dion
School Cricketer
"What are you going to do with the money Chris?"
"Spend it mon"
Legend!
"Spend it mon"
Legend!
Except that all those players have played out an ENTIRE career.Matthew Hayden's not great then? He also averaged 41 away from home in his career, are you trying to say that that's not a good enough record away from home to be considered a great? Inzamam Ul-Haq only averaged slightly higher than that, averaging 44 in away Tests, Mahela Jayawardene only averages 38 away from home, Justin Langer only averaged 41 in Tests away from Australia, Gordon Greenidge averaged 42 away from home, Sourav Ganguly averaged 41 away, VVS Laxman averages 43 away, Mark Waugh averaged 41, Desmond Haynes averaged 33, Mark Taylor 43, and Graham Gooch 36. Averaging 41 away from home's truely a shocking record isn't it. None of those players above are considered greats of the game are they........
King_Pietersen provided perspective, which you are dutifully ignoring. His stats show that 41 appears to be good enough for some who are considered the greats of the game. Even vaiby mentioned a statistic showing Tendulkar's record in conditions not familiar to him, and they're not that good. You are arguing that KP cannot be termed as good because you expect him to fail in the future, whereas all his statistics suggest that he will succeed. The point of statistics is to be able to predict what will happen in the future, whether its the next innings or the next year. KP's statistics clearly suggest that he is going to become a great.As I said, if averaging 41 is "exceptionally" good away, then, the term "exceptionally" has become a throwaway term, also the term "great". Get some perspective.
The point of statistics is to be able to predict what will happen in the future, whether its the next innings or the next year.
It is not necessary that every prediction be correct. That is why it is called a prediction--there is some probability of failure.Can't agree to that I'm afraid. There's absolutely no way you can predict the future with stats. Otherwise, how do you explain Hayden's career for example, when initially he actually lost his spot in the side. And the term 'great' is definitely used very loosely now. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is apparently destined for greatness!
It is not necessary that every prediction be correct.
You only really call a player great if he's got the stats to back it up. I really don't see what the issue is here. You wouldn't say Tendulkar is a great player because he's got a sweet on-drive if he averaged around the 40's. You wouldn't say Hayden's a great player because he dominates the opposition if he averaged in the 30's. Statistics is the only way you can really compare players without bias creeping in--because they are numbers and not a qualitative opinion of how you think a certain player plays.Especially in the case of determining greatness, stats should be used only as a qualifier, not as a measure of greatness itself.