Nah 100 t20s are a tough ask at a time when there weren't a lot of t20 comps. The BBL started in 2011 or so, and so did most others other than the IPL. The likes of symonds were very good in the ones they played in (I think he has a 100 in the IPL too?). You don't need 100 t20s to know how good a player he is. I doubt Hayden played more than 70 t20s (at best) but he was arguably the most devastating t20 opener at the time of his retirement.
T20 Auction draft Semi final - Anant vs Varun
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Include matches, runs, wickets as well maybe in your table? You seriously can't see the issue with the numbers you've presented?
It's like someone presenting this in a test draft: 'Adam Voges avg 95 @ SR 60'. No mention of matches or total runs. Voges is nowhere near that good. Same as Symonds is nowhere near as good as the numbers you've given.
This is beyond pedantic. Here, take symonds's stats as posted by anant and use them for your vote. Cheers.
Sure, I could include the number of matches, but I usually don't, if you go back to the test draft you can see that as well. Others have also not done it this draft (e.g. Skizzo) although fair enough, you did. Had I known this was an issue to people, I would have done differently for this match but it has not come up before to my knowledge.
We didn't cherry pick the numbers if that is what you are insinuating though, for example, Miller's average and SR both improve across all T20s compared to his T20I record alone. I just felt that T20I records were more relevant as I've explained.
While thats true, 80+ players have played 150 or more T20 matches. And IMO there is a line about how soon a player is judged. For openers and top order batsmen it requires lesser time in every format, for these LMO batsmen you can't judge so soon. I mean guys like Yusuf Pathan, and the likes had a longer "honeymoon period" than say Badrinath etc.
The stats that are being used to judge player change massively when comparing a player with 30 appearances to a player with 130 appearances
If symonds and miller aren't hitters in your opinion, I'll just have to say ok I'm afraid. I can't be arsed arguing about these balls per boundaries stats. Bravo isn't a hitter, I was talking about our lower order which included him but the hitter reference is obviously directed at symonds and miller. No chance of fooling anyone by trying to call bravo a hitter, is there?
I have already showed you the difference in numbers considering the stats posted by you and me. If your argument revolves around Vettori and Mitch coinciding 2 runs more over 4 overs or symonds scoring 5 less, I'm going to accept that and live with it.
There was no min 100 T20s criteria in the draft, you should have argued for it at the time if you feel 79, 93 and 143 matches aren't enough to judge players.
Have you seen the stats posted by ananth for Symonds's career over 79 games?
Again, where were you at the time the rules for the draft were being laid out seeing as you feel quite strongly about this? Or is it a case of pissing on quality players because they happen to be in the opposite side by any means possible? You have compared the likes of symonds in T20s now to sharma in tests, tfm in football, badrinath and yusuf pathan in T20s, please draw a line before it becomes too ridiculous to even debate.
When did I say Symonds, Smith, etc aren't quality? All I'm saying is they aren't as big T20 icons (actually not even icons IMO) as they were in other formats. Since we have judged Symonds on 90 odd games, and smith on 80 odd, why cant we judge Rohit on 15 tests. Its a Test match. 5 times longer atleast. And well, as far as the Badrinath/Pathan argument is concerned, its only to point of how everyone judges players. A top order batsman gets dropped if h plays poorly for 3 games, a middle order for maybe 7-10 games
I wonder what @anant would have said about my Barry Richards pick in the Test draft. 
Ok. Good luck for the match up.
But he did prove himself on the domestic circuit, in England and Australia as well!I wonder what @anant would have said about my Barry Richards pick in the Test draft.
That wasn't a part of the draft, only Test cricket was considered.
I don't really get what you are saying. Nowhere have we said that Smith is as good a T20 player as he is a Test opener, for example. No one is making that case afaik. As for how highly Rohit should be judged in Tests, that's a matter for the test draft voters to decide. I suspect it has more to do with his temperament than his stats though, since Bond was rated decently in the test draft despite having played only 18. But I simply can't see how 80-90 matches isn't enough to judge a player in a format.
Oh, but would have raised the point but there would have been a compelling argument against me and would have dropped it, because internally, you would know that the player did manage to prove himself of his talent and moved on from the "what-if" scenario
Thats the thing. The player is being judged on 80-90 matches but the stats are of 30 odd games! Sure, Narine's and Miller's stats do improve but some insanely good stats appear when stats of this small sample size are considered. Its ok, though. The point I was getting across was the relative inexperience of the side which seems to have been addressed to a certain extent
Don't mean to derail this match up but I factor in ability and style quite heavily along with the performances and records. I don't go hard and fast by either of them. And of course the circumstances. In Richards' case we all know the reason why he couldn't play more and it wasn't because of his lack of ability.
Sometimes it just comes down to common sense.
I'll be honest here. I haven't seen Richards and won't pretend to judge his ability. I love stats, and his numbers looked pretty solid, consistent, so wont question the talent. If there is a rational explanation behind irregularities, like in this case, its fine, but not in cases where a player hasn't managed to prove himself in all competitions (including domestic circuit)
anant, you are just posturing and hiding behind this statistics argument. Symonds has played 93 T20s and has excellent numbers. More than enough.
Arguments like 'a six or a 4 every six balls' or whatever it is are irrelevant. A strike rate of 147 means he's still averaging around 9 runs per 6 balls he faces.
Does not matter if it's going to the boundary or he ran all 9 runs on one leg.
Arguments like 'a six or a 4 every six balls' or whatever it is are irrelevant. A strike rate of 147 means he's still averaging around 9 runs per 6 balls he faces.
Does not matter if it's going to the boundary or he ran all 9 runs on one leg.
I didn't say otherwise. Infact I was the 1st one to say this. All I'm saying is why were only the internationals stats considered as they are flawed for most players, and more so for players such as Symonds, Smith, Vettori, Mitch who have 30 odd games in T20s
It's not. Pedantic would be if Symonds had close to the same numbers in domestic T20 as well but those numbers are nowhere close. His domestic numbers are the most representative simply because the sample size is significantly higher.
If you ask people who they rather want in their T20 side if the choice is Buttler or Symonds then I believe Buttler will edge it. But if you ask the same question after people have read the OP then Symonds would win comfortably. Not because he was better but because the numbers presented paint a wrong picture. The numbers in OP are based on Symonds' international career where he has faced less than 200 balls but this doesn't get a mention in OP. All it says is 'Avg 48, SR 170' with no mention of sample size or anything else. These are outstanding numbers if they represent a minimum of 40-50 innings. But in this case they represent 11 innings where almost half of those are not outs. That takes almost all of the shine off.
If you're going to make a table in the first place then make it more detailed. Include sample sizes so that there is no room for misinterpretations.
I have already quoted the symonds's stats based on 79 matches posted by anant. Twice I believe. Have you missed those posts? If you haven't, I'm not sure where you're getting the "he was nowhere as good" bit from.
Anyone who has watched symonds play would never pick Buttler over him. You don't need stats, eyes are enough really. Also, these aren't some oldies from the 50s or some hidden gems pulled out of the WI domestic league. Regardless of who people choose, I doubt there's anyone involved in these drafts who hasn't seen enough of both players to need stats to decide who's better. Whoever thinks it's Buttler would pick him without needing to see stats, ditto with symonds.
I'll admit I didn't know where the stats in the table are from. If you'd pointed it out normally instead of starting with bizarre posts, I'd have either removed the table or changed it up if I could be arsed. You didn't though so that ain't happening and I'd hope people voting here do so based on actually having watched cricket and not some fetish with numbers.
Aah, a good old mud slinging. These drafts were worse off without it.
That's where we differ, I suppose.
Not the be all and end all of everything, for me, specially for a player you have watched the entire career of.No, lame attempts to downplay class players just because they happen to be on the opposite side doesn't make the draft better off.
Not for the one's taking part. But for people like me with no vested interest, it's popcorn material.
True thatNot for the one's taking part. But for people like me with no vested interest, it's popcorn material.
Apparently 48 @ 169 over 11 innings is the same as 32 @ 147 over 90 matches. That's good to know.
At least Akshay has given a reasonable answer without going all defensive mode and taking things personally. That was all I was asking for and he gave a good answer. Have a good day.
At least Akshay has given a reasonable answer without going all defensive mode and taking things personally. That was all I was asking for and he gave a good answer. Have a good day.
You are such a shit stirrer.
You are such a shit stirrer.
It's not shit if it works!
"Not the same as" and "nowhere as good" are 2 very different things. It isn't about getting defensive. Anyways, good day to you too.
I got to say Varun's batting is not really that deep. Vettori is probably at par with Ashwin in T20 with the bat and Bravo is a hit/miss with the bat most times. He probably has the best spinner, but Anant has the best collective of spinners. He also has two of the best pace bowlers recognized in IPL. That said, Varun probably has more match winners. Tough one to decide honestly.
It's a 20 over game and seeing the strength of my batters, I doubt the likes of Vettori would even get a bat, you don't need 8 proper batsmen in a T20.
The spinners on each side are:
Narine + Vettori + Bhajji vs Ashwin + Jadeja with part timers in Symonds and Yuvi in each side respectively. How does he have the better spin attack?
The spin department of both teams is what 'turned it around' in Varun's favour, for me.
But considering the pitch in question, you can see a low scoring game and most likely it could get down to the likes of vettori and co.
Coz Ashwin and Jadeja are very good in T20. Vettori does have the better record than Jadeja, but Jaddu has more 4w hauls. You would think this sort of pitch would aid him more than Vettori. Vettori is an excellent option to keep the run rate down, but not enough to make a match winning difference in my opinion. At least not in the same breath as Ashwin and Jadeja. Good you mentioned Yuvi as an option as well. I nearly forgot about him. Yuvi is fantastic at breaking up partnerships. Be it ODI, T20. Wouldn't surprise me if he was more than just a part timer in the game in these conditions.
I don't know why you are mentioning Badrinath or Pathan here. Neither of them were particularly good later on. Badrinath because he is incapable of slogging and Pathan because he has only strength but no ability. As much as I dislike symonds they were not even half the player he was.
Seeing my top 7, I just disagree with it coming down to Vettori or someone lower to make a match winning contribution. Especially given the opposition has Ashwin, Malinga etc, if it came down to them, we'd be fecked anyways. Similarly, if anant needs Ashwin, jadeja to play a match winning knock, he'd be fecked too with Narine and Co bowling.
Re the jadeja v Vettori comparison, what do you mean by match winning difference? Ability to take wickets? Check out their SRs if that's the case. They have yuvi, we have symonds btw.
Nobody is gonna make a match winning effort with the bat amongst any of them. I just meant that there is a possibility that thoes guys may need to bat in the final over or so. If 5-8 runs is what is going to be the difference between the two teams, I would fancy Jadeja at 7 making them over Vettori at 7. And Ashwin has actually got a decent record in T20.
I did. Jadeja's is better in the domestic circuit and Vettori's in T20Is. Which is why I said Jadeja is very likely to make more of a contribution with the bowl as the condition is something he has excelled in the past. He has three 4 wicket hauls and one 5 wicket haul. Only Narine has exceeded that (comfortably might I add). Game time for most is very similar to negate that as a factor.
If we are going by IPL records, than Harbhajan has a better average than Jadeja. Tbh, Jadeja gets into the Indian team as an all-rounder, if it was purely down to his bowling he would not be ahead of Bhajji internationally either. Either way you spin it, Narine is the best and one of Harbhajan and Vettori is better than Jadeja (depending on whether you prefer domestic / intl record). And there's no way Yuvi is a better spinner than any of those.
I never claimed Yuvi is better than any of those. Just said he has the knack to get important wickets and he may bowl atleast 3 overs in the game. Agreed about Narine and Ashwin as 1-2. I still think Jadeja is 3rd best though. He's much more expensive than the rest, but on tracks like this, I think he can be effective. I am probably underrating Bhajji a bit, but then again he bowls an awful lot more than Jadeja, which is why I find it hard to give him too much credit.