Who is India's greatest test match winner ?

[vamos_rafa]

Kumble for me too. I would also like to mention Zak's name as well. He has been a difference in so many tests in the past 5-6 years. Whenever he has been given even a paltry support by Pissant of Dancing donkey, he has won u smatches.

[Laaloo]

Kumble

[akshayxyz]

What a shame - India's (and one of the world's) greatest opener, Gavaskar, doesn't manage the list of match winners - even once. Must have been most selfish ATG ever. Stats guru filtering is cricketing gods' greatest creation.

[CSK Fan]

Stop changing topic people. Win at home = Win outside Sub-continent. So stop belittling others.

Abey hypocrite, you have made a career out of belittling other batsmen here, so keep quiet

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

Misbah Ul haq. I would pick 2. Dravid and Laxman. If I am forced to pick one, it would be Dravid

[CSK Fan]

Number are not surprising. RD and AK on top having been involved in fewer total matches than a someone. :winky:

Not surprsing at all if you play teams like WI and NZ overseas and the other batsman skips those tours. That why I have my signature. I can also bring up filtered stats to show that Sachin was the top performer in our rise for no 1 and had the best average but I dont believe in such slicing and dicing and attributing team results to an individual As for AK, I guess a good bowler in a team of poor bowling unit but good battting unit will always be the stand out performer as a match winner because his bowling will be the one making the difference. This is assuming the team will mostly put good batting performances on board. When the batting occasionaly fails he might not do much. This is the same case with Pakistan and Inzi. A good batsmen in a team with poor batting unit and great bowling unit and hence he stands out, his batting performances are the difference As for cricinfo, slicing and dicing things like team victories involving 22 players ina game and attributing it to one player in a game where anything from a miss catch or one poor over can mean victory or defeat, I will just say one thing There is a reason analysts and statisticians are paid huge money to understand numbers. Just because a database is available to ametuers doesnt in any way mean they are qualified to understand the permutation and combinations. Rett's ridiculous analysis is the top example of what is possible if you dont understand numbers In the end batsman scores, bowlers take wickets and thats cricket. The day you slice and dice things, compare completely different variables, you are totally being dishonest with yourself and you know it. The very basic thing in physics you learn is that for two things to be compared all other factors need to be equal. But when you are talking of a batsman scoring a 100 and a bowler from his team taking a 5-fer and another batsman scoring a 100 and bowler bowling awfully, you know you are wrong to bring that comparion. And the only reason you do is it somehow soothes your ego to support someone from your region or score a point against another poster. Unless you can prove that two batsmen were in exactly the same situation, the opposition bowlers bowled exactly the same way, the other 21 players played exactly the same way, how can you even compare two innings? There is a reason most experts of the game, present and past players, in all all time XIs certain players are placed above others. These guys have played cricket at the highest level and know the game. No amount of posturing, stats twisting, cricinfo links is going to change that. The sooner some people understand, the easier it will be for them. Cricket like everything follows Occam's Razor. the more you try to delve deeper into things and numbers you dont understand, the more difficult you make things for yourself

[fuub]

all these "match winners" playing together i doubt even gave the team more than %40 win record, none are match winners

[Sehwag1830]

Abey hypocrite' date=' you have made a career out of belittling other batsmen here, so keep quiet[/quote'] Means talking against Sachin= hypocrite. :hysterical: May be all of us are fed up of GREAT SACHIN after 0-8 loss and Asia cup loss.

[Haarkarjeetgaye]

Try taking a stab at the answer without statistics. Answer the question in 5 secs. I couldnt pick between Laxman and Dravid

[The Outsider]

Now, Kumble has been relegated to a "good bowler" status - at some point nothing surprises you coming from bhakts.

[Andrew Peter]

Excluding Bangladesh man of the match awards in victories

Why not exclude West Indies as well ?

[akshayxyz]

Excluding Bangladesh man of the match awards in victories

Why not exclude West Indies as well ?

IMO,, it was kept there to show some respect to Gavaskar, but poor guy did not pass the stats-guru test.

[akshayxyz]

Not surprsing at all if you play teams like WI and NZ overseas and the other batsman skips those tours. That why I have my signature. I can also bring up filtered stats to show that Sachin was the top performer in our rise for no 1 and had the best average but I dont believe in such slicing and dicing and attributing team results to an individual As for AK, I guess a good bowler in a team of poor bowling unit but good battting unit will always be the stand out performer as a match winner because his bowling will be the one making the difference. This is assuming the team will mostly put good batting performances on board. When the batting occasionaly fails he might not do much. This is the same case with Pakistan and Inzi. A good batsmen in a team with poor batting unit and great bowling unit and hence he stands out, his batting performances are the difference As for cricinfo, slicing and dicing things like team victories involving 22 players ina game and attributing it to one player in a game where anything from a miss catch or one poor over can mean victory or defeat, I will just say one thing There is a reason analysts and statisticians are paid huge money to understand numbers. Just because a database is available to ametuers doesnt in any way mean they are qualified to understand the permutation and combinations. Rett's ridiculous analysis is the top example of what is possible if you dont understand numbers In the end batsman scores, bowlers take wickets and thats cricket. The day you slice and dice things, compare completely different variables, you are totally being dishonest with yourself and you know it. The very basic thing in physics you learn is that for two things to be compared all other factors need to be equal. But when you are talking of a batsman scoring a 100 and a bowler from his team taking a 5-fer and another batsman scoring a 100 and bowler bowling awfully, you know you are wrong to bring that comparion. And the only reason you do is it somehow soothes your ego to support someone from your region or score a point against another poster. Unless you can prove that two batsmen were in exactly the same situation, the opposition bowlers bowled exactly the same way, the other 21 players played exactly the same way, how can you even compare two innings? There is a reason most experts of the game, present and past players, in all all time XIs certain players are placed above others. These guys have played cricket at the highest level and know the game. No amount of posturing, stats twisting, cricinfo links is going to change that. The sooner some people understand, the easier it will be for them. Cricket like everything follows Occam's Razor. the more you try to delve deeper into things and numbers you dont understand, the more difficult you make things for yourself

Fill in the blanks please. On the stats part. - People don't even do basic co-variance analysis,.. forget about proving the causality part. Only if life was as simple as using stats-guru filters, everyone with excel/stats-guru_diploma would have been millionaire by now.

[Lurker]

Not surprsing at all if you play teams like WI and NZ overseas and the other batsman skips those tours. That why I have my signature. I can also bring up filtered stats to show that Sachin was the top performer in our rise for no 1 and had the best average but I dont believe in such slicing and dicing and attributing team results to an individual As for AK, I guess a good bowler in a team of poor bowling unit but good battting unit will always be the stand out performer as a match winner because his bowling will be the one making the difference. This is assuming the team will mostly put good batting performances on board. When the batting occasionaly fails he might not do much. This is the same case with Pakistan and Inzi. A good batsmen in a team with poor batting unit and great bowling unit and hence he stands out, his batting performances are the difference As for cricinfo, slicing and dicing things like team victories involving 22 players ina game and attributing it to one player in a game where anything from a miss catch or one poor over can mean victory or defeat, I will just say one thing There is a reason analysts and statisticians are paid huge money to understand numbers. Just because a database is available to ametuers doesnt in any way mean they are qualified to understand the permutation and combinations. Rett's ridiculous analysis is the top example of what is possible if you dont understand numbers In the end batsman scores, bowlers take wickets and thats cricket. The day you slice and dice things, compare completely different variables, you are totally being dishonest with yourself and you know it. The very basic thing in physics you learn is that for two things to be compared all other factors need to be equal. But when you are talking of a batsman scoring a 100 and a bowler from his team taking a 5-fer and another batsman scoring a 100 and bowler bowling awfully, you know you are wrong to bring that comparion. And the only reason you do is it somehow soothes your ego to support someone from your region or score a point against another poster. Unless you can prove that two batsmen were in exactly the same situation, the opposition bowlers bowled exactly the same way, the other 21 players played exactly the same way, how can you even compare two innings? There is a reason most experts of the game, present and past players, in all all time XIs certain players are placed above others. These guys have played cricket at the highest level and know the game. No amount of posturing, stats twisting, cricinfo links is going to change that. The sooner some people understand, the easier it will be for them. Cricket like everything follows Occam's Razor. the more you try to delve deeper into things and numbers you dont understand, the more difficult you make things for yourself

Dude really???? I mean really? Now you are having a stab at Kumble to defend Sachin?? This must have started to become a full time job for you now lol. Seriously whats wrong with (likes of) you? Sachin is not the greatest Indian batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not the greatest conemprory batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin has not played the greatest Indian test and LOI innings, Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not the worlds greatest ever batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not better thann XYZ, where X could be Richards, y could be Sunny etc. Your lot jumps in. Sachin was not great against top pace bowling. Your lot jumps in. etc etc.. and now Sachin is not India's greatest match winner. Your lot jumps in. Dude, you do realize Sachin, like every other great player in cricket history, has his own share of fault and chinks. Quit running to defend him every single time. I am surprised this is ever a question, Kumble and Bhagwath Chandrashekhar are 1-2 Indian match winners. No other players have helped India win as these two great spinners from Karnataka. Thank God Kapil Dev fans are not as retarded..I would have commited seppuku.

[tothepoint]

Now' date=' Kumble has been relegated to a "good bowler" status - at some point nothing surprises you coming from bhakts.[/quote'] :giggle: Kumble has been actually promoted to a good bowler status

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Cricket Tragic]

Without looking into stats' date=' I feel we've managed to get results and chase decent total in 4th innings due to Sehwag, he sets it up for us nicely but only in Sub continent.[/quote'] LOLworthy samples but that appears to be the flavour of the week. Average in successful 4th innings chases:

[akshayxyz]

Dude really???? I mean really? Now you are having a stab at Kumble to defend Sachin?? This must have started to become a full time job for you now lol. Seriously whats wrong with (likes of) you? Sachin is not the greatest Indian batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not the greatest conemprory batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin has not played the greatest Indian test and LOI innings, Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not the worlds greatest ever batsman. Your lot jumps in. Sachin is not better thann XYZ, where X could be Richards, y could be Sunny etc. Your lot jumps in. Sachin was not great against top pace bowling. Your lot jumps in. etc etc.. and now Sachin is not India's greatest match winner. Your lot jumps in. Dude, you do realize Sachin, like every other great player in cricket history, has his own share of fault and chinks. Quit running to defend him every single time. I am surprised this is ever a question, Kumble and Bhagwath Chandrashekhar are 1-2 Indian match winners. No other players have helped India win as these two great spinners from Karnataka. Thank God Kapil Dev fans are not as retarded..I would have commited seppuku.

Maha-bahuhuhu - itna lamba lekh likhne ki jaroorat nahi thi. Concept is simple, judging an individual based on team results - is retarded ..whether it is SRT or Jaddu...MTC just tried (looks like in vain) to get it past few brickheads...ek bandey ko bhi samajh aa jaaye, tou MTC kee mehnat safal hoyegi. Still if you want to find a match winner, first define objective metrics. This method of filtering MoMs, 5fers, averages ..just in won matches is extremely rudimentary (can be one of the metric but not the only one). And result is for everyone to see - are you willing to accept Gavaskar was not a match winner, or never played match (potential)winning knock? or the ones in the list are the only genuine match winners India has ever produced? or Kapil was a 'below average' match winner as is in that list?

[vvvslaxman]

Why not exclude West Indies as well ?

Any specific reason why? Dravid did play two of the best innings on an unplayable surface where every other batsman struggled. WHy would you want to exclude that?

[zen]

the bhakts are in panic mode :giggle: