Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Blaze 18]

Playing into our hands. Can argue that Hayden and Co made it easier for Ponting.

Akilana's argument is not an unreasonable one to be honest. More than Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer giving them starts, it is the freedom with which a batsman can play knowing the fate of the team does not depend on him and him alone. The knowledge that there were two dudes capable of bowling out the opposition cheaply was not a hindrance either. I know it does not sound like the most objective and fairest of arguments, but it is one worth considering in my opinion. The argument that a batsman in a poor side is inherently under more pressure than one in an all-time great side does hold water for mine (just of interest, could someone please post Ricky Ponting's statistics post the retirements of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne ? I am quite poor at using statsguru for that sort of thing).

Having said all that, I am not sure it can be used as a point in favour of Jacques Kallis per se. It is not like he has been part of a poor line-up. In fact, for much of his career, South Africa have been among the top three test sides.

The strike rate argument is a more intriguing one. For me, as long as a batsman shows that he has the ability to adapt to different situations and change his scoring rate accordingly, then overall career strike rate is of little importance.

All things considered, I would rate Ricky Ponting as a slightly better test batsman than Jacques Kallis, although I would back the latter more to survive a spell of hostile fast bowling than the former.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't agree with him. He is assuming dominating/not dominating good bowlers only affects the individual batsmen. When a player dominates good bowlers, it improves the performance of the other batsmen in the team. It not only puts less pressure on the batsmen at the opposite end to score off the good bowlers, but it demoralises the bowlers and can impair their performance for the rest of the match. How often have we seen someone bowl extremely well, putting immense pressure on the batting side, then a batsmen takes the attack to the bowler and he suddenly loses his form.

There are a lot of guys who think cricket games are just about numbers... But then, they should really try and sim games and see how diff. it is to what actually happens...

 

[honestbharani]

All hypothetical.

lol.. and stats are supposed to prove something? Stats only show what happened in terms of runs and wickets and overs and balls.. But there are other things to cricket too... The most stupid are the people who assume stats are completely fair.. No, they are not. They may be unbiased in that the actual numbers get recorded but how would you record the fact that Laxman got out more because of Tsotsobe than Steyn today? Exactly where in the stats book would you be able to read that? You just assume that all of this simply evens out and yet, your best friend, the stats themselves will not support that..

 

[honestbharani]

Agree. FTR, I believe Tendulkar's recent resurgence also owes a lot to the success of the Gambhir/Sehwag pair at the top (though Dravid's recent form often means he comes in after two quick wickets these days).

Dravid still eats a lot of balls.. I am not sure about this two "quick" wickets argument, unless you are talking about runs alone.

 

[Black_Warrior]

lol.. and stats are supposed to prove something? Stats only show what happened in terms of runs and wickets and overs and balls.. But there are other things to cricket too... The most stupid are the people who assume stats are completely fair.. No, they are not. They may be unbiased in that the actual numbers get recorded but how would you record the fact that Laxman got out more because of Tsotsobe than Steyn today? Exactly where in the stats book would you be able to read that? You just assume that all of this simply evens out and yet, your best friend, the stats themselves will not support that..

Exactly..thats a good point..Another thing I would like to add about Stats is when performances against Bangladesh are ignored..now a lot of people have a below par record against them for whatever reason..e.g Sehwag..so if you take that out, it actually helps his cause..You cannot have a black and white approach to stats...you need to consider various situations and possibilies to put certain stats in perspective.

 

[Jarquis]

lol.. and stats are supposed to prove something? Stats only show what happened in terms of runs and wickets and overs and balls.. But there are other things to cricket too... The most stupid are the people who assume stats are completely fair.. No, they are not. They may be unbiased in that the actual numbers get recorded but how would you record the fact that Laxman got out more because of Tsotsobe than Steyn today? Exactly where in the stats book would you be able to read that? You just assume that all of this simply evens out and yet, your best friend, the stats themselves will not support that..

Stats are based on an entire career so are a much more reliable indicator than your eyesight ffs. Cricket's based on what player's do, not on your perception of "good cricket".

 

[Ruckus]

Stats are based on an entire career so are a much more reliable indicator than your eyesight ffs. Cricket's based on what player's do, not on your perception of "good cricket".

Does any collective stat tell you how well a batsman scores in pressure situations?

 

[Jarquis]

No, because pressure situations are subjective and stats aren't

 

[Ruckus]

No, because pressure situations are subjective and stats aren't

No, it's because a collective stat for something like 'pressure' is too complicated to compile, hence the only way you can judge it is by watching the game. It's hardly subjective. E.g. coming in at 2/0 is going to be a pressure situation, coming in at 200/0 isn't.

 

[Jarquis]

Coming out at 0/2 isn't a pressure situation when you're 600 in arrears and 200/1 is if you're chasing 460. Subjective.

 

[Eclipse]

Stats are based on an entire career so are a much more reliable indicator than your eyesight ffs. Cricket's based on what player's do, not on your perception of "good cricket".

You want stats.

Go Look at Kallis record against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, West Indies and compare them to Ponting's

I'm sick of this thread already.

 

[Uppercut]

Strike rate does matter in test cricket. Getting runs is one thing, how you get those runs is another. People like Viv Richards, Virender Sehwag, Adam Gilchrist are so destructive purely because of their ability to score runs at a great rate..which often in a test match can take the game away from the opposition. Now you might not find figures and facts to back that up..its purely a mental thing. Viv has done that many times, Sehwag has done that..Gilchrist has done that..Just to illustrate my point a bit further, I will highlight two games
This and this

In the first one, people hail Tendulkar's knock which is not to be ignored but it was Sehwag's innings that really set up the successful chase of 387 in that match..
As for the second one, until Gilchrist came into bat, England were still somewhat in that game...but the way he got those runs in that match just completely shut England out of that game..

Now I am not trying to suggest Ponting's higher strike rate makes him a better player than Kallis..just pointing out that strike rate does matter in test cricket..especially psychologically...

TBF, if you read the post you quoted again, it doesn't say anything that contradicts what you've just said. There are plenty of times in cricket when a quick innings is more valuable than a slow one, just as there are plenty of situations that require a slow one. A high career strike rate doesn't automatically imply that a batsman is playing an excellent counter-attacking innings in a chase with a bit of a time constraint, as Sehwag did against England. It could also imply that he gets 30 off 25 when they're trying to bat out the draw ala Shahid Afridi.

Or that he exposes the middle order against a Steyn/Morkel new ball attack by getting caught at third man in the third over of a crucial series trying to slog Steyn through the covers when he's hooping the ball a mile.

As for psychological impact, it's just too intangible. Taking Sehwag's innings as an example, there's no reason at all to say that a slower innings wouldn't have been equally crushing for England psychologically (if we're to, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that it opened the game up for an Indian win). I honestly think it probably would have. They're Englishmen fielding in horrendous Indian heat and humidity, remember. Making them toil like dogs while the ball grows old and soft will generally be a pretty damn effective strategy. But again, I'm only really guessing. We simply can't say.

 

[honestbharani]

Stats are based on an entire career so are a much more reliable indicator than your eyesight ffs. Cricket's based on what player's do, not on your perception of "good cricket".

well then go ahead nad predict me scores based on stats.. let's compare predictions based on sims and on actual opinions.. There is a reason why stats NEVER ever predict anything even close to what people's opinion does. And the same opinion over an entire guy's career can be just as reliable as stats. I can't argue the same thing again and again but it is obvious why stats are just as flawed as opinions when it comes to judging players.. And even the best statsmen realize stats are not complete because no cricket event EVER is the same as another one.. No one has faced the exact same ball as some other batsman in cricket.. And guys who do stats for a living have endorsed this here.. Can't really see why it is such a difficult concept to get hold of..

 

[honestbharani]

Coming out at 0/2 isn't a pressure situation when you're 600 in arrears and 200/1 is if you're chasing 460. Subjective.

No way is 200/1 a pressure situation... And you are proving your own point to be wrong. Cricket is a SUBJECTIVE game. There is always pressure, tension and nervousness and IT DOES AFFECT PLAYERS... You people are making out as if cricket is played by robots, FFS who are gonna go exactly what the stats book say.. And the news is, IT NEVER does..

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, if you read the post you quoted again, it doesn't say anything that contradicts what you've just said. There are plenty of times in cricket when a quick innings is more valuable than a slow one, just as there are plenty of situations that require a slow one. A high career strike rate doesn't automatically imply that a batsman is playing an excellent counter-attacking innings in a chase with a bit of a time constraint, as Sehwag did against England. It could also imply that he gets 30 off 25 when they're trying to bat out the draw ala Shahid Afridi.

Or that he exposes the middle order against a Steyn/Morkel new ball attack by getting caught at third man in the third over of a crucial series trying to slog Steyn through the covers when he's hooping the ball a mile.

As for psychological impact, it's just too intangible. Taking Sehwag's innings as an example, there's no reason at all to say that a slower innings wouldn't have been equally crushing for England psychologically (if we're to, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that it opened the game up for an Indian win). I honestly think it probably would have. They're Englishmen fielding in horrendous Indian heat and humidity, remember. Making them toil like dogs while the ball grows old and soft will generally be a pretty damn effective strategy. But again, I'm only really guessing. We simply can't say.

Just because something is intangible doesn't mean it does not exist and it doesn't mean it should NOT be taken into account. And the very definition of intangible means that it is something that can only be ascertained by people's words.. And words of many players are enough to show that Ponting brought more of the intangible X factor towards bowlers than Kallis ever did. And it is not something that should be dismissed because certain INTANGIBLES in cricket are JUST AS IMPORTANT as the tangibles like runs and wickets. Anyone who has played the game at any reasonable level will know it.

 

[honestbharani]

TBF, if you read the post you quoted again, it doesn't say anything that contradicts what you've just said. There are plenty of times in cricket when a quick innings is more valuable than a slow one, just as there are plenty of situations that require a slow one. A high career strike rate doesn't automatically imply that a batsman is playing an excellent counter-attacking innings in a chase with a bit of a time constraint, as Sehwag did against England. It could also imply that he gets 30 off 25 when they're trying to bat out the draw ala Shahid Afridi.

Or that he exposes the middle order against a Steyn/Morkel new ball attack by getting caught at third man in the third over of a crucial series trying to slog Steyn through the covers when he's hooping the ball a mile.

As for psychological impact, it's just too intangible. Taking Sehwag's innings as an example, there's no reason at all to say that a slower innings wouldn't have been equally crushing for England psychologically (if we're to, for the sake of argument, ignore the fact that it opened the game up for an Indian win). I honestly think it probably would have. They're Englishmen fielding in horrendous Indian heat and humidity, remember. Making them toil like dogs while the ball grows old and soft will generally be a pretty damn effective strategy. But again, I'm only really guessing. We simply can't say.

The players who were involved CAN certainly say.. And they did say the way Sehwag batted affected them. You just gotta be way too blinded to NOT see an obvious fact like that. When you get drilled the way he did their bowlers, you are bound to be demoralized.. And they were. It was just obvious watching the game that they were a beaten lot after that knock, inspite of them getting a glimpse when India were 4 down. I watched the day fully and I never, even for a second, doubted that we were gonna get home. If it wasn't Yuvi, it would have been Dhoni but I just felt we were gonna win for sure..

 

[Uppercut]

Well then it was settled. Honestbharani had a "feeling".

FWIW I didn't miss a ball and England seriously perked up when they got Sehwag out.

 

[Jono]

One thing Kallis has over Ponting is he's not a ****.

 

[Teja.]

Well then it was settled. Honestbharani had a "feeling".

In all fairness, Hb hates missing the train and won't be late again.

 

[honestbharani]

Well then it was settled. Honestbharani had a "feeling".

FWIW I didn't miss a ball and England seriously perked up when they got Sehwag out.

yeah.. people never get perked up when they get a wicket obviously.. Uppercut is a genius and his stats book says "England perked up"..


FWIW, I watched the whole thing AT THE GROUND and it was obvious they were out of it during the Sehwag assault. EVERYONE perks up with a wicket but it was obvious that we were not going to get the full thing from their bowlers after THAT assault. And that is not even the point, the point is how were they going DURING the assault? I am sure the scorecard shows that, UC.. Don't need to have a feeling when you can have it recorded in statsguru..