Ind ATG 11 batting

[zen]

10 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Looks like the angoothachhaap jaahil is foaming at the mouth again . This is what happens when you apply dubious filters in pursuit of an agenda. The question remains, if stats in matches won are important, how come Sunny is the first choice in an AT Indian XI let alone the World XI when he only averaged 43.97 in matches won. People like Vishy and Vengsarkar who played alongside Sunny averaged higher . Or is this another metric that you pull out of arse that doesn't apply to Sunny just like Avg*SR?

^  

 

Here goes the story of these underpaid losers:

 

@Jimmy Cliff

 

October 17, 2007

The dead-rubber dominators

TRAVIS BASEVI AND GEORGE BINOY

 

^    

 

 

"Both of Brian Lara's record-breaking innings - 375 and 400 against England in Antigua - came in Tests after West Indies had clinched the series in 1994 and England took it 3-0 in 2004. If you exclude the 18 dead games during Lara's career, his average drops from over 50 to 48.89. "

 

 

B/w 2004 to 2007, this is what happened:

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India  or West Indies

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 2004 and 1 Jan 2008

Ordered by runs scored (descending)

Page 1 of 2

Showing 1 - 50 of 66

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
BC Lara (WI)	2004-2006	28	52	1	2823	400*	55.35	4557	61.94	10	5	7	344	26
R Dravid (INDIA)	2004-2007	35	62	9	2737	270	51.64	6646	41.18	6	15	2	340	5
S Chanderpaul (WI)	2004-2007	33	61	8	2709	203*	51.11	5948	45.54	7	14	3	300	9
V Sehwag (INDIA)	2004-2007	28	49	2	2553	309	54.31	3303	77.29	7	7	7	368	22
CH Gayle (WI)	2004-2007	32	60	1	2453	317	41.57	3642	67.35	4	16	3	369	29
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	2004-2007	34	56	10	1889	178	41.06	4065	46.46	4	12	3	263	1
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2004-2007	29	48	6	1864	241*	44.38	3743	49.79	3	12	1	253	4

 

 

So out of depression, these losers wrote an article to undermine Lara .... and now immediately lose their mental balance when they see someone rating Lara > Tendulkar 

Edited December 17, 2018 by zen

[Jimmy Cliff]

1 minute ago, zen said:

Here goes the story of these underpaid losers:

 

@Jimmy Cliff

 

October 17, 2007

The dead-rubber dominators

TRAVIS BASEVI AND GEORGE BINOY

 

^    

 

 

"Both of Brian Lara's record-breaking innings - 375 and 400 against England in Antigua - came in Tests after West Indies had clinched the series in 1994 and England took it 3-0 in 2004. If you exclude the 18 dead games during Lara's career, his average drops from over 50 to 48.89. "

 

 

B/w 2004 to 2007, this is what happened:

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India  or West Indies

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 2004 and 1 Jan 2008

Ordered by runs scored (descending)

Page 1 of 2

Showing 1 - 50 of 66

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
BC Lara (WI)	2004-2006	28	52	1	2823	400*	55.35	4557	61.94	10	5	7	344	26
R Dravid (INDIA)	2004-2007	35	62	9	2737	270	51.64	6646	41.18	6	15	2	340	5
S Chanderpaul (WI)	2004-2007	33	61	8	2709	203*	51.11	5948	45.54	7	14	3	300	9
V Sehwag (INDIA)	2004-2007	28	49	2	2553	309	54.31	3303	77.29	7	7	7	368	22
CH Gayle (WI)	2004-2007	32	60	1	2453	317	41.57	3642	67.35	4	16	3	369	29
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	2004-2007	34	56	10	1889	178	41.06	4065	46.46	4	12	3	263	1
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2004-2007	29	48	6	1864	241*	44.38	3743	49.79	3	12	1	253	4

 

 

So out of depression, these losers wrote an article to undermine Lara .... and now immediately lose their mental balance when they see someone rating Lara > Tendulkar

 

 

Looks like the angoothachhap has completely lost his marbles after being reminded of his atrocious inconsistency again. None of the cherry picked data from specific years is gonna change that Tendulkar scored nearly 4k runs more at a higher average than the dead rubber bully in games that matter most overall .

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Looks like the angoothachhap has completely lost his marbles after being reminded of his atrocious inconsistency again. None of the cherry picked data from specific years is gonna change that Tendulkar scored nearly 4k runs more at a higher average than the dead rubber bully in games that matter most overall .

working an underpaid job like a loser at crapinfo and hitting the keyboard makes you qualified to talk about data is like an empty vessel making some noise 

 

The dead-rubber dominators

TRAVIS BASEVI AND GEORGE BINOY

 

^    

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by zen

[zen]

@Jimmy Cliff  long time since I got a Tendulkar fanboy in my hand .... thank for the fun .... I have spotted a loser, the fun will continue

[Jimmy Cliff]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

working an underpaid job like a loser at crapinfo and hitting the keyboard makes you qualified to talk about data is like an empty vessel making some noise 

 

The dead-rubber dominators

TRAVIS BASEVI AND GEORGE BINOY

 

^    

 

 

Wait, it looks like the village idiot literally thought I wrote the article . No wonder the buffoon talks about Avg*SR and stats in matches won while picking Gavaskar in an AT World XI.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Jimmy Cliff

[Jimmy Cliff]

6 minutes ago, zen said:

@Jimmy Cliff  long time since I got a Tendulkar fanboy in my hand .... thank for the fun .... I have spotted a loser, the fun will continue

Anytime. Be careful about what stats you post though. Might get another bitch slap like the ones you have received so far.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Jimmy Cliff

[zen]

50 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Wait, it looks like the village idiot literally thought I wrote the article . No wonder the buffoon talks about Avg*SR and stats in matches won while picking Gavaskar in an AT World XI.

Does not matter as a loser subscribes to a loser as posted below  ..... Ah ha, so I have brought the troll out, the troll is trying to attack other Indian greats like Gavaskar

 

buddy, you are displaying lack of  cricket knowledge by assuming that openers and middle order batsmen have to have same criteria for selection (and w/o understanding strategy and tactics) .... no wonder you put forward loser ideas such as "dead rubber" 

 

 

Quote

 

Yeah this article at Cricinfo is something I wrote in my dreams .

 

Batsmen have boosted their career records by scoring heavily in matches inconsequential to the series

 

 

The dead-rubber dominators

TRAVIS BASEVI AND GEORGE BINOY

 

 

47 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Anytime. Be careful about what stats you post though. Might get another bitch slap like the ones you have received so far.

 

look who is talking! .... first you have not been able to address what is posted. Then you put forward that loser article .... don't forget that people with beggar bowls like you don't slap others   

 

I sense a fraud here .... will be fun 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by zen

[Jimmy Cliff]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

Does not matter as a loser subscribes to a loser as posted below  ..... Ah ha, so I have brought the troll out, the troll is attacking other Indian greats like Gavaskar

Why would I need to insult Sunny? You posted numbers in wins for Lara and SRT. The point is, if this stat is important, how is Sunny a part of your World XI considering he averages merely 43+ in matches won. The excuse of being in a weak team doesn't apply here as Vishy/Vengsarkar averaged more . Of course I am not exactly expecting a straight answer from a disingenuous twerp like you. But it's fun to throw back your own retarded logic back at you .

 

13 minutes ago, zen said:

look who is talking! .... first you have not been able to address what is posted. Then you have subscribed to that loser article .... don't forget that people with beggar bowls like you don't slap others   

 

I sense a fraud here .... will be fun 

I exposed your dubious filters on the first page itself. The rest of the thread has been about you throwing your toys out of your pram when Lara was exposed as a dead rubber bully. I can see how fun it has already been for you so far .

[zen]

1 hour ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Why would I need to insult Sunny? You posted numbers in wins for Lara and SRT. The point is, if this stat is important, how is Sunny a part of your World XI considering he averages merely 43+ in matches won. The excuse of being in a weak team doesn't apply here as Vishy/Vengsarkar averaged more . Of course I am not exactly expecting a straight answer from a disingenuous twerp like you. But it's fun to throw back your own retarded logic back at you .

Dude, is this a serious post? I posted a bunch of stats across various parameters for Lara vs Tendulkar, a topic you dragged in  

 

It appears as if you are unable to comprehend.  For e.g. if I am picking fast bowlers based on SR, and if I pick an off spinner over a leg spinner who has relatively better SR because the other team has a bunch of left handers and some of its players have weakness against off spin, Crapinfo's data gets corrupt and ask me about my logic for not using the SR to pick the leg spinner  

 

Are you expecting me to pick the top 5-6 batsmen based on a single criteria irrespective of the positions and roles they play? 

 

Your points are too naive and well below where a meaningful conversation can take place. This is like having to explain basics to you  

 

 

Quote

I exposed your dubious filters on the first page itself. The rest of the thread has been about you throwing your toys out of your pram when Lara was exposed as a dead rubber bully. I can see how fun it has already been for you so far 

There are NO dubious filters (I even took the time to explain that nicely) .... only you who is framing them as "dubious" (which does not count)   

 

This thread is not about Lara and Tendulkar. Since an Ind batting line up consisting of many Ind ATG struggled against good bowlers (data is provided on this thread), my concern was how would they cope vs an even powerful ATG bowling line up in a theoretically scenario. And that is what the thread is about, along with discussing the ATG Ind 11  

 

As for Lara vs Tendulkar,  I do not care about loser points such as dead rubbers (and I already explained why). It is a meaningless exercise for me ....  As for the article that you posted, it does not even have Tendulkar's numbers iirc, which puts a question mark over its objective  (and I do not go by some averages posted like Ten avg X, ABC avg Y. I go by links to the stats provided like I do). Because the criteria is foolish, I did not even bother to ask for links or validations  

 

So once again what is all these complaining and concerns? If you overlook or do not understand the points and the basics, despite explaining them to you to a certain extent, the options are limited my friend  

Edited December 17, 2018 by zen

[Jimmy Cliff]

18 minutes ago, zen said:

Dude, is this a serious post? I posted a bunch of stats across various parameters for Lara vs Tendulkar, a topic you dragged in  

 

It appears as if you are unable to comprehend.  For e.g. if I am picking fast bowlers based on SR, and if I pick an off spinner over a leg spinner with relatively better SR because the other team has a bunch of left handers and some of its players have weakness against off spin, Crapinfo's data gets corrupt and ask me about my logic for not using the SR to pick the leg spinner  

 

Are you expecting me to pick the top 5-6 batsmen based on a single criteria irrespective of the positions and role they play? 

 

Your points are too naive and well below where a meaningful conversation can take place. This is like having to explain basics to you  

Of course it's a serious post. It seems you need me to spell out everything. So let me explain. You've posted a stat in matches won for two middle order/top order batsmen here. I am assuming you have done it because you take it seriously. Now if that is the case, there is no way one can justify picking Sunny in an all-time side because there are other ATG openers out there who were not only on par with Sunny as in terms of overall records but also happened to have much better records in matches won. Capiche? Remember we are only comparing Sunny with other openers here so the question of roles being different doesn't even arise. Otherwise there is no point looking at that stat anyway if we are conveniently setting it aside for certain players for god knows what.

 

31 minutes ago, zen said:

As for Lara vs Tendulkar,  I do not care about loser points such as dead rubbers (and I already explained why). It is a meaningless exercise for me ....  As for the article that you posted, it does not even have Tendulkar's numbers iirc (and I do not go by some averages posted like Ten avg X, ABC avg Y. I go by links to the stats provided like I do). Because the criteria is foolish, I did not even bother to ask for links or validations  

 

So once again what is all these complaining and concerns? If you overlook or not understand the points and the basics, despite explaining them to you to a certain extent, the options are limited  

You could care less about those points just as I could care less about what Lara did in dead rubbers. The thing I questioned initially was how certain bowlers were left out here for "strategic reasons" (as if anyone considers Pollock ahead of Steyn when it comes to Saffa bowlers and how matches involving Warne were conveniently filtered by including McGrath whereas all games involving Murali were included.) The filtering based on live Tests is to show how similar stats-picking can be done to prove how Lara had fallen short of SRT in games that matter. Now even if you find the criteria "foolish", to me it's no different from other filtering based on non-minnow stats or stats in 4th innings and so on. If you've not realized already, it's not about whether you prefer Lara or Chanderpaul or whoever to SRT, it's more about the consistency of the arguments/facts being made/shown. It appears to me that you're basically making up stuff as you go along as long as the results favour Lara over Tendulkar. But at the same time ready to dump the same criteria when it comes to other players.

 

[zen]

8 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Of course it's a serious post. It seems you need me to spell out everything. So let me explain. You've posted a stat in matches won for two middle order/top order batsmen here. I am assuming you have done it because you take it seriously. Now if that is the case, there is no way one can justify picking Sunny in an all-time side because there are other ATG openers out there who were not only on par with Sunny as in terms of overall records but also happened to have much better records in matches won. Capiche? Remember we are only comparing Sunny with other openers here so the question of roles being different doesn't even arise. Otherwise there is no point looking at that stat anyway if we are conveniently setting it aside for certain players for god knows what.

 

Some of the stats are a part of USP stats that highlight areas where a player is ahead. And therefore may or may not have a great influence on the eventual selection (as the player is already selected based on some other criteria). Like most fans of the game, I do not have a structured process where I pick players based purely on the information generated by a spreadsheet .... For the purpose of the discussion, if I were to design a rough structure, it would be something like the one below:

 

• Performance (Average vs top sides for example) 
• Performance vs peers
• USP, since most batsmen are more or less in the same bracket (ability to hit big 100s, score quickly, ability to dominate both pace and spin, reputation, performance vs strong bowling attacks, etc.) 

 

If I were to use the structure on my ATG 11: 

 

• Gavaskar (Strong performance, performance vs WI,  good vs both pace and spin, can hold an end up so strokemakers can play relatively more freely, etc.)

 

Below Gavaskar among his peers: 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1971 and 1 Jan 1988

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 7 of 7

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
SM Gavaskar	1971-1987	125	214	16	10122	236*	51.12	34	45	12
DB Vengsarkar	1976-1987	98	158	22	6256	166	46.00	17	30	12
M Amarnath	1976-1987	67	109	9	4358	138	43.58	11	24	11
GR Viswanath	1971-1983	87	147	9	5746	222	41.63	13	33	9
RJ Shastri	1981-1987	57	84	11	2525	142	34.58	7	9	7
N Kapil Dev	1978-1987	91	131	12	3775	163	31.72	5	21	12
SMH Kirmani	1976-1986	88	124	22	2759	102	27.04	2	12	7

 

• Viv Richards (Strong performance as a top order batsman. Reputation as a stroke maker, a foil to Gavaskar's batting style)

 

Below Viv as a top order batsman:

Records type batting analysis [change type]

View career summary [change view]

Batting position between 1 and 3

Ordered by default (ascending)

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1974-1991	121	182	12	8540	291	50.23	24	45	10	Profile
filtered	1976-1986	47	63	2	3787	291	62.08	13	16	2

 

• Bradman (Avg of 100. Performance vs peers. Reputation. Statistical outlier) 

 

• Lara (the one we have debated the most, performance vs his peers, ability to hit big 100s, ability to score quickly, Excellent vs both pace and spin, an example of a test batsman who can win matches with the bat, etc.) 

 

Below Lara among his peers

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team West Indies

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 1 Jan 2007

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 11 of 11

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0
BC Lara	1990-2006	126	224	6	11517	400*	52.83	19211	59.95	32	47	17
S Chanderpaul	1994-2006	91	159	20	6330	203*	45.53	14733	42.96	13	39	10
DL Haynes	1990-1994	31	56	8	2147	167	44.72	4518	47.52	6	8	3
RB Richardson	1990-1995	41	70	5	2629	182	40.44	5323	49.38	6	14	5
JC Adams	1992-2001	52	87	16	2867	208*	40.38	7480	38.32	5	14	7

 

• The combined average of the next 4 batsmen is 43
• Lara averages 53 (+10)
• Avg difference b/w #1 and #2 is 7

 

• and so on for other positions

 

****

 

Since we have debated Tendulkar for the spot:

 

Below Tendulkar among his peers 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1989 and 1 Jan 2013

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 10 of 10

First Previous

Next  Last

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
SR Tendulkar	1989-2012	178	297	27	13907	241*	51.50	43	63	13
V Sehwag	2001-2012	94	165	4	8124	319	50.45	23	28	16
R Dravid	1996-2012	147	261	27	11726	270	50.11	30	57	6
VVS Laxman	1996-2012	125	213	32	8384	281	46.32	16	55	14
M Azharuddin	1989-2000	69	103	6	4357	192	44.91	16	15	4

 

• The combined average of the next 4 batsmen is 48
• Tendulkar averages 51 (+3) 
• Avg difference b/w #1 and #2 is 1 

 

 

 

Quote

You could care less about those points just as I could care less about what Lara did in dead rubbers. The thing I questioned initially was how certain bowlers were left out here for "strategic reasons" (as if anyone considers Pollock ahead of Steyn when it comes to Saffa bowlers and how matches involving Warne were conveniently filtered by including McGrath whereas all games involving Murali were included.) The filtering based on live Tests is to show how similar stats-picking can be done to prove how Lara had fallen short of SRT in games that matter. Now even if you find the criteria "foolish", to me it's no different from other filtering based on non-minnow stats or stats in 4th innings and so on. If you've not realized already, it's not about whether you prefer Lara or Chanderpaul or whoever to SRT, it's more about the consistency of the arguments/facts being made/shown. It appears to me that you're basically making up stuff as you go along as long as the results favour Lara over Tendulkar. But at the same time ready to dump the same criteria when it comes to other players.

This discussion is about the USP of the players .... I have already picked Lara as aforementioned .... This section is more about USP factors since all greats players have great numbers .... These may or may not influence the overall selection and could be there to highlight areas where a player shines 

 

For the bowling attack, my benchmark pair is McGrath + Warne, which I think is a great example of a bowling attack with variety in its generation .... Addendums include other top bowlers of 90s such as Donald, who led the SA pace dominated attack, and Murali, who is among the ATG spinners and an example of a lone wolf attack at times and a leader of an attack whose strength was spin esp. when playing in SL .... Pollock, another bowler who started in 90s, I added to increase the sample size esp. since SA is a force (Note Donald + Pollock has a relatively small sample size for Ind players, when comparing it with non-Ind players). Later, I did Donald + Pollock as well 

 

So against the basket that includes McGrath + Warne (benchmark), Donald + Pollock and Murali, below is the status: 

 

 

• Avg difference is significant here. Even if it were similar, it would not matter as Lara has already been picked based on other factors 
• Avg * SR, is another USP metric. Here it is not required as the avg difference is significant. But it is there to complete the table 
• Sample size is good too with 50+ innings so the above basket is a good representative of such performances 

 

*****

 

At times, myths are propagated against players who compete with Sachin. For e.g. Lara is relatively inconsistent. The USP stats can show that he is equally consistent and in fact scored more runs as seen below: 

 

Excluding BD and Zim, Lara has played 224 innings: 

Records type batting analysis [change type]

View career summary [change view]

Primary team West Indies

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka

ulOrdered by default (ascending)

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
unfiltered	1990-2006	131	232	6	11953	400*	52.88	19753	60.51	34	48	17	1559	88	Profile
filtered	1990-2006	126	224	6	11517	400*	52.83	19211	59.95	32	47	17	1504	81

 

 

Similarly, Tendulkar at his 224th inning vs these sides:

Records type batting analysis [change type]

View career summary [change view]

Opposition team Australia  or England  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Start of match date less than or equal to 13 Aug 2008

Ordered by default (ascending)

Return to query menu Cleared query menu

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	100	50	0
unfiltered	1989-2013	200	329	33	15921	248*	53.78	51	68	14	Profile
filtered	1989-2008	136	224	21	10403	241*	51.24	33	46	13

 

• This is apples to apples at the completion of their respective 224 innings mark
• They have the same # of 50+ scores with Lara having a 50 more, while Tendulkar has a 100 more. Therefore, both of them are equally consistent 
• Lara has scored 1114 more! (highlights the ability to score bigger 100s) 
• Lara averages 53 with just 6 not outs; Tendulkar averages 51 with 21 not outs 

 

*****

 

• Is the above a fool proof method or a holy grail for selecting players in an ATG 11? Probably not. But it works and serves the purpose 
• Can a more robust system be designed? Probably yes. And for e.g., if I were asked to do it in a professional capacity, who knows, I could design an even more robust system. But for our discussions here, this works perfectly fine 

 

I hope the above addresses your concerns! 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by zen