***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Ikki]

Despite all the discussions I locked horns with you in, I thought you will have some respect for difference of opinion.

Please. You've made snide remarks and tried to jump on their bandwagon enough times for me to know where and how you stand. I have no problem in our differing opinions; I have a problem with inane generalisations.

I have no problem with you devising a high-school math level (your words) analysis. I have a problem when you try to settle scores as a rule, relying on that analyis. I have no problem that you think minnows should count; but if they counted for Sobers the comparable teams should count for Kallis. I have no problem with regards to sample sizes; but you pretending as if the sample size of WC finals should hold to the same standard as everything else is ridiculous (no one is going to play 60 finals) - It'd be like arguing that a player who hasn't had 60 matches against one team doesn't have enough of a sample to gauge accurately.

I have no problem when you make sense; it's when you don't that I do.

I guess this is "another LOL post".

I have to agree with Ankit and vcs. Ikki's English is very good but he doesn't seem to understand statistics, he has shown levels of double standards and statistic picking. For example, Murali despite playing only 5 tests in Australia in an 18 year career is judged and has a huge significance on such a small sample. but it's not a big deal for Ponting to have a poor record over 14 tests in India according to Ikki.

As for the "how valuable is a wicket analysis" no one has ever claimed is perfect model, but combining that with the bowling average, is certainly a better way of assessing players than just looking at plain average. But of course, Ikki won't accept any analysis which has Warne below Murali. You may accuse me of bias, but I would be happy to inspect the theory that another Australian Mcgrath is more effective than Murali.

As for the 1996 final, it's Warne's fault for not being able to bowl well dew or no dew, just as it's Tendulkar's fault for scoring 4. If anything Tendulkar's challenge was harder in chasing 360 fo victory.

Nah, no double-standards; that's why it's so easy to argue against the likes of Avada who don't know what to argue and re-argue refuted points of contention. You can disagree with my views on minnows; WCs; or many other things...but there are no double-standards.

The first bolded part: see; this is where it gets worrisome; where people make up examples. Who said I didn't think Ponting failing in India isn't a big deal? What I said is that it is so bad that it makes his overall average look much worse than it is because he's played many tests there. The guy averages sub-50 because of it - despite averaging above 50 everywhere bar Eng (40s) and Ind (20s). That is completely different to saying "Murali bowled poorly in Aus; look at his stats". Come on...

The second bolded part; you're wrong. I just won't accept any analysis purporting Murali is "objectively" or "without any doubt" or an analysis which purports (like ankit's did) to settle the matter once and for all. I call BS; I am a Warne fan but there is no analysis which will make either that much better than the other to make it a forgone conclusion.

The exact same here, for this thread. There is no argument that makes Tendulkar a "league" or a "class" or any such description better than Ponting. I have absolutely no problem with people holding Tendulkar better, however.

Anyway, it is important to remember that even Australians, for all their perfection in World Cups, have not individually turned in 10/10 performances on their first introduction to the big stage. Many have failed, got second opportunities, and made good. It is to their credit but don't make them out to be some paragons of perfection.

They're not; those players you refer to are simply better than those who came back after failing and still haven't succeeded. The contention in comparisons is not a question of one being perfect and the other not; it's one having supremacy - and they can be flawed and still be better.

 

[ankitj]

I have no problem with you devising a high-school math level (your words) analysis. I have a problem when you try to settle scores as a rule, relying on that analyis.

Nah, that was just a one liner. Was no way meant to be taken literally and end all debates. Problem is that you were busy finding non-existing flaws with the method because it ranked your idol low. If it didn't, you wouldn't have bothered. Some other posters pointed out valid flaws that I was happy to agree with. I myself pointed out a flaw that no one seemingly noticed. So that's that.

I have no problem with regards to sample sizes; but you pretending as if the sample size of WC finals should hold to the same standard as everything else is ridiculous (no one is going to play 60 finals) - It'd be like arguing that a player who hasn't had 60 matches against one team doesn't have enough of a sample to gauge accurately.

There is something between 1 and 60, no? If 60 ODI matches are not enough because others have played more, then by same token 1 WC final should not be enough because others have played more. How else can this be? If that is not double standard, what is?

 

[vcs]

..
They're not; those players you refer to are simply better than those who came back after failing and still haven't succeeded. The contention in comparisons is not a question of one being perfect and the other not; it's one having supremacy - and they can be flawed and still be better.
..

No, it's not clear-cut "supremacy" as much as you may like to insist.. those players have been surrounded by team-mates who were equally responsible as them for giving themselves 2nd (and 3rd) shots at World Cup finals.

 

[Ikki]

Nah, that was just a one liner. Was no way meant to be taken literally and end all debates. Problem is that you were busy finding non-existing flaws with the method because it ranked your idol low. If it didn't, you wouldn't have bothered. Some other posters pointed out valid flaws that I was happy to agree with. I myself pointed out a flaw that no one seemingly noticed. So that's that.

Ahh, so that was just a one-liner you said more than once. I'm surprised you didn't have many more one-liners regarding other bowlers and their respective rivals. Hmm...

I pointed out many valid flaws; especially the fact that it did not take into account home and away conditions or that it doesn't take into account the form of the batsmen at the time. You passed it off as "it can't make up the difference" and I proceeded to explain why. It really doesn't matter because, as I said, it's clear where and how you stand.

There is something between 1 and 60, no? If 60 ODI matches are not enough because others have played more, then by same token 1 WC final should not be enough because others have played more. How else can this be? If that is not double standard, what is?

No, that's nonsense; precisely because it isn't the same standard. The reason 60 ODIs are not enough for comparison is because you have players in the same era playing much more (if that is the case). Or more importantly, the sample size is relevant to just how many other ODI players play. If a player in this era only manages 80 ODIs (where others are managing 2-4 times that), and he averages slightly more than, and at the same SR as, Tendulkar; that sample size is really not enough for comparison, however, it would have been in the 80s.

When you compare players with respect to how many matches they play in Tests, for example, they're likely to never play 10 in each country. So if they play 5 or 6, that is enough to gauge on. Murali, for example, played well over 100 tests, but played 5-6 tests against most teams away from home. That sample is enough. That doesn't mean someone can play 6 tests overall and that is enough of a sample - which is what you're asking for, when assuming they are of the same standard.

With respect to WC finals...most players will not even get to 1, let alone 2 or more. It has a different standard to judge it on. The situation comes every 4 years and that is if you and your team perform well enough to get to that final. That is why it is such a big deal to perform when you get there. That does not mean 1-2 ODIs against every team, overall, is enough of a sample - that is a different standard.

I hope I've been clear; it's not very complex.

No, it's not clear-cut "supremacy" as much as you may like to insist.. those players have been surrounded by team-mates who were equally responsible as them for giving themselves 2nd (and 3rd) shots at World Cup finals.

No, it is clear-cut supremacy in terms of their WC records. Whether that makes them better overall is a matter of dispute. I say, for example, that if two players have similar records, the best tie-breaker for me is the WC; because it's the most important level in ODIs.

If you disagree, you disagree and give different weightings to different factors. We can all live with that. That's the beauty about forums. Someone gives higher rating to strict output; others care more about context of a select number of knocks. Others care more if a player's record against the best is good. Everyone gives different weightings to different things and there is nothing new or controversial here.

 

[ankitj]

I hope I've been clear; it's not very complex.

Not complex, but totally nonsensical. Enough said.

 

[Ikki]

right...so from now on you need, for example, 50 tests as a reliable sample; by the same number, they should use 50 tests for away from home; using the same number a player should have 50 tests in every country. Because using that same number means applying the same standard to you. And you wonder why I put you on the level of Avada.

 

[ankitj]

right...so from now on you need, for example, 50 tests as a reliable sample; by the same number, they should use 50 tests for away from home; using the same number a player should have 50 tests in every country. Because using that same number means applying the same standard to you. And you wonder why I put you on the level of Avada.

It was not me who said 60 matches are too few, remember? I said one is too few, and nothing about what will be sufficient sample size. FTR, 8-10 tests in a country or against a team are enough. Stop putting words in my mouth.

And nothing is wrong with Avda's level. He is much less biased and makes much more sense compared to you any day.

 

[Ikki]

It was not me who said 60 matches are too few, remember? I said one is too few, and nothing about what will be sufficient sample size. FTR, 8-10 tests in a country or against a team are enough. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Do you know how many players have 8-10 tests in each country? Probably none. "In or against" are two different standards. I can have played 72 tests, half home and half away spread equally amongst the countries, and that means I have 4 tests in each country. So if 4 tests are enough; why wasn't 5 for Murali's record in Aus? If you compare someone who has played 8 test overall against each country and one that has played 8 tests in each country; you are comparing one player who has only played half the amount of tests as the other player.

And then to take your ridiculous standard further; I'll give an argument akin to yours: "If you can play 8-10 tests in a country; then 8-10 tests over all countries should be enough - unless you're using double-standards ".

Because the only way you can differentiate in that instance is to show that 8-10 tests in a country and 8-10 tests overall are different discussion points - hence different standards.

Again; not complex but let's see if the penny drops this time.

And nothing is wrong with Avda's level. He is much less biased and makes much more sense compared to you any day.

Yes, he's a smart and unbiased bloke like yourself. But, then again, why did you object when I compared you to him earlier? Funny.

 

[ankitj]

Do you know how many players have 8-10 tests in each country? Probably none.

You are ultimately saying that anyone who doesn't have 8-10 tests in a country can't compare their record in that country because the sample is not enough - this being the grand majority of players in cricket history. Are you getting why it's so preposterous

I might settle for 6 too. Nothing hard and fast about that. But definitely not settle for one test.

And then to take your ridiculous standard further; I'll give an argument akin to yours: "If you can play 8-10 tests in a country; then 8-10 tests overall should be enough - unless you're using double-standards ".

Because the only way you can differentiate in that instance is to show that 8-10 tests in a country and 8-10 tests overall are different discussion points - hence different standards.

Again; not complex but let's see if the penny drops this time.

Only if your saying one world cup final is enough, also implies that one match for entire career is also enough. Apply your strawman to your own argument too.

Yes, he's a smart and unbiased bloke like yourself.

Yeah, because I argued in favour of Murali, Sobers, Ambrose, Zaheer Abbas, Imran Khan, Hadlee etc. All of them are Indians, right?

 

[Ikki]

I might settle for 6 too. Nothing hard and fast about that. But definitely not settle for one test.

Only if your saying one world cup final is enough, also implies that one match for entire career is also enough. Apply your strawman to your own argument too.

Yes, for me it is enough...because guess what...you aren't likely to play much more - that is the whole point; it is a different standard. If you say 10 innings in ODIs against a team is enough as a sample; you can't use that same standard for WC finals because it's never going to happen. As a minimum, you'll have to play 40 years just to achieve it; and get to the final all those years.

You are essentially admitting that there are different standards; yet you can't bear to say it explicitly, which makes this tedious and somewhat funny.

Yeah, because I argued in favour of Murali, Sobers, Ambrose, Zaheer Abbas, Imran Khan, Hadlee etc. All of them are Indians, right?

Because bias is only in the form of patriotism? I have no problem if you think any of those players are better than any comparable player. It's your argument that often is lacking in sense, and consistency.

 

[ankitj]

Yes, for me it is enough...because guess what...you aren't likely to play much more - that is the whole point; it is a different standard. If you say 10 innings in ODIs against a team is enough as a sample; you can't use that same standard for WC finals because it's never going to happen. As a minimum, you'll have to play 40 years just to achieve it; and get to the final all those years.

You are essentially admitting that there are different standards; yet you can't bear to say it explicitly, which makes this tedious and somewhat funny.

My whole point is that because no one plays too many world cup finals, those performances don't count much in overall assessment of a cricketer. Ponting and McGrath have played 4 WC finals each. How can that ever be compared with anyone who has played just one!

60 matches with perhaps 8-15 each against 5-6 different oppositions are definitely a large enough sample. And this is what is really funny when it comes from someone who is willing to make judgments on the basis of just one match of a certain kind.

Because bias is only in the form of patriotism? I have no problem if you think any of those players are better than any comparable player. It's your argument that often is lacking in sense, and consistency.

Dare you to give me some examples of my arguments that lack sense. Something that is as senseless as removing minnows that Sobers didn't do well against (the classic stat picking by you).

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Ikkis double standards

lillee's sample in pak is not enough.Murali's in aus is a perfect sample.

Remove ponting's worst away record and make excuses as its 5 pts inferior to tendu's otherwise.

Group neutral tests with away tests when it favors Australians.

Whine about standardised avgs when it comes to warne vs murali but ignore princews' standardised avgs for tendu vs ponting.

Give warne credit for bowling on non friendly surfaces but not pak pacers for bowling on pancakes.Try to get clever and use their away averages as proof.Clearly ind is the hardest place to bat then.

Use minnows as and when neccessary.

Always make excuses for warne,punty,lillee and every other australian.

Last but not least insult posters when double standards are pointed out and keep making unprovoked attacks.

Not an exhaustive list but it is enough.Now watch mr lawyer multiquote and use graphs and whatever crap to back up his non sense.

 

[Ikki]

My whole point is that because no one plays too many world cup finals, those performances don't count much in overall assessment of a cricketer. Ponting and McGrath have played 4 WC finals each. How can that ever be compared with anyone who has played just one!

If you don't rate the importance of WC finals innings much, that is different to saying someone is using double-standards; then asking them to consider the 60 ODIs; isn't it? More importantly, it seems to be ignored that getting to a WC final is question of merit; it's not simply a calendar scheduled thing. Only getting to one where one has gotten to 4, where the former has actually played more WCs than the latter is a point of discussion in itself.

60 matches with perhaps 8-15 each against 5-6 different oppositions are definitely a large enough sample. And this is what is really funny when it comes from someone who is willing to make judgments on the basis of just one match of a certain kind.

Because you're making the mistake of comparing overall matches with WC finals. I asked before; 60 ODIs doesn't seem much, how does it compare with Abbas' contemporaries. I know the likes of Border and Richards played much more than that. If 60 matches for Abbas' era was a lot; then it can count. In fact, that was the weakest opposition to comparing with Bevan; it was the fact that we were comparing a #3 with a finisher. Migara jumped from Klusener, to Dhoni and then to Abbas. Might as well have saved himself the trouble and named Viv.

The point regarding samples however is different. As I explained previously:

If a player in this era only manages 80 ODIs (where others are managing 2-4 times that), and he averages slightly more than, and at the same SR as, Tendulkar; that sample size is really not enough for comparison

"In or against" are two different standards. I can have played 72 tests, half home and half away spread equally amongst the countries, and that means I have 4 tests in each country. So if 4 tests are enough; why wasn't 5 for Murali's record in Aus? If you compare someone who has played 8 test overall against each country and one that has played 8 tests in each country; you are comparing one player who has only played half the amount of tests as the other player.

Dare you to give me some examples of my arguments that lack sense. Something that is as senseless as removing minnows that Sobers didn't do well against (the classic stat picking by you).

Are you reading this thread? I've already mentioned it.

I have no problem with you devising a high-school math level (your words) analysis. I have a problem when you try to settle scores as a rule, relying on that analyis. I have no problem that you think minnows should count; but if they counted for Sobers the comparable teams should count for Kallis. I have no problem with regards to sample sizes; but you pretending as if the sample size of WC finals should hold to the same standard as everything else is ridiculous (no one is going to play 60 finals) - It'd be like arguing that a player who hasn't had 60 matches against one team doesn't have enough of a sample to gauge accurately.

See, you're not that consistent and I keep calling you on it; as I will continue to do. But at least understand what you're arguing against. You seem to disagree with me yet implicitly use my points (i.e. different standards) all the while maintaining that I'm a hypocrite. It's actually funny now. I really don't know what to say anymore; it's been said enough.

Ikkis double standards

I love how you have the cheek to recite discussions where you were thoroughly embarrassed. I tell you, I don't rate your smarts but you should definitely enter in some gong-shows.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

You have embarassed no one but urself with ur stupid and biased posts.

 

[Shri]

Irony meter overload.

 

[bagapath]

well........................


actually, i have nothing new to add.... other than drawing your attention to the fact that sachin scored his fourth century in SA yesterday and now he averages above 40 in all test playing nations. pretty neat stat to have, imo.

 

[JBH001]

Need to wait until the end of the series, Bagapath. It's a little premature, otherwise.

 

[bagapath]

Need to wait until the end of the series, Bagapath. It's a little premature, otherwise.

isnt it good fun to get a bit of mud on the face? i will risk it mate

 

[turnstyle]

It's not Tendulkar i don't rate, it's more the fact his fans run into the bushes and paint Japanese flags inside eachother's arses every time he breaks another record.

 

[bagapath]

It's not Tendulkar i don't rate, it's more the fact his fans run into the bushes and paint Japanese flags inside eachother's arses every time he breaks another record.

I strongly object to this accusation. I always paint the Brazilian flag inside my mate's arse. and I allow only the Senegalese flag inside mine. Japanese flag? No way!!

50 test centuries is a big big deal, dude. no one has ever been there. and we may not see too many people getting there in our lifetimes.

In fact, you should appreciate the special occasion and join the fun. Please turn around and let me work on your fanny.