Cricket (None Leicestershire County Cricket Club)

[StanSP]

48 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Kohli is a sensation. The numbers speak for themselves.

 

Not nearly as good as around a billion people think he is, but sensational nevertheless.

In what way? 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

In what way? 

In the way that a statistically significant portion of the fanbase think he's the best batsman to ever draw breath, which isn't true (or equal with Tendulkar in that regard, and he's not the greatest either).

 

Sorry for calling out that particular fanbase directly, but I guess I spend too much time browsing cricket comments on the Internet and I do see it regularly.

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

In the way that a statistically significant portion of the fanbase think he's the best batsman to ever draw breath, which isn't true (or equal with Tendulkar in that regard, and he's not the greatest either).

 

Sorry for calling out that particular fanbase directly, but I guess I spend too much time browsing cricket comments on the Internet and I do see it regularly.

He's one of the best of all time though and especially for a generation that may not have seen Tendulkar in his peak. 

The stats don't lie when you consider the amount of runs he has across all formats. 

 

I don't put him above Tendulkar but when you've reached the heights Kohli has in the past decade, there's no surprise he's adulated and revered to such a level. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, StanSP said:

He's one of the best of all time though and especially for a generation that may not have seen Tendulkar in his peak. 

The stats don't lie when you consider the amount of runs he has across all formats. 

 

I don't put him above Tendulkar but when you've reached the heights Kohli has in the past decade, there's no surprise he's adulated and revered to such a level. 

He's certainly one of the best, that's true.

 

I think though for me the truth will always remain  Bradman >>>> lots of truly great batsmen including Kohli, Tendulkar, Lara etc. There's a big second tier of greats but they're always going to be second tier because the Don occupies a space all his own.

[Corky]

Until Kohli wins the Ashes he can't claim to be an all time great, for me.

[Super_horns]

Well I did say India would be too strong ..

[StanSP]

I did not expect such a convincing win. 

[Chiltern Fox]

Honestly surprised by the result.  SA swatted like a fly.

[Tommy Fresh]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

He's certainly one of the best, that's true.

 

I think though for me the truth will always remain  Bradman >>>> lots of truly great batsmen including Kohli, Tendulkar, Lara etc. There's a big second tier of greats but they're always going to be second tier because the Don occupies a space all his own.

Can you really compare Bradman though? 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Can you really compare Bradman though? 

Yeah, I think so.

 

There is such a clear and marked statistical difference between Bradman and his peers at the time, and between Bradman and todays batsmen, and so much less of a difference between all other batsmen both of his time and now, that it is a reasonably logical assumption he would have been superlative to everyone else in our era or any era between now and his own.

[Tommy Fresh]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I think so.

 

There is such a clear and marked statistical difference between Bradman and his peers at the time, and between Bradman and todays batsmen, and so much less of a difference between all other batsmen both of his time and now, that it is a reasonably logical assumption he would have been superlative to everyone else in our era or any era between now and his own.

So you can definitively say across all formats he'd be as good as Kohli etc have been? It's a different sport now completely. Aware statistically Bradman was outrageous but whether that could be applied to the modern game across all formats is another question. 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Tommy Fresh said:

So you can definitively say across all formats he'd be as good as Kohli etc have been? It's a different sport now completely. Aware statistically Bradman was outrageous but whether that could be applied to the modern game across all formats is another question. 

Across the Test format, I'd say he would be much better than everyone else, yeah, because if he wasn't, others would have matched or at least come close to his records at some point in history. None have.

 

ODI's and T20's, who knows? That's much more speculative - after all, the man never hit a six in his entire Test career.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

There are only a few records in sport that appear to be so far out of reach that you can't envisage anyone ever getting close to them. Bradman's 99.94 test average is one of them.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

There are only a few records in sport that appear to be so far out of reach that you can't envisage anyone ever getting close to them. Bradman's 99.94 test average is one of them.

From Wiki, the amount of standard deviations above the average the greatest sportsmen are in some sports.

 

But it's not just how far ahead of the mean he is, it's how far ahead he is of everyone else in the history of the game being played.

[EastAnglianFox]

I mean even if India have a shocker with the bat I’d fancy them to defend 200 with that attack.

 

And if they have a shocker with the ball (unlikely) you’d fancy them all day long to chase 280+
 

 

[Tommy Fresh]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Across the Test format, I'd say he would be much better than everyone else, yeah, because if he wasn't, others would have matched or at least come close to his records at some point in history. None have.

 

ODI's and T20's, who knows? That's much more speculative - after all, the man never hit a six in his entire Test career.

Did Bradman ever play test cricket anywhere other than Australia or England? I don't think you can really compare when he never toured the sub continent

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Did Bradman ever play test cricket anywhere other than Australia or England? I don't think you can really compare when he never toured the sub continent

... and still no one comes close to his average using matches in Australia and England alone.

 

Of course it's a different game these days in terms of where it's played, but I honestly don't see the debate when his numbers are so far ahead of anyone at any point in history, before or since.

[Tommy Fresh]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

... and still no one comes close to his average using matches in Australia and England alone.

 

Of course it's a different game these days in terms of where it's played, but I honestly don't see the debate when his numbers are so far ahead of anyone at any point in history, before or since.

Because just using his numbers seems very simplistic, when comparing someone that played so long ago to the modern game. Not agreeing or disagreeing whether he would or wouldn't be the best, just whether you thought comparing was that straight forward.

 

Firstly the sheer amount of analysis that goes in to sport nowadays would allow sides to actually plan and highlight weaknesses. I'd hazard a guess things such as intricative field placings and defensive set ups are far more common place.

Additionally, you don't know how he would cope mentally and physically with the amount of cricket that is played in modern cricket, could he handle a tour of India, home for an Australian summer, then touring Sri Lanka, followed by an IPL contract.

 

You also have the technology available, how many times do you think he possibly knicked it but wasn't given out?

Edited 5 November 2023 by Tommy Fresh

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Because just using his numbers seems very simplistic, when comparing someone that played so long ago to the modern game. Not agreeing or disagreeing whether he would or wouldn't be the best, just whether you thought comparing was that straight forward.

 

Firstly the sheer amount of analysis that goes in to sport nowadays would allow sides to actually plan and highlight weaknesses. I'd hazard a guess things such as intricative field placings and defensive set ups are far more common place.

Additionally, you don't know how he would cope mentally and physically with the amount of cricket that is played in modern cricket, could he handle a tour of India, home for an Australian summer, then touring Sri Lanka, followed by an IPL contract.

 

You also have the technology available, how many times do you think he possibly knicked it but wasn't given out?

That's fair enough and I can see the points made regarding complexity.

 

If we go that way, however, then IMO three whole argument is redundant and you can only compare within eras, not give a "greatest of all time" anyway.

 

So I guess my viewpoint is that if the argument itself is valid through whatever comparative metric is used, the greatest of all time is Bradman and it isn't even anywhere near close.

[Tommy Fresh]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's fair enough and I can see the points made regarding complexity.

 

If we go that way, however, then IMO three whole argument is redundant and you can only compare within eras, not give a "greatest of all time" anyway.

 

So I guess my viewpoint is that if the argument itself is valid through whatever comparative metric is used, the greatest of all time is Bradman and it isn't even anywhere near close.

Yeah, statistically he's way ahead, but I imagine if you look behind some players averages you'd find some that would have their averages boosted if you took their home record, and their away record against one country they've toured. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Yeah, statistically he's way ahead, but I imagine if you look behind some players averages you'd find some that would have their averages boosted if you took their home record, and their away record against one country they've toured. 

Well, as an example, the average of Steve Smith is 58.61, and his average when you take Tests in England and Aus only is slightly higher (around 60). Perhaps other players would have higher spikes though.

 

It's certainly an interesting thought.

[Tommy Fresh]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Well, as an example, the average of Steve Smith is 58.61, and his average when you take Tests in England and Aus only is slightly higher (around 60). Perhaps other players would have higher spikes though.

 

It's certainly an interesting thought.

Adam Voges for example though, averaged 86.25 in Australia, then with a small sample size 154.50 in New Zealand and 167 in the West Indies. Tours of England and Sri Lanka hampered his average.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Tommy Fresh said:

Adam Voges for example though, averaged 86.25 in Australia, then with a small sample size 154.50 in New Zealand and 167 in the West Indies. Tours of England and Sri Lanka hampered his average.

Yup, good example, small sample size aside.

 

Again, it makes a good point that it is pretty complex to compare such things, especially across eras.

 

I do stand by the conclusions I've drawn, though.

[StanSP]

Wow. Never seen that before. 

Angelo Matthews timed out and is given out before even facing a ball. 

 

Bought out the wrong helmet, went to swap it, and went over the 2-minute limit without facing a ball, so Bangladesh appealed it saying he's taken too long. 

 

Bizarre. Seems like an archaic rule. But then the incoming batter should really be ready. 

[RowlattsFox]

Can't decide if I like that from Bangladesh or not, but rule is there and 2 minutes is a long enough time to get ready.