Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[silentstriker]

Anyone brought up the selfish angle yet?

 

[Uppercut]

Not that it has an effect on the poll of who's the better batsmen - it's about scoring runs and how. Ponting scores as many as Kallis but does it in a way that's much more beneficial to his team - hence he wins.

Actually Kallis's average is quite a bit higher than Ponting's now. Non-negligible.

But anyway, you think a higher strike rate makes a significant difference- why?

 

[Teja.]

While I don't agree or disagree but it's interesting that the "how" isn't extended to bowling discussions. I don't think many rate Waqar over Akram.

I rate Waqar over anyone, really. When Waqar's record in an entire decade(The 90s) is separated from a bad four years when he shouldn't have played(pre 90s and post 00s), He averages 21.7 at 4.9 wpm and an SR of 40. That is as good as anyone. I'm not talking peaks, That's an entire decade. Added to that, In his peak, He reached incredible heights.

 

[Teja.]

Actually, Waqar at his best was quite possibly the best bowler in history. It's when the whole career is taken into account that Wasim is ahead.

That's interesting, actually. Because the statistical gap between Waqar and Wasim is at overall level, negligible.(with Waqar being slightly better at wpm) Added to that, His SR is about 2 overs better. It's not like over their careers, Akram has any better stats.

 

[ankitj]

Waqar > Wasim in tests
Wasim > Waqar in ODIs

 

[Teja.]

Waqar > Wasim in tests
Wasim > Waqar in ODIs

AWTA

z

 

[bagapath]

didnt waqar give more than 25 runs per wicket in tests once you removed the minnows from his tally?

 

[Teja.]

didnt waqar give more than 25 runs per wicket in tests once you removed the minnows from his tally?

1. The Zim batting lineup were as good as 2-3 teams of today for a majority of Waqar's career.

2. It only happens when you consider Waqar's career post 2000, For an entire decade of the 90s, Waqar's bowling average is 22-odd even if you remove both B'desh and Zim.

 

[JBH001]

Wouldn't you apply the same metric to Wasim who also fell away markedly at the end of his career?

What's he supposed to be catching up on? He has a better average, as many centuries & around the same amount of runs as Ponting. This is just more prove Kallis is criminally underrated with the bat IMO, just because he's not quite as free scoring & seems to value his wicket more than others

Strangely enough, I don't think I underrate Kallis. I just rate Ponting as the better batsman. And to answer your question, he'd probably need to get to 6 - 10 centuries in the next year or two and that average up to around 60 and another 1000 - 2000 runs before I begin to be convinced that he is a better batsman than Ricky Ponting.

 

[Teja.]

Wouldn't you apply the same metric to Wasim who also fell away markedly at the end of his career?

Doing so will result in an improvement in Akram's stats but not to the extent of Waqar.

 

[Jono]

Don't turn this into Waqar vs. Wasim lame-os.

 

[Jono]

both have played for 15 years debris. form is temporary. their respective places in history are already fixed.

This is looking like an even more ludicrous statement now.

Kallis WAG.

 

[ankitj]

Kallis

 

[vcs]

Kallis at this point. Feel comfortable enough voting for him now. Funny how quickly things can change in a couple of weeks. Another 2 centuries, most likely match-winning.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually Kallis's average is quite a bit higher than Ponting's now. Non-negligible.

Well Ponting is closer to the end than Kallis - compare it then.

 

[Jono]

I agree. If India had Strauss and Gambhir as openers instead of Sehwag, Smith would have declared. Same with Cook or Watson etc. instead of Sehwag.

Great example SS. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you basing that as to why Ponting is better than Kallis, but to deny the effect the often huge effect to score at a high strike rate has on a match is naive.

 

[silentstriker]

Actually Kallis's average is quite a bit higher than Ponting's now. Non-negligible.

But anyway, you think a higher strike rate makes a significant difference- why?

Look at Smith not declaring right now. Fear of a quickfire Sehwag innings.

It changes games, within ten overs, the field is pushed back, the bowlers start bowling tripe, fielders are defensive and every other batsman in the lineup benefits. You just have to watch Sehwag's effect on the rest of the lineup again, over the past few years.

A long innings will eventually demoralize bowlers, but it'll be a while and they can attack for a long time. What we see with really dominating innings is that even at the other end, bowlers start bowling tripe as they're off their rhythm, the fields all messed up, and the game seems to be taken away....

As I said, if I had two batsmen of similar averages I would pick the faster S/R 10/10 times. If the difference in S/R is 20+, let alone 30-40+, I'd probably pick the faster S/R even if the averages are 5-7 points lower.

 

[Jono]

wtf, you moved your post. So I'm responding to your post even though its after mine.

 

[silentstriker]

Doublepost.

And shut it. Be thankful I'm allowing you to even comment in my presence.

 

[akilana]

People talk like Ponting and Kallis are Sehwag and Boycott.

Sehwag/Gilly are different from Ponting. Didn't Smith declare with 60 some overs to go for a target of 270 or something against Australia?

Kallis scored his hundred faster than Sachin did but is his better because it was scored faster or did it help his team more than Sachin's?