***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Ruckus]

I don't know if this has been analysed before, but I was thinking the other day how important it is for a batsman who scores a hundred in the first innings to back it up with another substantial score (+40) in the second innings (as opposed to collapsing). So I decided to compare Ponting and Tendulkar in this area, and I got some interesting results:

The test matches analysed were only ones where the player is involved (bats) in two innings, and where they have scored 100+ in the first innings. For these matches, Ponting follows up with a 40+ score in the second innings 59% of the time, where as Tendulkar only follows up 22% of the time.

These are pretty staggering results, but do they really mean much, or do you think the importance of following up a big first innings score is insignificant?

 

[Prince EWS]

I don't know if this has been analysed before, but I was thinking the other day how important it is for a batsman who scores a hundred in the first innings to back it up with another substantial score (+40) in the second innings (as opposed to collapsing). So I decided to compare Ponting and Tendulkar in this area, and I got some interesting results:

The test matches analysed were only ones where the player is involved (bats) in two innings, and where they have scored 100+ in the first innings. For these matches, Ponting follows up with a 40+ score in the second innings 59% of the time, where as Tendulkar only follows up 22% of the time.

These are pretty staggering results, but do they really mean much, or do you think the importance of following up a big first innings score is insignificant?

Well it's not insignificant, but it's no more important than scoring runs at any other time. I mean it's probably more likely that your team has posted a big first innings lead if you've scored a ton in it, which means second innings runs are going to be less important.

 

[Ruckus]

Well it's not insignificant, but it's no more important than scoring runs at any other time. I mean it's probably more likely that your team has posted a big first innings lead if you've scored a ton in it, which means second innings runs are going to be less important.

Not necessarily, because often the other team will have put up a big first innings score as well. And also some times a century plus score in the first innings can be in isolation, where the other batsmen have failed. I think if you happen to bomb in the second innings, then there is more pressure on the other batsmen and a collapse is more likely. Following up with a substantial second innings score usually consolidates the teams position.

 

[Ruckus]

I have to say though there are definately many flaws with the comparison, but the results are nonetheless still quite interesting - and I figure they must translate to something important in the context of a game, but I'm not really sure what that is at the moment. And it also occured to me, if Ponting and Tendulkar have roughly the same average and amount of runs etc., then if Ponting is following up a big first innings score with a substantial second innings one much more often - something must compensate. He would have to average less when these peformances are excluded. So that being said, any match winning advantage Ponting might have over Tendulkar by following up well in the second innings, must be somewhat offset by him failing to score well in other instances. I think that corresponds to their respective batting graphs as well. Tendulkar scores hundreds much more evenly over time, where as Ponting tends to have 'clumps' of many hundreds followed by periods of smaller scores.

 

[TumTum]

DeusEx I asked for somebody to analyze exactly that a couple of weeks ago. Thank you

The stats are not surprising really. I have seen plenty of times where Ponting absolutely kills one Test and fails on another Test. And usually you can count on Tendulkar going cheaply on the same Test after he makes a substantial score in the 1st innings. And vice verse failing in the 1st innings almost always means a substantial score in the 2nd.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think if you happen to bomb in the second innings, then there is more pressure on the other batsmen and a collapse is more likely.

Obviously, but this is true whether you've scored runs in the first innings or not.

 

[Ruckus]

DeusEx I asked for somebody to analyze exactly that a couple of weeks ago. Thank you

The stats are not surprising really. I have seen plenty of times where Ponting absolutely kills one Test and fails on another Test. And usually you can count on Tendulkar going cheaply on the same Test after he makes a substantial score in the 1st innings. And vice verse failing in the 1st innings almost always means a substantial score in the 2nd.

Yeah thats exactly why I decided to have a look at it as well - just from observation I noticed Tendulkar getting out a lot after a big first innings score, and the opposite for Ponting. But the results probably have some errors, as I did them quickly and manually, but with a difference of 37% that would hardly matter.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Probably highlights why Ponting had such a great record up to 2008, he was ruthless in terms of making runs, and maximised every chance he got.

 

[Ruckus]

Obviously, but this is true whether you've scored runs in the first innings or not.

But my point is in relation to first innings hundreds. A first innings hundred (unless it is really massive) often doesn't give your team that much of an advantage. However, if you can consolidate that first innings score with another substantial score in the second innings, you are much more likely to win the match. I.e. by bombing out in the second innings, you often lose any advantage the first innings hundred gave the team in the first place.

 

[vcs]

Tendulkar has never scored hundreds in both innings of a match, Ponting did it thrice in a stretch in late 2005-early 2006. That stat is not surprising.

 

[Prince EWS]

But my point is in relation to first innings hundreds. A first innings hundred (unless it is really massive) often doesn't give your team that much of an advantage. However, if you can consolidate that first innings score with another substantial score in the second innings, you are much more likely to win the match. I.e. by bombing out in the second innings, you often lose any advantage the first innings hundred gave the team in the first place.

What's the difference between 100 and 40, and 140 and 0?

 

[Ruckus]

Tendulkar has never scored hundreds in both innings of a match, Ponting did it thrice in a stretch in late 2005-early 2006. That stat is not surprising.

Na its not just hundreds. The criteria I used was 40+ scores in the second innings.

 

[TumTum]

Tendulkar has never scored hundreds in both innings of a match, Ponting did it thrice in a stretch in late 2005-early 2006. That stat is not surprising.

Ponting was about to make another one early this year when he made 200 and 80 at Hobart, just after failing at both digs in Sydney.

 

[Ruckus]

What's the difference between 100 and 40, and 140 and 0?

There is no difference really. But that's implying Tendulkar is making bigger hundreds in the first innings than Ponting, which he isn't. The point is they are making the same sized hundreds in the first innings, but Ponting follows up much more often. Even a first innings score of 140 wouldn't neccessarily give the team that much of an advantage. So its like saying what is the difference between Ponting 140 and 40+, vs Tendulkar 140 and <40.

 

[vcs]

Sehwag surely must be the worst of all time in this particular stat.

But then the vast disparity in his 1st and 2nd innings averages kind of reflects that anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

There is no difference really. But that's implying Tendulkar is making bigger hundreds in the first innings than Ponting, which he isn't. The point is they are making the same sized hundreds in the first innings, but Ponting follows up much more often.

Haha nah, if this was true then Ponting would score more runs on average, and he doesn't. What's the difference between 140 and 0, and 70 and 70 in the same match?

Tendulkar averages 84.56 runs per match excluding matches he didn't bat in at all, and scores 140 runs or more in a match 21.30% of the time.

Ponting averages 82.77 runs per match and scores 140 runs or more in a match 20.27% of the time.

Your analysis shows an interesting trend but has absolutely no impact on the utility of the batsmen in question IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Really surprised that Sachin hasn't made a century in each innings of a match to this stage. Reckon he'll tick it off before the end of his career though.

 

[TumTum]

Typical scores:

Tendulkar
1. 150 & 20
2. 20 & 100
Total = 290

Ponting
1. 150 & 80
2. 30 & 30
Total = 290

You can make 2 points out of this:
- Tendulkar will score more centuries than Ponting, because due to the time and match positions factors, it is more difficult to score 100s in the same Test than in different Tests.
- Ponting will win more game, because it is almost guaranteed that he will win the 1st match. Where as with Tendulkar he will get a chance to save more matches according to his 2nd match.

 

[Ruckus]

Sehwag surely must be the worst of all time in this particular stat.

But then the vast disparity in his 1st and 2nd innings averages kind of reflects that anyway.

Yeh he is definately one that comes to mind. I find that a bit strange tbh, because you'd think with Sehwag's super attacking approach, he would often get hundreds in both innings.

Btw how do you find out a players 1st and 2nd innings average using stats guru? I can only find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 'innings in a match' average.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeh he is definately one that comes to mind. I find that a bit strange tbh, because you'd think with Sehwag's super attacking approach, he would often get hundreds in both innings.

Btw how do you find out a players 1st and 2nd innings average using stats guru? I can only find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 'innings in a match' average.

Tick 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 in advanced options... or just click career summary and scroll down.