, there are better batsmen even after considering their pros and cons. 

Based on your pros and cons .There can be many pros and cons and loopholes which aren't in ur list. May be what you consider as pros and cons to defined greatness are not even relevant to defined greatness. Anyways you put rahane and Tendulkar in same bracket that itself very questionable, let's agree to disagree and continue on actual topic.

Edited July 22, 2020 by raki05

[zen]

12 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Based on your pros and cons .There can be many pros and cons and loopholes which aren't in ur list. May be what you consider as pros and cons to defined greatness are not even relevant to defined greatness. Anyways you put rahane and Tendulkar in same bracket that itself very questionable, let's agree to disagree and continue on actual topic.

On the main topic, there is no case for agree to disagree as you embarked on a different direction  .... And I am saying that Tendulkar is an ATG batsmen (not saying he is not a great batsman), but among ATG batsmen, his attitude/output is similar to Rahane's in his category/level - which is not ATG level. 

Edited July 22, 2020 by zen

[Jimmy Cliff]

22 hours ago, zen said:

You can’t control in which series you win a MOTS - but you can control your performances, which can be reflected through MOTS (which can go to a bowler as well) and/or with a big series with the bat whether you win MOTS or not 

For me Sehwag or Lara’s performance in SL for e.g. is legendary whether their team won or lost the series.  They did their best to make their team competitive in difficult conditions or when others did not put their hand up. Lara performs well vs. strong teams like Aus, which is likely to be a favorite esp. in the 2nd half of his career.

 

It's not about controlling which series you win the MOTS award in but more about playing a leading/standout role in winning a couple of series for your side. The award itself is just a by product. I don't think it's an unfair expectation from a player who has 130 odd caps over 17 years!

[maniac]

48 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

It's not about controlling which series you win the MOTS award in but more about playing a leading/standout role in winning a couple of series for your side. The award itself is just a by product. I don't think it's an unfair expectation from a player who has 130 odd caps over 17 years!

Ashwin I believe has the most MOTS awards for India and still has 3-4 years of cricket left. Would it make him the greatest Indian cricketer ever  @Khota bhai your views

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

Ashwin I believe has the most MOTS awards for India and still has 3-4 years of cricket left. Would it make him the greatest Indian cricketer ever  @Khota bhai your views

Pre-hernia Ashwin was a more impactful cricketer than Bradman according to some folks 

 

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

It's not about controlling which series you win the MOTS award in but more about playing a leading/standout role in winning a couple of series for your side. The award itself is just a by product. I don't think it's an unfair expectation from a player who has 130 odd caps over 17 years!

MOTS can be given to one player or players from both sides. It can go to a bowler or a batsman. You can be a key player even without being a MOTS. 
 

The goal of a batsman is to perform for a team - which can be seen either through scoring big in a series or a MOTS award or both, making your good form count. 

 

Also the framing of importance of a win depends upon a team. A WI drawing a series vs. Aus or SA is a type of win for it. A WI beating India, SL, or Pak may not mean that much. If X gets MOTS in a win in a series vs SL and other gets a MOTS in a draw vs Aus or SA esp. of that time , for a weak team, to me, the later is more valuable. 

 

Which is why I am focused on performance in terms of raking up a big series or MOTS (in wins or draw or at times even loses), which also shows a player’s contributions. When it comes to performances in wins for a batsman - I look at specific innings such as Laxman’s 281 or Lara’s 153 or Sehwag’s 300 or even stats in wins over a longer period. These parameters do not change with the type of players I am evaluating. 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 minute ago, zen said:

MOTS can be given to one players or players from both sides. It can go to a bowler or a batsman. You can be a key player even without being a MOTS.

 

But the MOTS award in general is won by the best performer from the winning side. There are exceptions every now and then but the norm is the standout player from the winning side getting the MOTS. I would expect most great batsmen to be able to be the standout performer in a few series wins at least during their career. It's not about being merely a key player (which is setting a low bar) but being the main reason for your side's win in that series. When a player fails to have a single such instance in their career questions need to be asked.

 

13 minutes ago, zen said:

The goal of a player is to perform for a team - which can be seen either through scoring big in a series or a MOTS award or both. 

 

I think the goal is to perform in a way that gives your side the best chance of winning a series. Day in day out. Scoring big runs after the series is already decided is not something I rate highly (at least in a pre-ICC Test Championship world). 

 

24 minutes ago, zen said:

Also the framing of importance of a win depends upon a team. A WI drawing a series vs Aus or SA is a win. A WI beating India, SL, or Pak may not mean that much. If X gets MOTS in a win in a series vs SL and other gets a MOTS in a draw vs Aus or SA esp. of that time for a weak team, to me, the later is more valuable. 

IIRC that Aussie side was actually beaten just a few months later by Lanka at home. I wouldn't consider a draw against that Aussie side a win. The Aussie juggernaut under SR Waugh didn't begin until Gilchrist's debut later on that year. Moreover, if we start equating draws to wins. Adams' performance in India in 1994 when he almost single-handedly helped WI to draw the series away from home (Lara averaged in the low 30s in that series IIRC) would be up there. And yet he still has a MOTS award in an actual series win unlike Lara.

 

37 minutes ago, zen said:

Which is why I am focused on performance in terms of raking up a big series or MOTS (in wins or draw or at times even loses), which also shows your contributions. When it comes to performances in wins for a batsman - I look at specific innings such as Laxman’s 281 or Lara’s 153 or Sehwag’s 300 or even stats in wins over a longer period. These parameters do not change with the type of players I am evaluating. 

The thing with Sehwag or for that matter most other top order ATG batsman of the modern era is that while these guys may have a great performance or two in a drawn series or even a lost series (like Sehwag's 201* vs SL in 2008) they were able to have other standout series individually where they led their side to a win. With Lara, the entire mythology seems to rest on that one truly great series vs Australia in 1999 (which WI drew) and somehow extrapolating it to his entire career when the reality is, outside of that series he wasn't particularly great at making his runs count. This reflects in multiple ways; like his 0 MOTS awards in series wins, low number of 100s in a winning cause (only 6 out of 32 100s against top 8 sides leading to a win with 1 of those in a dead Test), absurdly prolific record in dead rubbers etc.

[coffee_rules]

On 7/22/2020 at 7:38 AM, zen said:

The point is that to know where it is easier to bat follow guys like Tendulkar and Rahane. When he comes to bat when the score is 0-20, his avg is only 41. He is not good enough to bat in top 3 relative to many top ATG batsmen. 
 

I would say 41 is a good indication. Do we know the kind of opposition when Tendulkar came in at 0-20. Most likely SENA. So, there you go.

On 7/22/2020 at 7:38 AM, zen said:

2nd, Tendulkar has batted at various positions including at #3 in tests (for 1 test iirc) and did not do well. As mentioned, he has a low avg as well when he comes in early. As for guys like Lara and Richards, they have batted in the top order, averaging 60+ there. 
 

He has never batted at #3. Once at #2 and rest all from $4 and down. He was successful at #5 #6 initially and moved up. IVAR has not opened or was not succesful, but there are many openers who have averaged better than him at #3. So, do we say IVAR is inferior to them (like Cook/Gavaskar?)

 

On 7/22/2020 at 7:38 AM, zen said:

what or how Manju is though is irrelevant to the numbers being discussed where Tendulkar is usually only able to compete with likes of Kallis when he comes in at a score of 100 or more. 

You have to consider quality of opposition . Kallis had monumental serieses against WI, Zim etc. So, it is an irrelavent stat to start with.

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

But the MOTS award in general is won by the best performer from the winning side. There are exceptions every now and then but the norm is the standout player from the winning side getting the MOTS. I would expect most great batsmen to be able to be the standout performer in a few series wins at least during their career. It's not about being merely a key player (which is setting a low bar) but being the main reason for your side's win in that series. When a player fails to have a single such instance in their career questions need to be asked.

My focus is the ability to rack up big series of your team, whose strength determines whether it loses or wins. In lieu of a big series or in conjunction with it, I can use MOTS which can be given taking into account a variety of factors not including batting. 

 

Drawing parallels with ODIs, Tendulkar was MOTS in 2003 WC but India did not win it. Yuvraj Singh was not the highest scorer in 2011 WC but won MOTS too. Here I am accepting both Tendulkar's runs in the series and Yuvraj Singh overall performance in addition to his batting. By using your points, I cannot demean Tendulkar's MOTS in 2003 by suggesting that India did not win. Or accolade Yuvraj Singh's by claiming that India won. 

 

Coming back to tests, there are cricketers who play a huge role in helping their teams win. I can acknowledge those like Laxman's 281, Lara's 153, Sehwag's 300, and so on. 

 

Quote

IIRC that Aussie side was actually beaten just a few months later by Lanka at home. I wouldn't consider a draw against that Aussie side a win. The Aussie juggernaut under SR Waugh didn't begin until Gilchrist's debut later on that year. Moreover, if we start equating draws to wins. Adams' performance in India in 1994 when he almost single-handedly helped WI to draw the series away from home (Lara averaged in the low 30s in that series IIRC) would be up there. And yet he still has a MOTS award in an actual series win unlike Lara.

Aus vs WI is played on more equal conditions. 

 

 

Quote

The thing with Sehwag or for that matter most other top order ATG batsman of the modern era is that while these guys may have a great performance or two in a drawn series or even a lost series (like Sehwag's 201* vs SL in 2008) they were able to have other standout series individually where they led their side to a win. With Lara, the entire mythology seems to rest on that one truly great series vs Australia in 1999 (which WI drew) and somehow extrapolating it to his entire career when the reality is, outside of that series he wasn't particularly great at making his runs count. This reflects in multiple ways; like his 0 MOTS awards in series wins, low number of 100s in a winning cause (only 6 out of 32 100s against top 8 sides leading to a win with 1 of those in a dead Test), absurdly prolific record in dead rubbers etc.

I am sure if someone like Lara played for Aus, he would have far more wins. He makes his form count by performing in the series with big scores, which are on plenty of occasions. 

[zen]

35 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I would say 41 is a good indication. Do we know the kind of opposition when Tendulkar came in at 0-20. Most likely SENA. So, there you go.

It is not esp. when compared with players of his caliber such as Kallis, who play in SENA and vs. ENA too. The top order Indian batsmen like Gavaskar, Dravid, etc. have higher averages. 

 

Quote

He has never batted at #3. Once at #2 and rest all from $4 and down. He was successful at #5 #6 initially and moved up. IVAR has not opened or was not succesful, but there are many openers who have averaged better than him at #3. So, do we say IVAR is inferior to them (like Cook/Gavaskar?)

FYI, Richards and Lara average 60+ as top order batsman. Tendulkar never played ( 1 game only) in top order because a) it is relatively a difficult place to bat (or he would line up to bat there), and b) he may not be as equipped as some of his peers.  

 

 

Quote

You have to consider quality of opposition . Kallis had monumental serieses against WI, Zim etc. So, it is an irrelavent stat to start with.

What is being evaluated is performing vs. newer ball vs. fresh bowlers under pressure. 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[Clarke]

50 minutes ago, zen said:

 

FYI, Richards and Lara average 60+ as top order batsman. Tendulkar never played ( 1 game only) in top order because a) it is relatively a difficult place to bat (or he would line up to bat there), and b) he may not be as equipped as some of his peers.  

Do you even think before you type ?

[zen]

9 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Do you even think before you type ?

I understand that there are posters of all types of background on this forum but do not creep in to a discussion which is almost 2 pages long unless you are qualified to make comment. You should know that in 200 tests, Tendulkar has only batted 1 time in the top order.