Kevin Pietersen Vs Abraham De Villiers - Who's better in tests?

[simmy]

DeVillier's average is boosted by 5 not outs.

Has also played Bangladesh several times and KP hasnt at all.

 

[Uppercut]

DeVillier's average is boosted by 5 not outs.

Not outs don't boost averages.

Has also played Bangladesh several times and KP hasnt at all.

Don't count those games.

 

[Pratters]

Not outs don't boost averages.

They do. 5 in 20 tests is significantly higher than 2 in 27 tests for KP.

 

[luckyeddie]

I like this post.

KP for me. However I've not seen any of AB's recent batting v Australia. And his fielding, as has been pointed out, is very valuable indeed.

Thank you - I try.

I have seen the whole of the recent SA v Aus test series - one of the benefits of working from home at the moment. He is in very good form indeed and, more to the point, is good to watch.

 

[Pratters]

Runs per test is 87 for KP and 86 for DeVilliers. Though this is also not a fair way to compare the two, the figure itself is interesting in how it is so close.

 

[Uppercut]

For mine, KP all the way. Forget stats or recent form, he's just more likely to rip the game out of the hands of his opponent. Has more gears too, even if he's always not sure when to use them; can nick-and-nudge in a tough situation or can launch balls into orbit as the situation demands. ABDV has been excellent at pressing home an advantage of late whereas I'd back KP to be better at making something happen, even if the team is in trouble. He does, however, drop his head a bit in a genuinely hopeless cause.

Couldn't care less about ABDV's fielding either. He's in the side to score runs. It's a nice bonus more than anything, especially since KP's no mug either.

Hmm, i don't really agree with this particular point. His last century there was very much from the Ian Bell book of run scoring, but other than that he's scored plenty when his team needed him to most. In fact, forget the dead-rubber century, and look at the four scored previously:

-104* from a team total of 220 against a rampant Australian attack in Johannesburg.
-106* chasing 414 in the fourth innings at Perth.
-174 at a series-defining moment in the England series at Headingley, coming to the crease at 143/4.
-217* against India at Ahmedabad, coming to the crease at 117/4.

It's the nature of batting in the middle-lower order that makes runs scored seem easy in hindsight, but in truth the match was still very, very much in the balance for each of these centuries. Three of them were effectively mid-collapse, and the other came from a situation where Australia were massive favourites to win the match. It's fair enough to say that he's relatively unproven- he is- but if you're saying he only presses home an advantage or only scores the easy runs, I'm not having that.

 

[Uppercut]

They do. 5 in 20 tests is significantly higher than 2 in 27 tests for KP.

They don't- I've ranted lots of times on why- the hardest part of batting is getting yourself in, and when you're left stranded (or see your team home, or set up a declaration) you have to start your innings all over again despite not having been dismissed. It's harder than scoring more runs when well set.

 

[Pratters]

They don't- I've ranted lots of times on why- the hardest part of batting is getting yourself in, and when you're left stranded (or see your team home, or set up a declaration) you have to start your innings all over again despite not having been dismissed. It's harder than scoring more runs when well set.

They do. KP would have had a lot more not outs if he batted lower down the order. Similarly DeVilliers a lot less outs if he batted higher up the order. And I am not going to take the 'KP throws his wicket away or in the 90s' if any one brings it. That's the way KP plays and most people get out in the 90s one time or the other.

 

[Uppercut]

They do. KP would have had a lot more not outs if he batted lower down the order. Similarly DeVilliers a lot less outs if he batted higher up the order.

He might have got out, or he might have scored more runs. Batting up the order doesn't turn " 207* " into " 207 ". It gives you the opportunity to score more runs when you've already done the hard work instead of having to leave and come back to continue your innings from scratch next time round.

I know exactly what i'm trying to say- not outs inflating averages is a fallacy ive ranted about plenty of times- but the words aren't coming to mind

 

[Pratters]

He might have got out, or he might have scored more runs. Batting up the order doesn't turn " 207* " into " 207 ". It gives you the opportunity to score more runs when you've already done the hard work instead of having to leave and come back to continue your innings from scratch next time round.

I know exactly what i'm trying to say- not outs inflating averages is a fallacy ive ranted about plenty of times- but the words aren't coming to mind

It's not a fallacy. It is just the way things are. You bat higher up the order, you have more chance of being out than not out. Who is to say KPs 226 v Windies at Leeds wouldn't have been not out had be batted lower down the order.

 

[Uppercut]

It's not a fallacy. It is just the way things are. You bat higher up the order, you have more chance of being out than not out. Who is to say KPs 226 v Windies at Leeds wouldn't have been not out had be batted lower down the order.

Nothing, nothing at all, but i feel you're missing the point.

I'll put it another way- AB De Villiers scores 200 runs before getting out. Kevin Pietersen also scores 200 runs, then gets out. Both have the same average. Sound fair?

Now, AB De Villiers scored the first 100 of his runs seeing South Africa home in Perth, then the next 100 at the start of the next match before getting out. KP simply scores 200 at Leeds before getting out. What exactly is better about KP's contribution? If anything, surely AB's was more difficult because he had to start his innings all over again in a new match against a fresh attack?

 

[Pratters]

I can't go on arguing with you. Lets just agree to disage ree that not outs inflate player averages.

Cheers.

 

[Uppercut]

*Sigh*

As you wish...

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmm, i don't really agree with this particular point. His last century there was very much from the Ian Bell book of run scoring, but other than that he's scored plenty when his team needed him to most. In fact, forget the dead-rubber century, and look at the four scored previously:

-104* from a team total of 220 against a rampant Australian attack in Johannesburg.
-106* chasing 414 in the fourth innings at Perth.
-174 at a series-defining moment in the England series at Headingley, coming to the crease at 143/4.
-217* against India at Ahmedabad, coming to the crease at 117/4.

It's the nature of batting in the middle-lower order that makes runs scored seem easy in hindsight, but in truth the match was still very, very much in the balance for each of these centuries. Three of them were effectively mid-collapse, and the other came from a situation where Australia were massive favourites to win the match. It's fair enough to say that he's relatively unproven- he is- but if you're saying he only presses home an advantage or only scores the easy runs, I'm not having that.

No-one said 'only', fanboy. Like all generalisations there are exceptions, I'm just commenting on the general nature of his batting for the last little while.

And you can't count the Perth game, SA were well in the ascendency, thanks to Smith, by that point. Obviously chasing a big score like that, the pressure wasn't ever 'off' but the Aussie attack was in retreat when he got going and AB mainly just finished the job (batted brilliantly, mind).

 

[Pratters]

Okay let me try to put it how I see it before ending it.

There is always a superior performance if you are not out rather than out on the same score every thing else remaining the same. This doesn't mean that not outs don't inflate averages because they do.

 

[Uppercut]

No-one said 'only', fanboy. Like all generalisations there are exceptions, I'm just commenting on the general nature of his batting for the last little while.

And you can't count the Perth game, SA were well in the ascendency, thanks to Smith, by that point. Obviously chasing a big score like that, the pressure wasn't ever 'off' but the Aussie attack was in retreat when he got going and AB mainly just finished the job (batted brilliantly, mind).

Hmm, unsurprisingly, i don't agree

South Africa were 179/3 when De Villiers walked out, so they weren't even halfway to the total. To follow were a batsman on debut who made 1 in the first innings, Boucher, and a bunch of prank-batsmen. And- if you remember- Johnson and Lee were right in the middle of an extremely threatening spell of bowling having picked up a wicket each in their respective previous overs and he had a short, sharp spell to negotiate before the close of play in fading light. It was the very definition of a difficult situation.

When you bat at 5 or lower, hindsight always makes your innings look less awkward than they really were.

 

[Uppercut]

Okay let me try to put it how I see it before ending it.

There is always a superior performance if you are not out rather than out on the same score. This doesn't mean that not outs don't inflate averages because they do.

Hmm, right.

I see it from the perspective that an innings doesn't really end until you're out. Scoring 200 runs before getting out is, and should be, worth the same whether it's split over two innings or all scored at once.

There's exceptions of course- failure to accelerate with the tail or when going for a declaration, for example, or if you run out your own players .

But in this particular situation i don't think they're especially relevant.

 

[Pratters]

Hmm, right.

I see it from the perspective that an innings doesn't really end until you're out. Scoring 200 runs before getting out is, and should be, worth the same whether it's split over two innings or all scored at once.

200* isn't worth 0 innings which not outs do for you. So it inflates the average.

 

[Uppercut]

200* isn't worth 0 innings which not outs do for you. So it inflates the average.

Well, is 200*, 200 less valuable than one score of 400?

 

[Pratters]

Well, is 200*, 200 less valuable than one score of 400?

Yes, because 200* and 200 involved 1+ innings while 400 involved just 1 inning.