Richards, Smith, Lara, Hammond

[PlayerComparisons]

Analysis by checklist lol

 

[capt_Luffy]

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.

Doesn't makes much sense here. Ponting was really good when he began but went down, Kallis went the opposite way. Lillee and Ponting are similar cases imo, with Lillee being considered higher with the additional benefit of not having many comparable colleagues. Tendulkar/Lara are MUCH better than Ponting; I am talking here about comparable players, in which case one who plays for a more often winning side gets rated higher in general.

 

[Coronis]

I’m curious. If Viv (for example) had his peak late in his career rather than early on, how would he be remembered/rated (assuming all other factors remain equal)? Similarly would other players who peaked late in their careers (Sanga, Anderson, Chanderpaul) be rated differently?

 

[subshakerz]

I’m curious. If Viv (for example) had his peak late in his career rather than early on, how would he be remembered/rated (assuming all other factors remain equal)? Similarly would other players who peaked late in their careers (Sanga, Anderson, Chanderpaul) be rated differently?

I doubt it would change anything significantly.

Ultimately peer rating = peak impression plus playing style minus downgrading for periods of non-peak form

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Pre 99 is a factor. It's part of their careers.

Ponting peaked 02-06. Kallis 03-07. These dates are not the same, despite overlap.

How many times have you seen people on CW say they really rate botham due to his record at x stage in his career being (insert info here). Many, many times for me. The odd person even says they rate him over Imran. This shouldn't happen. Their careers are not remotely comparable. Botham was (correctly) viewed as better than Imran for some time due to peaking earlier. Reverse his career, and he would never be put in the same tier, other than on form.

 

[subshakerz]

Doesn't makes much sense here. Ponting was really good when he began but went down, Kallis went the opposite way. Lillee and Ponting are similar cases imo, with Lillee being considered higher with the additional benefit of not having many comparable colleagues. Tendulkar/Lara are MUCH better than Ponting; I am talking here about comparable players, in which case one who plays for a more often winning side gets rated higher in general.

No. Ponting is not comparable with Lillee as the former had much more competition in his peak with several whose peaks coincided with his.

Cricket is replete with bats in poor to mediocre sides who have super high peer rating, like Gavaskar and Border. Fans maybe but cricketer peers aren't that blind to quality.

Yes, Kallis had a better stretch of form than Ponting towards the end but Ponting would always be rated better simply because he accomplished enough and with a playing style that was superior to Kallis.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Not sure this is a big factor.

I think it's more about playing for a higher profile country, and one that the media hypes up more.

 

[capt_Luffy]

No. Ponting is not comparable with Lillee as the former had much more competition in his peak with several whose peaks coincided with his.

Cricket is replete with bats in poor to mediocre sides who have super high peer rating, like Gavaskar and Border. Fans maybe but cricketer peers aren't that blind to quality.

Yes, Kallis had a better stretch of form than Ponting towards the end but Ponting would always be rated better simply because he accomplished enough and with a playing style that was superior to Kallis.

Seriously?? Superior playing style? I don't even want to talk about it.....

You know that how strange cricketers, really well respected smart cricketers even rates their peers? A few examples..... Akram said Martin Crowe to be better than both Lara and Tendulkar, Sobers said Subhash Gupte to be better than Shane Warne, Richie Benaud didn't even had Malcolm Marshall in his World XI pacers shortlist, even Sir Don Bradman included Don Tallon in his dream team..... Peer rating is literally a shitty logic. I believe majority of ex cricketers rates Dennis Lillee higher than Glenn McGrath.....

Ponting is not always "rated better" than Kallis by everyone. I, for once, won't necessarily rate a flat track bully ahead.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Not sure this is a big factor.

I think it's more about playing for a higher profile country, and one that the media hypes up more.

I honestly think it's both. Playing for a team that wins more often and is less dependent on you is always a plus; as is playing for a team with a strong media push.

 

[subshakerz]

Pre 99 is a factor. It's part of their careers.

Ponting peaked 02-06. Kallis 03-07. These dates are not the same, despite overlap.

I see. So now that it is not convenient you decide their peaks start differently than when they actually did. And even then Ponting only has a year headstart.

I repeat, pre-99 peak Ponting did not affect his rating during his peak.

How many times have you seen people on CW say they really rate botham due to his record at x stage in his career being (insert info here). Many, many times for me. The odd person even says they rate him over Imran. This shouldn't happen. Their careers are not remotely comparable. Botham was (correctly) viewed as better than Imran for some time due to peaking earlier. Reverse his career, and he would never be put in the same tier, other than on form.

Nah. Botham and Imran are definitely comparable since Botham is a better bat. Botham had an awesome early peak but Imran has an overall better overall rating. This is a textbook example that early career rating is not destiny and late career performance can overcome a slow start.

 

[subshakerz]

I honestly think it's both. Playing for a team that wins more often and is less dependent on you is always a plus; as is playing for a team with a strong media push.

I don't think McGrath was media hype.

 

[subshakerz]

Seriously?? Superior playing style? I don't even want to talk about it.....

You know that how strange cricketers, really well respected smart cricketers even rates their peers? A few examples..... Akram said Martin Crowe to be better than both Lara and Tendulkar, Sobers said Subhash Gupte to be better than Shane Warne, Richie Benaud didn't even had Malcolm Marshall in his World XI pacers shortlist, even Sir Don Bradman included Don Tallon in his dream team..... Peer rating is literally a ****ty logic. I believe majority of ex cricketers rates Dennis Lillee higher than Glenn McGrath.....

Ponting is not always "rated better" than Kallis by everyone. I, for once, won't necessarily rate a flat track bully ahead.

Playing style, SR, whatever.

And peer rating isnt gospel but it is useful in measuring contemporaries relative standing, not as much in gauging pundits views across eras.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't think McGrath was media hype.

Because Warne was..... It's playing for a winning team with plenty of media hype and playing in a way media WILL hype you. Like Ponting and Warne, the exact opposites of Waugh and McGrath.

Playing style, SR, whatever.

And peer rating isnt gospel but it is useful in measuring contemporaries relative standing, not as much in gauging pundits views across eras.

Now you're using peer ratings as you seem fit.

 

[subshakerz]

Because Warne was..... It's playing for a winning team with plenty of media hype and playing in a way media WILL hype you. Like Ponting and Warne, the exact opposites of Waugh and McGrath.

Pointing was seen as the best batsman in the world of the Aussie reign of the 2000s every bit as much as McGrath was the best pacer. If you think that's hype, up to you. I think he objectively was that good.

Now you're using peer ratings as you seem fit.

Nah. There isn't going to be any peer rating of value on Ambrose vs Trueman or Hadlee vs McGrath. There is for those who played in the same era by those who faced them.

 

[Coronis]

Pointing was seen as the best batsman in the world of the Aussie reign of the 2000s every bit as much as McGrath was the best pacer. If you think that's hype, up to you. I think he objectively was that good.


Nah. There isn't going to be any peer rating of value on Ambrose vs Trueman or Hadlee vs McGrath. There is for those who played in the same era by those who faced them.

And there are many peers who would say Wasim was better than McGrath or Ambrose.

Peer ratings are inherently biased. If one player does well against another their opinion of them naturally skyrockets. Which ignores actual quality and focuses on a specific player/team matchup.

 

[Bolo.]

I see. So now that it is not convenient you decide their peaks start differently than when they actually did. And even then Ponting only has a year headstart.

I repeat, pre-99 peak Ponting did not affect his rating during his peak.


Nah. Botham and Imran are definitely comparable since Botham is a better bat. Botham had an awesome early peak but Imran has an overall better overall rating. This is a textbook example that early career rating is not destiny and late career performance can overcome a slow start.

Peak is not a fixed length. You are just choosing 99-06 as a period that suits Ponting. I've said I regard 04-07 (mistyped earlier) as Kallis' peak more than once in other threads before. I'm just trying to match to Ponting. Why is your call on peak more valid? Neither length are periods we consistently apply.

I don't particularly care if you want to use 99-06 + 07. But you need to recognise that Ponting was more front end heavy in this period. His career average was 6 more runs at the end of 03. By the end of 07 it was less than 1 run.

You must be pretty committed to this if you are claiming Imran and Botham were comparable over the length of their careers.

 

[subshakerz]

Peak is not a fixed length. You are just choosing 99-06 as a period that suits Ponting. I've said I regard 04-07 (mistyped earlier) as Kallis' peak more than once in other threads before. I'm just trying to match to Ponting. Why is your call on peak more valid? Neither length are periods we consistently apply.

Because if you look at career trajectory, 1999 is clearly when they hit their stride in terms of productivity. Ponting averaged 63 then and 63 the next year leading into super productive 2000s. whereas before 99 was hit and miss.

Why Kallis 2004 to 2007 as a peak when he averaged 69, 48, 70, 64 and 49 in the years prior?

All this distraction to just ignore that they peaked the same year.

I don't particularly care if you want to use 99-06 + 07. But you need to recognise that Ponting was more front end heavy in this period. His career average was 6 more runs at the end of 03. By the end of 07 it was less than 1 run.

Ponting wasn't more front end heavy if you start it at 99. Like, you are pounding this point to death, which is not only factually wrong but just pretends that there would ever be a situation that Kallis peaking earlier would result in a better rating vs Ponting. Kallis's low rating in the 2000s was more of his issue.

You must be pretty committed to this if you are claiming Imran and Botham were comparable over the length of their careers.

Comparable yes. Imran is just better though.

 

[subshakerz]

And there are many peers who would say Wasim was better than McGrath or Ambrose.

Hardly unanimous in that regard but a fair split between the three as far as rating is concerned.

Peer ratings are inherently biased. If one player does well against another their opinion of them naturally skyrockets. Which ignores actual quality and focuses on a specific player/team matchup.

Yeah everyone's opinions here are biased but I give more value to the players who actually faced the respective bowlers, understand the skill involved.

And to repeat the millionth time, peer rating doesn't overtake record, but it is a secondary or tertiary factor.

 

[Bolo.]

Because if you look at career trajectory, 1999 is clearly when they hit their stride in terms of productivity. Ponting averaged 63 then and 63 the next year leading into super productive 2000s. whereas before 99 was hit and miss.

Why Kallis 2004 to 2007 as a peak when he averaged 69, 48, 70, 64 and 49 in the years prior?

All this distraction to just ignore that they peaked the same year.


Ponting wasn't more front end heavy if you start it at 99. Like, you are pounding this point to death, which is not only factually wrong but just pretends that there would ever be a situation that Kallis peaking earlier would result in a better rating vs Ponting. Kallis's low rating in the 2000s was more of his issue.



Comparable yes. Imran is just better though.

I pick it cos it was his best period, and it is probably the most remarkable set of numbers anyone has generated.

This post was a response to you BTW.

He clearly was the best bat in the world for the 4 years. Look up his record if you don't remember. Was scoring hundreds for fun. Averages 43 in SL. But 63+ in the other 6 (non minnow) countries he played in. Averaged exactly the same away (86) as Ponting and Hayden (the two other guys you said we're peaking for this full time) put together. Averages more than Hayden in RSA and Aus, more than Ponting in RSA, and nearly as much in Aus. There comes a point where you can't ignore numbers, even if you don't like the style.

Yes, someone else is better if you make the periods longer. But if you are happy accepting a period of less than 4 years for one (or more) of Lara, Sachin and Waugh, 4 should be enough for Kallis too.

Ponting was better 95 (and 99)-2003. Kallis better from 04. It doesn't matter when you want to define peaks as starting. This remains true.

 

[subshakerz]

I pick it cos it was his best period, and it is probably the most remarkable set of numbers anyone has generated.

This post was a response to you BTW.

Ponting was better 95 (and 99)-2003. Kallis better from 04. It doesn't matter when you want to define peaks as starting. This remains true.

I guess we differ. Peak to me is sustained top form of a cricketer over a stretch of a career. Yours to me is arbitrary

I look at cricketers career and pick the periods that make sense as when they truly clicked versus when they were still figuring things out.