Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[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.

Honestly thinking about this and have to disagree. Even from my days batting in junior cricket, it's easier to restrict shots and score slowly than to try to accelerate. That legit calls for more skill.

 

[kyear2]

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

Meant the pressure, but ok.

 

[Bolo.]

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


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

Yes, in his peak. But if you look at their peaks, you will find similar stretches. Ponting averaged 65 from 99 to 2006. Kallis averaged 65 from 99 to 2007.

Ponting was justifiably rated higher than Kallis because he was better before 99, and better earlier in the period from 99 to 07. He just was better earlier. But Kallis was better later. Same for Sanga.

If Kallis/Sanga had averaged 200 in their last 5 years, would you still say Ponting was better for having a higher peer rating for most of their careers? OFC not. Which really should make you realize that how people are rated at the time are a snapshot of they have performed up to a particular point, not a reflection of career quality. Considering the opinions of people who only have access to a snapshot of a career as somehow definitive when the whole is available is obviously daft. See Jimmy Adams. People were calling him a god in his first few years.

Other than even worse arguments than the above (which is an achievement) like being from a country that attracts more attention, your peer rating argument seems to be boiling down to SRs.

I don't have an issue with rating Ponting above any of the people you mentioned FTR. But the rationale you provide is notably divorced from logic if not reliant on SR.

 

[subshakerz]

Yes, in his peak. But if you look at their peaks, you will find similar stretches. Ponting averaged 65 from 99 to 2006. Kallis averaged 65 from 99 to 2007.

No. Ponting averaged 71 from 99 to 2006. Kallis 65 from 99 to 2007.

Ponting was justifiably rated higher than Kallis because he was better before 99, and better earlier in the period from 99 to 07. He just was better earlier. But Kallis was better later. Same for Sanga.

Ponting hardly had a huge international reputation before 99. He was in and out of the side and played 13 tests averaging 39. His reputation like Kallis was built in his peak. You are doing all of this just to pretend Ponting wasn't rated better than Kallis during their respective peaks which he clearly was.

If Kallis/Sanga had averaged 200 in their last 5 years, would you still say Ponting was better for having a higher peer rating for most of their careers? OFC not. Which really should make you realize that how people are rated at the time are a snapshot of they have performed up to a particular point, not a reflection of career quality. Considering the opinions of people who only have access to a snapshot of a career as somehow definitive when the whole is available is obviously daft. See Jimmy Adams. People were calling him a god in his first few years.

Sure if Kallis/Sanga had a double Bradman peak it would render the rest of their career irrelevant. They didn't though so don't bring extreme examples. Especially Kallis who clearly got rated behind Ponting despite peaking same time and you want to rewrite history.

And peer rating isn't definitive, it's just one measure. Nor is it fixed forever. Waqar and Botham both had their peer ratings suffer from poor second half of careers. Ponting too had his suffer for his long dip towards the end. If he retired in 2006 he would have been rated maybe better than Lara/Tendulkar. But overall, there are impressions on who is superior to whom that stay fairly consistent and Ponting is put as the best bat of the 2000s decade.

I don't have an issue with rating Ponting above any of the people you mentioned FTR. But the rationale you provide is notably divorced from logic if not reliant on SR.

I already mentioned SR. But he was scoring a bit more runs too.

 

[Coronis]

No. Ponting averaged 71 from 99 to 2006. Kallis 65 from 99 to 2007.


Ponting hardly had a huge international reputation before 99. He was in and out of the side and played 13 tests averaging 39. His reputation like Kallis was built in his peak. You are doing all of this just to pretend Ponting wasn't rated better than Kallis during their respective peaks which he clearly was.


Sure if Kallis/Sanga had a double Bradman peak it would render the rest of their career irrelevant. They didn't though so don't bring extreme examples. Especially Kallis who clearly got rated behind Ponting despite peaking same time and you want to rewrite history.

And peer rating isn't definitive, it's just one measure. Nor is it fixed forever. Waqar and Botham both had their peer ratings suffer from poor second half of careers. Ponting too had his suffer for his long dip towards the end. If he retired in 2006 he would have been rated maybe better than Lara/Tendulkar. But overall, there are impressions on who is superior to whom that stay fairly consistent and Ponting is put as the best bat of the 2000s decade.


I already mentioned SR. But he was scoring a bit more runs too.

Really think about this.

 

[subshakerz]

Really think about this.

Newsflash, there is a correlation between how players perform and how they are rated.

And I don't put peer rating ahead of other factors such as overall record. Like SR, it is one of several factors.

 

[Bolo.]

No. Ponting averaged 71 from 99 to 2006. Kallis 65 from 99 to 2007.

Ponting hardly had a huge international reputation before 99. He was in and out of the side and played 13 tests averaging 39. His reputation like Kallis was built in his peak. You are doing all of this just to pretend Ponting wasn't rated better than Kallis during their respective peaks which he clearly was.

Sure if Kallis/Sanga had a double Bradman peak it would render the rest of their career irrelevant. They didn't though so don't bring extreme examples. Especially Kallis who clearly got rated behind Ponting despite peaking same time and you want to rewrite history.

And peer rating isn't definitive, it's just one measure. Nor is it fixed forever. Waqar and Botham both had their peer ratings suffer from poor second half of careers. Ponting too had his suffer for his long dip towards the end. If he retired in 2006 he would have been rated maybe better than Lara/Tendulkar. But overall, there are impressions on who is superior to whom that stay fairly consistent and Ponting is put as the best bat of the 2000s decade.


I already mentioned SR. But he was scoring a bit more runs too.

Kallis was crap at the start of his career. Ponting was OK. Kallis got his biggest average year in 2007, Ponting in 2003. They were not on the same quality timetable.

I've never argued Ponting wasn't rated ahead at this point (and have made the more meaningful point that he should have been rated ahead).

Kallis finished stronger. People at point x in their careers had no idea this was going to happen. Why rely on their incomplete info when you have access to the rest of their careers?

Purely for the sake of argument, say Kallis had a career that was a hair better. If ratings at the time were correct (which they often aren't), Ponting would have been rated ahead until the 2010s. But Kallis would still be better.

You recognize why this system of yours can create problematic ratings. You are saying that it's not relevant in this case because the late career advantage of Kallis is not enough to catchup. That's fine. But then simply say Ponting had a better career. There is no need to introduce an inherently flawed extra layer.

 

[subshakerz]

Kallis was crap at the start of his career. Ponting was OK. Kallis got his biggest average year in 2007, Ponting in 2003. They were not on the same quality timetable.

I've never argued Ponting wasn't rated ahead at this point (and have made the more meaningful point that he should have been rated ahead).

Granted on the correction about Ponting's numbers in his peak, I was looking at his victory averages by mistake.

Neither Ponting nor Kallis had made a big splash until 99 so bringing up Ponting's rating before then is irrelevant.

It's quite obvious that Ponting being rated far ahead of Kallis 99 to 2007 was because of how he was playing, the fear factorcombined with heavy runscoring which was missing from Kallis.

Kallis finished stronger. People at point x in their careers had no idea this was going to happen. Why rely on their incomplete info when you have access to the rest of their careers?

Purely for the sake of argument, say Kallis had a career that was a hair better. If ratings at the time were correct (which they often aren't), Ponting would have been rated ahead until the 2010s. But Kallis would still be better.

Yes, Kallis finished stronger and his peer rating also grew at that point. Late career performances do affect career ratings. If you asked in 2010 who was a better bat, people would say Kallis at that point. But if you asked end career, Ponting would be rated higher as an overall bat based on a larger share of his earlier career, but it would be closer than if he had retired in 2006. Peer rating isn't fixed.

Sheer volume of work does affect career rating. If you had McGrath retiring mid career in 2000, he wouldn't compete in peer rating with Wasim and Ambrose as he does since he retired in 2007.

You recognize why this system of yours can create problematic ratings. You are saying that it's not relevant in this case because the late career advantage of Kallis is not enough to catchup. That's fine. But then simply say Ponting had a better career. There is no need to introduce an inherently flawed extra layer.

It's not that complicated. Generally speaking, between two players of overlapping careers, who was rated as a better bat by the cricket fraternity is a measure to help in assessing their overall quality.

There are exceptions like Lillee who has a super high rating but virtually no competition for a decade, and his rating can be taken with more

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Yea peer rating is why I don’t rate Imran that highly as a bowler anymore. None of his peers seem to bring him up when discussing the great fast bowlers.

 

[subshakerz]

Yea peer rating is why I don’t rate Imran that highly as a bowler anymore. None of his peers seem to bring him up when discussing the great fast bowlers.

Mainly because his all-rounder/captain status takes away from his bowling credit.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Mainly because his all-rounder/captain status takes away from his bowling credit.

That doesn’t seem like a very good excuse. He doesn’t have the same rep as someone like Ambrose/Akram/Lillee. His rep is similar to someone like Donald although you might not want that to be true.

If we’re going to use peer rating so much it would be crazy to rate Imran higher than Ambrose.

 

[subshakerz]

That doesn’t seem like a very good excuse. He doesn’t have the same rep as someone like Ambrose/Akram/Lillee. His rep is similar to someone like Donald although you might not want that to be true.

If we’re going to use peer rating so much it would be crazy to rate Imran higher than Ambrose.

Peer rating is always a secondary or tertiary factor compared to overall record for me.

 

[Bolo.]

Granted on the correction about Ponting's numbers in his peak, I was looking at his victory averages by mistake.

Neither Ponting nor Kallis had made a big splash until 99 so bringing up Ponting's rating before then is irrelevant.

Do you think people were not accounting for the fact that Kallis had been crap for his first 3 years at a stage when it represented a sizable chunk of career? How they were rated in 98 is irrelevant, but what they did before 99 is relevant, because people form opinions on entire careers to date.

It's quite obvious that Ponting being rated far ahead of Kallis 99 to 2007 was because of how he was playing, the fear factorcombined with heavy runscoring which was missing from Kallis.

Plus being better earlier and being from AUS. But the SR thing is not in dispute. A view of SRs should be a lot more nuanced than people make it out to be. I do agree that Ponting's SR in the team he played for was fantastic though. What is in dispute is your claim of there being a legitimate significant reason beyond the SR.

Yes, Kallis finished stronger and his peer rating also grew at that point. Late career performances do affect career ratings. If you asked in 2010 who was a better bat, people would say Kallis at that point. But if you asked end career, Ponting would be rated higher as an overall bat based on a larger share of his earlier career, but it would be closer than if he had retired in 2006. Peer rating isn't fixed.

You are the one advocating for using ratings at a particular point in career. The only one that should count at the end should be the one at the end (bearing in mind that these can be wrong anyway).

They aren't fixed, but they do tend to settle. The guys who started faster tend to maintain their reputation to a degree that their completed career does not support. See a non-zero number of people rating Botham above Imran. It's completely speculative, but I'm not sure Ponting would ever catch up with the reputation of more backend heavy guys like Sanga and Kallis if their careers were played in reverse.

 

[subshakerz]

Do you think people were not accounting for the fact that Kallis had been crap for his first 3 years at a stage when it represented a sizable chunk of career? How they were rated in 98 is irrelevant, but what they did before 99 is relevant, because people form opinions on entire careers to date.

No, I don't think Kallis being rated behind Ponting in let's say 2004, was because of of how their respective careers started, because Ponting didn't even have that strong a start to make that impression in the first place. That's an obvious stretch and ignores the fact that Ponting was overwhelmingly more dominant in his peak which created this impression. Ratings normally happen when players hit strong form.

Plus being better earlier and being from AUS. But the SR thing is not in dispute. A view of SRs should be a lot more nuanced than people make it out to be. I do agree that Ponting's SR in the team he played for was fantastic though. What is in dispute is your claim of there being a legitimate significant reason beyond the SR.

I mean, I argue that Ponting was more dominant, and if you want to say higher SR = more dominant, then we agree.

You are the one advocating for using ratings at a particular point in career. The only one that should count at the end should be the one at the end (bearing in mind that these can be wrong anyway).

They aren't fixed, but they do tend to settle. The guys who started faster tend to maintain their reputation to a degree that their completed career does not support. See a non-zero number of people rating Botham above Imran. It's completely speculative, but I'm not sure Ponting would ever catch up with the reputation of more backend heavy guys like Sanga and Kallis if their careers were played in reverse.

Here is where you contradict yourself. Botham started his career faster, Imran did better his towards the latter half, yet Imran is widely seen by peers as ahead.

Yet Kallis who ended stronger than Ponting is not seen as better. Why?

Because, as you mentioned, during their peaks, Ponting was seen as more destructive. That is the main difference between them. You can run any sort of alternative counterfactual you like where Kallis' peaks earlier, peer rating for Ponting will still be higher. Because of how Kallis plays.

 

[kyear2]

Not going to delve into the minutia of you guys argument, but I distinctly remember seeing Ponting as not the most dominant batsman at points, but believed he would end up above Lara and Sachin and the best after Bradman.

A lot of that was related to his volume of runs, but it was also how he scored them, how he dominated. Kallis was also scoring runs, just seem as impactful or, sorry to say exciting.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Ponting was like a worse version of Kohli

 

[kyear2]

Ponting was like a worse version of Kohli

Are you trolling right now?

 

[subshakerz]

Not going to delve into the minutia of you guys argument, but I distinctly remember seeing Ponting as not the most dominant batsman at points, but believed he would end up above Lara and Sachin and the best after Bradman.

A lot of that was related to his volume of runs, but it was also how he scored them, how he dominated. Kallis was also scoring runs, just seem as impactful or, sorry to say exciting.

That's what I am trying to say. Opposition never saw Kallis as a threat the way they saw Ponting. Trying to pretend Kallis' would have a higher rating based on career timing is fanciful.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Are you trolling right now?

At the end of Kohli’s career, I expect him to be rated as clearly better but yea Ponting is obviously better right now because of longevity.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

At the end of Kohli’s career, I expect him to be rated as clearly better but yea Ponting is obviously better right now because of longevity.

Especially if he gets his average above 40 in NZ and Eng, then he would have a pretty flawless record