Rahane's future

[maniac]

@zen

 

Hardik Pandya vs Jason Holder vs Ben Stokes- Rank them please on whatever measurement scale you use 

Edited July 25, 2020 by maniac

[zen]

32 minutes ago, maniac said:

Thanks. Good info.

But my context of that post still remains :)

It does not as a) it shows a lack of awareness of great players in cricket history (just like in the random parallels with tennis), b) cricket is a team sport and no batsman has the opportunity to beat others (unless playing for the same side to a certain extent),  c) how long you play in a team sport depends upon your team's strength and sports culture of the country, d) the question mark on Tendulkar's superiority over his peers,  and e) etc. 

 

Your points are similar to someone from Pakistan comparing Miandad and Gavaskar/Chappell/Richards, suggesting that Miandad played with Richards, Gavaskar & company, competed with Border, Dean Jones and Martin Crowe, and was around when Waugh, Tendulkar and Lara were there. (Similarly for Kapil) - then you combine Miandad's tests and odi runs

Edited July 25, 2020 by zen

[zen]

52 minutes ago, maniac said:

@zen

 

Hardik Pandya vs Jason Holder vs Ben Stokes- Rank them please on whatever measurement scale you use 

From top of the mind recall - so far (current players):  

 

* It terms of favorite player - Pandya > Stokes > Holder

* In Tests - Stokes (established player) > Holder > Pandya (yet to be established) 

* In ODIs - Stokes (established player) > Pandya (in and out of the team but great potential) > Holder (who is a more useful bowler) 

* In T20s - Pandya (considering IPL as well)  > Stokes > Holder 

 

I haven't followed WI cricket in details of late to rate Holder properly (so this is based on my fractured memory/impressions and may have been unfair on Holder - so the disclaimer) 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by zen

[maniac]

1 hour ago, zen said:

From top of the mind recall - so far (current players):  

 

* It terms of favorite player - Pandya > Stokes > Holder

* In Tests - Stokes (established player) > Holder > Pandya (yet to be established) 

* In ODIs - Stokes (established player) > Pandya (in and out of the team but great potential) > Holder (who is a more useful bowler) 

* In T20s - Pandya (considering IPL as well)  > Stokes > Holder 

 

I haven't followed WI cricket in details of late to rate Holder properly (so this is based on my fractured memory/impressions and may have been unfair on Holder - so the disclaimer) 

 

Good to see you consider intangible & other external factors and not just plain number massaging from Statsguru for at-least some of your analysis

[zen]

45 minutes ago, maniac said:

Good to see you consider intangible & other external factors and not just plain number massaging from Statsguru for at-least some of your analysis

By and large, I use numbers to seek an objective PoV. For e.g. if I say xyz did this, then I try to back it up with numbers, that is where statsguru mostly comes in. I have/had created some data on excel as well. If I am unsure on a topic, then I can do a further analysis to find the answer. Numbers can be easier for most people to relate to and discover some common ground. 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by zen

[Trichromatic]

3 hours ago, zen said:

By and large, I use numbers to seek an objective PoV. For e.g. if I say xyz did this, then I try to back it up with numbers, that is where statsguru mostly comes in. I have/had created some data on excel as well. If I am unsure on a topic, then I can do a further analysis to find the answer. Numbers can be easier for most people to relate to and discover some common ground. 

 

 

Not really, you mix numbers with your assumptions. That's hardly objective PoV. 

 

You say xyz did this -> then comes some assumption -> then comes carefully chosen numbers which matches assumption or hides actual information. 

 

Also most of those numbers are simply first level easy to get information. No attempt to dig deeper and careful attempt to mask it with easy to get numbers.

 

There is never further analysis, just statsguru filter to suit the opinion already formed.

 

For ex - you are  top order v middle order argument. How does it matter? You declare a player is more or less capable against new ball on basis of batting position. - this is your assumption. 

 

For example -

Batsman A

Batting Position 3: comes bat in these overs in non-SC conditions.

Match 1: 16th over 

Match 2: 20th over

Match 3: 9th over

Runs Scored: 141

Avg: 47

 

Batsman B

Batting Position 4: comes bat in these overs in non-SC conditions.

Match 1: 6th over

Match 2: 7th over

Match 3: 12th over

Runs scored: 165

Avg: 55

 

Who might have faced more number new ball? Batsman A or Batsman B?

 

Now actually you're looking for - batting against new ball, basically quality by quantitative approach.

What assumption do you mix - Batsman in top 3 automatically faces new ball more often batsman 4.

Which statistical factors do you ignore - number of balls faced by of batsman top 2 or top 3 for either of those batsmen (in other words quality of batsmen coming up)

Which subjective approach do you ignore - actual performances which people have watched and can find online also.

What actually you search for - Runs scored at batting positions.

What you actually get - batsman B didn't bat in top

What you deduce - batsman B wasn't capable of against new ball. 

What you throw at everyone's face - numbers at batting positions.

What you don't want to find out - when did batsmen came at crease and how did they perform? 

Reason - 1. It requires effort, 2. It doesn't suit your bias. 3. Former is easy to find out.

 

Just applying statsguru filters and posting it without context just because suits your bias isn't called analysis.

[Trichromatic]

9 hours ago, zen said:

I am not the one fighting to include SL, wasting  efforts on writing on assumptions, tagging others on an irrelevant post with ruffled feathers, using Kallis’s career timeline to make an internationally experienced (at that point) Tendulkar just to compete with him, etc., - developing a sense of duty to one player (And therefore writing against other cricketers) to not wake up from the dream  

 

Both are of similar age. Kallis 2 year younger than Sachin. No one stopped Kallis from playing international cricket at that age. He was good only for domestic when SRT was good enough for international. So why hold that against SRT?

 

I excluded SL also for you and fixed your numbers to include common countries also. You're the one the who tried to dream that SL was worse than Pak, Eng and NZ during 2000s.

Try watching actual cricket sometimes. It's a game.

[Trichromatic]

8 hours ago, zen said:

That is an assumption (but even if one is, that is fine  ) and addressed in the post you first quoted on this page. 

 

Hate is obvious here. Why else would you go to this length of making up stuff?

[Gollum]

Are you guys excluding SL? Why? For most of mid/late 90s, 00s and early 2010s they were a pretty solid bowling side, effective attack built around one exceptionally good spinner and backed  by smart captaincy, good catching, scorecard pressure. I dare say theirs was a more competitive attack compared to Ind, Eng, NZ, WI for a big chunk of that period.  

[Trichromatic]

Team records in 2000s

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
Australia	2000-2009	108	72	18	0	18	4.000	42.41	3.65	196	674	93
South Africa	2000-2009	96	42	32	0	22	1.312	36.45	3.07	176	682	84
England	2000-2009	121	48	37	0	36	1.297	34.71	3.20	228	617	51
India	2000-2009	90	30	26	0	34	1.153	36.98	3.24	165	726	76
Sri Lanka	2000-2009	79	27	31	0	21	0.870	33.76	3.20	145	760	73
Pakistan	2000-2009	75	22	31	0	22	0.709	33.87	3.20	137	765	53
New Zealand	2000-2009	67	12	32	0	23	0.375	30.07	3.03	126	630	73
West Indies	2000-2009	96	11	57	0	28	0.192	29.39	3.06	175	751	47
Bangladesh	2000-2009	53	2	48	0	3	0.041	20.02	3.00	105	427	62
Zimbabwe	2000-2005	36	1	29	0	6	0.034	24.63	2.68	72	563	54
ICC World XI	2005-2005	1	0	1	0	0	0.000	16.70	3.43	2	190	144

 

 

Team records in 1990s

Overall figures

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
Australia	1990-1999	107	53	25	0	29	2.120	35.28	2.95	191	653	104
South Africa	1992-1999	63	26	13	0	24	2.000	33.55	2.76	113	621	105
Pakistan	1990-1999	64	26	19	0	19	1.368	31.08	3.02	111	594	92
West Indies	1990-1999	81	30	28	0	23	1.071	29.92	3.11	147	692	51
India	1990-1999	66	17	19	0	30	0.894	35.48	2.96	109	633	66
England	1990-1999	105	26	43	0	36	0.604	30.34	2.77	194	653	46
New Zealand	1990-1999	73	14	32	0	27	0.437	28.70	2.65	138	671	93
Sri Lanka	1990-1999	57	9	22	0	26	0.409	30.11	2.90	101	952	71
Zimbabwe	1992-1999	39	3	19	0	17	0.157	26.66	2.57	72	544	102

 

@zen which are major teams in 1990s and which are major teams in 2000s?

 

Combined

 

Team	Span	Mat	Won	Lost	Tied	Draw	W/L	Ave	RPO	Inns	HS	LS
Australia	1990-2009	215	125	43	0	47	2.906	38.78	3.29	387	674	93
South Africa	1992-2009	159	68	45	0	46	1.511	35.33	2.95	289	682	84
India	1990-2009	156	47	45	0	64	1.044	36.38	3.12	274	726	66
Pakistan	1990-2009	139	48	50	0	41	0.960	32.63	3.13	248	765	53
England	1990-2009	226	74	80	0	72	0.925	32.64	3.00	422	653	46
Sri Lanka	1990-2009	136	36	53	0	47	0.679	32.25	3.07	246	952	71
West Indies	1990-2009	177	41	85	0	51	0.482	29.62	3.08	322	751	47
New Zealand	1990-2009	140	26	64	0	50	0.406	29.36	2.82	264	671	73
Zimbabwe	1992-2005	75	4	48	0	23	0.083	25.62	2.62	144	563	54
Bangladesh	2000-2009	53	2	48	0	3	0.041	20.02	3.00	105	427	62
ICC World XI	2005-2005	1	0	1	0	0	0.000	16.70	3.43	2	190	144

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 11 of 11

First Previous

Next  Last

Go to page

 

How do you conclude that NZ is major team and WI isn't?

 

This is what happens when you don't watch cricket and don't use information already available. Everyone knows WI were good in 90s, SL were good team in 2000s. NZ were average in both decades.

 

This information was also available to you in statsguru, but somehow you choose to ignore it because this doesn't suit your agenda and hate.

[Trichromatic]

Just now, Gollum said:

Are you guys excluding SL? Why? For most of mid/late 90s, 00s and early 2010s they were a pretty solid bowling side, effective attack built around one exceptionally good spinner and backed  by smart captaincy, good catching, scorecard pressure. I dare say theirs was a more competitive attack compared to Ind, Eng, NZ, WI for a big chunk of that period.  

Yes, and including NZ - average side throughout, England poor for long period, excluding WI - strong till early 2000s is somehow thought as objective analysis just because numbers are thrown without watching cricket.

[Gollum]

RSA has been SL's bunny for a very long time in tests, in fact if you follow the rivalry the islanders bring the fight to Proteas like Ind did against ATG Aus or how Pak has been doing against a superior English side since 2011. Kallis especially found them very tough and a fluky 220 at home in 2012 salvaged his record.

[Trichromatic]

8 hours ago, zen said:

Talking about Ponting, he had an amazing run from 1999 to 2007, and when guys like Lara, Kallis, Tendulkar, etc., were playing too. 

 

Excluding BD and Zim

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team Australia  or Bangladesh  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies  or Zimbabwe

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 1999 and 1 Jan 2008

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 2000  and batting average greater than or equal to 45

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 24 of 24

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
RT Ponting (AUS)	1999-2007	83	142	22	7656	257	63.80	12488	61.30	29	27	8	872	46
JH Kallis (SA)	1999-2007	81	144	22	7287	186	59.72	16448	44.30	23	37	8	819	41
DJ Cullinan (SA)	1999-2001	25	40	6	2028	275*	59.64	4116	49.27	9	5	1	235	15
A Flower (ZIM)	1999-2002	26	50	8	2466	232*	58.71	5364	45.97	6	13	2	291	14
BC Lara (WI)	1999-2006	69	127	3	6776	400*	54.64	11641	58.20	22	22	13	850	60
Inzamam-ul-Haq (PAK)	1999-2007	60	103	9	5103	329	54.28	9267	55.06	16	25	6	631	30
R Dravid (INDIA)	1999-2007	78	140	17	6610	270	53.73	15758	41.94	18	28	3	827	9
ML Hayden (AUS)	2000-2007	78	142	12	6885	203	52.96	11488	59.93	24	24	7	841	63
Mohammad Yousuf (PAK)	1999-2007	65	113	7	5597	223	52.80	10586	52.87	19	21	7	698	42
KC Sangakkara (SL)	2000-2007	57	100	7	4789	287	51.49	8894	53.84	12	20	3	650	12
KP Pietersen (ENG)	2005-2007	33	63	3	3024	226	50.40	4675	64.68	10	10	3	353	38
DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	1999-2007	70	122	7	5795	374	50.39	11353	51.04	16	23	9	705	27
V Sehwag (INDIA)	2001-2007	46	79	2	3873	309	50.29	5135	75.42	12	10	9	561	40
Younis Khan (PAK)	2000-2007	53	98	7	4563	267	50.14	8427	54.14	14	19	9	562	20
DR Martyn (AUS)	2000-2006	57	93	13	3993	165	49.91	7682	51.97	13	19	6	472	9
S Chanderpaul (WI)	1999-2007	62	112	15	4835	203*	49.84	10953	44.14	14	25	7	561	15
GP Thorpe (ENG)	1999-2005	43	76	14	3048	200*	49.16	6761	45.08	10	12	3	334	7
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	1999-2007	69	119	11	5242	241*	48.53	9895	52.97	14	27	9	711	16
JL Langer (AUS)	1999-2007	84	149	11	6630	250	48.04	11570	57.30	21	23	6	825	38
AC Gilchrist (AUS)	1999-2007	86	125	19	5051	204*	47.65	6173	81.82	15	24	14	619	85
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	1999-2007	69	116	17	4634	281	46.80	9508	48.73	10	26	8	638	3
SR Waugh (AUS)	1999-2004	53	80	9	3272	199	46.08	6592	49.63	12	9	6	387	12
G Kirsten (SA)	1999-2004	49	84	6	3571	275	45.78	8294	43.05	11	16	7	441	6
GC Smith (SA)	2002-2007	52	97	5	4153	277	45.14	7095	58.53	10	18	6	543	10

Ponting's career is divided into 3 phases:

 

First 54 matches: (8 Dec 1995 - 22 Feb 2002)

Runs: 3235

Avg: 43.71

100s: 9

He was just good batsmen till this point. Somewhat similar to Rahane - He had scored 3435 runs at avg of 41.38 and 9 100s. Nothing great to write about.

 

Next 53 matches: (8th March 2002 - 1 Dec 2006)

Runs: 6004

Avg 75.05

100s: 24

 

Next 61 matches (14 Dec 2006 - 30 Nov 2012)

Runs: 4139

Avg: 39.79

100s: 8

 

@Gollum Ponting played 61 matches with sub-40 avg and yet somehow we claim Indian cricketers drag their careers. SRT averaged sub-40 in last 29 matches, Gavaskar was averaging 50+ even at far end of career.

 

Anyway, that one third mid phase of Ponting was very high during which he became closest to Bradman (highest average in 52 matches)

 

Outside this peak mid phase of 4.5 years, Ponting scored 7374 runs at avg of 41 in 115 tests. 

  

On 12/16/2017 at 9:00 PM, Trichromatic said:

I think I had posted this earlier too, but can't find it.

 

BEST BATTING AVERAGE OVER A SPAN OF 52 TESTS

Player	Start Date	End Date	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	Ave	100	50
DG Bradman (Aus)	Nov 30, 1928	Aug 18, 1948	52	80	10	6996	99.94	29	13
RT Ponting (Aus)	Mar 8, 2002	Nov 27, 2006	52	92	14	5813	74.52	23	20
GS Sobers (WI)	Aug 22, 1957	Apr 3, 1968	52	88	13	5468	72.90	19	20
JH Kallis (ICC/SA)	Apr 19, 2001	May 1, 2006	52	91	19	5127	71.20	17	25
R Dravid (India)	Nov 18, 2000	Sep 16, 2005	52	86	13	4883	66.89	14	21
KF Barrington (Eng)	Nov 11, 1961	Aug 28, 1967	52	84	12	4783	66.43	16	22
Mohammad Yousuf (Pak)	Nov 15, 2000	Oct 12, 2007	52	87	8	5247	66.41	20	18
SR Tendulkar (India)	Apr 4, 1997	Nov 3, 2002	52	86	8	5177	66.37	20	17
KC Sangakkara (SL)	Aug 11, 2004	Nov 27, 2010	52	89	8	5352	66.07	19	18
WR Hammond (Eng)	Nov 30, 1928	Jan 7, 1937	52	87	12	4827	64.36	16	13
L Hutton (Eng)	Jan 31, 1947	Jun 15, 1954	52	92	13	5072	64.20	14	27
SR Waugh (Aus)	Jun 3, 1993	Oct 5, 1998	52	83	18	4134	63.60	11	23
Javed Miandad (Pak)	Jan 3, 1983	Dec 6, 1989	52	73	5	4240	62.35	14	16
Inzamam-Ul-Haq (ICC/Pak)	Mar 12, 1999	Jan 17, 2006	52	86	9	4796	62.28	18	20
ML Hayden (Aus)	Feb 27, 2001	Mar 13, 2005	52	92	10	5077	61.91	19	17
IVA Richards (WI)	Jan 31, 1976	Jun 18, 1984	52	74	2	4456	61.88	15	20
H Sutcliffe (Eng)	Jun 14, 1924	Aug 22, 1934	52	81	9	4453	61.84	16	22
DPMD Jayawardene (SL)	Mar 24, 2004	Nov 20, 2009	52	88	6	5026	61.29	17	15
BC Lara (ICC/WI)	Apr 6, 2001	Nov 23, 2006	52	93	2	5576	61.27	19	17
JB Hobbs (Eng)	Jun 14, 1909	Jun 17, 1930	52	85	5	4897	61.21	15	24

 

 

Smith is now part of this list as he has scored 5366 runs at avg of 67.92 with 22 hundreds in last 52 matches.

 

Given that he had poor start, he should be able to improve this further in next 10 or so matches.

 

Ricky Ponting averaged 75.05 from Mar 8, 2002 to Dec 1, 2006. 53 matches, 6004 runs and 24 hundreds. That's the highest average any batsman has achieved over a span of 50+ tests. 

 

 

Smith has beaten that peak in terms of average

 

Observations:

1. Most of the peaks started around 2001-2002 and ended around 2006-2007. 

2. Waugh/SRT are only ones with peaks in 1990s. Inzi's peak started in 99, but coincided mostly with same phase of others.

3. Lara didn't peak like other batsmen, even though his phase falls in common one.

  

On 9/14/2019 at 11:35 AM, Trichromatic said:

Steven Smith is 2nd in the list now after Bradman

 

Career averages

	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
unfiltered	2010-2019	68	123	16	6950	239	64.95	12314	56.43	26	27	4	772	41	Profile
filtered	2014-2019	52	92	13	5980	239	75.69	10308	58.01	24	22	3	671	29

 

Best record during span of 52 tests. He has everything in there. More runs than Ponting, more 100s, higher average.

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/21812562/steven-smith-closer-ever-matching-bradman

 

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22370114/closest-don-bradman-george-lohmann-joel-garner

[Gollum]

Ponting dragged his career for too long, fully agree...and he wasn't a complete batsman. But he is an exception, in India it is the norm.

 

Hope Smith retires at the right time with 60+ avg 

 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

Not really, you mix numbers with your assumptions. That's hardly objective PoV. 

Just applying statsguru filters and posting it without context just because suits your bias isn't called analysis.

To discuss, you should know that taking a longer period accounts for various cases/stages. No two cricketers encounter exactly the same conditions - every ball can be different. 

 

Now you appear to be someone who if there is a that on post Lara and Tendulkar number vs. McGrath for e.g., you could say "oh, but every ball is different. What if McGrath bowled two full tosses to Lara and two beauties to Tendulkar?"   

 

 

51 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

Both are of similar age. Kallis 2 year younger than Sachin. No one stopped Kallis from playing international cricket at that age. He was good only for domestic when SRT was good enough for international. So why hold that against SRT?

If you understood the depth of what is being implied, you would not have to make such comical points - "no one stopped Kallis from playing early". It is about accounting for various stages of a player's international career. 

 

Quote

 

I excluded SL also for you and fixed your numbers to include common countries also. You're the one the who tried to dream that SL was worse than Pak, Eng and NZ during 2000s.

Try watching actual cricket sometimes. It's a game.

 

 

First of all, including SL or not makes on difference to the overall insight. Below are the numbers during their career which account for various cases/stages in both their careers (as posted earlier):

 

"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" 

 

36 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

How do you conclude that NZ is major team and WI isn't?

 

This is what happens when you don't watch cricket and don't use information already available. Everyone knows WI were good in 90s, SL were good team in 2000s. NZ were average in both decades.

 

This information was also available to you in statsguru, but somehow you choose to ignore it because this doesn't suit your agenda and hate.

 

Major teams = major test playing nations. In 1990s, Kallis only played 6 tests. If we take 2000s, when both batsmen were more or less equally settled in international cricket vs. all major teams:

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India  or South Africa

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 2000 and 1 Jan 2015

Batting position between 4 and 7

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 8000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 2 of 2

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
JH Kallis (SA)	2000-2013	108	184	24	9359	224	58.49	19284	48.53	35	38	11	1058	65
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2000-2013	114	195	16	8445	241*	47.17	15914	53.06	21	43	7	1100	36

 

That is a huge same size of over 100 tests for both players in MO  

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by zen

[Trichromatic]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

First of all, including SL or not makes on difference to the overall insight. Below are the numbers during their career which account for various cases/stages in both their careers (as posted earlier):

 

"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" 

Major teams = major test playing nations. In 1990s, Kallis only played 6 tests. If we take 2000s, when both batsmen were more or less equally settled in international cricket,  vs all major teams:

 

 

So are you saying that SL was not a major cricket playing nation in 2000s? Was that initial assumption? If that was the case, then you have started watching cricket very late.

 

Another flaw here is that - you don't have numbers of Kallis v SA and SRT's numbers v India. So you want to compare apples with apples and oranges and checked on MO numbers.

 

But you want to Kallis' performances v India with SRT's performance v SA.

 

No they are not same. There is no consistently in your arguments and logic which you're applying and your cover up methods indicate your hate towards a player which is ok. 

 

You're free to say that you hate SRT as player. Feel free to report the issue if you're not allowed to say so. No need to make stuff up for that.

 

PS: If you really believe that SRT wasn't batsman up to that level, and he was overhyped, then there are actually good ways to analyse that without making random assumptions. Let me know if you need help. I would be happy to help you digging numbers for that.

[Trichromatic]

23 minutes ago, zen said:

1990s, Kallis only played 6 tests. If we take 2000s, when both batsmen were more or less equally settled in international cricket vs. all major teams:

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India  or South Africa

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 2000 and 1 Jan 2015

Batting position between 4 and 7

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 8000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 2 of 2

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
JH Kallis (SA)	2000-2013	108	184	24	9359	224	58.49	19284	48.53	35	38	11	1058	65
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2000-2013	114	195	16	8445	241*	47.17	15914	53.06	21	43	7	1100	36

 

That is a huge same size of over 100 tests for both players in MO  

 

Correction:

 

Kallis played 32 tests in international cricket in 1990s, not 6.

 

If you actually watched cricket, you would realize that Tendulkar wasn't 'settling' in cricket in 2000s. He had his peak from 97-2002 and was on decline. Moreover by the time, he played 90th test in early 2001, he was already established as great batsman at similar age to Kallis while Kallis was actually finding his feet only.

 

There are better ways to criticize SRT, but hate is taking in wrong direction.

[zen]

6 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

You're free to say that you hate SRT as player. Feel free to report the issue if you're not allowed to say so. No need to make stuff up for that.

 

PS: If you really believe that SRT wasn't batsman up to that level, and he was overhyped, then there are actually good ways to analyse that without making random assumptions. Let me know if you need help. I would be happy to help you digging numbers for that.

First, I have already made my position clear that I do not hate Tendulkar. So I do not see a point in repeating that. Even if someone hates Tendulkar, it is not an issue

 

Second, If you want to help me, first let's start by helping yourself with understanding the posts/position (which I will spoon feed later in my post) and not mis-representing my posts 

 

Now with the above out of the way, let's address the other parts of your post(s)

 

6 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

So are you saying that SL was not a major cricket playing nation in 2000s? Was that initial assumption? If that was the case, then you have started watching cricket very late.

 

Another flaw here is that - you don't have numbers of Kallis v SA and SRT's numbers v India. So you want to compare apples with apples and oranges and checked on MO numbers.

 

But you want to Kallis' performances v India with SRT's performance v SA.

 

No they are not same. There is no consistently in your arguments and logic which you're applying and your cover up methods indicate your hate towards a player which is ok. 

 

1st - There is no flaw. Both players take on Aus, Eng, and NZ, while facing challenges against each other home and away. A challenge of Tendulkar in SA and for Kallis in India. The point has been addressed in one of my posts on this thread.  As already discussed, adding SL or not to the equation does not change the situation (Kallis is still averages more and that information too is already posted on this thread) so again dwelling on that is an exercise in engaging in petty matters. And if your position is that Tendulkar is the greatest, it should not really matter what teams are selected in a wide basket of 5 teams among the major ones. Your insecurities are not consistent with your claims/beliefs. 

 

2nd -  There can be no apples to apples comparison ever as even form of the opposition, team composition, how bowlers bowl their spell, pitch, weather, etc. can vary. If you claim to know cricket/numbers, you should know that rather than advancing some bookish point. Assuming that having same teams makes is apples to apples is a laughable suggestion at best. More on this in the later part of my post. 

 

 

6 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

Correction:

 

Kallis played 32 tests in international cricket in 1990s, not 6.

 

If you actually watched cricket, you would realize that Tendulkar wasn't 'settling' in cricket in 2000s. He had his peak from 97-2002 and was on decline. Moreover by the time, he played 90th test in early 2001, he was already established as great batsman at similar age to Kallis while Kallis was actually finding his feet only.

 

There are better ways to criticize SRT, but hate is taking in wrong direction.

 

You are not correcting but again not understanding basics or even worse  misrepresenting the situation (you have already done that with some of your posts). Now let me show you how to read the table:

 

 

View overall figures [change view]

Primary team India  or South Africa

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 2000 and 1 Jan 2015

Batting position between 4 and 7

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 8000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

Page 1 of 1

Showing 1 - 2 of 2

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
JH Kallis (SA)	2000-2013	108	184	24	9359	224	58.49	19284	48.53	35	38	11	1058	65
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2000-2013	114	195	16	8445	241*	47.17	15914	53.06	21	43	7	1100	36

 

 

The above table clearly stakes as MO batsmen (Why MO? Tendulkar's lack of track record in test in TO has been identified).  The major teams (8) are already listed in the table so again it is beyond why not this team or that question. 
 

And does the below show 6 or 32?

 

Records type batting analysis [change type]

View career summary [change view]

Primary team South Africa

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

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 1999

Batting position between 4 and 7

Ordered 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	1995-2013	166	280	40	13289	224	55.37	28903	45.97	45	58	16	1488	97	Profile
filtered	1995-1998	6	6	1	25	12	5.00	150	16.66	0	0	0	2	0

 

 

The above is 6 for MO (which was not hard to understand). At #3 in the 90s, he played 26 tests. As discussed, Tendulkar has not demonstrated his skills to bat in top order in tests in relation to his peers, therefore another question mark against him.

 

Records type batting analysis [change type]

View career summary [change view]

Primary team South Africa

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

Start of match date between 1 Jan 1990 and 31 Dec 1999

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	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
unfiltered	1995-2013	166	280	40	13289	224	55.37	28903	45.97	45	58	16	1488	97	Profile
filtered	1997-1999	26	43	5	1645	148*	43.28	4476	36.75	4	9	3	164	3

 

 

6 + 26 = 32. 

 

 

Please understand the below:

 

1. The position: Tendulkar is not the greatest. (It does not mean, he is not good/great. It also does not mean Kallis or Ponting or one of the other peers is greatest)

2. If you are the greatest, you should be able to triumph on most metrics (esp. not be hindered by inclusion or exclusion of 1 team in a decent size basket) and not be on an extended decline (so points such as no SL, no this, was on extended decline during the later half of his career, etc, are out of scope)

3. There can be no apples to apples scenario if you want to be truly exact in cricket. Even if you take the same teams - the form, venues, team composition, competitive intensity, pitch, weather, etc. can be different

4. Evaluation of greatness is not done based on what Tendulkar had for breakfast, lunch or dinner (If you are posting like in year x, Tendulkar was this; in year Y, Tendulkar was that; he limped in this phase; had bad dreams during another; etc.,  you are missing the point. If you think that not considering such irrelevant stuff is a conspiracy, you are engaging at a petty level. Cricket does not revolve around Tendulkar. Tendulkar is there because of cricket. He performance should conform to the a period selected, not periods to conform to his performances)

5. You may be used to a style of discussion where if someone say 6 matches in MO vs. the selected teams, you will post a number like 32 (using this as an example not implying that you did that in this particular case) thinking that this may throw a discussion off or that you made a point or invalidated a table. One needs to understand how the implications play out wrt the position (on why it does not change anything, see point 6)

6. All that needs to be done is to show that Kallis or Ponting or whoever was equal/better than Tendulkar at some extended stage of their careers. Also Tendulkar does not have to be on an extended decline as well, which also invalidates the greatest claim (To repeat - it does not matter if Tendulkar batted without having his breakfast or forgetting to charge his phone or with his feet). With Kallis averaging 58 to Tendulkar's 47 in the above table over 100 tests (a mammoth sample size) in MO, and Ponting avg 64 vs. Tendulkar 49 in the identified period completely shuts doors on Tendulkar's case as greatest. If Tendulkar was on an extended decline during this mammoth phase, it is his problem and also another negative on his resume (Though still one of the greats like his peers)

7.  Now Kallis did not do this or that, Ponting jumped up or down, etc., are more relevant to their case of being the greatest esp. among peers. It does not change Tendulkar's status as not the greatest. All of them are great batsmen though. 

 

Thank you! 

Edited July 26, 2020 by zen

[Norman]

Still remember when this thread was about Rahane's future. 

Edited July 26, 2020 by Norman

[maniac]

So after all these stats and 4 pages of discussion, what’s the verdict on Rahane’s future?