***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Sir Alex]

You're comparing 90s and early 00s averages to 2003 and beyond where averages have spiked. You can't talk about them as if one being higher than the other is more important.

Winning makes a lot of difference, it's generally a guide to how good a team are or not.

So normalise Tendulkar's numbers as well because the fact that during 90s despite him being godly, India used to be mediocre and **** overseas??

 

[Cevno]

Averages of top order batsmen in the period 90-02 against all sides. Average against Zimbabwe is 44.15.

Averages of top order batsmen in the period since 2003 against all sides. Average against WI:49.88, Pak:45.94, NZ:45.15, IND:43.15.

If scores against Zim in the first period have to be removed we'd have remove scores against the above teams in the latter period as well.

this.

 

[Teja.]

My two cents.

My reasons for choosing SRT over Ponting would be:-

Lower Limit:-3000 runs.

In the 1970s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:- Gavaskar, Chappel, Boycott & Richards (Kalicharan and Amiss come close at 49)(Redpath doesn't satisfy 3k run limit)

In the 1980s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:- Miandad & Border.(Richards comes darn close at 49)(Chappel & Lloyd don't satisfy the 3k run limit)

In the 1990s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:-Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara & Gooch.(With SRT averaging an outland-ish 58 and Ponting averaging 44)(no 49s or run limit exceptions)

In the 2000s the Batsmen averaging over 50 are:-Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Hayden, Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Tendulkar, Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Lara, Sehwag, Younis Khan, Inzamam, Samarweera, Hussey & Thorpe. (With Smith, Laxman, Pietersen, Kristen and Clarke coming close at 49)(Waugh, Gambhir and Flower don't satisfy the 3k limit)

So in the 1970s:-4 batsmen(2 come close)
1980s:-2 bastmen(1 comes close)
1990s:-4 batsmen
2000s:-16 batsmen(5 come close)

So, I hold Tendulkar in higher regard due to the fact that he blossomed and was the best in a decade with very very few people averaging over 50 in an era of not only with some of the best bowling attacks attacks but also plenty of good ones. However, Ponting despite all his greatness blossomed in a decade where there have been plenty of others who have also averaged close to him.

It is purely my opinion that SRT is slightly but definitely better than Ponting, if people think otherwise I can understand why, as Ponting is one of my most favourite players ever and at his best a massive massive run-scorer.

 

[Sir Alex]

Working further on the idea given by Shankar, I decided to do a small analysis.

Since everything in cricket is relative, I decided to compare both batsmen's averages against individual opposition with what top order batsmen of top 8 test nations overall averaged against them in the respective periods.

Then I assigned a new average by adjusted player average with the Top6 average. Ie, if player A averages 50 against an opposition against whom top order batsmen of the same period average 40, then adjusted average would be 50/40 * 50 = 62.5 thus rewarding them for outperforming other batsmen of the same period.

The results are interesting:

Sachin Tendulkar

[B]Opposition	Span  		Mat  	 Avg	 Runs   Top6Avg AdjAvg	AdjRuns[/B]

v Australia 	1991-2008 	29	 56.08 	 2,748 	33.58	 93.66 	 4,589 
v Bangladesh 	2000-2010 	 7	136.66 	   820 	61.38	304.27 	 1,826 
v England 	1990-2008 	24	 61.42 	 2,150 	40.08	 94.12 	 3,294 
v New Zealand 	1990-2009 	19	 52.07 	 1,406 	42.77	 63.39 	 1,712 
v Pakistan 	1989-2007 	18	 42.28 	 1,057 	39.08	 45.74 	 1,144 
v South Africa 	1992-2010 	22	 38.24 	 1,415 	35.19	 41.55 	 1,538 
v Sri Lanka 	1990-2009 	22	 57.32 	 1,605 	40.06	 82.02 	 2,296 
v West Indies 	1994-2002 	16	 57.73 	 1,328 	36.61	 91.03 	 2,094 
v Zimbabwe 	1992-2002 	 9	 76.50 	   918 	44.15	132.55 	 1,591 

[B]Overall Total			 	 55.57	13,447 		 82.99	20,084[/B]

Ricky Ponting

[B]Team		Span  		Mat  	 Avg   	 Runs    Top6Avg AdjAvg  AdjRuns [/B]
v Bangladesh 	2003-2006 	 4	 65.00 	   260 	 65.46 	 64.54 	   258 
v England 	1997-2009 	31	 48.22 	 2,363 	 39.26 	 59.22 	 2,902 
v ICC World XI 	2005-2005 	 1	 50.00 	   100 	 37.58 	 66.52 	   133 
v India 	1996-2008 	23	 47.02 	 1,787 	 42.14 	 52.47 	 1,994 
v New Zealand 	1997-2010 	15	 57.47 	   977 	 43.24 	 76.38 	 1,299 
v Pakistan 	1998-2010 	13	 75.73 	 1,439 	 43.15 	132.91 	 2,525 
v South Africa 	1997-2009 	21	 56.38 	 2,030 	 36.07 	 88.13 	 3,173 
v Sri Lanka 	1995-2007 	12	 50.05 	   851 	 38.82 	 64.53 	 1,097 
v West Indies 	1996-2009 	21	 59.06 	 1,831 	 43.91 	 79.44 	 2,463 
v Zimbabwe 	1999-2003 	 3	 96.66 	   290 	 51.59 	181.10 	   543 
[B]
Overall Total				 55.22 	11,928 	 	75.87 	16,387[/B]

While Ponting has been exceptional, Tendulkar has just outclassed him in relation to their peers.

 

[Uppercut]

That's statistically abusive on so many levels...

 

[Sir Alex]

That's statistically abusive on so many levels...

That helps.

 

[Streetwise]

That's statistically abusive on so many levels...

But thats how you prove points isnt it.

 

[Jono]

Sir Alex, genuine question. Do you feel intellectually stimulated and/or have fun when you argue with Ikkie about Tendulkar vs. Ponting?

I can understand why you initially did it, but to still keep doing it. Do you still enjoy it, or find it helps your knowledge about cricket?

Same with Ikki I suppose.

I actually just can't see how any rational person would want to still keep arguing it. Sure before it had become so common it was a relatively interesting debate, as was Lara vs. Sachin and Dravid vs. Ponting (back in 2003/4 prior to Ponting passing him).

But eventually... surely it gets tiring arguing with the same person?

 

[Sir Alex]

Sir Alex, genuine question. Do you feel intellectually stimulated and/or have fun when you argue with Ikkie about Tendulkar vs. Ponting?

I can understand why you initially did it, but to still keep doing it. Do you still enjoy it, or find it helps your knowledge about cricket?

Same with Ikki I suppose.

I actually just can't see how any rational person would want to still keep arguing it. Sure before it had become so common it was a relatively interesting debate, as was Lara vs. Sachin and Dravid vs. Ponting (back in 2003/4 prior to Ponting passing him).

But eventually... surely it gets tiring arguing with the same person?

The snide aside,

I love stats, I love playing with numbers. Besides happened to have some free time also.

Further both these players are very much active and kicking, so a Tendulkar vs Ponting 2004 will never make any sense in 2010. Does it?

Further it has made me appreciate the greatness of these players in so different levels. Actually I am not discovering their brilliance in their numbers, but discovering their brilliance through their numbers as well.

 

[Uppercut]

Why did you have to break it down by team? What can that possibly add? There's no valid statistical reason to do so whatsoever. Why do you increase batsmen's averages by a factor of the overall average rather than the difference between the number of runs scored? That merely rewards annihilating one team while being below-average against another as opposed to being consistently above-average against all teams. Why is that inherently better? Especially considering the most annihilated team here is Bangladesh. And why do you use only top six batsmen?

Does it have anything to do with the fact that, if you use all batsmen and simply use overall aggregates, Ponting's "adjusted" average is (55/31)*55=97.5 to Tendulkar's 55/31*55=97.5? Batsmen average 0.3 runs less over the duration of Tendulkar's career than they do over the duration of Ponting's.

Even if you use top six batsmen, they average 38.43 over Tendulkar's career and 38.77 over the course of Ponting's. The difference is miniscule.

I don't even care who's better. I just rather like stats, because they're really quite useful, and it annoys me when people so blatantly rape them in an attempt to "prove" their point.

 

[Ikki]

SA was clearly Ponting's comfort zone. And Australia no doubts about it. Check hsi away/homeaverages.

It was his comfort zone to play in the most pace-friendly pitches against the best two pace bowling combo in his time? You're ridiculous.

Now we are talking one innings! Tendulkar made centuries against every great bowler he's faced.

It doesn't matter. Tendulkar could make 1 century against x and y, but having played 10 times still come out with a poor average. That's no success story.

We are talking about test cricket at McG's and Warne's peak dude not schoolcricket

You're talking about Sheffield Shield in the 90s. Most of the teams in that domestic competition would be stronger than half the teams in the Test circuit.

Yet can't seem to score anything against the fastest bowler he had to face since Shoiab Akhtar (Steyn)

Steyn himself is no great bowler. It's early to compare him to greats like McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Waqar, etc.

You are creating goalposts. REPEAT, Tendulkar had his worst years in the 2000s, so automatically his average also got affected in the 2000s. It says nothing conclusive other than that.

Of course he had his worst years in the 00s, that's the whole point. If it was so easy between eras then it's down to Tendulkar's own failings.

If a batsman averages 60 against Australia for 10 tests...that deserves praise. If he averages 10 against Bangladesh for 10 tests...that deserves equal critique. Not excuses.

They easily are. I infact supported that with their career averages in another thread. CBA to find it now.

You didn't. Your arguments and stats are increasingly shambolic and I am wondering why I don't have you on ignore to be honest. You bait me well with your nonsense but I don't have the time or the energy to debunk it in every thread.

doesnt matter. i can always say sachin was in **** house form in the other series and any bowler could get him out. all that is irrelevant even though it is true that sachin fell 4 out of 6 times in those bad tests to bowlers not named mcgrath.

in 6 out of 9 tests, in two full series sachin and mcgrath played against each other, sachin did well. and that is good enough. Whenever they played in a full series, sachin never failed.

I understand your point and TBF looking at it like that I retract from the position that McGrath got ahead of him the way I would have thought he had. Generally, I can't remember McGrath being troubled by Tendulkar much and it was more him scoring off the others. However, that's all you need to do in many ways and is success in itself.

However, in the end, if you want to break it down at it's finest it's still 36.77 in 9 tests, and getting your wicket taken by the same bowler 1/3 innings is not particularly strong. I wouldn't call that particularly good. It's obviously a mixed bag though. I dunno, take from it what you will.

 

[Jono]

The snide aside,

I love stats, I love playing with numbers. Besides happened to have some free time also.

Further both these players are very much active and kicking, so a Tendulkar vs Ponting 2004 will never make any sense in 2010. Does it?

Further it has made me appreciate the greatness of these players in so different levels. Actually I am not discovering their brilliance in their numbers, but discovering their brilliance through their numbers as well.

Snide? If that's a snide I'm not sure what you think of what other posters say at you

 

[bagapath]

I understand your point and TBF looking at it like that I retract from the position that McGrath got ahead of him the way I would have thought he had.

cool.

 

[Sir Alex]

You didn't. Your arguments and stats are increasingly shambolic and I am wondering why I don't have you on ignore to be honest. You bait me well with your nonsense but I don't have the time or the energy to debunk it in every thread.

CBA.

 

[Sir Alex]

Snide? If that's a snide I'm not sure what you think of what other posters say at you

There are some posters whom I take seriously and some I do not here. You belong to the former.

 

[Burgey]

Not naming names here, but here's how it goes:

"I think X is better than Y because of Z"

"Really, well I disagree, I think Y is better than X because of A".

"Hmm, but what about B, C or D?"

"No, I don't think they are that important".

"Ok, well we shan't be convincing each other, let's agree to disagree and let's move on shall we?"

"Yes.. Let's"

 

[Ikki]

Averages of top order batsmen in the period 90-02 against all sides. Average against Zimbabwe is 44.15.

Averages of top order batsmen in the period since 2003 against all sides. Average against WI:49.88, Pak:45.94, NZ:45.15, IND:43.15.

If scores against Zim in the first period have to be removed we'd have remove scores against the above teams in the latter period as well.

I took a closer look at that list. In the second list, 2003 beyond, Zimbabwe herself is the highest - even worse than Bangladesh. 59.61 which is a mile worst than the others.

In many ways you've proven my point for me.

And why should runs scored against Zim in 1990-2002 removed. Heath streak was a much better bowler than any pacer India, WI, NZ have at present.

But India had a better attack in whole. For example, in the 90s, India had arguably the best home attack in the world. Yes, as good, if not better, than Wasim/Waqar, McGrath/Warne, Walsh/Ambrose and Donald/Pollock.

Ikki, don't you think you are oversimplifying things by just looking at the number of Test wins Bangladesh has had? It's possible that they bowled well and still lost. I don't know how to look up the stats for your 2nd point, but that is not relevant to the point I am making, which is that in the specific situation that Sachin, Gilly, Ponting, Inzy or whoever found themselves in, scoring runs was tough and extremely crucial.

TBF, there are many counters to that. Bangladesh may look well in a Test or two, and still lose. Since they've never won, it's inarguable that they're a minnow. For the sake of ease I say remove them in general. It would get tedious if we started debating on an innings by innings basis. Furthermore, it would still be countered by the many times the team was clearly dross.

TBF, if you strongly make the argument that run-scoring is so much easier in this decade, then you also have to normalize Ponting's numbers as he has scored the vast majority of his runs in the '00s. That would likely bring him down quite a bit in comparison to Tendulkar. Personally, I think the relative ease of run-scoring in this decade compared to the '90s is a bit overstated.

Ironically, I am making the argument that the 00s was not that much easier to score runs in. I am arguing that it generally occurred more. Does that necessarily mean it it was easier to do? Not really. I think batting approaches have changed and in general there are more quality batsmen as the test sides between 1st and 5th ranked teams have quality in them. These are bound to raise the more runs being scored.

Although pitches have been getting flatter, ironically, wicket-taking is happening more and faster. So it's not about being easier or not.

So the explanation for the increase in averages against all teams by all teams is that all the batsmen around the world suddenly improved. That's quite an improbable theory. A much better explanation is the flattening of pitches as a standard around the world which does have quite a bit of support.

The question is whether runs vs Zim 90-02 should be removed from the stats. If the answer is yes logic dictates that runs vs WI,Pak,NZ,Ind post 2003 should also be removed as they were equally easy.

Not that they suddenly improved, although many notable batsmen had their peaks in this period (as you'd expect them to at their respective ages) but that batting has changed. Batsmen strike faster and so do bowlers. More runs are made in less time and overall that will push averages up without getting into inferiority or not.

The reason they should be removed are twofold. One, they were a very weak team that managed a couple notable feats but nothing else - and that only in a small period. Two, even in terms of player v player comparison; one batsman has played them a heck of a lot more times than the other batsman.

Thirdly, and maybe more importantly, even keeping all of Zimbabwe's stats...Ponting's average is still higher when you remove the undoubtedly poor Bangladesh. Which was my point.

Sir Alex, genuine question. Do you feel intellectually stimulated and/or have fun when you argue with Ikkie about Tendulkar vs. Ponting?

I can understand why you initially did it, but to still keep doing it. Do you still enjoy it, or find it helps your knowledge about cricket?

Same with Ikki I suppose.

I actually just can't see how any rational person would want to still keep arguing it. Sure before it had become so common it was a relatively interesting debate, as was Lara vs. Sachin and Dravid vs. Ponting (back in 2003/4 prior to Ponting passing him).

But eventually... surely it gets tiring arguing with the same person?

In general, I am fine with arguing in player v player threads. Often you learn something and you make a mental note and adjust your opinion. Other times, you teach someone else something and they make a mental note and adjust their opinion. Sometimes pride means not admitting it in that thread, but generally, I think it makes everyone smarter.

Then there are times when you argue with people like Sir Alex...and you want to club yourself for being stupid enough to get into a debate. No, I don't enjoy it and am trying to curb my bad habit of arguing with trolls.

 

[Sir Alex]

Why did you have to break it down by team? What can that possibly add? There's no valid statistical reason to do so whatsoever. Why do you increase batsmen's averages by a factor of the overall average rather than the difference between the number of runs scored? That merely rewards annihilating one team while being below-average against another as opposed to being consistently above-average against all teams. Why is that inherently better? Especially considering the most annihilated team here is Bangladesh. And why do you use only top six batsmen?

Does it have anything to do with the fact that, if you use all batsmen and simply use overall aggregates, Ponting's "adjusted" average is (55/31)*55=97.5 to Tendulkar's 55/31*55=97.5? Batsmen average 0.3 runs less over the duration of Tendulkar's career than they do over the duration of Ponting's.

Even if you use top six batsmen, they average 38.43 over Tendulkar's career and 38.77 over the course of Ponting's. The difference is miniscule.

I don't even care who's better. I just rather like stats, because they're really quite useful, and it annoys me when people so blatantly rape them in an attempt to "prove" their point.

1. Because scoring runs against Australia is generally considered to be difficult than against Bangladesh?

2. Reason for top 6 is that generally teams consider top 6 as their "batsmen", 1 wicketkeeper and 4 bowlers?

3. You may term it rape, I prefer the term 'analysis'.

 

[Sir Alex]

Bah NWI.

 

[Burgey]

FMD, someone re-open the "Atmosphere in CC" thread again and let the rest of us poor bastards vent please.