Greatest left hand bat since Sobers - AB or BCL?

hard to see why Border batted so low in the order, considering the strength of his teammates? Border is the only great specialist batsman I can think of, who so frequently allowed 2/3/4 or more clearly inferior teammates to bat ahead of him

IF Border didn't hunt red ink, it sure found a way of finding him, he finished not out on average more frequently than Chanderpaul

Good point, mainly batted at 4 or 5. Batted a lot at 6 in the early part of his career too...

JKLever wrote:Good point, mainly batted at 4 or 5. Batted a lot at 6 in the early part of his career too...

And averaged pretty much the same at 3,4,5 or 6.

52 isn't the same as 47 just like 50 isn't the same as 45.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:52 isn't the same as 47 just like 50 isn't the same as 45.

Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

PearlJ wrote:

JKLever wrote:Good point, mainly batted at 4 or 5. Batted a lot at 6 in the early part of his career too...

And averaged pretty much the same at 3,4,5 or 6.

But with more opportunity for red ink hunting...

PearlJ wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:52 isn't the same as 47 just like 50 isn't the same as 45.

Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

That's a difference of ten percent. That's vast. Do you think if the calculations for the flight path of Apollo XI had been accurate to within a tolerance of ten percent, we'd ever have walked on the moon?

No.

There'd just be a lot of dead astronauts.

THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?

PearlJ wrote:
Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

So you admit that 'averaged more' gash was just that? Border was better because he averaged 0.33 more than Viv.

**cough** whatta twat **cough**

Out of interest I just looked up the Wisden "Hurricane Hundred". I was well out with Lara at third. Lara would be 21st with 60.51. They've calculated it by using over rates from specific periods and minutes at the crease instead of balls, which seems a pretty sensible and reliable way to do it.

Here it is:

Code:



                        Career span      Strike rate    Runs  Average

1 A.C. Gilchrist (Aus)    1999-            81.9        3485  52.80
2 Kapil Dev (Ind)          1978-94          80-81        5248  31.05
3 M.W. Tate (Eng)          1924-35          75-76        1198  25.48
4 J.H.Sinclair (SAf)      1896-1911        73-74        1069  23.23
5 V Sehwag (Ind)          2001-            73.10        1951  52.72
6 A. Flintoff (Eng)        1998-            69.40        2012  32.98
7 I.V.A. Richards (WI)    1974-91          68-69        8540  50.23
8 V.T. Trumper (Aus)      1899-1912        67-68        3163  39.04
9 S.T. Jayasuriya (SL)    1991-            64.6        5964  41.70
10 K. Srikkanth (Ind)      1981-92          64-65        2062  29.88
11 M.L. Hayden (Aus)      1994-            63.5        5059  58.14
12 I.D.S. Smith (NZ)      1980-92          63.2        1815  23.56
13 S.M. Patil (Ind)        1980-84          63-64        1588  36.93
14 G.C. Smith (SAf)        2002-            62.1        2350  57.31
15 D.S. Lehmann (Aus)      1998-            61.6        1549  51.63
16 D.G. Bradman (Aus)      1928-48          60-61        6996  99.94
17 J.M. Gregory (Aus)      1920-28          60-61        1146  36.96
18 S.J. McCabe (Aus)      1930-38          60-61        2748  48.21
19 R.S. Kaluwitharana (SL) 1992-            60.8        1867  26.67
20 I.T.Botham (Eng)        1977-92          60.7        5200  33.54



It was done in 2004 so obviously some of the contemporary players are a bit out. Gilly still averages 52! The qualification was 1,000 runs. It's fascinating stuff.

So, if you filter out the allrounders and biffers, you're left with this order:

Code:


1. Gilly          81.9
2. Sehwag        76.49 (his run rate has increased by 3 runs)
3. Viv Richards  68-69
4. Trumper        67-68
5. Jayasuriya    64.6
6. Graeme Smith  61.38 (gone down slightly since then)
7. Bradman        60-61
8. McCabe        60-61
9. Lehmann        61.80
10.Brian Lara    60.51


11.Hayden        60.12 (gone down by 3 since then)


I was pretty spot on with my 65-70 guess for Viv! Whoo!

Brass Monkey wrote:

PearlJ wrote:
Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

So you admit that 'averaged more' gash was just that? Border was better because he averaged 0.33 more than Viv.

**cough** whatta twat **cough**

Is today the Aussie be-a-hypocrite day or what? Oh wait ...

HH_pink wrote:

Is today the Aussie be-a-hypocrite day or what? Oh wait ...

You had the class not to say it, but I don't - every day is Aussie be-a-hypocrite day.

No, I think they're just playing very hard, so hard in fact that some might think it's unfair, but they're being fair. It's those 'some' who are ******.

Sorry to've veered away from the discussion and started a sh!tfest, but is there anything left to be discussed?

Sorry, where have I been a hypocrite?

Brass Monkey wrote:

PearlJ wrote:
Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

So you admit that 'averaged more' gash was just that? Border was better because he averaged 0.33 more than Viv.

**cough** whatta twat **cough**

You seem to like the insults that refer to the vagina. What could this mean?

PearlJ wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Viv? Shits all over Border.

Oh yeah?

Border:

Averaged more (+0.33)
Scored more runs
Was a better captain
Faced harder opposition
Was in a worse side

PearlJ wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:52 isn't the same as 47 just like 50 isn't the same as 45.

Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

Unless of course 'negligable' means something very different from 'negligible'.

HH_pink wrote:

PearlJ wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:Viv? Shits all over Border.

Oh yeah?

Border:

Averaged more (+0.33)
Scored more runs
Was a better captain
Faced harder opposition
Was in a worse side

PearlJ wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:52 isn't the same as 47 just like 50 isn't the same as 45.

Difference of only 5. The difference is negligable.

Unless of course 'negligable' means something very different from 'negligible'.

2 points.

1. I never said the difference in average meant much. I was just pointing it out. After all 'Viv? Shits all over Border' according to BM, surely this should be reflected in the averages.

2. The difference between the average in different positions means a lot less than the average between 2 players. Border only scored about 1500 runs at No.3 making it a much smaller sample size than Border and Viv's career averages.

I think you'll find that using 1/7th of a sample for resolving a difference of ~5 is significant enough when you apply the same standards as when you use the whole sample to resolve a difference of 0.33.

The fundamental point about Viv is that, excluding his spectacular (magnificent, superb - hard to find sufficient accolades) year in 1976, his test average crashes to 45.

There is a vast mythos around Viv Richards, but apart from one stellar year, his record does not live up to it. This is even more true when you consider he never faced the best bowlers of his era, and generally batted under little or no pressure.

Yes, he was a wonderful player. No question about it. But claims like 'arguably one of the three best of the last 50 years' and 's***s all over Border' are total, complete and utter BS. Viv Richards played for the best team in the world, but apart from one year of glory, his record is comparable to the likes of Mark Waugh or Graham Thorpe. AB spent almost half his career in a weak team, faced the best bowlers in the world from WI, Pakistan, South Africa etc and carried his side from the depths of despair to the point where they were the best in the world. FFS - this is not a debate, its an absurdity.

And frankly, some of the posts on here about hypocrisy re Chanderpaul are pathetic. No-one has had more good things to say about Shiv than me, and apart from some jocular remarks, most other Aussies have had nothing but praise for the little champion and his efforts in this current series. He is very much in the AB mould, and I'm pretty sure everyone who admires and praises Border will do the same for Shiv.

It would be exceedingly rude to shit all over Allan Border.

He played against Lillee, Thomson, Khan, Kapil, Botham and Qadir, didn't he?

PeterCS wrote:It would be exceedingly rude to shit all over Allan Border.

I can't imagine Viv doing it either.

HH_pink wrote:He played against Lillee, Thomson, Khan, Kapil, Botham and Qadir, didn't he?

Are you seriously trying to argue Viv was not advantaged relative to Border by getting to face Lawson, Hogg, Hughes and Bright rather than Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose?

Leo wrote:

HH_pink wrote:He played against Lillee, Thomson, Khan, Kapil, Botham and Qadir, didn't he?

Are you seriously trying to argue Viv was not advantaged relative to Border by getting to face Lawson, Hogg, Hughes and Bright rather than Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose?

Can't that argument then be made against the entire Aussie top 6?

JKLever wrote:

Leo wrote:

HH_pink wrote:He played against Lillee, Thomson, Khan, Kapil, Botham and Qadir, didn't he?

Are you seriously trying to argue Viv was not advantaged relative to Border by getting to face Lawson, Hogg, Hughes and Bright rather than Holding, Garner, Marshall and Ambrose?

Can't that argument then be made against the entire Aussie top 6?

Is that relevent?

Yes. Because a lot of Aussies burst into tears when it's mentioned.