Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[subshakerz]

Against pure pace, I’d go prime Kohli over Tendulkar(especially in Aus/SA like conditions, cue his Perth innings of 2018, or exploits in SA), and also cause prime Kohli had an ATG series in Eng too.

Actually you are right. But then I might go for Ponting over Kohli when it comes to pure pace.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Against pure pace, I’d go prime Kohli over Tendulkar(especially in Aus/SA like conditions, cue his Perth innings of 2018, or exploits in SA), and also cause prime Kohli had an ATG series in Eng too.

That 2018 england series was a test of a different kind, not one against 'pure pace'.

 

[subshakerz]

Actually you are right. But then I might go for Ponting over Kohli when it comes to pure pace.

Actually, ABD might be better than both of them.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

ABD > Kohli > Ponting against pace and bounce

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

That 2018 england series was a test of a different kind, not one against 'pure pace'.

Agreed. For the pure pace one, Kohli’s series in SA have been very impressive.

 

[HouHsiaoHsien]

Actually, ABD might be better than both of them.

Kohli somewhat better, cause of his record in SA against some of the most lethal attacks since the WI quartet

 

[subshakerz]

Kohli somewhat better, cause of his record in SA against some of the most lethal attacks since the WI quartet

That wasn't an express pace attack though, except for Rabada.

ABD handled peak Johnson multiple times. He also handled a strong Aussie attack of Cummins, Starc, Hazelwood in SA in 2018 and looked very comfortable.

IMO, he has a slightly better technique against pace and swing.

 

[kyear2]

Both are very important; but so is how much ahead were you of your peers..... The best batsmen of Hobbs' times averaged in their high 30s, Hobbs in 50s. He also played sufficiently long and played bowlers like O'Reilly, Grimmett, McDonald, Vogler, etc.

Hobbs was head and shoulders over his peers in the pre war era, maintained his record over a crazy period of time, and played across some of the widest extremities of conditions: sticky wickets back home, bounce in Aus(and infamous gluepot wicket), and matted wickets in Sa(the first to master those googly bowlers from SA).

Blasphemous question, don't these exploits put him closer to Bradman if not in the same tier?

And for the record I have Hobbs in my top 4 and also in my top 5 cricketers at 4th ahead of McGrath. So I do appreciate how great he was.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Blasphemous question, don't these exploits put him closer to Bradman if not in the same tier?

And for the record I have Hobbs in my top 4 and also in my top 5 cricketers at 4th ahead of McGrath. So I do appreciate how great he was.

Same tier as Bradman??..... No, I don't think so. Hobbs wasn't twice as good as the second best batsman in his team; nor did averaged 80% more than his closest peer (another top 10 batsman). Hobbs was head and shoulders above his peers, Don was head and waist...... The only other batsman so much ahead of everyone else; and for whom a case could be made to be in Don's tier, is only W G Grace.

 

[kyear2]

Tendulkar
Sobers
Viv
Kohli

Sobers
Viv
Tendulkar
Steve Waugh

Barring Bradman;

Viv
Sobers
Ponting
Kohli

My over riding point is for those who wonder why Viv is revered, is because he probably the best player of pace bowling we've seen. Nothing to do with helmets and moustaches.

 

[capt_Luffy]

My over riding point is for those who wonder why Viv is revered, is because he probably the best player of pace bowling we've seen. Nothing to do with helmets and moustaches.

I don't think I can say anything against that..... Viv arguably was the best player of high pace ever; only Sobers and Ponting imo could have a claim for that.

 

[Slifer]

Sobers
Viv
Tendulkar
Steve Waugh

Based on what? Can't be results as we've discussed at length. The other 3 yes plus maybe Kohli or Steve Smith.

 

[kyear2]

Based on what? Can't be results as we've discussed at length. The other 3 yes plus maybe Kohli or Steve Smith.

I just left it alone tbh.

 

[subshakerz]

Based on what? Can't be results as we've discussed at length. The other 3 yes plus maybe Kohli or Steve Smith.

I changed. I put ABD instead of Tendulkar.

 

[Slifer]

I just left it alone tbh.

 

[Slifer]

I changed. I put ABD instead of Tendulkar.

There is hope for you yet. Well done

 

[Bolo.]

1 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.


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



3 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?

4 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.

1 Ponting was scoring harder earlier, both pre and in their peaks. Whatever other reasons their are for rating a player, everyone uses this. He was averaging significantly more than Kallis in 2004. OFC people are factoring this in.

2 SR is a crude way to express more dominant. We are talking about the same thing using different language.

3 There is no contradiction on Botham. I said non-zero, not majority. Nobody should see their complete careers as even close.

4 Again this is not what I'm taking an issue with. It's your claim that there are legitimate reasons beyond this. You haven't given any.

 

[subshakerz]

1 Ponting was scoring harder earlier, both pre and in their peaks. Whatever other reasons their are for rating a player, everyone uses this. He was averaging significantly more than Kallis in 2004. OFC people are factoring this in.

Ponting pre-99 was a non-factor. He was in and out of the side and had no major rep for ppl to form strong opinions. His peer rating is almost exclusively based on his peak and they both peaked in 99.

2 SR is a crude way to express more dominant. We are talking about the same thing using different language.

Okay.

3 There is no contradiction on Botham. I said non-zero, not majority. Nobody should see their complete careers as even close.

Botham is a clear case where peaking earlier didn't result in high overall peer rating than Imran. Imran had a poor career start whereas Botham had an ATG one yet finished behind. So it goes against your whole argument that Ponting was lucky in his rating by peaking earlier.

4 Again this is not what I'm taking an issue with. It's your claim that there are legitimate reasons beyond this. You haven't given any.

We somewhat agreed on SR.

We disagree with whether Kallis' low rating compared to Ponting is a matter of career timing. If anything, you have given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ponting pre-99 was a non-factor. He was in and out of the side and had no major rep for ppl to form strong opinions. His peer rating is almost exclusively based on his peak and they both peaked in 99.


Okay.


Botham is a clear case where peaking earlier didn't result in high overall peer rating than Imran. Imran had a poor career start whereas Botham had an ATG one yet finished behind. So it goes against your whole argument that Ponting was lucky in his rating by peaking earlier.


We somewhat agreed on SR.

We disagree with whether Kallis' low rating compared to Ponting is a matter of career timing. If anything, you have given sufficient evidence to the contrary.

I kinda feel Botham and Imran are extreme cases.... Botham had one of the finest starts but after he came back from his back injury, he averaged 33 since; he wasn't the player he was. Imran, on the other hand; was arguably world's finest bowler for over a decade. This argument in particular is flawed because the high ratings Botham gets is much due to that early career stride and most people still think Botham to be a better batsman than Imran. Kallis and Ponting ended their careers on similar averages and no one can really say one is leaps and bounds out of reach of the other. That isn't true for Imran and Botham as bowlers. The gulf in their bowling quality is just too massive for post injury Botham to have any bowling case.

 

[subshakerz]

I kinda feel Botham and Imran are extreme cases.... Botham had one of the finest starts but after he came back from his back injury, he averaged 33 since; he wasn't the player he was. Imran, on the other hand; was arguably world's finest bowler for over a decade. This argument in particular is flawed because the high ratings Botham gets is much due to that early career stride and most people still think Botham to be a better batsman than Imran. Kallis and Ponting ended their careers on similar averages and no one can really say one is leaps and bounds out of reach of the other. That isn't true for Imran and Botham as bowlers. The gulf in their bowling quality is just too massive for post injury Botham to have any bowling case.

There are other examples of cricketers who peaked later yet ended up with high peer rating. Steve Waugh only peaked mid career for example. Career timing doesn't affect peer rating as long as your peak is sufficient to demonstrate your skill and you have enough competition for people to compare.

The whole problem with Bolos arguments is that he is making the case that better SR is why Ponting was rated better than Kallis (agreed) yet is really rated better because of career timing (they peaked same time).