• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

Who is the better test batsman


  • Total voters
    140

Ruckus

International Captain
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.
5 years is never going to be classified as a purple patch though. In modern cricket, that's equivalent to over 50 matches. You can't say Bradman had a purple patch of a career...
 

Spark

Global Moderator
On the flipside, 50 matches averaging 30...

You could argue that Ponting's purple patch lasted well over 5 years (if you do a tiny bit of selective ignorance in the middle). Every player is going to have one or more purple patches, how long you make it last, and how good you are outside of it, is what defines how good you are as a player.
 
Last edited:

Ruckus

International Captain
On the flipside, 50 matches averaging 30...

You could argue that Ponting's purple patch lasted well over 5 years (if you do a tiny bit of selective ignorance in the middle). Every player is going to have one or more purple patches, how long you make it last, and how good you are outside of it, is what defines how good you are as a player.
The whole premise though was comparing someone who averages 50 over 10 years, or 70 over 5 and 30 over the other 5. Both are identical in terms of runs scored and the contribution to the team. That isn't debatable. A preference for one just depends on whether you favour consistency (but no period of dominance) or dominance (but with a period of inconsistency). I pick the latter because it shows the player can perform at that extremely high level, where as the former doesn't.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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 already said, you compare batsmen by seeing how well they have served their team. Nothing else. For some bizarre reason you think you should compare batsmen removed from the team context. If that's the case, you must rate minnow bashers very highly indeed...

"Makes sense to compare them on what they irrefutably have done". So you are saying when you watch batsmen play and dominate the opposition, for some reason that is refutable? My eyes must deceive me, I need raw stats to make a judgement!
:confused:

Oh and lol at first post.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
The whole premise though was comparing someone who averages 50 over 10 years, or 70 over 5 and 30 over the other 5. Both are identical in terms of runs scored and the contribution to the team. That isn't debatable. A preference for one just depends on whether you favour consistency (but no period of dominance) or dominance (but with a period of inconsistency). I pick the latter because it shows the player can perform at that extremely high level, where as the former doesn't.
Completely ignoring the fact that the latter reached a new level of ****ness which the other never fell to.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
The whole premise though was comparing someone who averages 50 over 10 years, or 70 over 5 and 30 over the other 5. Both are identical in terms of runs scored and the contribution to the team. That isn't debatable. A preference for one just depends on whether you favour consistency (but no period of dominance) or dominance (but with a period of inconsistency). I pick the latter because it shows the player can perform at that extremely high level, where as the former doesn't.
5 years of averaging 30 isn't just inconsistent, it's ****. I don't care what you "can" do when rating a player's "greatness", it's what you do, er, do.

Otherwise Michael Hussey would be the second greatest player in history, I mean, he averaged 80 once, right?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
5 years of averaging 30 isn't just inconsistent, it's ****. I don't care what you "can" do when rating a player's "greatness", it's what you do, er, do.

Otherwise Michael Hussey would be the second greatest player in history, I mean, he averaged 80 once, right?
Yeah, it's a ridiculous notion that screams of "I'm going to make up cricketing theory I don't really agree with to justify my biased opinion, then apply it to everything from now on." The essence of being a good player is contributing in a way that makes series wins for your team more likely, not doing things in a way that people regard as more skilful, or (as I joked about earlier) people would bat on one leg to the detriment of their run-scoring as it's harder, more entertaining and shows a greater range of skill.

I'd much rather have two batsmen in my side averaging 50 than one averaging 70 and one averaging 30, for example. Being better at your absolute best than another player means nothing if they can be world class or close to for twice as long as you.

I actually don't think you actually can say Kallis has been a better batsman than Ponting over the course of their careers and the with any real confidence and the hypothetical examples we're talking about really don't mirror their careers at all, but some of the straw-clutching and made up arguments that have been presented have been hilarious, and the double standards that exist even moreso as Marcuss pointed out.
 
Last edited:

flibbertyjibber

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Both extremely fine players over their careers. One difference though, Ponting has gone as a player earlier than Kallis. Doesn't detract from what a wonderful player he has been though, not his fault he has been picked when in decline.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
:confused:

Oh and lol at first post.
Nay, the recent point is in reference to the special case where two players have the exact same "overall contribution to their team's success" - in which case if you have to choose one, which would it be etc..

Also, I am confused as to the frequent "lol" posts? Are you a happy teenager?

Completely ignoring the fact that the latter reached a new level of ****ness which the other never fell to.
Nay again. "A preference for one just depends on whether you favour consistency (but no period of dominance) or dominance (but with a period of inconsistency)."

5 years of averaging 30 isn't just inconsistent, it's ****. I don't care what you "can" do when rating a player's "greatness", it's what you do, er, do.

Otherwise Michael Hussey would be the second greatest player in history, I mean, he averaged 80 once, right?
But both the players in the example have ultimately done the same. Hussey only actually played that well for 19 matches, less than half of 50+.
 

Spark

Global Moderator
The point remains that you can't rate players as a complete package based on what they were capable of - that is the realm of rating their talent/ability etc. - you have to rate them based on what they achieved.

A player who averages 30 for 5 years is a horrible deadweight to a team and in no way deserves to be called a great player because it is such a damaging influence. We've seen what happen when a player averages 30 for 18 months or two years, hell, even for six-eight months. Five years...
 

Ruckus

International Captain
The point remains that you can't rate players as a complete package based on what they were capable of - that is the realm of rating their talent/ability etc. - you have to rate them based on what they achieved.

A player who averages 30 for 5 years is a horrible deadweight to a team and in no way deserves to be called a great player because it is such a damaging influence. We've seen what happen when a player averages 30 for 18 months or two years, hell, even for six-eight months. Five years...
You seem to keep suggesting the two examples are somehow different though (in terms of what they would have achieved for the team). On one hand yes averaging 30 for 5 years will be detrimental compared to the guy who is averaging 50, but on the other hand averaging 70 for 5 years will be equally beneficial. So it evens out. I'll be the first to agree that the no. 1 criterion for rating a player is what they achieved, but given that in the example BOTH have achieved exactly the same, who would you pick as the better player if you HAD to? I.e. it's forcing you to pick a player using attributes beyond simply what they have achieved.
 
Last edited:

Spark

Global Moderator
Disagreed. Yes the guy averaging 70 scored a ****load more runs, but the destabilizing influence that being a deadweight over a long period of time has cannot be overstated.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Disagreed. Yes the guy averaging 70 scored a ****load more runs, but the destabilizing influence that being a deadweight over a long period of time has cannot be overstated.
If you are going along those lines though, surely you could argue that averaging 70 for 5 years would just as much have a stablising influence on the team. Whatever the case, as I already said in the earlier post "for the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success". So just assume their contributions are equal, then which would you pick and why?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
If you are going along those lines though, surely you could argue that averaging 70 for 5 years would just as much have a stablising influence on the team. Whatever the case, as I already said in the earlier post "for the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success". So just assume their contributions are equal, then which would you pick and why?
I'd say they were equal. Because they are.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Nay, the recent point is in reference to the special case where two players have the exact same "overall contribution to their team's success" - in which case if you have to choose one, which would it be etc..

Also, I am confused as to the frequent "lol" posts? Are you a happy teenager?
I wasn't actually interested in what exactly you were saying. Just one moment you're not a fan of comparing players influence to their team's success and then at another time you were.
Meh.


Nay again. "A preference for one just depends on whether you favour consistency (but no period of dominance) or dominance (but with a period of inconsistency)."
The latter wasn't really inconsistent, he was consistently excellent and then consistently ****. No two ways about it.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
If you are going along those lines though, surely you could argue that averaging 70 for 5 years would just as much have a stablising influence on the team. Whatever the case, as I already said in the earlier post "for the sake of the argument, both could be said to have the same overall contribution to their team's success". So just assume their contributions are equal, then which would you pick and why?
Basically you're asking which is heavier, a ton of wood or half a ton of lead and half a ton of feathers.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah fair enough. Assuming your not at uni yet, if you don't like those kind of questions I'd advise you not to take up philosophy.
 

Jarquis

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah fair enough. Assuming your not at uni yet, if you don't like those kind of questions I'd advise you not to take up philosophy.
It's not that I don't like them, it's just I don't think they work with cricket.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Haha yeah well if I'm to be completely frank, I don't think half of the **** I spew out on this forum (as well as countless others) actually has much substance behind it. But hey, if the only things talked about on a cricket forum were 100% verifiable, and were completely ingrained in the real world of cricket, there would be some pretty limited discussions. Take the entire topic of this thread - if you were to be completely realistic, one would know that comparing two batsmen who have very similiar records is a pointless exercise. There are FAR too many variables to account for any differences and justify the 'superiority' of one over the other. It all ultimately comes down to subjective (and probably highly biased) opinions.
 

Top