That's cool, but I left school several decades ago, and taught law at University since. So I do not need to be treated like as just another school kid by a teacher  when in disputes, I have taught people how to argue professionally, with all due respect. I'm an adult. Adults often prefer a spade being called a spade, especially in disputes. Especially by mediators, adjudicators and judges in adult disputes. And the adjudicator should not be on the "other side" if they are impartial between the adversaries. It's not students vs teachers. True adjudicators, or mediators which really this should be as you have no final judgment, should be impartial and not lump the adversaries together. Even if pragmatically efficient for pedagogical purposes at school.

I understand IS mods aren't paid for their time, and look for efficacy in efficiency of their time as a result of being pragmatic. So people often get lumped in together. Its less time consuming than to deal with the original cause, etc. But as you say, it is a former hat. If he gets personal again, I will point it out to him again. And again. And again. But to be honest, in the meantime, I am keenly waiting for the reply to the question he was given. I want to see what he replies. :) Because sometimes - someone sidesteps a halfback to run into a forward or the sideline, the same style sidestep doesn't a;ways work twice with that sideline there.

My suggestion is move on.

Agree to disagree. 

All forums are is a place to proffer opinions.

We all enjoy stats  like Sangakarra  having a lower average in his keeping years, and maybe having played more Tests against weaker teams like Zimbabwe, which augments his average, and Ponting struggling after he was hit by Roach, but to constantly try and claim one player is better than another is subjective when people rationalise different  interpretations of the same data.


Players are often good, but how they compare to others is not an exact science.

With the stats you and Flyslip have drawn on to vindicate your points,  it has been informative for other posters. However, when one claims the position s/he advances  is superior is subjective.

Check your PM!

Ponting is not in the debate. And Gilchrist pummeled Zimbabwe too. With all due respect, you're a lil bit missing the point here while playing adjudicator, I want him to answer the question. I will not be moving on, because I have flysip in a question. And he has stopped being personal for a few posts now, but he is in a  quagmire, no doubt. So I see no reason why he should not answer it. 

This is not a stats based question, its a logical causative question, and he well knows it, even if you have missed it. He has a choice to make. The choices are clear... The sole question is - does wicketkeeping matter to a batsman at all,  batting #3 especially (or higher) or not at all?

That is all he has to answer...

:)

And I really look forward to his answer... 

Paddles you have to remember that you follow world cricket, but most of the posters on this site follow Australian cricket, nothing wrong with that there are specialists in every field of life. Sangakkara rarely played Australia and only visited Australia for 5 tests (amazing average of 60 in Australia) but in general an unknown to most Australians. Sangakkara was an amazing talent, over 15 years played 132 tests, 400+ ODI's most as wicket-keeper. His averages at test were phenomenal 57.4 at test level and 41.9 at ODI level and he did this most of the time as Keeper, his levels of concentration are amazing. To me he is the best keeper batsman the world has ever seen. As a batsman only, he only improves which is expected as he got some sort of rest between innings.

Flyslip has shown he knows a fair bit about Australian cricket, but doesn't seem to know a great deal about performances outside Australian tests. His initial post about Brian Lara being the best ever and carried the West Indian team to wins is so incorrect.
1. For most of his career Lara played along side Sir Curtly Ambrose who retired at the beginning of 2001 and Courtney Walsh who retired in 2002, Lara started his career in 1990 alongside Greenidge (retired 1991), Haynes (retired 1994), Richardson (retired 1995), Hooper (retired 2002), Logie (retired 1991), Dujon (retired 1991), Marshall (retired 1991), Ian Bishop (retired 1998). He had a lot of talent around him in the initial period. In 1991 the West Indies lost a fair bit of talent but the still had the core of a great bowling attack and it wasn't till the retirement of Ambrose that West indies went down hill. But the West Indies still saw Sarwan, Chanderpaul, in the side they just had no bowlers that's why they lost so much from 2001 onwards.

2 Of Brian Lara's highest scores (his 34 centuries) the West Indies rarely won tests. These are the tests 1 against Bangladesh (2004), 1 against Pakistan (2005), 1 against New Zealand (1995), 1 against Zimbabwe (2003) 1 against England (1994) but you guessed it 3 times against Australia (1997 and 2nd and 3rd tests 1999), thus the appearance that Lara was a "match winner".  Talk about minnow bashing, Bangladesh very early in their career as a test nation, Zimbabwe, 1995 New Zealand team who had nothing, 2005 Pakistan team who had nothing. 1994 England team bowling attack of CC Lewis, Igglesden (who?) Fraser, Salisbury (av 76 with the ball). But the 3 test wins against Australia made him a match winner.........only in an Australian supporters eyes. The West Indies did win quite a few tests in the 90's but it wasn't on the back of Lara, it was on the back of Ambrose and to a lesser extent Walsh and Bishop. They also had Jimmy Adams, Chanderpaul, Carl Hooper who also played significant roles in their careers.

3 Against Sri Lanka Brian Lara scored 225, West Indies lost the test, why Sri Lanka had a great batting line up Jayawardene, Jayasuriya, Tillakaratne, and of course Sangakkara, Brian Lara also scored 209, but the test was drawn because of the same batsmen plus Atapattu. In one test Lara also scored 178 and 130 but West Indies still lost the test by 10 wickets, why Sangakkara along with Tillakaratne. One can argue Lara saved face for the West Indies but you cannot argue he was a match winner, because you have to win matches to have that claim. 

The complete opposite can be said about Tendulkar, of his top 20 scores India won 9 tests, most of the rest resulted in draws, so he did win matches for India.

Most posters on here don't seem to realise that most sides around the world are established to bat in the most common conditions world wide, which is the sub continent conditions, where Australia fails. Playing Australia in Australia is such a rarity that sides rarely change their sides and just accept the fact they will lose, though they try hard, they just aren't use to the conditions, but on a world wide scheme Australia don't matter, and is not a true reflection of the talent in world teams. So to claim Sangakkara is not one of the best ever, when he is one of the most respected opposition players in India, England, Bangladesh, West Indies, South Africa and even you Paddles as a New Zealand supporter is just ludicrous.

What a post!

I doff my hat to you, Mike. The research you put forward on here to support your opinions is so detailed. 

I've learnt a lot about cricket from some of you guys posting on here. Paddles is a walking, talking encyclopedia on cricket all around the globe too.  Also, Baggers knows a lot about Australian cricket.

NZ cricket in the mid 90's - omg it was woeful. Just horrible. There was meant to be some talent around, but so many dramas and injuries to key players like Crowe and Nash. Coaches, captains, the knives were always out (Crowe, Rutherford, Germon, Flemming - who will captain next?). Players like Cairns literally walked off a tour and quit the team. Parore joined him, but Parore's motivation for leaving were different according to his book as reported on cricinfo, as he wanted the coach gone, so the captain would be gone, so he would have the wicket keeping gloves back and be secure. They got Turner dropped as coach. NZ needed Cairns to play. It was that simple. There were players narking on teammates for smoking pot at a party. Absolute debacle. Players get suspended. Narkers lose the trust of their team mates.  Not to mention Jeff Wilson had chosen rugby in 1993. And Shane Thommo had quit bowling pace after 1990. We should have had batting down to 10! (11 once DV emerges in 1996/97) . Once there was stability under Flem, the team actually ended the decade very well. Cairns was firing, Richardson was opening, Bond was still more than 2 years away from being discovered. But we were winning away in England. 

Mid 1990's NZ cricket was a terrible period in NZ cricket. I think the most public and painful period ever suffered by NZC. I hope it never repeats itself. At least when we were terrible on the field in the Vettori era, 2008 -2011, and there were coaching changes, but not players walking out, and changing captains all the time. There were a few coaches come and go once Hesson came him, he served 7 years. Shook everyone up by taking Taylor's captaincy in 2012 and giving it to McCullum when resulted in Taylor refusing to tour SA. And all the Jesse Ryder issues. But at least that team took us back to winning. And the only drama was should Jesse be given another go? 

I actually think the whole 90's mess started when the media called for Rutherford to replace Crowe as captain and Lees retiring as coach the season before that after a good last couple of years of time at the helm with Crowe. NZ cricket in the mid 90's was a rabble in its own making. Vettori just had a crap team. Mid 90's - we could have been alright. We killed ourselves with politics, (and injuries too). 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/111880.html

Mike as always reinforces what he argues with factual results. Verifiable results. And I respect that. A lot. It's why I think he is one of the best cricket posters I have ever come accross. No sweeping statements bar NSW bias in Aus selection - but he can tell you he is far from a rarity in believing this, Warne and more do too. But Mike gives support for his views. And I know its takes more time, and I love Mike as a poster for doing so. It pays respect to not only his arguments, but to us reading them. 

 I make two notes, Sanga's record in Australia despite some bad umpires calls that I personally witnessed, is still nevertheless sensational. I think Mike says that at the start, but could have said it again at the end. But in his mind, maybe he had already made the point. Sangakarra was an absolute joy to watch. He was a total master. The funny thing about Sanga, and really really keen cricket fans know this, his greatest critic was his father. In the media, his father would constantly critique him. It actually became a meme in the cricket fan universe.

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/kumar-sangakkara-father-kshema-son-didnt-fulfil-potential-could-have-been-better-sri-lanka-retires/2015-08-25

I am not joking. His dad didn't want him to just beat Lara and Tendulkar. His dad wanted him to equal or beat Bradman. DONALD BRADMAN! And reckons Kumar fell well short of his potential.  Despite that enourmous average. Kumar was never told to be the best, he was told to be the best ever. And he disappointed his father. Just read this. For a father, talking about a great cricketing son. He rips his son apart. Maybe that helped Kumar be as a good as he was. I do not know. But its not common in the Anglo world to see this since Walter Hadlee told the press after Dayle was selected over Richard, the selectors had chosen the wrong son. Kumar's dad accusses him of losing focus mid innings, the guy has 11 double centuries, second only to Bradman! Says he didn't move his feet to spinners early on, he was batting 3 and a keeper, its called being tired! Even then he scored a double century batting 3 in Pakistan as a wicket keeper!

And I think, personally, while I totally agree with Mike and have written before that the WI decline was their bowling and not their batting, given everything Mike said, plus Adams and Gayle, later which he omitted to mention but just give his argument further support, in the 1990's - WI was low on the batting results as a team. But they still won often on the back of the bowling of Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop which he rightly identifies. And I think he is right.  This could simply be the tail often if ever failing to score, cos Mike is right about the top order talent, and they had plenty more top order talent than to be sufficient in the 1990's and 2000's. But once Ambrose retired, post Bishop, their bowling lost them games that Lara, Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Gayle could not save.

I certainly agree that Ponting was a shaky starter DC. For someone that was being touted the next Bradman he had a number of technical flaws in his game. The most glaring was the same as is now plaguing Cameron Bancroft..planting the front foot too soon and falling across and off balance. Ricky also had a habit of walking into the shot.. not stable like the textbook says. 

Dunno bout you guys but I sometimes have a prob knowing who has actually made the quoted post. Who said Ponting left his state early? He played for Tassie from 92-2013.. his entire state career. Unlike some others like AB (NSW) and Greg Chappell (SA) who did abandon their home states. 

DC said Ponting left early. I think he meant to live in residence, and not which team he played for, though. AB when he moved really called himself a Queenslander. He made no secret about it. He was famously shouting at Dean Jones (to encourage him to play on) during his 1986 double in India that maybe he should retire so they could bring out someone with guts, a queenslander. 

Border made it his home, and made himself at home, and made no 2 bones about it. I'm sure they love him up there. Don't know much about G Chappel, but wouldn't surprise me if he said he was still a South Australian... regardless of where he lives...

 Shiv Chanderpaul from WI had a long and successful career.

He had a  batting average  of 51 plus, scored nearly 12 000 runs and had a test  playing career of 21 years!

8th on the all time highest run scorers too.

Yups. Cut short. But WI has an anti India racism problem..... Google it... https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027054

Racism is not just a white world problem...

A good (and bad thing) about following a global sport like cricket, is you learn to understand global issues too.... Viv Richards married an Indian wife, yet had next to none in his team as is commonly known in the Carribbean... The Chanderpaul v Lara racist accusation issues in selection aren't dying anytime soon... tbh... WI has its own colonial problems... of multiple raced colonials.....

I once saw a post where somone showed Ponting'a average declined slowly  from about the early 2000s to the end of his career. 

Do others have any idea why Kallis kept his high average up late in his career? 

He didn't. Kallis' last year was 2013. And it was awful. He averaged 25 and retired.

The funnier thing about Kallis is how slow his career started.His average after 22 tests wasn't even 30. By 50 tests - he was only averaging 41.

When you look at this list, Border, Waugh and Jayawardene, SL, had similar careers.

I think I've barely seen the Sri Lankan bat.   i had no idea he played as much cricket as successfully as he  did with an average touching 50.

There is no doubt that SR Tendulkar is the top run scorer. There are also a lot of cricketers who are performing great on the field. 

Welcome to the forum @Yixing Lao. It is rather empty of posters at the moment for obvious reasons. I rate Tendulkar as the best modern cricketer but Donald George Bradman remains the greatest of all time.. with the next daylite. He averaged 99 in Test cricket. The next best was in the mid 60s. In short Bradman was a freak. 

Right, so Lara didn't actually completely outclass bowlers the calibre of McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, McGill and co to save matches or guide his team to victory (without the benefit specialist dustbowl Indian conditions). No, because he had certain team mates at various times in his career, and also scored big in matches where his team lost, his greatest personal achievements simply didn't happen. Cricket logic 101. Lolol.

This highlights the problem in discussing cricket opinions that are derived from statsguru rather than from the cricket itself.

The complete opposite can be said about Tendulkar, of his top 20 scores India won 9 tests, most of the rest resulted in draws, so he did win matches for India.

If we're going to cherry pick stats why not go all the way and mention that three of those 9 victories were against Zimbabwe or the Banglas when they were basically an average club side. Where his best performances and 8 of his centuries derive (including his average bumping highest score of 248*). Still a great batsman though in a "run machine" sort of way, if not as great as many Indian fans believe (despite statsguru Gavaskar is still the best ever Indian batsman IMO, an argument could also be made to have Dravid next). Good batsmen should score heavily against the weaklings, it's more that he had far more opportunities to do this compared to some others.

His record in winning causes against the best attack of his era (undoubtedly the MacGrath/Warne led Aussies) around the same time as Lara aren't that good. A quick look seems to amount to one century in a winning cause against a MacGrath/Warne led Aussies, although on a specialist Indian wicket designed to nullify our attack and more thanks to a 15 wicket hall by Harbhajan than anything else (and interestingly with M Hadyen as MOM for a 203* lol).

While not directly comparable for obvious reasons, it's still also worth noting that he never scored a century to win a match against the Windies in the period pre Ambrose/Walsh retirements.

That this is put up as relevant in any way that might diminish Lara's achievements is bewildering, but anyway... It doesn't really matter as I'll stick to what was observed, rather than what is on statsguru. Stats don't show that Viv was clearly better than either of them for example, yet I have little doubt that he was.