Steve Waugh vs Ricky Ponting in Tests?

[PlayerComparisons]

More than half of Australia's Tests were played at home.
5.5/10 at home
1.5/10 in India & West Indies
1/10 ..in England
1/10 ..in South Africa & New Zealand
1/10 ..in Pakistan & Sri Lanka

something like that..

So if a player is crap in SA and NZ, they are only 1/10 (one tenth) unsuccessful. Most important thing is to be absolutely great at Home because thats where >50% of your matches are.

So I think people are giving way too much importance to performances in individual away countries, forgetting about the really low volume of matches a player plays in such countries. So whether you avg 35 or avg 50 in an away nation could be all done to luck or prevailing factors -

Factors such as - when you toured each time, your overall form heading into the tours, type of pitches you played on, weather conditions, situations you faced, morale, match & series position, bowlers you faced, catches caught/dropped, form of opposition bowlers, magic balls, rub of the green, your form vs certain bowlers, how well/poorly they bowled.... list goes on..

Agreed, I think we need to start rating players on their aggregates instead of analyzing tiny sample sizes of averages against a specific team or in a specific nation.

 

[Spark]

More than half of Australia's Tests were played at home.
5.5/10 at home
1.5/10 in India & West Indies
1/10 ..in England
1/10 ..in South Africa & New Zealand
1/10 ..in Pakistan & Sri Lanka

something like that..

So if a player is crap in SA and NZ, they are only 1/10 (one tenth) unsuccessful. Most important thing is to be absolutely great at Home because thats where >50% of your matches are.

So I think people are giving way too much importance to performances in individual away countries, forgetting about the really low volume of matches a player plays in such countries. So whether you avg 35 or avg 50 in an away nation could be all done to luck or prevailing factors -

Factors such as - when you toured each time, your overall form heading into the tours, type of pitches you played on, weather conditions, situations you faced, morale, match & series position, bowlers you faced, catches caught/dropped, form of opposition bowlers, magic balls, rub of the green, your form vs certain bowlers, how well/poorly they bowled, grounds you played on.... list goes on..

The thing is, though, most good players are good at home, for obvious reasons. So if you are really good at home, it (a) doesn't stand out in the sea of other home-grown batsman putting up quality numbers and, more importantly imo, (b) means that the price of any failure on your behalf is not as high because there are plenty of alternative sources of runs if you happen to get out early every now and then.

This is not true against good, and especially great attacks away from home in unfamiliar and/or difficult conditions. In that case, there's a lot more at stake for the great batsman because there's the simple fact that if they don't perform personally, the chance that the team will fail overall is significantly higher. But with the higher stakes should come, imo, the higher recognition; it's only fair.

I agree with you that "average in country" is a broadly meaningless statistic though. A basic walkthrough of what "average" means in such a context should be enough for any vaguely numerate person to realise that. It just means that we have to be a bit smarter than using sampled statistics to evaluate performances.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tours are far apart and all it takes is some magic balls to dismiss you and lose some confidence and end up having an ordinary tour. On the flip side, you could get lucky have a couple of dropped catches and some nice plays and misses and next thing you know you got a big ton and have salvaged your tour.

Sometimes a player is in hot form against certain bowlers and thus has a great tour. This may not have much to do with playing in that away nation, but that you loved facing certain couple of bowlers. Or opposition may have bowled poorly and you & your team really benefited from that.

Sample size plays a great role. Since away matches in a particular nation are only a handful over a career, just few good innings could make or break your record there. And those few good innings could be a product of so many other factors besides it necessarily meaning that 'player xx plays well in that nation'

My point is --the most important factor in away records is not necessarily the away country itself! There are so many factors determining your output in a series. Just because you avg 60 in England or WI doesn't mean you are awesome in 'that' country based on the 9 tests you have played there! Plus these sample sizes are nothing. And averages are super volatile over small sample sizes, rendering them less useful.

In conclusion, stop obsessing over away records in nation xyz which represents 5% to 10% of a player's career. It's their overall career that counts the most. And the impact they had.

You need to explain this to Malcolm Marshall stans who downright eulogize his "under 25 average against all countries" stat, as if that alone puts him over other top 5 seamers, who all had excellent away records barring maybe 1 or 2 countries.

 

[subshakerz]

Waugh played and scored against Wasim and Waqar at their peak, Walsh and Ambrose at their peak and Donald and Pollock at their peak. I don't think there is an ATG as accomplished against pure pace.

 

[subshakerz]

Tours are far apart and all it takes is some magic balls to dismiss you and lose some confidence and end up having an ordinary tour. On the flip side, you could get lucky have a couple of dropped catches and some nice plays and misses and next thing you know you got a big ton and have salvaged your tour.

Sometimes a player is in hot form against certain bowlers and thus has a great tour. This may not have much to do with playing in that away nation, but that you loved facing certain couple of bowlers. Or opposition may have bowled poorly and you & your team really benefited from that.

Sample size plays a great role. Since away matches in a particular nation are only a handful over a career, just few good innings could make or break your record there. And those few good innings could be a product of so many other factors besides it necessarily meaning that 'player xx plays well in that nation'

My point is --the most important factor in away records is not necessarily the away country itself! There are so many factors determining your output in a series. Just because you avg 60 in England or WI doesn't mean you are awesome in 'that' country based on the 9 tests you have played there! Plus these sample sizes are nothing. And averages are super volatile over small sample sizes, rendering them less useful.

In conclusion, stop obsessing over away records in nation xyz which represents 5% to 10% of a player's career. It's their overall career that counts the most. And the impact they had.

Sorry got to disagree. Yes we need a minimum small sample size but all the factors you listed are exactly why away tours are unique tests. You are outside your norm and you are challenged to succeed. The rest are all contextual factors that we all analyse here at length to not render a judgment just on a raw average.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ponting was the best batsman of the 2000s and batted in the most important spot in the order. Honestly I'm a massive Waugh fan and rate him very highly, but he had one pretty average series at three vs the Windies in 92/93 and other than that didn't bat above five to the best of my knowledge. Terrific player. Tough and uncompromising. But Ponting was better.

Waugh doesnt have good numbers up the order but didn't have enough of a sample size of innings up at 3 to say he would've failed if he'd had to do it more, but yeah I think lots of people here underestimate how much more difficult batting up the order is. Ponting himself had a nice cushion during his peak because of how good Langer and Hayden were but it's still not the same at all. Ponting played some gun innings from 5/6 early in his career too, so he could perform both roles.

 

[Coronis]

You need to explain this to Malcolm Marshall stans who downright eulogize his "under 25 average in all countries" stat, as if that alone puts him over other top 5 seamers, who all had excellent away records barring maybe 1 or 2 countries.

Sucked in NZ. Fraud.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sorry got to disagree. Yes we need a minimum small sample size but all the factors you listed are exactly why away tours are unique tests. You are outside your norm and you are challenged to succeed. The rest are all contextual factors that we all analyse here at length to not render a judgment just on a raw average.

Mate, there's literally no difference between a player who averages 36 in one country, 62 in another versus one who averages 49 in both. We can after the fact assign contexts designed to explain it all, but for the individual country records (let alone tours), its just generally too small of a sample.

Sure if there's a huge gulf in home/away overall, that's a reason to start nitpicking into what conditions, countries etc. may have effected a player. But a bad country or tour in and of itself isn't that evidence of any case.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Mate, there's literally no difference between a player who averages 36 in one country, 62 in another versus one who averages 49 in both. We can after the fact assign contexts designed to explain it all, but for the individual country records (let alone tours), its just generally too small of a sample.

Sure if there's a huge gulf in home/away overall, that's a reason to start nitpicking into what conditions, countries etc. may have effected a player. But a bad country or tour in and of itself isn't that evidence of any case.

Honestly I don’t think there’s much difference between a player who averages 65 at home and 45 away and a player who averages 60 at home and 50 away. Especially if they appear to be similar in quality when eye tested.

 

[centurymaker]

Agreed, I think we need to start rating players on their aggregates instead of analyzing tiny sample sizes of averages against a specific team or in a specific nation.

Yeah it has gone overboard. Away from home performances do matter but as you said, its the context and the aggregates.

At home, you play against bowlers from 8 or so nations.

Away in a particular country, you only faced the few bowlers from that country. It's a small sample size vs few bowlers. So its much better to look at overall away record or SENA record or Subcontinent record. That way at least the number of matches is much more and against a variety of attacks. It should give a better picture as to how effectively a player adapts away from home.

Ultimately you have to see live how someone has played in a country to know whether they were good there or not. You have to see for yourself how well they adapted to the pace and bounce in Australia or to the swing in England or to the spin in India.

If you see it, you will know whether they scored their runs when it was not swinging in England or scored when it was a day 2 flat subcontinent like Sydney pitch in Australia. Usually only watching the match will shed the light on the particular conditions faced during an innings by a player. Stats in a particular country will only tell you so much.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Waugh played and scored against Wasim and Waqar at their peak, Walsh and Ambrose at their peak and Donald and Pollock at their peak. I don't think there is an ATG as accomplished against pure pace.

Here's my crappy deep dive to prove how OTT some of this ridiculous Waugh mythologizing is. And no, I'm not going to ignore his early years and only consider his "peak years" vs the ATG attacks. It leaves us with a span of like 4-5 years which is ****all.

1) vs Pak: Averaged 34. Crap

2) vs WI:

Series vs WI when they had good bowlers (pre Ambrose/Walsh retirement) :

88/89: Averaged 41. Decent
90/91: Average 16. Crap
92/93: Averaged 25. Crap again.
95: Averaged 107. Indisputably ATG stuff.
96/97: Averaged 31. Crap yet again.
98/99: Averaged 58. Very good.
2000/01: Averaged 69. Nice. But here's where it gets interesting. He got two tons on this tour.

The first was this game (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-west-indies-4th-test-63910/full-scorecard) where Ambrose was missing. The attack had one good bowler, Walsh. The rest of the attack? Mervyn Dillon, Nixon McLean, Colin Stuart, Marlon Samuels (who bowled 14 overs!).

The second was this game (https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...-vs-west-indies-5th-test-63911/full-scorecard) where again Ambrose was missing. The attack had one good bowler, Walsh. The rest of the attack? Nixon McLean, Colin Stuart, Mahendra Nagamootoo, Jimmy Adams and Marlon Samuels (who bowled 16 overs!).

Truly the stuff of legends, people. Ponting would never be able to do this. Give me a ****ing break. Is this nitpicky and unreasonable? Yes, but if you're honest @subshakerz, you'll admit this is the same series by series breakdown you do for other players while giving guys like Waugh a pass. This record vs WI is nowhere near as good as you're making out. The idea that this is beyond Ponting (or indeed many players not even as good as Ponting) is just laughable.

3) vs SA
3 good series against SA during the Donald and Pollock/Fanie years. Impressive. No argument here.

Waugh BTFO. What a myth.

Well ok, not really. But there's 100% some overstating his record against ATG attacks from you imo.

 

[Xix2565]

This feels like mental disintegration, Waugh would be impressed.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It may be harsh, but I really do feel like some players get a pass when it comes to this kind of statistical nitpicking other players just don't get for whatever reason.

 

[capt_Luffy]

It may be harsh, but I really do feel like some players get a pass when it comes to this kind of statistical nitpicking other players just don't get for whatever reason.

Yeah, like Ponting gets the pass despite playing in the flattest of eras in the flattest of home conditions...

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah, like Ponting gets the pass despite playing in the flattest of eras in the flattest of home conditions...

How about actually attempt to disprove the conclusion I've arrived at with the stats I posted instead of this lazy comeback? It's not like I've invented those numbers, you can look them up.

 

[subshakerz]

Mate, there's literally no difference between a player who averages 36 in one country, 62 in another versus one who averages 49 in both. We can after the fact assign contexts designed to explain it all, but for the individual country records (let alone tours), its just generally too small of a sample.

No, it totally depends on how many tests you play in each country. If a player has 2 to 3 tours to a country and doesn't succeed, thats on him.

 

[shortpitched713]

No, it totally depends on how many tests you play in each country. If a player has 2 to 3 tours to a country and doesn't succeed, thats on him.

These days that could be like 5 Tests.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah it has gone overboard. Away from home performances do matter but as you said, its the context and the aggregates.

At home, you play against bowlers from 8 or so nations.

Away in a particular country, you only faced the few bowlers from that country. It's a small sample size vs few bowlers. So its much better to look at overall away record or SENA record or Subcontinent record. That way at least the number of matches is much more and against a variety of attacks. It should give a better picture as to how effectively a player adapts away from home.

Ultimately you have to see live how someone has played in a country to know whether they were good there or not. You have to see for yourself how well they adapted to the pace and bounce in Australia or to the swing in England or to the spin in India.

If you see it, you will know whether they scored their runs when it was not swinging in England or scored when it was a day 2 flat subcontinent like Sydney pitch in Australia. Usually only watching the match will shed the light on the particular conditions faced during an innings by a player. Stats in a particular country will only tell you so much.

Maybe we should have a big ol’ test championship every year where you play every country in a yearly rotating country. You could also have the Ashes in addition to this.

 

[subshakerz]

Here's my crappy deep dive to prove how OTT some of this ridiculous Waugh mythologizing is. And no, I'm not going to ignore his early years and only consider his "peak years" vs the ATG attacks. It leaves us with a span of like 4-5 years which is ****all.

1) vs Pak: Averaged 34. Crap

Why don't you give the series breakdown here? He sucked badly in two series, 89 and 99 in Australia, but then succeeded in 94, 95, 98 and 2002. The raw average doesnt show that. It's actually misleading since he succeeded more than failed against Pakistan.

2) vs WI:

Truly the stuff of legends, people. Ponting would never be able to do this. Give me a ****ing break. Is this nitpicky and unreasonable? Yes, but if you're honest @subshakerz, you'll admit this is the same series by series breakdown you do for other players while giving guys like Waugh a pass. This record vs WI is nowhere near as good as you're making out. The idea that this is beyond Ponting (or indeed many players not even as good as Ponting) is just laughable.

You realise I voted for Ponting in this poll and said that if he debuted earlier he would still average as much? But overall Waugh was good against WI but I don't think I claimed he was unassailable against them.

3) vs SA
3 good series against SA during the Donald and Pollock/Fanie years. Impressive. No argument here.

Waugh BTFO. What a myth.

Well ok, not really. But there's 100% some overstating his record against ATG attacks from you imo.

No, Waugh has good four series in 93, 94, 96 and 97 against SA. So it's better than what you presented.

 

[subshakerz]

These days that could be like 5 Tests.

Exactly. That is my minimum to judge any cricketer in a country. Below that is too small.