dion
School Cricketer
"What are you going to do with the money Chris?"
"Spend it mon"
Legend!
"Spend it mon"
Legend!
Gayle blows away Dhoni from top spot
- Thread starter sammy
- Start date
Precambrian
International Cricketer
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........
Pietersen has not even played 20 test matches away.
Let him have his fair run and we'll see.
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.
sohum
Executive member
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.
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
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!
sohum
Executive member
It is not necessary that every prediction be correct. That is why it is called a prediction--there is some probability of failure.
And the only reason we even measure averages and strike rates is to predict the future. If you use an average of 50+ to measure a good player, then I ask you why do you use that? The reason is because you expect him to get around that in his next innings, based on his past performances.
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
Yes but if you had to try and predict the performance of any present day player considering his stats say about 5 years back, then I wonder how many predictions will have come true. I suspect not many. The point I'm trying to make is that what is true theoretically need not translate into reality. Especially in the case of determining greatness, stats should be used only as a qualifier, not as a measure of greatness itself.
sohum
Executive member
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.
If a player is scoring a century every 3 matches, I can't see how you can hold against him the fact that he wasn't born earlier--which appears to be what people are using against Pietersen since they say he hasn't done it over a long enough period of time.
mukund_nadkarni
Club Cricketer
You got me wrong there. By using stats as a qualifier I meant using it like a cutoff. Like as in batting, the modern day minimum average for anyone to qualify as great would be 50. I guess this is also what you are saying. But those who do qualify, I'd judge them qualitatively, not by the difference in their stats. That said though, I wouldn't call a batsman great simply because he's got the stats either.
As for Pietersen, well he's a great in the making. I think most people will agree to that?
As for Pietersen, well he's a great in the making. I think most people will agree to that?
Last edited:
