Elephant in the room

[akshayxyz]

SRT with 8k runs in 80 tests and retired normally (100 runs per test) > SRT with 15k runs in 183 tests and retired normally (82 runs per test)

Thank you very much for letting us have a glimpse of your beautiful mind.

[Ultimate_Game]

Those more runs would be by virtue of playing more games, no? also it depends upon what opposition you played against, the surfaces, etc "worked a lot more" is subjective

Well I don't see 15000 runs and an average of 56 "subjective". As for opposition and surfaces I wonder how you factor in Lara's 300+ and 400* at Antigua :haha:

[thongale]

a player with an average of 56 and 15000 runs over a period of 22 years is better than the one with 8000 runs in 80 Tests with an average of 53 over a span of 8 years

Let's change the argument a little. 15k runs with average of 55 vs 8k runs with Average of 60. Now who'd you select?

[zen]

We are not talking "ability" here. Ability and talent are the most abused and overused terms in the world. If we go with "talent" and "ability" our padosis wouldn't have lost a game of cricket in their history :winky: In this thread we are discussing who is the better player based on actual production and results and for me' date=' and majority of people going by the posts in the thread, a player with an average of 56 and 15000 runs over a period of 22 years is better than the one with 8000 runs in 80 Tests with an average of 53 over a span of 8 years. No matter how you slice or dice it player with 15000 runs will come on top, in this case even on "ability" front :giggle:[/quote'] I am talking about actual production as well It has been established that SRT is a very good player, and if someone were to score 8k runs in 80 tests w/ the result that we can all see .... how is it that he couldn't be considered as a better batsman? unless ofc, you are trying to fortify Tendulkar's 183 tests

[Ultimate_Game]

I am talking about actual production as well It has been established that SRT is a very good player, and if someone were to score 8k runs in 80 tests w/ the result that we can all see .... how is it that he couldn't be considered as a better batsman? unless ofc, you are trying to fortify Tendulkar's 183 tests

Well if you score runs at an average of 56 in 183 tests, I don't see any reason why that player is not better than the one with a similar or lesser average over just 80 tests.

[zen]

Let's change the argument a little. 15k runs with average of 55 vs 8k runs with Average of 60. Now who'd you select?

Lots of factors to consider. Are these two batsmen rated to be in the same group/level?

[zen]

Well if you score runs at an average of 56 in 183 tests' date=' I don't see any reason why that player is not better than the one with a similar or lesser average over just 80 tests.[/quote'] Do you know how many have actually scored 8k runs in 80 tests?

[Ultimate_Game]

Lots of factors to consider. Are these two batsmen rated to be in the same group/level?

Now what is this group/level :hmmmm2: Is it the same as Right Arm Medium category for bowlers? And who decides which group/level a batsman belongs to? Man, I am confused :ohmy:

[Ultimate_Game]

Do you know how many have actually scored 8k runs in 80 tests?

Maybe you gotta tell us how many managed to score 15000 in 180 Tests

[zen]

Thank you very much for letting us have a glimpse of your beautiful mind.

So I am being penaalized for picking b/w two SRT (same ability), the one with more runs per tests and likly higher avg, thus more impact .... thanx

[zen]

Now what is this group/level :hmmmm2: Is it the same as Right Arm Medium category for bowlers? And who decides which group/level a batsman belongs to? Man' date=' I am confused :ohmy:[/quote'] Don Lara/Gavaskar/Tendulkar/Richards/Sobers/.... etc I thought this would be understood

[Ultimate_Game]

Don Lara/Gavaskar/Tendulkar/Richards/Sobers/.... etc I thought this would be understood

Well what I've seen so far, Tendulkar definitely is in a higher group/level than Lara/Richards.

[zen]

Maybe you gotta tell us how many managed to score 15000 in 180 Tests

There were players who had more runs than Don Bradman for example .... Gavaskar was the first to score 10k runs in 125 test .... Was he rated higher than Don Bradman or even his peers like richards or sobers? Allan Border went past that, did that make him better than all those who had scored less than him?

[zen]

Well what I've seen so far' date=' Tendulkar definitely is in a higher group/level than Lara/Richards.[/quote'] That's where I differ

[Ultimate_Game]

That's where I differ

And I can now see why you are the only one. When you consider runs scored in a Test as a better indicator than batting average, and claim that more runs in a Test has more "impact" logic sore of goes out of the window. You are claiming Lara as a better batsman than Tendulkar coz he scored more runs per Test even though he actually averaged less per dismissal. So Tendulkar is penalized for not actually batting in both innings of the match coz India was a stronger team than WI. And as for impact I fail to see the "impact" of Lara's higher no. of runs in a Test coz WI definitely didn't win too many.

[zen]

And I can now see why you are the only one. When you consider runs scored in a Test as a better indicator than batting average, and claim that more runs in a Test has more "impact" logic sore of goes out of the window. You are claiming Lara as a better batsman than Tendulkar coz he scored more runs per Test even though he actually averaged less per dismissal. So Tendulkar is penalized for not actually batting in both innings of the match coz India was a stronger team than WI. And as for impact I fail to see the "impact" of Lara's higher no. of runs in a Test coz WI definitely didn't win too many.

That's being a bit unidimentional: * I have watched Lara play * His superior record against the top 3 bowling sides of his time: Aus, Pak and SA * His ability to get big scores * Play match winning knocks for WI, like 153* against Aus, the 80 odd that helped WI level series against Ind, the 50 he made in WI on a dynamite pitch where Ind got bowled out for nothing (In fact I was like Ind would win this but our batsmen couldn't fight it out) * .... runs per tests would show that if were to play more, he is likely to get more runs ....

[thongale]

Lots of factors to consider. Are these two batsmen rated to be in the same group/level?

Yes, Say, Tendulkar vs a Greame Pollock who played 80 tests. (IIRC Pollock averaged 60)

[zen]

Yes' date=' Say, Tendulkar vs a Greame Pollock who played 80 tests. (IIRC Pollock averaged 60)[/quote'] my friend, Pollock played 20 odd tests :facepalm:

[ganeshran]

Yes' date=' Say, Tendulkar vs a [b']Greame Pollock who played 80 tests. (IIRC Pollock averaged 60)

Except that he didnt.

[thongale]

my friend' date=' Pollock played 20 odd tests :facepalm:[/quote']That's why it goes as "a Greame Pollock" instead of "Greame Pollock"