Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[kyear2]

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).

But isn't it though?

Playing for a better team plays a part and dominance, ie strike rate.

 

[kyear2]

The fact that this is tied though.

 

[subshakerz]

But isn't it though?

Playing for a better team plays a part and dominance, ie strike rate.

Isn't what tho?

Better team ain't an issue. Lara and Tendulkar played for mediocre sides that relied on them in their peaks.

 

[kyear2]

Isn't what tho?

Better team ain't an issue. Lara and Tendulkar played for mediocre sides that relied on them in their peaks.

That s/r was a considerable contributing factor to Ponting being rated higher than Kallis.

 

[Prince EWS]

The fact that this is tied though.

I'd vote for Lara if you took Hammond off the options.

We need preferential voting IMO.

 

[subshakerz]

That s/r was a considerable contributing factor to Ponting being rated higher than Kallis.

Of course.

 

[Prince EWS]

He was included literally just for you and @Prince EWS

Probably just trying to direct two votes away from Lara or Smith. It all makes sense now.

 

[Coronis]

I'd vote for Lara if you took Hammond off the options.

We need preferential voting IMO.

Probably just trying to direct two votes away from Lara or Smith. It all makes sense now.

And I’d vote for Smith. Think its time for your shield sir!

 

[capt_Luffy]

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).

I think all 3 are factors to varying degrees for rating Ponting over Kallis, i.e., S/R, peaking first and playing for a side that won more. The best example I can provide to match my point is Dennis Lillee. He was widely (still is by many experts) to be better than Hadlee, and that was mostly because he peaked earlier, was more flashy and played for a better team. Ofcourse, that's a notion I don't agree with, like Ponting being better than Kallis.

 

[kyear2]

And I’d vote for Smith. Think its time for your shield sir!

Nah, didn't want any arguments about leaving out anyone. And I know who you and @Coronis has as your 5th best batsman.

 

[kyear2]

I think all 3 are factors to varying degrees for rating Ponting over Kallis, i.e., S/R, peaking first and playing for a side that won more. The best example I can provide to match my point is Dennis Lillee. He was widely (still is by many experts) to be better than Hadlee, and that was mostly because he peaked earlier, was more flashy and played for a better team. Ofcourse, that's a notion I don't agree with, like Ponting being better than Kallis.

Which of the 3 don't you agree with?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Which of the 3 don't you agree with?

Not 3 factors I don't agree with, but 3 I think are the reasons Ponting gets rated over Kallis; i.e., having a higher Strike rate, peaking earlier and winning more games (almost unbeatable for a long period). What I don't agree with is Ponting being above Kallis for that reason.

 

[kyear2]

Not 3 factors I don't agree with, but 3 I think are the reasons Ponting gets rated over Kallis; i.e., having a higher Strike rate, peaking earlier and winning more games (almost unbeatable for a long period). What I don't agree with is Ponting being above Kallis for that reason.

Might be because it's 1:30am, but not following.

You're saying those are the reasons Punter is above Jacques , just that you don't agree with them? Or just the last one you disagree with?

 

[capt_Luffy]

Might be because it's 1:30am, but not following.

You're saying those are the reasons Punter is above Jacques , just that you don't agree with them? Or just the last one you disagree with?

Mostly yeah. There are reasons like s/r, peaking earlier and playing for a stronger team, that people feel Ponting>Kallis; and I neither agree with any of those reasons (without s/r, others aren't even valid imo) nor do you I feel Ponting was better than Kallis.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Not 3 factors I don't agree with, but 3 I think are the reasons Ponting gets rated over Kallis; i.e., having a higher Strike rate, peaking earlier and winning more games (almost unbeatable for a long period). What I don't agree with is Ponting being above Kallis for that reason.

Depends on the pitch really. Ponting if the pitch is flat, Kallis if the pitch isn’t flat.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Depends on the pitch really. Ponting if the pitch is flat, Kallis if the pitch isn’t flat.

Exactly. And I would definitely rate a player better on non-flat tracks higher than a flat track bully.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Exactly. And I would definitely rate a player better on non-flat tracks higher than a flat track bully.

Yea I would take Kallis, Sangakkara, Dravid, Williamson, Kohli, Waugh all over Ponting if there’s any type of movement

 

[subshakerz]

Depends on the pitch really. Ponting if the pitch is flat, Kallis if the pitch isn’t flat.

Well Kallis didn't really fly in England...

Punter over Kallis against pace generally. Ponting's 'weakeness' against movement is being exaggerated here.

 

[subshakerz]

I think all 3 are factors to varying degrees for rating Ponting over Kallis, i.e., S/R, peaking first and playing for a side that won more. The best example I can provide to match my point is Dennis Lillee. He was widely (still is by many experts) to be better than Hadlee, and that was mostly because he peaked earlier, was more flashy and played for a better team. Ofcourse, that's a notion I don't agree with, like Ponting being better than Kallis.

SR we all agree. Ponting scored as many runs but much faster than Kallis.

Playing for a winning side? I am not so sure since you had Lara and Tendulkar who played for poorish sides and were highly rated. I think Ponting was just that good in his peak.

As for Lillee, his case is unique. He played for nearly a decade as the uncontested number one pace bowler without any high class bowler around to compete, Roberts aside. And then he was the direct inspiration for Hadlee, Imran and others to take up pace bowling. Plus his aura. All contributed to an inflated rating.

In Ponting's case, his rating is not inflated. He is mostly considered the best of the era after Tendulkar/Lara.

 

[howitzer]

Well Kallis didn't really fly in England...

Punter over Kallis against pace generally. Ponting's 'weakeness' against movement is being exaggerated here.

Kallis' relatively weak record in England is mostly down to the 2008 series when the pitches were flat and lateral movement was at a premium. He was just in a horrible run of form at the time. I notice you sometimes criticize people who you infer have not actually watched a series they are talking about. Well you clearly didn't watch the 2008 series if that's the primary reason you use as a stick to suggest Kallis wasn't very good on wickets that are good for bowling on. Seems more than a tad hypocritical to me.