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

[Uppercut]

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

I don't at all follow why exactly that makes it worth less.

 

[Pratters]

I don't at all follow why exactly that makes it worth less.

less worthy*. It involved a higher proportion of innings. Simple. Just 1 inning is more valuable than 1+ innings. A not out is not zero innings, which is what not outs do for you in cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

By the same token, the pitch was flatter than flat, Lee was obviously bowling in pain and wasn't going to be bowling at top pace for much longer and Aus had a spinner who, well, wasn't spinning the ball and going for 4+ per over. AB just had to get through that spell (which, obviously, was far from easy) and it was easy pickings on day 5. He really only had one genuinely threatening bowler to contend with on day 5 and that's borne out by the fact SA only lost one further wicket.

It's all about perception, we could do this all day.

An analogous situation for mine is when Langer and Gilchrist chased down that big total in Hobart years ago. The Aussies were in deep, deep trouble against Waqar/Akram/Akhtar/Saqlain (a brilliant attack at the time) and they had a little luck but the deck was a road and kiled-off the movement seen on day 1 of that match so the guys thought they were a very strong chance even at 4/bugger-all and against that attack. Gilchrist, Langer and Blewett are on record as saying it wasn't a tough day for batting, despite the big chase. Hindsight makes that chase look tougher than it really was and I reckon the Perth Test is similar.

As I said, it still took someone to bat well and AB certainly did. But it wasn't as hard for him as other, more recent knocks.

 

[Uppercut]

An average isn't how many runs you score per innings. You can't control when your innings is going to end- it could start raining, you could reach the target, your team-mates could all get out. All kinds of factors over which you have no control can affect it.

An average is a measure of the two things a batsman can control- how many runs he scores and how often he gets out. More specifically, how many runs he scores per dismissal. In terms of measuring a batsman's ability, 200*, 200 is no different at all from being 200* overnight then going on to reach 400 the next day.

An "innings" doesn't mean anything, and i don't understand why you think it does, so please explain?

 

[Pratters]

An "innings" doesn't mean anything, and i don't understand why you think it does, so please explain?

Inning is every time a batsman comes out to bat. If I have faced 370 deliveries and made 200*, I haven't played zero innings. If I would have made 300, I have played 2/3rd of my inning to be. In cricket 200* will be counted as zero instead of .67 in this case. We do it because we have no way to ascertain what the batsman could have made had he not got out.

 

[Pratters]

An average isn't how many runs you score per innings. You can't control when your innings is going to end- it could start raining, you could reach the target, your team-mates could all get out. All kinds of factors over which you have no control can affect it.

An average is a measure of the two things a batsman can control- how many runs he scores and how often he gets out. More specifically, how many runs he scores per dismissal. In terms of measuring a batsman's ability, 200*, 200 is no different at all from being 200* overnight then going on to reach 400 the next day.

Also, we discussed how not outs inflate averages. It is not to be confused with a discussion on what average means. I know what average means.

 

[Uppercut]

But don't you think, rather than how many innings a batsman plays- something he has absolutely no control over and can end at any time through no fault of his own- we should use how many times the opposition has got him out? Surely that would be a better measure of his ability?

 

[Uppercut]

Also, we discussed how not outs inflate averages. It is not to be confused with a discussion on what average means. I know what average means.

Sorry mate, I wasn't trying to patronise you, you've got the wrong end of the stick i think or misinterpreted me.

 

[Pratters]

But don't you think, rather than how many innings a batsman plays- something he has absolutely no control over and can end at any time through no fault of his own- we should use how many times the opposition has got him out? Surely that would be a better measure of his ability?

No it wouldn't because it removes no. of the inning he is not out completely from the no. of innings aggregate. A middle ground would be more apt. Any way it is irrelevent to what we discussed - not outs inflate batsman averages.

 

[Uppercut]

No it wouldn't because it removes no. of the inning he is not out completely from the no. of innings aggregate. A middle ground would be more apt. Any way it is irrelevent to what we discussed - not outs inflate batsman averages.

It is relevant- how many innings a batsman plays per dismissal doesn't reflect his ability because it's out of his control. The only two measures of a batsman's ability are runs and dismissals, so how many runs he scores per dismissal is the perfect raw figure. Statistically, it's not inflated by anything (in real terms it sometimes is, but by cricketing factors alone).

Are you really going to change your mind at this stage though?

 

[oldmancraigy]

I don't get this, will someone clear it up? Is Bradman currently better than both, despite being six feet underground? Probably, so that's a bad example. But is Greg Chappell better than both? Never mind the fact that he's positively ancient, he averaged 50 for longer than either of them.

I'm a better batsman than Bradman right now - but again, THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION OF THE THREAD!

It is "Who's better in tests?"

And, again, it's fairly clear the answer is Kevin Pieterson.

[Greg Chappell is also a better test batsman than either of them - and I'd be shocked if either of them surpassed his glittering record]

I don't think anyone can say that AB has had a better career than KP, so i presumed the question was asking who you'd rather have in your team if you were picking them for a test match tomorrow, or if you wanted them for, say, the next five years. Or who is better right now, regardless of what has gone before. That way maybe there's a discussion worth having.

It would be - so let's take that to a new thread and not confuse this one?

 

[Cubancricket]

Without a doubt KP is better because he has sutained his average ever since he got into the England team whereas AB has slightly underperformed for a few years and only now beginning to show his true potential. So, KP, at elast for now, is better.

 

[roseboy64]

Not outs don't boost averages.

 

[roseboy64]

Absolutely pointless argument above. Average is calculated as runs divided by number of innings out. Simple.

 

[Pratters]

It is relevant- how many innings a batsman plays per dismissal doesn't reflect his ability because it's out of his control. The only two measures of a batsman's ability are runs and dismissals, so how many runs he scores per dismissal is the perfect raw figure. Statistically, it's not inflated by anything (in real terms it sometimes is, but by cricketing factors alone).

Are you really going to change your mind at this stage though?

It is inflated. I have already explained why. You won't change your mind either I guess. Will have to agree to disagree with you on this mate.

 

[Maximus0723]

KP rapes.

 

[Beleg]

Absolutely pointless argument above. Average is calculated as runs divided by number of innings out. Simple.

You're missing the point - please read Uppercut's last post.

 

[Redbacks]

Kp

 

[tait express123]

I would pick Pietersen before A.B Devillers but only by the shortest of margians.

 

[gettingbetter]

As an unabashed KP fan, KP. Didn't realise its already been 50 tests. Staggering how much cricket are these guys playing nowadays.

Geez, that is rather suprising. Four years soon since his debut, I thought he was on about 35-40.