The seasonal "Sachin was not that great" thread.

[zen]

35 minutes ago, sandeep said:

@zenBtw, Kallis got to play 75 test matches in his 1st 10 years in cricket - when he was young and in his prime.  Tendulkar?  57.  

 

I used your opposition selection criteria - but in order to keep it consistent - I only included opposition that they both played against - so exclude Ind/SA respectively, and care to take a guess what a basic attempted apples to apples comparison shows?

 

Tendulkar averages higher than JKallis cumulatively.  Tendulkar also averages higher than Kallis, in away matches against Aus, Eng, NZ, WI, Pak.  

 

But hey, sorry to rock the selective stats party!  

 

 

 

Once an acceptable sample size is determined, the focus is on performance per innings metrics including averages, innings per 100 and so on

 

Kallis has displayed his superiority by a) displaying better performances even in the top order, b) out performing Tendulkar, who was not even Ind's best during certain long stretches, over a "stretch" of 100 tests, and c) additionally, performed bowling duties as well .... PS  in the middle order v major teams, Kallis avg 57 v Tendulkar's 51 over their careers 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[sandeep]

24 minutes ago, zen said:

What's next - select Tendulkar's best 123 tests to compare it with Kallis' 123 on the stretch

 

"When encountering fact-based disagreement to your trolling, especially ones that you are not able to dispute easily, it is advised to fabricate some nonsense and attribute it to your opponent's argument - some call this the strawman method.  Although a bit pathetic and transparent, it still carries a modicum of effectiveness for other participants and observers, who will happily nod in agreement with you".   - Excerpted from "Trolling for dummies, chapter 1".  

 

  

38 minutes ago, sandeep said:

If I wanted to do an honest comparison of batsmen - I would start with year 2 or 3 of their career, and then take 10 years or so.  And I would tabulate each player's record on an annual basis, including number of tests played.  That would very quickly show how certain players benefit from a few big years (especially played in favorable conditions, home or similar).  And how certain players lose out on stat padding in their best years.

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by sandeep

[Real McCoy]

@sandeep Tell me why SRT didnt move to 3 when RD opened in the England tour in 2011 but rather have VVS at 3. Explain that for me. It was just one series that demanded this scenario and he was already a star batsman. What was bothering him to not go in at 3. And why did he open in ODIs but never took first strike. Also in England where the ball swung a bit even in the ODIs, he pushed himself to 4 on occasions. Did that benefit the team in this instance

[sandeep]

19 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Best pace bowlers in regular sides have got the new ball whether it is Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Steyn, and so on 

 

The point here is about judging top batsmen based on their ability to triumph in the top order as well, Einstein! 

 

 

So Napoleon, anybody who doesn't open the batting automatically is disqualified from consideration then.  Why insert #3 arbitrarily into the mix.  Since when is the 1st change bowler the same as the new ball pacer?  

[Real McCoy]

5 minutes ago, sandeep said:

There have been dozens of times where Tendulkar has batted against  the new ball with paltry team scores on the board.  No?

When? Show me an instance

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

. Also in England where the ball swung a bit even in the ODIs, he pushed himself to 4 on occasions.

Its well known that this was done against Tendulkar's preference.  But sure, assert whatever you want.  Add some silly smilie after, if you think it makes it more believable. 

 

Hint: Not really.

[zen]

29 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

"When encountering fact-based disagreement to your trolling, especially ones that you are not able to dispute easily, it is advised to fabricate some nonsense and attribute it to your opponent's argument - some call this the strawman method.  Although a bit pathetic and transparent, it still carries a modicum of effectiveness for other participants and observers, who will happily nod in agreement with you".   - Excerpted from "Trolling for dummies, chapter 1".  

 

 

 

I am used to identifying most methods of logical fallacies .... I am not trolling here (it may appear that way to those who only believe in praising certain cricketers. It can be also argued be that it is Tendulkar fanboys who tend to troll because their mission appears to be proclaiming Tendulkar as the greatest. Why take offense at Kallis being better for e.g.? Why does Tendulkar have to be better than Kallis? This is not a "Tendulkar is the greatest" forum that anyone presenting contrary evidence is automatically considered as trolling by a few .... Tendulkar is just another top cricketer )

 

As discussed, over a stretch of 100 tests, while batting in both top and middle order, along with bowling, Kallis has outperformed Tendulkar .... Even in MO, over their entire careers v major teams, Kallis avg 57 to Tendulkar's 51 

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[Real McCoy]

10 minutes ago, sandeep said:

these aren't exactly "high-falutin' words - not my fault if you have a problem with 'factoids'.  This isn't a popularity contest. Its a 2 way conversation.  Tangents on word choices seem to indicate you are looking for alternative 'points' to nit pick on, maybe because the primary subject at hand isn't going that well...

Zen and I have made our point across. you have to use words like simulacrum to try to show you know something we don't. Toefl marks arent required here to comment fyi. You're the one changing the tone of the conversation. What can we expect next - vis-a-vis, concordantly, ergo

FWIW, Sachin had a peak career in the 90s but the stats thing was his enemy and finally the joke was on him when he scored that made up stat 100th 100 against a minnow and ended up losing to the minnow in the end. What does that show. It shows you should respect the game and put it ahead of stats. Otherwise its game over for you.

[Real McCoy]

11 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Its well known that this was done against Tendulkar's preference.  But sure, assert whatever you want.  Add some silly smilie after, if you think it makes it more believable. 

 

Hint: Not really.

Oh no what an injustice! How did you know about this "well known fact" that somehow we were never privy to. Do enlighten us. Here is that silly smiley that you posted in your posts. Dont tell me you didnt do it

[sandeep]

24 minutes ago, zen said:

 

I am used to identifying most methods of logical fallacies .... I am not trolling here (it may appear that way to those who only believe in praising certain cricketers. It can be also argued be that it is Tendulkar fanboys who tend to troll because their mission appears to be proclaiming Tendulkar as the greatest. Why take offense at Kallis being better for e.g.? Why does Tendulkar have to be better than Kallis? This is not a "Tendulkar is the greatest" forum that anyone presenting contrary evidence is automatically considered as trolling by a few .... Tendulkar is just another top cricketer )

 

As discussed, over a stretch of 100 tests, while batting in both top and middle order, along with bowling, Kallis has outperformed Tendulkar .... Even in MO, over their entire careers v major teams, Kallis avg 57 to Tendulkar's 51 

 

 

So now we are moving the goalposts to talk about Kallis' value add as a bowler.  Noted.

 

Where have I claimed that "Tendulkar is greatest"?  Where have I run down Kallis?  My issue is that I do not see folks using Dale Steyn's greatness to run down or attack a Shane Warne. 

 

Comparing an allround player like Kallis, cherrypicking numbers, and using them to unnecessarily drag down a different type of player, is what I disagree with.  

 

Just because somebody disagrees with your cherrypicking, does not automatically translate to them being a "fanboy", or claiming they are the greatest.  Once again, these are all strawmen.  And it says something about folks who aren't able to support their argument without resorting to such methods.

[sandeep]

17 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Oh no what an injustice! How did you know about this "well known fact" that somehow we were never privy to. Do enlighten us. Here is that silly smiley that you posted in your posts. Dont tell me you didnt do it

yes bhai, I did.  And my intention was to keep the discussion more light-hearted and friendly with you, instead of allowing it to go down the route of hostility - intended or otherwise.  I have a tendency at times to word my posts in a bit....not so nice way, and its not intentional - I am not looking to piss you off.  Or patronize you etc.

[zen]

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

 

So now we are moving the goalposts to talk about Kallis' value add as a bowler.  Noted.

 

Where have I claimed that "Tendulkar is greatest"?  Where have I run down Kallis?  My issue is that I do not see folks using Dale Steyn's greatness to run down or attack a Shane Warne. 

 

Comparing an allround player like Kallis, cherrypicking numbers, and using them to unnecessarily drag down a different type of player, is what I disagree with.  

 

Just because somebody disagrees with your cherrypicking, does not automatically translate to them being a "fanboy", or claiming they are the greatest.  Once again, these are all strawmen.  And it says something about folks who aren't able to support their argument without resorting to such methods.

 

You may want to term me xyz but from where I sit you appear that to me  (so let's not get into all that) .... on topic:

 

Over their entire career in MO v major teams, Kallis averages 57, Tendulkar 51 .... Are you implying that 51 is better than 57? That too when the guy bowled, while avg 57, as well. On top of that Kallis has batted in the top order too and even outperformed Tendulkar at the point of entry of 100 or less runs 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[Real McCoy]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

yes bhai, I did.  And my intention was to keep the discussion more light-hearted and friendly with you, instead of allowing it to go down the route of hostility - intended or otherwise.  I have a tendency at times to word my posts in a bit....not so nice way, and its not intentional - I am not looking to piss you off.  Or patronize you etc.

That's the reason I also do it but you took it the wrong way thinking it was "silly". You know what they say - If you point a finger at someone, there are three that are pointing at you. Anyways here's another silly one from me

[sandeep]

Just now, zen said:

 

You may want to term me xyz but from where I sit you appear that to me 

 

Over their entire career in MO v major teams, Kallis averages 57, Tendulkar 51 .... Are you implying that 51 is better than 57? That too when the guy bowls as well. On top of that Kallis has batted in the top order too and even outperformed Tendulkar at the point of entry of 100 or less runs 

 

 

 

Boley to, ek dum bouncer gaya tere sar ke upar se.

 

  

6 minutes ago, sandeep said:

My issue is that I do not see folks using Dale Steyn's greatness to run down or attack a Shane Warne. 

 

Comparing an allround player like Kallis, cherrypicking numbers, and using them to unnecessarily drag down a different type of player, is what I disagree with. 

 

 

Cricket stats are inherently subjective.  Individual statistics often get massively impacted by the context of the team around the player.  I know I do not need to explain this to you.  And yet you are choosing to interpret and cherry-pick in a specific manner.  

 

Quote

You may want to term me xyz but from where I sit you appear that to me 

 

If it reads like a troll, argues like a troll, cherrypicks like a troll, arbitrarily makes up filters and criteria like a troll....

[Real McCoy]

3 minutes ago, zen said:

 

You may want to term me xyz but from where I sit you appear that to me  (so let's not get into all that) .... on topic:

 

Over their entire career in MO v major teams, Kallis averages 57, Tendulkar 51 .... Are you implying that 51 is better than 57? That too when the guy bowled, while avg 57, as well. On top of that Kallis has batted in the top order too and even outperformed Tendulkar at the point of entry of 100 or less runs 

 

 

And Kallis batted in spicier pitches

[zen]

Just now, sandeep said:

 

 

Cricket stats are inherently subjective.  Individual statistics often get massively impacted by the context of the team around the player.  I know I do not need to explain this to you.  And yet you are choosing to interpret and cherry-pick in a specific manner.  

 

If it reads like a troll, argues like a troll, cherrypicks like a troll, arbitrarily makes up filters and criteria like a troll....

 

Stats help to find a common ground, buddy  .... your last resort is now "subjectivity" and consoling yourself that others are "trolls"

 

 

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

And Kallis batted in spicier pitches

 

The guy can bat effectively in both in the top and middle order (unlike the guy who relies on the score to read 100 or more ) ... bowls as well .... and has better #s, what more can you ask?

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[sandeep]

12 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Stats help to find a common ground, buddy  .... your last resort is now "subjectivity" and consoling yourself that others are "trolls"

 

 

Here are some elementary non-cherrypicked stats for you.

 

For Tendulkar and Kallis - from year 2 or 3 of their respective careers to year 14.  i.e. 12 years.  Against common opponents - major test playing countries excluding Bangladesh, Zimbabwe.  

 

Sachin Tendulkar:   averages 59.5 in 75 test matches from 1991 to 2003.

Kallis  averages 51.75 from 108 test matches from 1997 to 2009.

 

An 8 run differential.  Not even accounting for the fact that 90s were a significantly more challenging decade for batsmen statistically than the 2000s.  In fact, Kallis's average against above opponents in the 90s drops to 38! Tendy's in the same timeframe is 70.97!  You can make a fairly reasonable argument that Tendulkar was so good in his prime that even in the 90s he averaged 70+, while Kallis barely scraped along at the mediocre 38 average, and then subsequently cashed in by piling on runs in the 2000s with the conditions and opposition quality skewed in favor of batting.

 

Now of course Kallis is a bonafide great, even without throwing in his bowling.  Nothing wrong in that.  But in their best years, Tendy was and is comfortable a much better batsman than Kallis.  And no genuine cricket fan - "neutral" or otherwise, would make ridiculous claims to the contrary.  If you were given the option of picking a batsman on purely batting - and given the choice of Tendulkar or Kallis at their respective 'peaks' as batsmen, the choice is not close.

 

But sure, for "timepass" and trolling purposes, cumulative stats with inherently flawed comparison that fail to take into account eras, opponent strengths, team strength, conditions, stage of career, etc - all sorts of statistical 'advantages' can be fabricated.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by sandeep

[Serpico]

58 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Again a fallacy  .... Best batsman for many teams have batted in the top order (and have good record batting there) - Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and so on .... Many have moved into the MO once their reflex slowed down relatively 

You make some good points now and then, but why twist the facts to be contrarian every time? Its hard to convince people when you posts with so little research. I mean Lara and Kallis aren't ancient batsmen, we all saw them play and we know that they played in middle order for majority of their careers. 

 

Brian Lara played at no.4 most of his career.. he moved from 3 to 4 at the age of 27 not because his reflexes slowed down but because he is failing repeatedly at no. 3. In his second tour to australia, he failed to cross single digit for 4 consecutive innings and repeatedly got out to mcgrath so he pushed Chanderpaul to 3 and moved to 4 and continued playing there till the end of his career. Was he coward for doing it? Or was it smart decision for Windies to protect their best batter? After moving to 4, he made a century at WACA in last test of the series and windies won the match. Kallis also moved to no. 4 at the age of 26, just four years after his debut. Basically as soon as they became the best batsmen in their teams, they changed their batting position from no3 to no.4.

 

Sobers played at no.5 and no.6 in more innings than he played at no.3 (just 17 innings), was he a coward as well? Even King Viv played for majority of his career (50%+) at no.4 and no.5. Only in Australia, premier batsmen are sent at no.3 and even they changed this with smith as soon as they found Labuschagne. I can guarantee that once smith retires, Labu will move to 4 as well

 

When World XI played against Australia for Tsunami relief, Dravid, Lara and Kallis were all there in the same team.. yet they sent "meek" dravid at 3 and sent brave and dashing Lara at 4, I wonder why

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-world-xi-tour-of-australia-2005-06-208890/australia-vs-icc-world-xi-only-test-221840/full-scorecard

 

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Serpico said:

You make some good points now and then, but why twist the facts to be contrarian every time? Its hard to convince people when you posts with so little research. I mean Lara and Kallis aren't ancient batsmen, we all saw them play and we know that they played in middle order for majority of their careers.

Agenda ooncha rahe hamaara.

 

Zen is a quality poster, who just likes to have a bit of fun now and then, and the Tendy trolling is one of his self-pleasuring addictions.