• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank the 10,000 club

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
Take a look at these two queries:



I was interested to see the difference between how players over 35 fared in each country compared to the average. Players who are over 35 are probably relying more on experience than eye.

Pakistan, the UAE, India, the West Indies, New Zealand and England all see averages go up for the geriatrics. Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa all see drops in average.

My original hypothesis was that quicker decks were harder to play on if you're older, while slower decks would favour experience. It is interesting then that the West Indies sees geriatrics do better while Sri Lanka favours youth.

Make of that what you will with regards to longevity arguments.

That ability typically degrades faster against pace than spin is pretty much self evident. Im not sure this comparison tells you any more. The typical bat who makes it to 35 in a team is likely to be much better than average. So while the 35 plus guys are posting better numbers than the youngsters on slower decks, we dont know that if it is due to the fact that they have improved, or due to the fact that they are simply better. They might be posting worse numbers than the younger versions of themselves.
 

Bolo.

International Vice-Captain
That sort of also answers why Tendulkar can be and is legitimately rated higher than Kallis or Sangakkara who finished with better averages. But in his middle ~18 years Tendulkar averaged 59 which means on sheer output he has beat them all! With Sanga there is also the record in SENA countries which while good is not comparable to Tendulkar's.

Lara is a different comparison though. He had some dream knocks (every time you do a top 100 innings list he tends to get lot of entries) on which none of his contemporaries or even anyone in history (bar Bradman) can beat him. So if you give lot of weight to that, it's justified that he is regarded better.
I rate Sachin higher than anyone in the 10000 club regardless of longevity, except *maybe* Gavaskar. His longevity is just the worlds biggest bucket of gravy to me.

This said, there wouldnt be anything wrong with rating any of these guys (or a number of the others) ahead of him if you were leaving longevity out of it.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
That ability typically degrades faster against pace than spin is pretty much self evident. Im not sure this comparison tells you any more. The typical bat who makes it to 35 in a team is likely to be much better than average. So while the 35 plus guys are posting better numbers than the youngsters on slower decks, we dont know that if it is due to the fact that they have improved, or due to the fact that they are simply better. They might be posting worse numbers than the younger versions of themselves.
I honestly thought that we might see a trend that showed all 35+ batsmen did better in all countries than the average but the fact that it's almost half/ half is extraordinary. And that 35+ averages go down in Sri Lanka and up in the West Indies is perplexing as well.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Could have to do with early Sri Lankans teams having lots of older players who weren't very good
 

Arachnodouche

International Captain
I will always rate Sachin ahead of Sangakkara and Kallis. Succeeded against better bowlers in tougher times. Also agree with others saying that Steve Waugh is underrated. He performed when it was needed most. I don't have an issue with equating him with Sachin, Lara and Ponting.
Ponting was miserable in India throughout his prime and only managed to redeem himself there towards the end while his output was tailing off everywhere else. 14 Tests in India for a return of 26. You can't be so awful against one of the major opponents of your generation on their turf and be considered in the same bracket as any of Waugh, Tendulkar, Lara, or Kallis.
 
Last edited:

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
Lol, so you left out 3 tests which Sachin played against SA in December 1992 in which he averaged 25 and then took one innings in Jan 1993 against them in which he scored 73, and then say he averaged 73 against them in a 3 year period :laugh:
From the beginning of 1993 to the end of 1995.
 

Pap Finn Keighl

International Debutant
Think he also argues that Lara was the best ODI bat in the '90s

I mean, his opinions aren't terrible, it's just the way he argues them
Mid 90s
5 years Between 1993-1997

Lara
90 innings, 51 avg, 82 strike rate, 11x 100, 24 x 50

Only Bevan averaged more
57 inn, 54 avg, 74 sr, 2 x 100, 11 x 100

Anwar, Sachin and De Silva had slightly better strike rates in the range of 83-85 but with far less averages.. ranging from 40 to 44.

Also Lara was ranked Number 1 most of the times in 90s.

Sachin = 90s overall, Lara = mid 90s
 

h_hurricane

International Vice-Captain
Think he also argues that Lara was the best ODI bat in the '90s

I mean, his opinions aren't terrible, it's just the way he argues them
Also era adjusts Azharuddin as a better ODI batsman than Kohli. Waiting for some fun in the weekend if PFK hangs around.
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
Lol, so you left out 3 tests which Sachin played against SA in December 1992 in which he averaged 25 and then took one innings in Jan 1993 against them in which he scored 73, and then say he averaged 73 against them in a 3 year period :laugh:
He literally said 1993-1995, this is you being pedantic, not him. It's very reasonable that he simply applied a three year filter not bothering about what series ended where.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Nah.. I am guessing there was a reason PFK chose the window he did. He does not seem like the sort to pick 3 years at random. None of his other posts suggest that. Either way, I have said my piece on this. Discreding Sachin's achievements or Lara's achievements as some sort of brownie point in your argument to rate the other one higher is usually just plain stupid.
 

srbhkshk

International Captain
Nah.. I am guessing there was a reason PFK chose the window he did. He does not seem like the sort to pick 3 years at random. None of his other posts suggest that. Either way, I have said my piece on this. Discreding Sachin's achievements or Lara's achievements as some sort of brownie point in your argument to rate the other one higher is usually just plain stupid.
Dravid debuted in 1996, what's wrong with picking three years before that to illustrate that he wasn't dependent on him? He didn't even mention the SA or NZ numbers before someone asked him.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Nope.. I am suggesting he knew the stats for 4 and hence went with 3. Anyways, we are arguing semantics as I do not agree at all that Dravid helped Sachin become a better batsman.

Did he make his job a bit easier? Yes.
Does that take any of Sachin's achievements? No.

This logic should dictate Warne was nothing coz McGrath kept setting up stuff for him. And basically mean any achievement of anyone not batting top 3, null and void. Was Ponting nothing coz he always Hayden and Langer above him?
 

Top