***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Ikki]

I noticed in another thread that Ikki asked for the standardised averages of Ponting and Tendulkar across time and opposition, and I thought this was the best place to post them.

Taking into account the difficulty of run-scoring in different decades and the standard of the opposition in each Test Ponting and Tendulkar have played, you get the following:

Tendulkar: 13,040 standardised runs @ 52.16
Ponting: 10,822 standardised runs @ 48.75

I wonder what it would be if you removed B/Z. Probably dead even I am guessing.

 

[Prince EWS]

Licking my lips at the prospect of seeing a great statistical analysis of the 4 tests that Barry Richards played...and the inferences drawn from such an important analysis...It's surely going to be the best thing I've come across on cricket statistics...

(ha ha, you know I love having digs at you mr. bharani )

You know I was actually somewhat tempted to put World Series Cricket stats into the equation, but
a) I couldn't find them in the format I needed them in
b) I wouldn't know quite how to standardise them anyway
So unfortunately I scrapped that idea.

 

[weldone]

Of course these averages still have some of the same problems scorebook averages have - they don't take longevity, playing on too late/retiring too early or pressure situations into account - but I do like to think they do remove a couple of the variables (era and opposition standards).

I did a similar exercise to you almost 2 years ago (incorporating playing conditions and oppositions), and I incorporated longevity as a factor too (and came up with a list starting with Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Hammond, Tendulkar, Headley). But let's keep the discussion on detailed explanations of that method for some other day

 

[Prince EWS]

I wonder what it would be if you removed B/Z. Probably dead even I am guessing.

Hmm well Tendulkar still performed a lot better against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe than the average batsman, and the fact that they were rubbish is actually taken into account, so he should still get some credit for that (against Zimbabwe at least, where the possibility of losing the series was actually greater than 0). Scoring runs against Zimbabwe in the 90s was actually in fact harder than scoring runs against the West Indies in the 2000-2009 period and very marginal compared to New Zealand of the 90s and even Sri Lanka of the 90s, so against my instinct it wouldn't really be fair to remove them from a serious analysis.

I've removed both of them for argument's sake and you get:

Tendulkar: 11,909 runs @ 51.33
Ponting: 10,463 runs @ 48.66

 

[Prince EWS]

I did a similar exercise to you almost 2 years ago (incorporating playing conditions and oppositions), and I incorporated longevity as a factor too (and came up with a list starting with Bradman, Hobbs, Sobers, Hutton, Hammond, Tendulkar, Headley). But let's keep the discussion on detailed explanations of that method for some other day

Yeah, eventually I'd like the program I've made to take longevity into account as well as separating home and way standards of players and opposition teams. I can't see it ever being account to players being picked too early or playing on too long though, or pressure situations/general match context either for that matter.

 

[Ikki]

But the proportion of his games played against them exceeds that of Ponting's, that's why I point that out.

Personally, think it's a bit flawed to do this based on 10 year blocks since a bowling attack is likely to vary a lot in this time and if a player plays them when they're stronger when the other when they're weaker - whilst in the same decade - it disguises this fact. Maybe 5 year blocks are better.

Also, I look forward to your home and away analysis if you ever get a chance to do that. Would love this for bowlers also.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Tendu's played 4 innings more than Punter against B'desh not 400.

 

[Ikki]

Tendu's played 4 innings more than Punter against B'desh not 400.

Which is almost twice that of Ponting. Ponting has only played B/Z in 9 innings. Tendulkar has played almost 3 times as much (23 innings).

To make it more accurate, you could standardise the amount of times they also played all teams.

 

[Prince EWS]

But the proportion of his games played against them exceeds that of Ponting's, that's why I point that out.

Yeah, but the purpose of standardisation is to remove variables like that by taking into account the standard of the opposition. A run against Bangladesh in 2000-2009 was only worth 0.59 because they were rubbish and batsmen all scored a lot more runs against them than they did against everyone else. Admittedly, both Ponting's and Tendulkar's standardised averages went down when you removed them so there might be an exponential factor involved with the best batsman against the worst opponents - ie. not quite a straight multiplication. I'll look into that.

Personally, think it's a bit flawed to do this based on 10 year blocks since a bowling attack is likely to vary a lot in this time and if a player plays them when they're stronger when the other when they're weaker - whilst in the same decade - it disguises this fact. Maybe 5 year blocks are better.

Yeah, that's definitely a valid criticism. I looked at five year blocks too but they tended to be more of a reflection of the opposition which the bowling attacks bowled to during that period than their quality, which is another problem with the system.

I'm definitely not claiming it to be foolproof - I actually think Ponting and Tendulkar are closer than those stats suggest, for example, and I don't think Jim Laker was the fourth best bowler to ever take 100 wickets, but I do think they give a better picture than a straight scorebook averages anyway, which is all I was going for.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

but I've only got batsmen done as far back as those who debuted in the 80s or later so far.

Can you please post the list if it isn't too much trouble?

 

[Prince EWS]

Which is almost twice that of Ponting. Ponting has only played B/Z in 9 innings. Tendulkar has played almost 3 times as much (23 innings).

To make it more accurate, you could standardise the amount of times they also played all teams.

Instead of standardising the amount of games they play against each team, it just standardises the quality of the team. It takes into account the quality of the bowling attack. It shouldn't matter how much you play each team as it makes them all theoretically the same quality by weighting runs against them depending on their decade bowling average against the rest of the world.

I've found this to be a much better (albeit obviously not perfect) method, otherwise you get batsmen playing one game against an opposition, averaging 100 and having that average worth just as much as his 30 games against another opposition in which he averaged 20.

 

[Ikki]

But still the composition of matches played will play a big part. Two batsmen can have the same exact averages across opponents yet one can have a higher overall average depending on how many times he played certain teams.

 

[Prince EWS]

But still the composition of matches played will play a big part. Two batsmen can have the same exact averages across opponents yet one can have a higher overall average depending on how many times he played certain teams.

This is only a problem if some teams are better than others, though. The point of standardising averages is to make sure that this is no longer a problem.

I'll also throw it out there that if Batsman A averages 100 against Team X in 1 game and 20 against Team Y in 50 games, while Batsman B averages 100 against Team X in 50 games and 20 against Team Y in 1 game, Batsman B is quite obviously better, particularly if those are standardised averages across quality.

 

[honestbharani]

Licking my lips at the prospect of seeing a great statistical analysis of the 4 tests that Barry Richards played...and the inferences drawn from such an important analysis...It's surely going to be the best thing I've come across on cricket statistics...

(ha ha, you know I love having digs at you mr. bharani )

lol.. I dont love having digs at anyone tbh.. Juz don understand why you reacted like that to what was basically a suggestion..


Love these posts when we can make up after flame wars tbh..

 

[honestbharani]

Can you please post the list if it isn't too much trouble?

Just obvious that how when you dig deeper into cricket stats you only end up with more questions than answers.. For my part, I think I don't need stats to tell me why Sachin, Lara and Ponting were a cut above the rest of the batsmen of the time.. But of course, it is kinda pleasing that it gets proven statistically but really rating guys either by stats alone or by personal judgement having watched them live alone will never be perfect. But at least, both are equally flawed. And hence the never ending arguments...

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Just obvious that how when you dig deeper into cricket stats you only end up with more questions than answers.. For my part, I think I don't need stats to tell me why Sachin, Lara and Ponting were a cut above the rest of the batsmen of the time.. But of course, it is kinda pleasing that it gets proven statistically but really rating guys either by stats alone or by personal judgement having watched them live alone will never be perfect. But at least, both are equally flawed. And hence the never ending arguments...

true...I just wanted to have a look at the list because I am,frankly,incapable of performing those complex equations and what not I know it does not prove anything because in the end we only believe what we want to.

 

[ankitj]

I noticed in another thread that Ikki asked for the standardised averages of Ponting and Tendulkar across time and opposition, and I thought this was the best place to post them.

Taking into account the difficulty of run-scoring in different decades and the standard of the opposition in each Test Ponting and Tendulkar have played, you get the following:

Tendulkar: 13,040 standardised runs @ 52.16
Ponting: 10,822 standardised runs @ 48.75

What time frame are you using? Because both of them have scored more runs than that.

Just curious if you have removed last year or so, then the difference may become bigger

 

[ankitj]

What time frame are you using? Because both of them have scored more runs than that.

Just curious if you have removed last year or so, then the difference may become bigger

I realize my foolishness. Don't respond to that

 

[Maximus0723]

Thanks Prince EWS.

 

[kingjulian]

Here is how Australian Batsmen went against the best bowlers from last two decades.

This says Steve Waugh was definitely a better batsman than Ricky Ponting. Discuss.

Australian Batsmen Vs Very Good Bowlers.

The bowlers used are

Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Donald, Steyn, Ntini, Pollock, Akram, Waqar Younis, Akhtar, Muralitharan, Harbhajhan Singh, Graeme Swann, Vaas, Caddick, Darren Gough, Simon Doul.

In Matches involving these bowlers. Steve Waugh has scored 7082 runs and Ponting had scored 6807 runs. Waugh had got his runs at a better average though. Nearly 8% better average.

If you do a similar comparison for Indian Bats. Tendulkar comes comfortably out on top.

For Indian Batsman i had the luxury of adding several other great bowlers to this comparison.
Mcgrath, Warne, McDermott, Gillespie, Rieffel, Bret Lee, Mitchell Johnson.

Indian batsmen against top bowlers of last 20 years.