Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[Bolo.]

Ponting gets ahead of Sanga/Kallis based on super high peak and peer rating moreso than SR.

His peak is only better if you consider SR, or designate a peak length designed to better suit him than the others.

His higher rating is only due to peaking earlier (which obviously should be meaningless) and his SR.

Unless you apply whatever peak length you are picking for Ponting to every player you rate, this reasoning loops back to SR entirely.

 

[Coronis]

You do know that slow scoring batsmen get out early as well, and sometimes at the same rate.

Well no, because they would usually end up with lower averages, which they don’t.

I like that you ignored the argument and tried to twist it into an indictment on lower SR players again.

 

[kyear2]

Well no, because they would usually end up with lower averages, which they don’t.

I like that you ignored the argument and tried to twist it into an indictment on lower SR players again.

That doesn't make any sense? Both high and low s/r players get out early and for low scores.

How am I ignoring the argument, I just countered what you said. And you try to indict batsmen for scoring quickly as well, or dismiss it as an advantage.

 

[Line and Length]

I understand what Coronis is saying. If a slow scoring batsman and a free scoring batsmen both got out early, say after facing 20 deliveries, the fast scorer will possibly be into double figures while the slow scorer may barely be off the mark. Hence the variation in batting average.

 

[Coronis]

That doesn't make any sense? Both high and low s/r players get out early and for low scores.

How am I ignoring the argument, I just countered what you said. And you try to indict batsmen for scoring quickly as well, or dismiss it as an advantage.

I don’t. Unlike you, I think both have their advantages and don’t inherently rate one as more valuable than another.

You do know that slow scoring batsmen get out early as well, and sometimes at the same rate.

If they’re getting out at the same rate scoring slowly then they would have lower averages mate.

The reason they are slower scoring and maintain the same or higher averages is because they inherently have longer average innings.

 

[subshakerz]

His peak is only better if you consider SR, or designate a peak length designed to better suit him than the others.

His higher rating is only due to peaking earlier (which obviously should be meaningless) and his SR.

Unless you apply whatever peak length you are picking for Ponting to every player you rate, this reasoning loops back to SR entirely.

Ponting peaked around the same time in the early 2000s as Kallis, Dravid, Lara, Hayden and other did yet was seen as the best bat in the world because he was most dominant.

 

[subshakerz]

I don’t. Unlike you, I think both have their advantages and don’t inherently rate one as more valuable than another.

Just because they both have advantages doesn't mean they are both qualitatively equal in the general. That's reductive reasoning and doesn't correspond to how the game is actually played.

 

[Bolo.]

Ponting peaked around the same time in the early 2000s as Kallis, Dravid, Lara, Hayden and other did yet was seen as the best bat in the world because he was most dominant.

What are you think defines dominant, other than SR?

He peaked earlier than Kallis and Sanga, who were the guys you were discussing.

 

[subshakerz]

What are you think defines dominant, other than SR?

SR yes, but he also averaged more than the others in his peak, around 70 from 99 to 2006.

He peaked earlier than Kallis and Sanga, who were the guys you were discussing.

Not Kallis. Kallis and Ponting both started peaking in 99 and at no point was Kallis considered better than Ponting.

 

[kyear2]

I understand what Coronis is saying. If a slow scoring batsman and a free scoring batsmen both got out early, say after facing 20 deliveries, the fast scorer will possibly be into double figures while the slow scorer may barely be off the mark. Hence the variation in batting average.

I wasn't questioning their scores, just saying that both can be dismissed early.

When I said rate, I was referring to frequency.

 

[Coronis]

Just because they both have advantages doesn't mean they are both qualitatively equal in the general. That's reductive reasoning and doesn't correspond to how the game is actually played.

And some people think one is much more important and I disagree.

 

[kyear2]

I don’t. Unlike you, I think both have their advantages and don’t inherently rate one as more valuable than another.



If they’re getting out at the same rate scoring slowly then they would have lower averages mate.

The reason they are slower scoring and maintain the same or higher averages is because they inherently have longer average innings.

I'll try to explain my position. I believe that situationally they both have roles to play, but ultimately a batsman who can relatively safely score at a higher rate does provide greater value to his team.

I also believe that in some scenarios, that if you're batting at 35/ 40 that's less of a conscious decision and more of a limitation. And in scenarios where it is a conscious decision it's because (as we've all read) they had to restrict their shots to be able to stay at the wicket and produce runs. While this shows adaptability, it also to a certain degree shows a lack of natural ability.

I've also seen it from the perspective of being a bad team who's bowling. When you're struggling and bowling to a slower opening pair, mistakes are punished less and even if we're not taking wickets, the score hasn't run off into the distance. Against more proactive good teams, you're not taking wickets and after a session you're already irreparably behind the game.

And let's be honest, that's why Sachin and Brian is seen as better than Dravid, the ability to hit that extra gear indicates greater level of skill. That's undeniable

So yes, I wouldn't dispute that both play a role in the game, but one is definitely a hallmark of what makes batsmen better.

 

[kyear2]

Just because they both have advantages doesn't mean they are both qualitatively equal in the general. That's reductive reasoning and doesn't correspond to how the game is actually played.

This

What are you think defines dominant, other than SR?

He peaked earlier than Kallis and Sanga, who were the guys you were discussing.

And undeniably

 

[OverratedSanity]

Just because they both have advantages doesn't mean they are both qualitatively equal in the general. That's reductive reasoning and doesn't correspond to how the game is actually played.

Yes test cricket, that game that has always been played in a way that punishes slow run scoring. What a dumb post.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Pontings strike rate makes him the best flat pitch batsman. He’s the worst of all the ATGs if there’s any type of movement though. Depends on what you prefer in a player I guess.

 

[Coronis]

I'll try to explain my position. I believe that situationally they both have roles to play, but ultimately a batsman who can relatively safely score at a higher rate does provide greater value to his team.

I also believe that in some scenarios, that if you're batting at 35/ 40 that's less of a conscious decision and more of a limitation. And in scenarios where it is a conscious decision it's because (as we've all read) they had to restrict their shots to be able to stay at the wicket and produce runs. While this shows adaptability, it also to a certain degree shows a lack of natural ability.

I've also seen it from the perspective of being a bad team who's bowling. When you're struggling and bowling to a slower opening pair, mistakes are punished less and even if we're not taking wickets, the score hasn't run off into the distance. Against more proactive good teams, you're not taking wickets and after a session you're already irreparably behind the game.

And let's be honest, that's why Sachin and Brian is seen as better than Dravid, the ability to hit that extra gear indicates greater level of skill. That's undeniable

So yes, I wouldn't dispute that both play a role in the game, but one is definitely a hallmark of what makes batsmen better.

So why would you rate Hutton over Gavaskar? Your opinion re: pre WWII bowlers doesn’t apply and as you say clearly Hutton was limited whereas Gavaskar wasn’t.

I don’t disagree, if you’re a struggling bowling attack whether due to **** bowlers or a pitch disadvantage you’d prefer faster striking batsmen in that situation. However the reverse also applies if you are a strong/dominating bowling attack in a good position, you’d much rather have more defensive batsmen in that situation. Its situational of course, and I don’t think one is inherently better than the other.

I disagree. I think they’re rated above him because they had better performances against their toughest opposition and spent larger portions of their careers batting in a tougher era and able to convert many more of their starts. I also disagree that being able to bat faster means you have a higher skill level.

Again agree to disagree.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes test cricket, that game that has always been played in a way that punishes slow run scoring. What a dumb post.

Yknow, the post you quoted literally says that slow scoring can be advantageous at times. At least bother to get the opposing argument right.

And some people think one is much more important and I disagree.

I am not sure how someone can watch the game and assume rate of scoring is a small factor.

Most captains would prefer a lineup of more aggressive bats than slow ones. And it is obvious to see why. Faster scoring means more time in the game, it means you don't let bowlers settle in a rhythm, it means you have an ability to counterattack after having lost wickets, it is a clear sign of winning intent.

Slow scorers are pretty much only advantageous in relation to the presence of fast scorers around them. But having an entire lineup of slow scorers is likely a defensive, underachieving side.

 

[subshakerz]

Pontings strike rate makes him the best flat pitch batsman. He’s the worst of all the ATGs if there’s any type of movement though. Depends on what you prefer in a player I guess.

Based on what?

 

[kyear2]

So why would you rate Hutton over Gavaskar? Your opinion re: pre WWII bowlers doesn’t apply and as you say clearly Hutton was limited whereas Gavaskar wasn’t.

I don’t disagree, if you’re a struggling bowling attack whether due to **** bowlers or a pitch disadvantage you’d prefer faster striking batsmen in that situation. However the reverse also applies if you are a strong/dominating bowling attack in a good position, you’d much rather have more defensive batsmen in that situation. Its situational of course, and I don’t think one is inherently better than the other.

I disagree. I think they’re rated above him because they had better performances against their toughest opposition and spent larger portions of their careers batting in a tougher era and able to convert many more of their starts. I also disagree that being able to bat faster means you have a higher skill level.

Again agree to disagree.

Think they both kind of were limited and my impression of Hutton and Headley were lowered because of their strike rates.

Also we've been over this before, I admire and rated Hutton because

1. How he over came his war time (training) injury.

2. Beating Bradman's record facing O'Reilly with Bradman himself in the covers

3. First travelling ATG batsman, who faced the most varied of attacks and best pace attacks in the most varied of conditions. From Lindwall and Miller to Rahmdin and Valentine.

4. Think Gavaskar's record is greatly over stated and misleading.

But, they also aren't rated that far apart.

 

[Coronis]

Think they both kind of were limited and my impression of Hutton and Headley were lowered because of their strike rates.

Also we've been over this before, I admire and rated Hutton because

1. How he over came his war time (training) injury.

2. Beating Bradman's record facing O'Reilly with Bradman himself in the covers

3. First travelling ATG batsman, who faced the most varied of attacks and best pace attacks in the most varied of conditions. From Lindwall and Miller to Rahmdin and Valentine.

4. Think Gavaskar's record is greatly over stated and misleading.

But, they also aren't rated that far apart.

On the flattest pitch ever, not a great accomplishment in my books.