ganeshran Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Depends. What did others write in books about Player A and Player B? :D
The Outsider Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 I wouldn't call either of them aggressive. Consistent yes' date=' aggressive no. SR of 63 or 65 hardly qualifies as aggressive - unless it's Tests.[/quote'] Yeah, dude you rock! :two_thumbs_up:
Ultimate_Game Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Yeah' date=' dude you rock! :two_thumbs_up:[/quote'] Well a SR of 65 wasn't that great even in 80s and it would be incorrect to term them as "aggressive". Zaheer Abbas played in the same era and had a SR of 84, Srikanth had a SR in mid 70s, Clive Lloyd had a SR of 81, Greg Chappell had a SR of 76, Ian Chappell had a SR of 77 etc. They all played in the same era. As I mentioned, the stats simply show that the players were consistent but by no stretch of imagination aggressive. Maybe they are aggressive compared to the likes of Boycott. Just to put think in perspective even Gavaskar had a SR of 63 in odis and I am sure nobody called him aggressive :haha:
The Outsider Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 Well a SR of 65 wasn't that great even in 80s and it would be incorrect to term them as "aggressive". Zaheer Abbas played in the same era and had a SR of 84, Srikanth had a SR in mid 70s, Clive Lloyd had a SR of 81, Greg Chappell had a SR of 76, Ian Chappell had a SR of 77 etc. They all played in the same era. As I mentioned, the stats simply show that the players were consistent but by no stretch of imagination aggressive. Maybe they are aggressive compared to the likes of Boycott. Just to put think in perspective even Gavaskar had a SR of 63 in odis and I am sure nobody called him aggressive :haha: Stats guru to the 'rescue', huh?
Ultimate_Game Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Stats guru to the 'rescue'' date=' huh?[/quote'] When we are comparing average and stats of two players, what else would you use? I don't want to go the padosi way, i.e. "Imran Nazir and Ahmed Shehzad are so much better than Sehwag. Look how elegant Nazir and Shehzad look in comparison and Sehwag is lucky to average 50+ in Tests"
The Outsider Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 When we are comparing average and stats of two players' date=' what else would you use? I don't want to go the padosi way, i.e. "Imran Nazir and Ahmed Shehzad are so much better than Sehwag. Look how elegant Nazir and Shehzad look in comparison and Sehwag is lucky to average 50+ in Tests"[/quote'] So, you use stats guru to judge players you haven't watched?
SachDan Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Is anyone not overrated except Tendulkar according to you? :hmmm: Who am I to question Greenidge's greatness? He was a great batsman in both forms of cricket but I felt him being labelled as an 'attacking' batsman was bit OTT.
The Outsider Posted July 1, 2011 Author Posted July 1, 2011 Who am I to question Greenidge's greatness? He was a great batsman in both forms of cricket but I felt him being labelled as an 'attacking' batsman was bit OTT. Why? Because stats guru gave a SR of 65?
Ultimate_Game Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 So' date=' you use stats guru to judge players you haven't watched?[/quote'] Not all the time but sometimes personal biases do get in the way when you are judging a player you have watched or liked. Greenidge seems to be the perfect example. He was an aggressive player, but more so in Tests. However, his reputation was built on innings like double century against Eng in a Test which WI won by 8 or 9 wkts. But he wasn't consistently aggressive and in odis I hardly recall too many innings by Greenidge which could be termed aggressive. Lloyd, Richards, Kalicharan etc. were the ones who were the actual aggressive strokeplayers for the WI and both Haynes & Greenidge built a solid platform more often than not safe in the knowledge that their middle order can score quickly. But surely they can't be termed aggressive odi players by any stretch of imagination when their SR was similar to Gavaskar's.
Ultimate_Game Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 344/1 Enough said. Reinforces my point brilliantly. Sometimes an innings or two is enough to earn you a reputation for life. Whenever people think of Greenidge this is the innings that comes to everyone's mind.
Cricket Tragic Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 No, I actually followed cricket back then. I stay away from such threads usually because it is filled with kids who never watched cricket back then posting Rob's YouTube vids of a player's best innings vs people finding gaps on the CV through statsguru.
CSK Fan Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Pretty easy question Forget strike rates and averages. The one who swaggered the most was more agressive, a better bat and a true man
Mariyam Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 Pretty easy question Forget strike rates and averages. The one who swaggered the most was more agressive, a better bat and a true man What do you mean? The one who swaggered the most? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to cricket , but this is just ridiculous. Or is this some insider joke? :hmmm:
CSK Fan Posted July 1, 2011 Posted July 1, 2011 What do you mean? The one who swaggered the most? I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to cricket , but this is just ridiculous. Or is this some insider joke? :hmmm: *cough* Richards *cough*
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now