Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[abmk]

Exactly...same attack bar Jones. I see the English bowlers get let off for bowling "crappily" aka getting smashed in the 2nd ever Ashes whitewash...whereas Australia whom had many players out of form in 05 were just overwhelmed.

really ? Saying they bowled crappily, that looks like a let off for them ?

yeah, sure harmison was just as effective abroad as he was at home, anderson was a world-beater in conditions that did not aid swing bowling at that time and flintoff bowled just as well as he did in 2005, though he was nearly not as fit

Oh and regarding Ashes 2005, Aus batsmen were not out of form, they just hadn't faced an attack of that caliber in those sort of conditions for quite some time and their weaknesses were exposed.

 

[JBH001]

So relying on the fact that Wasim only took his wicket once is disingenuous if you are trying to say he succeeded against that attack. He failed and didn't make many runs.

Wait a minute, do you seriously think Tendulkar failed against that attack in 1989? As a 16 year old in his debut series? A series where he finished with an average of 35 with 2 50s against an attack usually comprising of Imran, Akram, Waqar and Qadir in Pakistan? A similar performance like that now from a debutant test batsman would have the scribes salivating over the next great world-class batsman. Oh wait...

 

[abmk]

E Amazing coincidence...every time Ponting plays well against them they're playing crappily and everytime they're up for it he is in bad form. He's so unlucky that Ponting.

umm, ponting did fairly well in Ashes 2009, didn't he ? Did I say Eng bowled crappily then ?

Face it , England were crappy in Ashes 2006-07 , Aus were very good and just overwhelmed them

 

[abmk]

Wait a minute, do you seriously think Tendulkar failed against that attack in 1989? As a 16 year old in his debut series? A series where he finished with an average of 35 with 2 50s against an attack usually comprising of Imran, Akram, Waqar and Qadir in Pakistan? A similar performance like that now from a debutant test batsman would have the scribes salivating over the next great world-class batsman. Oh wait...

apparently its only the stats that matter , not the context

 

[Ikki]

really ? Saying they bowled crappily, that looks like a let off for them ?

yeah, sure harmison was just as effective abroad as he was at home, anderson was a world-beater in conditions that did not aid swing bowling at that time and flintoff bowled just as well as he did in 2005, though he was nearly as fit

Oh and regarding Ashes 2005, Aus batsmen were not out of form, they just hadn't faced an attack of that caliber in those sort of conditions for quite some time and their weaknesses were exposed.

No, he wasn't as affective...but he got shellacked regardless. Same with pretty much every other bowler. Yes you are letting them off lightly. 5-0 doesn't happen just because you're crap...it happens because the other team handed you your behind.

I ask again, does the fact that Ponting himself has been in poor form get noted here? Or does that only occur for the English bowlers? What more, the irony is that since England have had better bowlers (i.e. since 05) he's actually done better against them.

In the last Ashes (in England) where their attack was at home and very good (Anderson, Flintoff, Onions, Broad, Swann) Ponting almost averaged 50. Were they crap then too?

Wait a minute, do you seriously think Tendulkar failed against that attack in 1989? As a 16 year old in his debut series? A series where he finished with an average of 35 with 2 50s against an attack usually comprising of Imran, Akram, Waqar and Qadir in Pakistan? A similar performance like that now from a debutant test batsman would have the scribes salivating over the next great world-class batsman. Oh wait...

I'm curious...what does he have to do to have a poor record against someone? Either he was too young, his wicket wasn't taken enough by a specific batsman or that 8 matches are seemingly a bad sample all of a sudden? Christ, he did poorly against Pakistan when they had a very strong attack. That's pretty much all there is to it. Even now, overall, his average is about 42. This in an era where the likes of Misbah, Younis, Sehwag Waterboy have some ridiculous averages in these series. He averaged 36 in a series of bore draw run fests.

 

[centurymaker]

No, he wasn't as affective...but he got shellacked regardless. Same with pretty much every other bowler. Yes you are letting them off lightly. 5-0 doesn't happen just because you're crap...it happens because the other team handed you your behind.

I ask again, does the fact that Ponting himself has been in poor form get noted here? Or does that only occur for the English bowlers? What more, the irony is that since England have had better bowlers (i.e. since 05) he's actually done better against them.

In the last Ashes (in England) where their attack was at home and very good (Anderson, Flintoff, Onions, Broad, Swann) Ponting almost averaged 50. Were they crap then too?



I'm curious...what does he have to do to have a poor record against someone? Either he was too young, his wicket wasn't taken enough by a specific batsman or that 8 matches are seemingly a bad sample all of a sudden? Christ, he did poorly against Pakistan when they had a very strong attack. That's pretty much all there is to it. Even now, overall, his average is about 42. This in an era where the likes of Misbah, Younis, Sehwag Waterboy have some ridiculous averages in these series. He averaged 36 in a series of bore draw run fests.

Those bore draws were in 05 and 06 and he didn't do well then.

 

[vcs]

I'm curious...what does he have to do to have a poor record against someone? Either he was too young, his wicket wasn't taken enough by a specific batsman or that 8 matches are seemingly a bad sample all of a sudden? Christ, he did poorly against Pakistan when they had a very strong attack. That's pretty much all there is to it. Even now, overall, his average is about 42. This in an era where the likes of Misbah, Younis, Sehwag Waterboy have some ridiculous averages in these series. He averaged 36 in a series of bore draw run fests.

Context is important. In another thread, I said that Ponting did not have a poor Ashes 2005 despite averaging <40 because it was low-scoring series against a top-class attack and he played a match-saving knock in the series. I'll take that. Same with Tendulkar in '99, except you know what happened after he got out on 136. Also, when he averaged 35 in '89, I believe he helped secure a draw in one Test match.

He was poor in 2004-05 against Pakistan despite averaging 50+ in those series, and obviously in 2006 he really struggled in a high-scoring series. But it's well known that he was in terrible form at the time, and he made up for it by taking India to victory in this match.

 

[abmk]

No, he wasn't as affective...but he got shellacked regardless. Same with pretty much every other bowler. Yes you are letting them off lightly. 5-0 doesn't happen just because you're crap...it happens because the other team handed you your behind.

I mentioned that Aus were very good as well .

I ask again, does the fact that Ponting himself has been in poor form get noted here? Or does that only occur for the English bowlers? .

didn't he have a pretty good series in India just before the Ashes ? Here he gets just one fifty in 4 tests, that too of no significance

IWhat more, the irony is that since England have had better bowlers (i.e. since 05) he's actually done better against them. .

umm, no , that was my whole point, Remove the 2006 series, where they were cr*p and I think his average goes to slightly below 40

IIn the last Ashes (in England) where their attack was at home and very good (Anderson, Flintoff, Onions, Broad, Swann) Ponting almost averaged 50. Were they crap then too?

If you could read, I mentioned that series amongst the good-excellent Eng attacks that ponting faced

I'm curious...what does he have to do to have a poor record against someone? Either he was too young, his wicket wasn't taken enough by a specific batsman or that 8 matches are seemingly a bad sample all of a sudden? Christ, he did poorly against Pakistan when they had a very strong attack. That's pretty much all there is to it. Even now, overall, his average is about 42. This in an era where the likes of Misbah, Younis, Sehwag Waterboy have some ridiculous averages in these series. He averaged 36 in a series of bore draw run fests.

Again, just stats and no context.

these are poor series

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

not his debut series against Pak

 

[Ikki]

Vcs, Yes, but the context is run scoring in test matches against your peers. That is why the Ponting point is relevant. Whether Tendulkar is 16 or 26 matters not a jot in the outcome of the game. Ponting in that series was still one of the leading averages and 2nd in the Aussie team. Does Tendulkar have a similar contextual point? If he doesn't, I don't see the comparison.

 

[vcs]

Vcs, Yes, but the context is run scoring in test matches against your peers. That is why the Ponting point is relevant. Whether Tendulkar is 16 or 26 matters not a jot in the outcome of the game. Ponting in that series was still one of the leading averages and 2nd in the Aussie team. Does Tendulkar have a similar contextual point? If he doesn't, I don't see the comparison.

He was among the top 2-3 in the '99 series where the 136 was the only knock worth mentioning. Just looked it up, only Afridi () and Sadagopan Ramesh (lol) got more runs than him.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=411;type=series

 

[Ikki]

I mentioned that Aus were very good as well . [/quote
didn't he have a pretty good series in India just before the Ashes ? Here he gets just one fifty in 4 tests, that too of no significance

Yet you want to remove the series because he did well, right? Yet you'll keep the series in 99, even though that was hardly a good attack because he failed.

umm, no , that was my whole point, Remove the 2006 series, where they were cr*p and I think his average goes to slightly below 40

He's only had one bad series since 05. It's like me saying if you remove this last series where he was really out of form he does great against them.

 

[bagapath]

I'm curious...what does he have to do to have a poor record against someone? Either he was too young, his wicket wasn't taken enough by a specific batsman or that 8 matches are seemingly a bad sample all of a sudden? Christ, he did poorly against Pakistan when they had a very strong attack. That's pretty much all there is to it. Even now, overall, his average is about 42. This in an era where the likes of Misbah, Younis, Sehwag Waterboy have some ridiculous averages in these series. He averaged 36 in a series of bore draw run fests.

sound like the usual excuses we've heard for warne's failures against india.

 

[vcs]

Wasn't your argument originally that his record against Pakistan was poor because he couldn't handle Waqar/Wasim/Saqlain well and he had to wait for them to go in order to improve? People are saying the opposite here.. that he actually did well against Pakistan when they had Waqar/Wasim/Saqlain/Imran (inspite of having a lower average) and did worse after 2004 when they had a weaker attack, despite averaging more. That's why context is so important.

I'm aware that what I've written above may sound nonsensical and counter-intuitive, but anyone who actually followed those series would realize what I mean.

 

[Ikki]

VCS: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

My point was a reply to baga in a different thread regarding completeness. Baga touted his improved records against Pak and SA and I had said that he'd done so after their great attacks retired. Mostly in jest although there is some truth to it.

 

[vcs]

VCS: Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

My point was a reply to baga in a different thread regarding completeness. Baga touted his improved records against Pak and SA and I had said that he'd done so after their great attacks retired. Mostly in jest although there is some truth to it.

Hmm.. that third Test was the one in Eden Gardens which was part of the Asian Test Championship, wasn't it?

FWIW, about completeness, my take is that a >40 average for a batsman is roughly equivalent to a <30 average for a bowler. If a batsman is averaging >40 in every venue and against every opponent overall, it's a pretty complete record. Same goes for a bowler averaging <30 in every venue and overall against every opponent. Your definition may vary.

Actually, that's why I bumped the "Who has the most complete record?" thread after the recent series in SA.

 

[abmk]

Wasn't your argument originally that his record against Pakistan was poor because he couldn't handle Waqar/Wasim/Saqlain well and he had to wait for them to go in order to improve? People are saying the opposite here.. that he actually did well against Pakistan when they had Waqar/Wasim/Saqlain/Imran (inspite of having a lower average) and did worse after 2004 when they had a weaker attack, despite averaging more. That's why context is so important.

I'm aware that what I've written above may sound nonsensical and counter-intuitive, but anyone who actually followed those series would realize what I mean.

Agree with this .

 

[abmk]

Yet you want to remove the series because he did well, right? Yet you'll keep the series in 99, even though that was hardly a good attack because he failed.

incorrect, I removed that because it wasn't a decent attack, you said you were considering good attacks of Eng after 2005. Ashes 2006-07 Eng attack doesn't qualify as good by any standards

He's only had one bad series since 05. It's like me saying if you remove this last series where he was really out of form he does great against them.

1 out of 3. As far as being out of form is concerned, read my last post regarding this !

 

[Spark]

how convenient that everyone is getting on ponting's back saying "oh he was rubbish against good attacks" NOW

 

[vcs]

how convenient that everyone is getting on ponting's back saying "oh he was rubbish against good attacks" NOW

Take it as a complement, happens to all greats when they hit a rough patch. Really ****s me off.

 

[abmk]

how convenient that everyone is getting on ponting's back saying "oh he was rubbish against good attacks" NOW

actually, no. He's not rubbish against good attacks. Just that he's not as good as say a sachin or a lara or a steve waugh in the past 2 decades.

I'd say he,kallis,dravid,yousuf,sanga,mahela etc have cashed in quite a bit on the weaker attacks of the decade and and on the flatter pitches . Doesn't mean they're not very good. Just not as good against quality bowling as sachin, lara,steve IMO