Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Furball]

I was just saying it jest,tbh.

But Bradman did only play in 2 countries,did not have so many off field distractions,ODI'S AND T20's, a lot more cricket causing lot more injuries.

With Video technology getting better and bowlers figuring out lines too ball to you until you can sort it out after some innings in which your average is minimised. The average level of bowler was lower too and there were not many mystery bowlers too and people doing so many things with the delivery which until you figure you average got neutralised.

Don Bradman is the best and would have probably succeeded in this era ,but would not have averaged what he did here.

Yeah, you're right. Bradman didn't have of the serious distractions like Tendulkar does, Bradman only had to worry about his health failing him. Or holding up 3 jobs because cricketers of his time earned a pittance. Or mountains of First Class, invitational and grade cricket to eke out what little he could for the game, or tours to England a month away by boat. What about the adulation of a nation devastated by a worldwide economic depression and with the threat of war hanging over them, as the Japanese expanded through Asia aggressively in the 1930s.

You're right. Bradman didn't have any of the same worries Tendulkar has. Who knows how good he might have been had he had to deal with the same "problems" Tendulkar's had?

 

[akilana]

I'll put it this way: through this period India have been closer to NZ's and WIndies' attacks than to Pakistan's.

India attack consisting of Harbajan, Kumble and Zaheer in India was as good as any but I know why you removed them from the "one of the best attacks."

 

[Furball]

In 35 tests, Ponting's only had 2 poor series, one in 98 and the current one now.

Wasn't great in 2005 really, and to be honest given the Ashes era Ponting's played in, his record in Ashes Tests is quite poor.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Wasn't great in 2005 really, and to be honest given the Ashes era Ponting's played in, his record in Ashes Tests is quite poor.

Fair call, one amazing knock covered over a fair few misses.

 

[Ikki]

Wasn't great in 2005 really, and to be honest given the Ashes era Ponting's played in, his record in Ashes Tests is quite poor.

Huh? Was perfectly fine - far from a flop as was being suggested. No one apart from KP did very well with the bat that series.

The highest batting averages in that series: (2nd highest Aussie, 5th overall).

Pietersen: 52
Langer: 44
Trescothick: 43
Flintoff: 40
Ponting: 40

Since 05 England have had a pretty good bowling line-up. Which covers half his Ashes career. His record is fine, ok, certainly not poor. Just last year he averaged almost 50 in England, lest we forget, against a fine England attack.

 

[Furball]

Huh? Was perfectly fine - far from a flop as was being suggested. No one apart from KP did very well with the bat that series.

The highest batting averages in that series:

Pietersen: 52
Langer: 44
Trescothick: 43
Flintoff: 40
Ponting: 40

He wasn't a flop, but he wasn't exactly brilliant either, his Old Trafford knock aside. The only Aussie batsman who really applied himself consistently all series was Justin Langer.

 

[Top_Cat]

Huh? Was perfectly fine - far from a flop as was being suggested. No one apart from KP did very well with the bat that series.

The highest batting averages in that series:

Pietersen: 52
Langer: 44
Trescothick: 43
Flintoff: 40
Ponting: 40

Since 05 England have had a pretty good bowling line-up. Which covers half his Ashes career. His record is fine, ok, certainly not poor. Just last year he averaged almost 50 in England, lest we forget, against a fine England attack.

Ponting was averaging damn-near 60 before that series started whereas the others pretty much played to their averages. That's why it's considered a relatively poor series for Ponting. You expect a bloke with that good a record to score more, even against a top attack. That series puts him on par with guys who, overall, aren't anywhere near as good.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting was averaging damn-near 60 before that series started whereas the others pretty much played to their averages. That's why it's considered a relatively poor series for Ponting. You expect a bloke with that good a record to score more, even against a top attack. That series puts him on par with guys who, overall, aren't anywhere near as good.

And that attack, for that series, was arguably the best anyone in our batting line-up had played. The bowling performance by England in that time matched some of the best stuff attacks served in the 90s.

Heck, he had the 2nd highest average on our side. So whilst it is relatively poor in comparison to his average; with respect to how everyone else did and the quality of the attack it was fine. A flop? Definitely not IMO.

 

[Furball]

His record against England, considering the era he's played in, is poor. There's no getting away from that.

 

[Top_Cat]

And that attack, for that series, was arguably the best anyone in our batting line-up had played. The bowling performance by England in that time matched some of the best stuff attacks served in the 90s.

Heck, he had the 2nd highest average on our side. So whilst it is relatively poor in comparison to his average; with respect to how everyone else did and the quality of the attack it was fine. A flop? Definitely not.

Yeah but no-one's saying he flopped (depending on your definition of a flop, really) but you expect your gun batsman, second to Bradman apparently, to score better than the others in the team. Bradman, a relative failure 'only' averaging 50-odd in the Bodyline series, was still much better than the next Aussie. Even taking into account the quality of the bowling. Top players are and should be held to a higher standard, Ponting's series in 2005 was a relative failure for him even if someone like, say, me would be delighted to average 4 let alone 40 against that attack.

EDIT: In reality, I'd take 0.4.

 

[Ikki]

His record against England, considering the era he's played in, is poor. There's no getting away from that.

Since 05 England have had a pretty good bowling line-up. Which covers more than half his Ashes career. His record is fine, ok, certainly not poor. Just last year he averaged almost 50 in England, lest we forget, against a fine England attack.

England during Ponting's career have the 4th best attack. If you remove minnows; they have the 3rd best attack.

Ironically, Before the 2005 series he'd played 16 tests and averaged 41.72. Since 2005 - when they started having good attacks - he averages 46.22.

Before this current series he was averaging 48.22 against them overall and 55 against them since 2005.

So, really, you're wrong.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah but no-one's saying he flopped (depending on your definition of a flop, really) but you expect your gun batsman, second to Bradman apparently, to score better than the others in the team. Bradman, a relative failure 'only' averaging 50-odd in the Bodyline series, was still much better than the next Aussie. Even taking into account the quality of the bowling. Top players are and should be held to a higher standard, Ponting's series in 2005 was a relative failure for him even if someone like, say, me would be delighted to average 4 let alone 40 against that attack.

Actually, someone did, hence my reply to Uppercut.

I disagree with the rest of your analogy TBH. Ponting isn't that far ahead as Bradman to be expected to always average the best amongst his teammates. There are times when he'll average less than them, less than he does overall; but I certainly wouldn't mark as poor.

 

[Furball]

England during Ponting's career have the 4th best attack. If you remove minnows; they have the 3rd best attack.

Ironically, Before the 2005 series he'd played 16 tests and averaged 41.72. Since 2005 - when they started having good attacks - he averages 46.22.

Before this current series he was averaging 48.22 against them overall and 55 against them since 2005.

So, really, you're wrong.

41.72 in Ashes cricket under Steve Waugh is nothing to shout about.

 

[vic_orthdox]

His record against England, considering the era he's played in, is poor. There's no getting away from that.

Maybe semantics, I don't see how you can call an average over 40 as "poor". It's not like there are blokes wandering around with an average of 70 against the Poms in recent times.

 

[Ikki]

41.72 in Ashes cricket under Steve Waugh is nothing to shout about.

And he averages 46.22 since England became good...so "considering the era" he hasn't done poorly - as you suggested.

 

[Athlai]

Maybe semantics, I don't see how you can call an average over 40 as "poor". It's not like there are blokes wandering around with an average of 70 against the Poms in recent times.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Ikki]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...al1=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting

Apart from Hussey, Waugh and Langer, the rest of our batsmen have more or less averaged as much as Ponting (mid-40s) against England, since 01 Dec 1995.

 

[Top_Cat]

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Apart from Hussey, Waugh and Langer, the rest of our batsmen have more or less averaged as much as Ponting (mid-40s) against England, since 01 Dec 1995.

Yes but he's been mooted to be far better than them. Maybe the conclusion to be drawn is that he isn't after all.

 

[Ikki]

Yes but he's been mooted to be far better than them. Maybe the conclusion to be drawn is that he isn't after all.

But he isn't far better than them... against England. Overall, he is.

England is the Ponting's worst overall average against any country...yet it is only 44.21 (higher against the better English attacks). Everyone does not as well against certain countries but Ponting's is just not poor. Not great as he is elsewhere, but definitely not poor. But that's fine, you don't have to be better than your teammates/rivals against everyone, everywhere, all the time.

I'm afraid the discussion has digressed to the point that people are misunderstanding it.

Uppercut stated that Ponting flopped against the best English attacks and scored against worst - ironically, wrong.

I stated that he hadn't flopped in any series apart from one in 98 and the current one. So whether 05 was "something to shout about" or wasn't as good as his teammates are overall against England is somewhat irrelevant. It just isn't poor or a flop, at all, IMO.

 

[centurymaker]

But he isn't far better than them... against England. Overall, he is.

England is the Ponting's worst overall average against any country...yet it is only 44.21 (higher against the better English attacks). Everyone does not as well against certain countries but Ponting's is just not poor. Not great as he is elsewhere, but definitely not poor. But that's fine, you don't have to be better than your teammates/rivals against everyone, everywhere, all the time.

I'm afraid the discussion has digressed to the point that people are misunderstanding it.

Uppercut stated that Ponting flopped against the best English attacks and scored against worst - ironically, wrong.

I stated that he hadn't flopped in any series apart from one in 98 and the current one. So whether 05 was "something to shout about" or wasn't as good as his teammates are overall against England is somewhat irrelevant. It just isn't poor or a flop, at all, IMO.

I totally agree with you mate.
An avg of 40 something is pretty decent against quality bowling line-ups.