***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Avada Kedavra]

You can't conclude that Tendulkar did in a period where it was harder because the main difference between Ponting and Tendulkar in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed on the weak teams too...whereas Ponting did well against the BEST teams and didn't make runs against the WORST teams. That's the irony.

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.

Ikki at his very best.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

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

Good line that, I might use it when I appear in court next Thursday.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah stop arguing with yourself for starters

And BTW, Zimbabwe pre 2003 and post 2003 were like chalk and cheese.

So were WIndies, one of the teams you're referring to. Being a minnow is relative, not absolute. Who knows just how much worse Zimbabwe would have become had they played the rest of the era?

If you're going to compare Zimbabwe till 02 then compare them with the teams that were there until 02.

It shouldn't even need arguing. The suggestion that Zimbabwe until 02 was as good as India post 03 is laughable - the difference between averages is 1 run (44.15 vs 43.16). One was the worst team in Test cricket, the other became the best.

Ikki at his very best.

I'm struggling to see where you have a point. Of course, I am not holding my breath from past experiences.

 

[Burgey]

Good line that, I might use it when I appear in court next Thursday.

$400 per hour plus GST - mates' rates - I'm yours. If there's too much back and forth between counsel and the bench, we'll tell them to take it to this thread and STFU.

 

[GotSpin]

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"

you communist. LET THE MASSES REIGN

 

[Sir Alex]

So were WIndies, one of the teams you're referring to. Being a minnow is relative, not absolute. Who knows just how much worse Zimbabwe would have become had they played the rest of the era?

If you're going to compare Zimbabwe till 02 then compare them with the teams that were there until 02.

So from 44.15 to nearly 60 in a matter of 2 years is "strictly" normal for you? How many Zimbabweans who played in 2002 against Tendulkar played in post 2003?

Zimbabwe may nor may not have become dire. That's not the point. Point is they were better than today's Windies or New Zealand atleast statistically. And had they possessed the same set of players, there is noway you can say Zimbabwe would be averaging 60 per wicket as they are now.

It shouldn't even need arguing. The suggestion that Zimbabwe until 02 was as good as India post 03 is laughable - the difference between averages is 1 run (44.15 vs 43.16). One was the worst team in Test cricket, the other became the best.

The fact is that Indian bowlers bleed about the same amount of runs per wicket as Zimbabwe used to till 2002. Hence roughly, they possessed the same attacks.

Makes some sense as well. India in all it's history has not had a bowler, spin or fast, who averaged what Heath Streak did. In other words, you are cruelly underrating the Zimbabweans pre 2002.

 

[Sir Alex]

And Comparing west indies with zim is futile. One was a steady and natural decline, while the other a forced one. It makes sense to exclude win stats when they played against ban last year. Similarly it makes sense to exclude zim stats post 03 and not before.

 

[Uppercut]

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'.

Your adjusted averages don't weight runs according to quality of opposition, so your first point is irrelevant, and teams generally picking six batsmen doesn't even begin to explain why using the top six gives you a more reliable figure than using the entire team. You haven't answered any of my questions, I see no statistically sound reason for doing what you just did.

 

[pasag]

Problem is when it moves from a discussion to each trying to "pwn" the other.

 

[GotSpin]

Pasag is wrong based on the statements and facts provided by numerous posters in this thread who are attempting to ascertain who the better player is. i win. this is easy

 

[Ikki]

So from 44.15 to nearly 60 in a matter of 2 years is "strictly" normal for you? How many Zimbabweans who played in 2002 against Tendulkar played in post 2003?

Zimbabwe may nor may not have become dire. That's not the point. Point is they were better than today's Windies or New Zealand atleast statistically. And had they possessed the same set of players, there is noway you can say Zimbabwe would be averaging 60 per wicket as they are now.

Zimbabwe were always a side that relied heavily on very few players and were minnowwwws. Only during the late 90s where they got some results in the subcontinent did they even look upto it. Even then it was touch and go.

Yet you make direct comparisons to their form earlier and the form of other teams later...when you have the team itself as a reference. They got worse...a lot worse.

Staistically Charlie Blythee puts Malcolm Marshall to shame. But you have to take the numbers where they are relevant and compare with relevance. You have to take certain factors into account.

As I said, if you want to do such a direct comparison, then the Zimbabwe pre-02 has been almost as good as the India post-03. Which would mean by that rationale they could be top, or thereabouts.

It's all relative, which is why I tell you to look at their win/loss record. They were regularly beaten up; only less so than Bangladesh.

The fact is that Indian bowlers bleed about the same amount of runs per wicket as Zimbabwe used to till 2002. Hence roughly, they possessed the same attacks.

Makes some sense as well. India in all it's history has not had a bowler, spin or fast, who averaged what Heath Streak did. In other words, you are cruelly underrating the Zimbabweans pre 2002.

Look, this is getting past silly.

I'll just say what I said in an earlier post; even if we are to keep Zimbabwe...my point still stands. Meaning the difference between their averages - even if we only remove Bangladesh - means Ponting is ahead in that count. Not that I think THAT makes him better than Tendulkar, but pointing out that Tendulkar has taken the lead in their overall averages is just as irrelevant or relevant.

My own position is that the difference in their averages even if we remove both teams is little. In fact, I recall arguing this point with you when you tried to use a 2-3 run difference average in one comparison as a "large" difference and I mentioned the difference between the two without minnows.

For me, the 90s had generally a better standard of bowlers and that makes the difference (even when you remove minnows) even smaller. If you're going to argue who is better, don't argue averages IMO. It's too close on that count.

 

[Sir Alex]

Whateva I am off this thread.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I'm struggling to see where you have a point. Of course, I am not holding my breath from past experiences.

So justifying Ponting's failure against the weaker teams in the 1990s - by your own biased criteria that is- is ok but then condemning Sachin for not performing as well in an 'easy' period as he did in a tough one is fair?Should have known.It is pointless even arguing with you........

 

[Ikki]

So justifying Ponting's failure against the weaker teams in the 1990s - by your own biased criteria that is- is ok but then condemning Sachin for not performing as well in an 'easy' period as he did in a tough one is fair?Should have known.It is pointless even arguing with you........

I didn't justify them. Where did I say it was OK for Ponting to not score against the other teams in the 90s?

The point was brought forth that scoring runs in the 90s was harder. Something Sachin did and Ponting didn't. When the difference between them in the 90s, and where it relates to difficulty, Ponting has success against the best. If the worst thing that can be said is that Ponting didn't score enough against the worst team in the 90s then that's not much of a critique. Not much changed from whacking them in the 00s. Whereas the best bowlers in the 90s retired or aged/lost form during the 00s, which is why the 90s is regularly brought up.

I'm not the one who came out saying "Sachin didn't score enough in the 00s, Ponting did so he wins". I simply said if Sachin gets extra praise for scoring runs in the 90s he should get extra critique for not scoring them in the 00s. Now you can flip that around and put Ponting's name and reverse decades and success/failure; same thing goes.

 

[shankar]

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.

Well obviously! That was Zim post 2003. The argument is regarding Zim pre-2003.

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.

Strike-rates and averages have gone up because of flatter wickets allowing batsmen to do this. If the whole way of batting has somehow changed then one would expect to see a select group of batsmen who've learnt this revolutionary new way of batting doing better rather than batsmen of every class and practically every team cashing in and improving at the same time: 90-02, 03-present

 

[shankar]

It shouldn't even need arguing. The suggestion that Zimbabwe until 02 was as good as India post 03 is laughable - the difference between averages is 1 run (44.15 vs 43.16). One was the worst team in Test cricket, the other became the best.

The ease of scoring runs against Zim pre-02 is seen to be comparable to scoring runs vs IND post-03. This wouldn't lead to the implication that the former ZIM team is of comparable strength to the latter Indian team at all (!!) because the conditions the two teams performed in aren't the same. The difference in pitches is what made the difference!

 

[shankar]

...and teams generally picking six batsmen doesn't even begin to explain why using the top six gives you a more reliable figure than using the entire team....

I used top-6 is because I wanted to highlight the difference in the difficulty of run-scoring in the two periods. The reason is quite simple: Batsmen are better able to take advantage of the flatter tracks than tail-enders. For example it makes little difference to Chris Martin whether a pitch is flat or offers help for the bowlers. Whereas it make a big difference to the output of a Rahul Dravid say. He can take advantage of a flat pitch much better than Martin. So if you want to highlight the difference in batting conditions between 2 periods you need to filter the tail-enders in theory. But including them actually didn't make much of a difference in this case.

 

[honestbharani]

And yes if you want to remove zimbawe of 1990-2000, remove WI of 2003-2008. WI never toured India since 2002. They have toured Australia twice in that period.

That Windies attack that Sachin faced in 2002 is worse than some of the Zim attacks he has faced.

 

[duffer]

I've searched my feelings to see if I still care about this argument at all. I don't.

 

[Athlai]

I've searched my feelings to see if I still care about this argument at all. I don't.

Sobers > Ponting + Tendulkar
You know it to be true.