Rahane's future

[coffee_rules]

1 hour 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.  

You are comparing a MO batsman with a Top Order batsman and say he is inferior?  I feel the team's best bat gets to play #4 and that is the only way to rake up big scores.It doesn't mean he is not equipped, but the position is picked in the team's cause rather than a competition among ATG players to compare.

 

#4 gets to play defence under pressure and play out late plays in a day and also gets to attack when conditions were good.  Dravid at #3 would defend a lot and he didn't have the luxury to decide to attack or play aggressive. That is why after Sehwag/Gambhir came about i mod-2000s, he was less successful, because he had to attack and he is not a naturally aggressive player.  Before that he would play out time, and had the luxury of playing slowly and gain confidence. His average before 2005 is higher than later.

 

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

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

Why is that a criteria for a MO bat? 

[Clarke]

32 minutes ago, zen said:

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. 

Qualified for what, questioning your logic ? The same way you're qualified to judge Sachin  Ramesh Tendulkar's batting skills ? Do you even realize the irony ? To make it simpler, i repeat my earlier question: do you even think before you type ? 

[zen]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

You are comparing a MO batsman with a Top Order batsman and say he is inferior?

I am comparing a batsmen with his peers. Kallis, Richard and Lara for e.g. have batted both in the top and middle order. 

 

Quote

I feel the team's best bat gets to play #4 and that is the only way to rake up big scores.It doesn't mean he is not equipped, but the position is picked in the team's cause rather than a competition among ATG players to compare.

That is not the case as already explained here - Link

 

12 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Why is that a criteria for a MO bat? 

See the first answer. If Tendulkar is only good in MO in tests, he is not good as Kallis, who is good at both roles, as an ATG batsman for e.g.   

 

And in a sense a Rahane among ATG batsman or a Rahane is a Tendulkar in his segment (already discussed) 

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Qualified for what, questioning your logic ? The same way you're qualified to judge Sachin  Ramesh Tendulkar's batting skills ? Do you even realize the irony ? To make it simpler, i repeat my earlier question: do you even think before you type ? 

If you believe that Sachin batting skills cannot be discussed on a cricket forum than you are at a wrong place. And the irony is in the point of you questioning others logic esp. if you are not an expert on logic like you believe that people should not be questing a cricketer's cricket skills 

 

You should ask your ownself you own question. 

 

I know your modus operandi - you make dumb comments, get called out, and then act as if it was an ironic.funny comment  

[coffee_rules]

19 minutes ago, zen said:

I am comparing a batsmen with his peers. Kallis, Richard and Lara for e.g. have batted both in the top and middle order. 

 

That is not the case as already explained here - Link

 

See the first answer. If Tendulkar is only good in MO in tests, he is not good as Kallis, who is good at both roles, as an ATG batsman for e.g.   

 

And in a sense a Rahane among ATG batsman or a Rahane is a Tendulkar in his segment (already discussed) 

You still didn't answer. He was picked to play at #4 only based on team and match needs. There is no competition to prove one player is an ATG. Do you think some players like Kallis played in both positions because he wanted to prove or is it because the team needed him to win the match. This stat is irrelavant to compare, let's compare the techniques, how many dismissals bowled, caught etc, or dismissed by the same bowler. Kallis also bowled FM. So, he is definitelt better than Tendulkar in that dept because Tendulkar bowled medium pace or spin.

[zen]

10 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

You still didn't answer. He was picked to play at #4 only based on team and match needs.

That is your assumption. He could even bat at #3 if he were good enough like many of the batsmen in his class. 

 

Quote

There is no competition to prove one player is an ATG. Do you think some players like Kallis played in both positions because he wanted to prove or is it because the team needed him to win the match. This stat is irrelavant to compare, let's compare the techniques, how many dismissals bowled, caught etc, or dismissed by the same bowler. Kallis also bowled FM. So, he is definitelt better than Tendulkar in that dept because Tendulkar bowled medium pace or spin.

Most top batsmen in a team switch around per the situation. Even Stokes opened vs. WI recently for e.g. .... So if Tendulkar was as equipped as a Kallis or such a peer, the team could have used him in the top order too. Because he wasn't, when the best batsman in the side is expected to be, the team probably did not 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

17 minutes ago, zen said:

That is your assumption. He could even bat at #3 if he were good enough like many of the batsmen in his class. 

 

Most top batsmen in a team switch around per the situation. Even Stokes opened vs. WI recently for e.g. .... So if Tendulkar was as equipped as a Kallis or such a peer, the team could have used him in the top order too. Because he wasn't, when the best batsman in the side is expected to be, the team probably did not 

 

That is your assumption too.  Team will pick order to maximize a win. I have never seen any top cricket expert putting Kallis over Tendulakar in a H-H or ATG team. As @Trichromatic put it in another thread, Kallis was a late bloomer, and he was a minnow basher initially. You are a rare commodity

[zen]

4 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

That is your assumption too.  Team will pick order to maximize a win. I have never seen any top cricket expert putting Kallis over Tendulakar in a H-H or ATG team. As @Trichromatic put it in another thread, Kallis was a late bloomer, and he was a minnow basher initially. You are a rare commodity

In that order, Tendulkar is not good enough to be slotted in the top order  .... As mentioned before Tendulkar/Rahane line up to open in ODIs and bat in the MO in tests 

[Clarke]

1 hour ago, zen said:

If you believe that Sachin batting skills cannot be discussed on a cricket forum than you are at a wrong place. And the irony is in the point of you questioning others logic esp. if you are not an expert on logic like you believe that people should not be questing a cricketer's cricket skills 

 

You should ask your ownself you own question. 

 

I know your modus operandi - you make dumb comments, get called out, and then act as if it was an ironic.funny comment  

 

Its one thing to debate batting skills and another to have such inaccurate & biased opinions that one sounds like a complete jerk or a retard, maybe both. Look around who's dumb as * and you'll only see yourself in this thread, desperate to drag down a living legend by creating imaginary theories while the original topic was of a current cricketer. 

[Trichromatic]

58 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

That is your assumption too.  Team will pick order to maximize a win. I have never seen any top cricket expert putting Kallis over Tendulakar in a H-H or ATG team. As @Trichromatic put it in another thread, Kallis was a late bloomer, and he was a minnow basher initially. You are a rare commodity

I will highlight another assumption using which stats has been misused in earlier posts. 

 

Filtered number by positions for 3-4 players - derived conclusion that player x batting at no 4 is not equipped to play new ball and player y batting at no 4 is equipped to play new ball.

 

Assumption - no 4 played new ball frequently than 3 assuming openers of both teams were similar.

 

If one is really interested in finding out stats for who performed how while facing new ball  - find out how often and in which over batsman x came to crease and how many runs he scored in those cases. Same for Y. For ex - their performances when they came in less than 10 overs. or more than 15/20 overs. If x has worse average than y then you can draw conclusion that x might be better equipped than y in handling new ball. 

 

Even that just highlights that how performances after facing new ball. Can it be regarded as inferior or superior? Facing new ball in India is not same as facing new ball in England or South Africa. Another assumption is that - performance against new ball automatically qualifies as ability against swing/seam bowling - which can easily established by actually watching performances and not by filtering stats. Or if someone really wants to use stats also, then it needs to combined with actual performances watched to form opinion.

 

But statsguru is easy to check and above method requires effort. Instead of putting effort, convenient option is go for easy stats, mix it with your assumption and throw up a conclusion even if it doesn't match up with what people have seen. 

 

If someone tries to counter, dismiss their opinion as assumption and always believe that my assumption is superior than everyone else argument dismissed as assumption. 

 

It's a very effective and easy way of arguing on internet. If you haven't noticed you will find this pattern everywhere, not limited to cricket discussion. Even in political discussions - be it LW or RW or any group - always pick some facts, don't dig deep or pick something which is not direct to dig deep, mix it with some assumptions, maybe obvious wrong statement, hide something and you can always come up with theory which you want to show to people. It effectively takes advantage of short attention span and lack of time of time of current generation who wants to consume short easy information with twitter, tik tok etc and renders them incapable to find out what's lies beneath all that.

 

@Clarke @coffee_rules @maniac @Gollum @Jimmy Cliff

[zen]

PS neither Kallis or Tendulkar would be among my first choice in an AT Test 11 but below is the performance vs. some of the major teams in MO:

 

• Kallis (vs. Aus, Eng, NZ, Pak and Ind): Avg 53
• Tendulkar (vs. Aus, Eng, NZ, Pak and SA): Avg 49 

 

[Clarke]

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I will highlight another assumption using which stats has been misused in earlier posts. 

 

Filtered number by positions for 3-4 players - derived conclusion that player x batting at no 4 is not equipped to play new ball and player y batting at no 4 is equipped to play new ball.

 

Assumption - no 4 played new ball frequently than 3 assuming openers of both teams were similar.

 

If one is really interested in finding out stats for who performed how while facing new ball  - find out how often and in which over batsman x came to crease and how many runs he scored in those cases. Same for Y. For ex - their performances when they came in less than 10 overs. or more than 15/20 overs. If x has worse average than y then you can draw conclusion that x might be better equipped than y in handling new ball. 

 

But statsguru is easy to check and above method requires effort. Instead of putting effort, convenient option is go for easy stats, mix it with your assumption and throw up a conclusion even if it doesn't match up with what people have seen. 

 

If someone tries to counter, dismiss their opinion as assumption and always believe that my assumption is superior than everyone else argument dismissed as assumption. 

 

It's a very good and easy way of arguing on internet.  

Does one even need all that effort & data after having watched Indian cricket for maybe a couple of decades (less/more depending on one's age) while Tendulkar was around ?

 

What was Sir Donald Bradman thinking when he said SRT reminded him of his batting ? Hey, i wish i could have a good time batting at #4 and average 200 unlike this overrated midget!

Edited July 23, 2020 by Clarke

[Trichromatic]

4 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Does one even need all that effort & data after having watched Indian cricket for maybe a couple of decades (less/more depending on one's age) while Tendulkar was around ?

 

What was Sir Donald Bradman thinking when he said SRT reminded him of his batting ? Hey, i wish i could have a good time batting at #4 and average 200 unlike this overrated midget!

Updated my post to cover that also

 

14 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I will highlight another assumption using which stats has been misused in earlier posts. 

 

Filtered number by positions for 3-4 players - derived conclusion that player x batting at no 4 is not equipped to play new ball and player y batting at no 4 is equipped to play new ball.

 

Assumption - no 4 played new ball frequently than 3 assuming openers of both teams were similar.

 

If one is really interested in finding out stats for who performed how while facing new ball  - find out how often and in which over batsman x came to crease and how many runs he scored in those cases. Same for Y. For ex - their performances when they came in less than 10 overs. or more than 15/20 overs. If x has worse average than y then you can draw conclusion that x might be better equipped than y in handling new ball. 

 

Even that just highlights that how performances after facing new ball. Can it be regarded as inferior or superior? Facing new ball in India is not same as facing new ball in England or South Africa. Another assumption is that - performance against new ball automatically qualifies as ability against swing/seam bowling - which can easily established by actually watching performances and not by filtering stats. Or if someone really wants to use stats also, then it needs to combined with actual performances watched to form opinion.

 

[zen]

14 minutes ago, Clarke said:

 

Its one thing to debate batting skills and another to have such inaccurate & biased opinions that one sounds like a complete jerk or a retard, maybe both. Look around who's dumb as * and you'll only see yourself in this thread, desperate to drag down a living legend by creating imaginary theories while the original topic was of a current cricketer. 

Another pointless post 

[zen]

29 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

I will highlight another assumption using which stats has been misused in earlier posts. 

 

Filtered number by positions for 3-4 players - derived conclusion that player x batting at no 4 is not equipped to play new ball and player y batting at no 4 is equipped to play new ball.

 

Assumption - no 4 played new ball frequently than 3 assuming openers of both teams were similar.

 

If one is really interested in finding out stats for who performed how while facing new ball  - find out how often and in which over batsman x came to crease and how many runs he scored in those cases. Same for Y. For ex - their performances when they came in less than 10 overs. or more than 15/20 overs. If x has worse average than y then you can draw conclusion that x might be better equipped than y in handling new ball. 

 

Even that just highlights that how performances after facing new ball. Can it be regarded as inferior or superior? Facing new ball in India is not same as facing new ball in England or South Africa. Another assumption is that - performance against new ball automatically qualifies as ability against swing/seam bowling - which can easily established by actually watching performances and not by filtering stats. Or if someone really wants to use stats also, then it needs to combined with actual performances watched to form opinion.

 

But statsguru is easy to check and above method requires effort. Instead of putting effort, convenient option is go for easy stats, mix it with your assumption and throw up a conclusion even if it doesn't match up with what people have seen. 

 

If someone tries to counter, dismiss their opinion as assumption and always believe that my assumption is superior than everyone else argument dismissed as assumption. 

 

It's a very effective and easy way of arguing on internet. If you haven't noticed you will find this pattern everywhere, not limited to cricket discussion. Even in political discussions - be it LW or RW or any group - always pick some facts, don't dig deep or pick something which is not direct to dig deep, mix it with some assumptions, maybe obvious wrong statement, hide something and you can always come up with theory which you want to show to people. It effectively takes advantage of short attention span and lack of time of time of current generation who wants to consume short easy information with twitter, tik tok etc and renders them incapable to find out what's lies beneath all that.

Why write such a long post to say that "anything that wakes me from my dream of Tendulkar is not the greatest and/or incapable in some way is false. I like to stay in my dreams."

 

PS for many, Tendulkar is just a player like many representing India 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

18 minutes ago, Clarke said:

Does one even need all that effort & data after having watched Indian cricket for maybe a couple of decades (less/more depending on one's age) while Tendulkar was around ?

 

What was Sir Donald Bradman thinking when he said SRT reminded him of his batting ? Hey, i wish i could have a good time batting at #4 and average 200 unlike this overrated midget!

Not only SDB, even Richie Benaud who has seen both play, has opined that their play is similar.  It will be tough for a Aussie to accept that, but RB is a thorough expert.

Edited July 23, 2020 by coffee_rules

[zen]

7 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Not only SDB, even Richie Benaud who has seen both play, has opined that their play is similar.  It will be tough for a Aussie to accept that, but RB is a thorough expert.

Note that being compared with Bradman on playing style and having an output similar is not the same. On skills, there may be even better batsman than Bradman, who is known for his achievements. 

[Trichromatic]

  

38 minutes ago, zen said:

PS neither Kallis or Tendulkar would be among my first choice in an AT Test 11 but below is the performance vs. some of the major teams in MO:

 

• Kallis (vs. Aus, Eng, NZ, Pak and Ind): Avg 53
• Tendulkar (vs. Aus, Eng, NZ, Pak and SA): Avg 49 

 

 

 

Another example of assumptions mixed with some cherry picked facts to build an opinion

 

Performances against some of the major teams

 

Sri Lanka was ranked higher than England, Pakistan and New Zealand for most of 2000s when both Kallis and Tendulkar played cricket, yet they don't find name in that list, why? Because Kallis averaged 38 against SL. 

 

It probably went like this - opened statsguru - saw numbers, oh Kallis has lower number against SL and average drops to 46, while SRT's average goes upto 50 which doesn't suit the agenda. So what should be done, easy - let's remove SL from stats and throw the terms - "some of major teams", chosen set of teams to suit agenda, and paint the picture what I want to show even though SL were rated higher regularly than 3 teams ever since Kallis faced them (1998 onwards).

 

If anyone wants to verify this - it's bit of effort - https://web.archive.org/web/20130120040151/http://www.icc-cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

 

This page shows historical rankings of each month.

 

 

[zen]

25 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

  

 

 

Another example of assumptions mixed with some cherry picked facts to build an opinion

 

Performances against some of the major teams

 

Sri Lanka was ranked higher than England, Pakistan and New Zealand for most of 2000s when both Kallis and Tendulkar played cricket, yet they don't find name in that list, why? Because Kallis averaged 38 against SL. 

 

It probably went like this - opened statsguru - saw numbers, oh Kallis has lower number against SL and average drops to 46, while SRT's average goes upto 50 which doesn't suit the agenda. So what should be done, easy - let's remove SL from stats and throw the terms - "some of major teams", chosen set of teams to suit agenda, and paint the picture what I want to show even though SL were rated higher regularly than 3 teams ever since Kallis faced them (1998 onwards).

 

If anyone wants to verify this - it's bit of effort - https://web.archive.org/web/20130120040151/http://www.icc-cricket.com/match_zone/historical_ranking.php

 

This page shows historical rankings of each month.

 

Good to see that not having a SL has ruffled your feathers. Would you want to bank on WI, BD and Zim too?

 

 

Everything is a conspiracy, how can Tendulkar, perceived as greatest, not compete with 5 major teams? So I guess, let's focus on SL, if the tiny neighbor can come to the rescue   

 

 

I assume that you took the trouble because you feel that SL can come to Tendulkar's rescue. Unfortunately, it makes no difference as Tendulkar still lags behind:

 

* Kallis: Avg 52

* Tendulkar: Avg 51

 

 

Ok, so now let's take WI's help to see if Tendulkar can surge ahead, so adding WI

 

* Kallis: Avg 57

* Tendulkar: 51

 

 

Omg, the gap has even increased, do you want leverage on BD and Zim to see if anything changes? 

 

 

If you are writing so much on assumptions, you should know that if you can't compete with 5 countries, there is no point in bringing in the 6th (just one more team) .... but of course that is not the point, which is to not wake up from the "dream" 

 

Edited July 23, 2020 by zen

[Trichromatic]

7 minutes ago, zen said:

Good to see that not having a SL has ruffled your feathers. Would you want to bank on BD and Zim too?

 

Everything is a conspiracy, how can Tendulkar, perceived as greatest, not compete with 5 major teams? So I guess, let's focus on SL  

 

I assume that you took the trouble because you feel that SL can come to Tendulkar's rescue. Unfortunately, it makes no difference as Tendulkar still lags behind:

 

* Kallis: Avg 52

* Tendulkar: Avg 51

 

 

Ok, so now let's take WI's help, so adding WI

 

* Kallis: Avg 57

* Tendulkar: 51

 

 

Omg, the gap has even increased, do you want leverage on BD and Zim to see if anything changes? 

 

 

If you are writing so much on assumptions, you should know that if you can't compete with 5 countries, there is no point in bringing in the 6th .... but of course that is not the point, which is to not wake up from the dream 

 

Since you're interested in this method of mixing of stats and assumptions - performaces from time when both were active:

1. Against 6 major teams - (Aus, SA, Eng, Ind, Pak, SL, NZ)

Kallis - 46.87

SRT - 50.64

 

2. Against 5 major teams - (Aus, SA, Eng, Ind, SL, Pak)

Kallis - 44.40

SRT - 50.65

 

3. Against 5 major teams - (Aus, SA, Ind, Eng, NZ, SL)

Kallis - 47.73

SRT - 51.48

 

4. Against 5 major teams - (Aus, SA, Ind, Eng, NZ, SL)

Kallis - 45.47

SRT - 51.28

 

5. Against 4 major teams, 3 major teams pick anything you want

 

6. Against top team (Aus)

Kallis - 41.22

SRT - 55.22

 

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/45789.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

 

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=5;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=default;spanmin1=14+Dec+1995;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting