Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[honestbharani]

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

AWTA.. WTF was that shouting at the umpires? Funny how spirit of cricket only applies to his opponents and NOT to himself and his team.


And are we gonna see ANOTHER aussie get away with this?

 

[Jarquis]

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..

I've never said anything like that ffs.
200/1 is a pressure situation if you're chasing 480 to win in the 4th innings. No two ways about it. You disagree, which is why comparing how players perform under "pressure" is fruitless. If opinions are all that count I'll go ahead and call Peter Siddle a better batsman than De Villiers.

All I've ever suggested is that when comparing two batsmen with 15 year careers, it's quite safe to assume they would've batted in a number of similar positions and conditions.

Look, you disagree with me. That's fine. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine and I don't particularly want to continue this if you misrepresent what I'm saying in such a condescending tone every time.

 

[Jarquis]

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.

Jesus H Christ, intangibles are worthless as their importance can't be calculated. As I said, if it's all about opinions I'll say Steven Finn is better than Chanderpaul and you can't tell me I'm wrong because it's a conclusion I've come to with my own eyes and placing a certain importance on specific intangibles.
What players irrefutably have done is so much more important than a "potential" impact they might've had when it comes to judging their ability/quality.
Not every bowler will reacts in the same way to be hit for 6 anyway (anybody who's played cricket at any reasonable level will know this) it really is a worthless exercise.

 

[honestbharani]

Jesus H Christ, intangibles are worthless as their importance can't be calculated. As I said, if it's all about opinions I'll say Steven Finn is better than Chanderpaul and you can't tell me I'm wrong because it's a conclusion I've come to with my own eyes and placing a certain importance on specific intangibles.
What players irrefutably have done is so much more important than a "potential" impact they might've had when it comes to judging their ability/quality.
Not every bowler will reacts in the same way to be hit for 6 anyway (anybody who's played cricket at any reasonable level will know this) it really is a worthless exercise.

Of course, I am not saying opinions are useful when they state that Steyn is a better batsman than Sachin, for instance. But between players in the same statistical ball park, opinions are just as good/bad a judge as stats are.. In both cases, there is amazing room for error and the chance that conclusion drawn could be totally 100% wrong... Simple concept.. I just DO NOT see why stats are any better of an indicator between two players with comparable records than stats alone...

 

[Cricketismylife]

Got to agree with Marcuss here; stats are objective, opinions aren't. People's opinions are severely biased towards players of their own country, players who have done well against their own country, and players they have watched a lot, plus players who are more entertaining or hyped up. I would say to people, if you think player A played more significant innings than player B, then prove it....

As for the intangibles, usually there is a stat to back up that intangible, which means that it's not really an intangible. For instance Samaraweera and Ponting have similar averages, even though everyone knows Ponting is comfortably the better player. Their average is only one stat. However there is another stat showing quality of bowlers faced (I saw it on criciinfo) which shows that Samaraweera has faced bowlers with a quality of bowling stat 5 less than Ponting. So effectively there is a 5 run difference in their average.

Then there is another stat which shows Samaraweera has not performed outside the subcontinent and hasnt played much in several countries. Another reason why he worse than Ponting...

Interestingly Kallis's quality of bowling faced is actually marginally better than Ponting's and his average is higher...so on those 2 measures he is ahead. So no one can really argue that Kallis scores against weak attacks, as if he had his quality of bowling faced would be worse.

As far as I'm concerned the intanglibles are simply observers bias and not anything Kallis has done wrong.As I have said, look at all his decent innings and you can see how many times he has put SA in a strong position. Maybe Lara did it with a flashing blade and in far better style, but in terms of run scored they are v similar (in fact Kallis a little higher), Lara might have played a few more absolute gems than Kallis, but if he is better batsman than Kallis (which I think he is), then it really isn't by much.

 

[thierry henry]

KallisKallisKallis

Anyone who thinks Kallis has hurt SA by batting too slowly at times needs to balance that against how Ponting has hurt Australia by being **** for ages now

And lol at people trying to argue a point with HB, a bloke whose posts consist of a vaguely related stream of incoherent words

 

[vcs]

It's not that Kallis has hurt his team with slow scoring, just that Ponting has turned more neutral positions to match-winning ones for his team with his style of play. You could argue that the averages of the two also show he has lost more games for his team than Kallis. I'd wait for the end of their careers before judging. It's been an annus horribilis for Ponting though.

 

[biased indian]

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

Completely AWTA....

but still voted for ponting as i think he is a better batsmen

 

[thierry henry]

It's not that Kallis has hurt his team with slow scoring, just that Ponting has turned more neutral positions to match-winning ones for his team with his style of play. You could argue that the averages of the two also show he has lost more games for his team than Kallis. I'd wait for the end of their careers before judging. It's been an annus horribilis for Ponting though.

I'll rephrase- if you reckon Kallis has been less effective than Ponting on the basis of his slower scoring, you also need to admit that Ponting has been less effective than Kallis in the now extended period of time that he has been crap.

It's been more than one annus for Ponting (lol)

 

[vcs]

I'll rephrase- if you reckon Kallis has been less effective than Ponting on the basis of his slower scoring, you also need to admit that Ponting has been less effective than Kallis in the now extended period of time that he has been crap.

It's been more than one annus for Ponting (lol)

Of course, he has probably been less effective than Salman Butt for a good while now, leave alone Kallis... but it depends on how harshly you judge a batsman when he's clearly in a bad slump/past his peak/struggling to lead a weak, inexperienced side etc. He has demonstrated his longevity well enough to be excused a few poor years at the end IMO (if this slump turns out to be terminal). Then again, Kallis and Ponting started their careers at similar times so this argument does not hold as much water as it would have if Ponting had been well-established and had already had a few good years before Kallis started out.

Ponting will probably be relieved of the Test captaincy after this series and it remains to be seen if he can fight his way back into form.

 

[thierry henry]

Of course, he has probably been less effective than Salman Butt for a good while now, leave alone Kallis... but it depends on how harshly you judge a batsman when he's clearly in a bad slump/past his peak/struggling to lead a weak, inexperienced side etc. He has demonstrated his longevity well enough to be excused a few poor years at the end IMO (if this slump turns out to be terminal). Then again, Kallis and Ponting started their careers at similar times so this argument does not hold as much water as it would have if Ponting had been well-established and had already had a few good years before Kallis started out.

Ponting will probably be relieved of the Test captaincy after this series and it remains to be seen if he can fight his way back into form.

If we're discussing "A v B" imo we're discussing their overall contribution to their team's success in international cricket over the course of their careers. That's what I'm discussing anyway. If big scores go in the plus column, low scores go in the minus column.

 

[vcs]

Well yeah, that is one interpretation of "better batsman". People assign different weightages to how dominant a batsman looks in his peak (of course, every one has a different notion of a peak) and some would rather pick a batsman for their All-time XI by how good they were at their best, as long as their best lasted long enough.

 

[thierry henry]

Well yeah, that is one interpretation of "better batsman".

The parameters of the discussion need to be set really. My interpretation is the one I'm debating. I have no interest in discussing who was better at their peak.

 

[vcs]

Also, it's not clearcut that Kallis has made a bigger contribution to his team than Ponting anyway (purely with the bat that is)... while the averages have a substantial gap at the moment, the aggregate runs, centuries, etc. are pretty much neck and neck.

 

[Prince EWS]

Also, it's not clearcut that Kallis has made a bigger contribution to his team than Ponting anyway (purely with the bat that is)... while the averages have a substantial gap at the moment, the aggregate runs, centuries, etc. are pretty much neck and neck.

Kallis will probably a few years after Ponting though. Which means he'll have his own form slump, his own average drop and his own chance to overtake Ponting on runs, centuries etc.

I think it's too close to call at the moment. They're at slightly different points of their careers; I don't think we'll really be able to tell until they're done. As Jono has pointed out though, Kallis's superior technique puts him in theoretically better stead to perform at an older age.

 

[honestbharani]

KallisKallisKallis

Anyone who thinks Kallis has hurt SA by batting too slowly at times needs to balance that against how Ponting has hurt Australia by being **** for ages now

And lol at people trying to argue a point with HB, a bloke whose posts consist of a vaguely related stream of incoherent words

Did you confuse my posts with someone who has to post in a footballer's name?

 

[Ruckus]

Well yeah, that is one interpretation of "better batsman". People assign different weightages to how dominant a batsman looks in his peak (of course, every one has a different notion of a peak) and some would rather pick a batsman for their All-time XI by how good they were at their best, as long as their best lasted long enough.

Yeah exactly. I'm not a big fan of the "overall contribution to their team's success in international cricket over the course of their careers" argument. Because, in theory, you could have a batsmen who averages 50 consistently over their, say, 10 year career and another one who averages 70 in the first 5 years and 30 in the last 5. For the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success, but only the latter would have really dominated attacks at one stage. Also, by averaging 70 for 5 years they would have reached a skill level not even touched upon by the other batsman. That being said, though, the other batsmen would obviously have better longevity to compensate for that.

However, if I had to pick one, it would be the player who once averaged 70, simply because it shows they once were capable of playing at such a high level, and I think the skills required to do so are harder to come by than attributes required for longevity.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah exactly. I'm not a big fan of the "overall contribution to their team's success in international cricket over the course of their careers" argument. Because, in theory, you could have a batsmen who averages 50 consistently over their, say, 10 year career and another one who averages 70 in the first 5 years and 30 in the last 5. For the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success, but only the latter would have really dominated attacks at one stage. Also, by averaging 70 for 5 years they would have reached a skill level not even touched upon by the other batsman. That being said, though, the other batsmen would obviously have better longevity to compensate for that.

However, if I had to pick one, it would be the player who once averaged 70, simply because it shows they once were capable of playing at such a high level, and I think the skills required to do so are harder to come by than attributes required for longevity.

Couldn't disagree more if I tried.

 

[Ruckus]

I don't really care tbh.

 

[Spark]

Yeah exactly. I'm not a big fan of the "overall contribution to their team's success in international cricket over the course of their careers" argument. Because, in theory, you could have a batsmen who averages 50 consistently over their, say, 10 year career and another one who averages 70 in the first 5 years and 30 in the last 5. For the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success, but only the latter would have really dominated attacks at one stage. Also, by averaging 70 for 5 years they would have reached a skill level not even touched upon by the other batsman. That being said, though, the other batsmen would obviously have better longevity to compensate for that.

However, if I had to pick one, it would be the player who once averaged 70, simply because it shows they once were capable of playing at such a high level, and I think the skills required to do so are harder to come by than attributes required for longevity.

I'd disagree tbh. Averaging 70 for 5 years is wonderful but averaging 30 for five years is just plain terrible for the team. You couldn't even call him a great or very good player, only one who had an extended purple patch.