Sachin Tendulkar vs Jacques Kallis

[Bolo.]

You seem to be wanting what the batting average is for all wkts taken (31.93) which is nothing like what a wkt/run is worth in a match.

I've given examples of where great batsman average 80 runs per match and great bowlers average 4 wpm. 20 runs works, if it was 30 then batsmen would need to average 120-150 runs per match and only Bradman does that (134). No other bat averages 100 runs per match

Don't think 30 is the answer. If 1 wicket were equal to 30 runs, then that'd lead to some contradictions.
There are many bowlers with 5 WPM. If 1 wicket=30 runs, then their workload would be equal to 150 RPM, and we have zero batters with that trait.

I'm not exactly looking for the batting average. Not outs and extras change things a bit.

I think the problem with running off the idea of equivocating bowler and bats is that bowlers are also taking the wickets of bowlers. When we look at the numbers of bats, they are essentially just coming against bowlers.

I reckon Sayons numbers will confirm this. I doubt we need anywhere near than 84 BTW if you are manually imputing.

 

[sayon basak]

I reckon Sayons numbers will confirm this. I doubt we need anywhere near than 84 BTW if you are manually imputing.

Yeah I was doing the stuff manually.

I'll probably go for top 50, will do it on Wednesday ig. I have two exams back to back, apologize for not being able to do it tomorrow.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah I was doing the stuff manually.

I'll probably go for top 50, will do it on Wednesday ig. I have two exams back to back, apologize for not being able to do it tomorrow.

Na dude. Don't apologize, and stop WABBING Please focus on exams. I will do the top 10. That's my limit, and I have literally nothing to do for the next 24 hours.

 

[Bolo.]

@subshakerz @Bolo. Here's an attempt to answer how much is a wicket worth in tests.

I went with the list of 84 batters with the most runs in the history of test cricket and averaged their RPI.
Average RPI for those 84 batsmen came out to be 42.768.

Did the same thing with bowlers (top 83 bowlers with most wickets+SF Barnes)
Average WPI for those 84 bowlers came out to be 2.2643.

So a wicket could be regarded as being equivalent to 42.768/2.2643= 18.89 runs.

So, Muralitharan's 3.478 WPI can be interpreted as being equivalent to an output of 65.69 RPI.

And 1.0735 WPI for Kallis could be interpreted as a of 20.27 RPI, which is inferior to Imran's 30.21 RPI output. Sounds about right to me.

This would also be consistent with the idea that a 5'fer is equivalent to a century.

Ya, I'm not working out stuff per innings. Per match takes long enough.

Top ten run scores (excluding Kallis):
Average WPM 0.097

With a WPM of 1.759 Kallis is 181 times better than the average top bat.

Top ten wicket takers average RPT 16. With a RPT of 30.2 Imran is nearly double the average top bowler.

So Kallis is roughly 10000% better than Imran? I still don't know if averages is a valid comp, but It's definitely better than what you, or my posts suggest.

 

[sayon basak]

Ya, I'm not working out stuff per innings. Per match takes long enough.

Top ten run scores (excluding Kallis):
Average WPM 0.097

With a WPM of 1.759 Kallis is 181 times better than the average top bat.

Top ten wicket takers average RPT 16. With a RPT of 30.2 Imran is nearly double the average top bowler.

So Kallis is roughly 10000% better than Imran? I still don't know if averages is a valid comp, but It's definitely better than what you, or my posts suggest.

Its definitely not a valid comparison imo. Lower order batters bat way more that part-time bowlers bowl. That's why there's a huge inconsistency visible in the result.

 

[Bolo.]

Its definitely not a valid comparison imo. Lower order batters bat way more that part-time bowlers bowl. That's why there's a huge inconsistency visible in the result.

The question was rhetorical. The numbers you posted and the numbers I posted are both invalid.

 

[subshakerz]

Ya, I'm not working out stuff per innings. Per match takes long enough.

Top ten run scores (excluding Kallis):
Average WPM 0.097

With a WPM of 1.759 Kallis is 181 times better than the average top bat.

Top ten wicket takers average RPT 16. With a RPT of 30.2 Imran is nearly double the average top bowler.

So Kallis is roughly 10000% better than Imran? I still don't know if averages is a valid comp, but It's definitely better than what you, or my posts suggest.

This is ridiculous sorry. The lengths you are going to to fund some measure of statistical parity for Kallis and Imran.

 

[Bolo.]

This is ridiculous sorry. The lengths you are going to to fund some measure of statistical parity for Kallis and Imran.

Let's compromise and say Kallis was only 5000% ahead of Imran.

Or you could actually read my posts?

 

[sayon basak]

Let's compromise and say Kallis was only 5000% ahead of Imran.

Or you could actually read my posts?

Do you really, consciously believe that Kallis was 50 times better than Imran in secondary discipline?

 

[sayon basak]

The question was rhetorical. The numbers you posted and the numbers I posted are both invalid.

1 wicket=20 runs is consistent with a lot of things; calling it "invalid" is a bit harsh imo, specially if you can't present any problematic criticism against it.

And I did provide a valid criticism against your methodology, that is, tail-enders batters bat more than part-timers bowl, so Kallis' numbers become astronomically inflated because of that. And really, coming up with the conclusion that Kallis is 100 times ahead of Imran should be enough to understand that the methodology used to get the result is WRONG.

 

[Bolo.]

1 wicket=20 runs is consistent with a lot of things; calling it "invalid" is a bit harsh imo, specially if you can't present any problematic criticism against it.

And I did provide a valid criticism against your methodology, that is, tail-enders batters bat more than part-timers bowl, so Kallis' numbers become astronomically inflated because of that. And really, coming up with the conclusion that Kallis is 100 times ahead of Imran should be enough to understand that the methodology used to get the result is WRONG.

It isn't harsh to call a comparison method invalid if it generates 2 radically different results when used in 2 different ways. If the results don't match, the method doesn't work. And yes, this also applies to using it to conclude that Kallis is ahead. We cant just keep the set of results we like and discard the other.

The value of a wicket is around the batting average. You wouldn't be happy with your team trading in their 10 wickets for 200 runs when the opposition is scoring 320. This is just an expression of the rules of the game. As to what degree this translates in terms of impact or workload, I'm not sure. But it has to be the starting point for discussion.

Yes, bowlers tend to have a higher workload and impact in secondary than bats. Why would this inflate Kallis' numbers? The batting average of 32 or so includes the tailenders, and he didn't take a high proportion of tailenders.

 

[sayon basak]

It isn't harsh to call a comparison method invalid if it generates 2 radically different results when used in 2 different ways. If the results don't match, the method doesn't work. And yes, this also applies to using it to conclude that Kallis is ahead. We cant just keep the set of results we like and discard the other.

This is just dead wrong. When we compare across disciplines, we do so by batsman and bowler's rankings, thereby applying that the top batters batting is comparable to the top bowlers bowling. And the fact that "the top batters batting is equivalent to the top bowlers bowling" is very well established, at least in CW. But a top bowlers batting is not equivalent to a top batters bowling. Sachin and McGrath's primary discipline is comparable, can you say the same thing with their secondary discipline? No.
And looking back to the 1 wicket=20 runs, what are your criticisms against it? Just saying that you came up with different result while coming from a different approach doesn't help, because your approach is just not logical. Now I'm not claiming that 1 wicket should be exactly 20 runs from now on, but it does often help while measuring output.

And another question, what If the top batters didn't take any wicket (which would not be impossible, as batters are not obligated to bowl, but bowlers are obligated to bat)? Would you conclude that 1 wicket=infinity runs? (The method you used to conclude Kallis' output is bigger is not very far off from that, as it concluded 0.097 wickets=16 runs, thereby applying 1 wicket is worth 165 runs)

 

[Bolo.]

This is just dead wrong. When we compare across disciplines, we do so by batsman and bowler's rankings, thereby applying that the top batters batting is comparable to the top bowlers bowling. And the fact that "the top batters batting is equivalent to the top bowlers bowling" is very well established, at least in CW. But a top bowlers batting is not equivalent to a top batters bowling. Sachin and McGrath's primary discipline is comparable, can you say the same thing with their secondary discipline? No.
And looking back to the 1 wicket=20 runs, what are your criticisms against it? Just saying that you came up with different result while coming from a different approach doesn't help, because your approach is just not logical. Now I'm not claiming that 1 wicket should be exactly 20 runs from now on, but it does often help while measuring output.

And another question, what If the top batters didn't take any wicket (which would not be impossible, as batters are not obligated to bowl, but bowlers are obligated to bat)? Would you conclude that 1 wicket=infinity runs? (The method you used to conclude Kallis' output is bigger is not very far off from that, as it concluded 0.097 wickets=16 runs, thereby applying 1 wicket is worth 165 runs)

We are trying to compare batting to bowling and give them both an equal shake. How can a comparison based on only bats or only bowlers do this? It's half the picture.

You don't need to convince me that the numbers from bats is wrong. It very obviously is. But the fact that it is different to bowlers also makes that number wrong. The fact that it is less obviously wrong doesn't change this.

My issue with 20 runs a wicket is that it is going to lose the majority of games. The value of a wicket is surely the point at which you are winning and losing equally?

 

[sayon basak]

We are trying to compare batting to bowling and give them both an equal shake. How can a comparison based on only bats or only bowlers do this? It's half the picture.

Don't think you got the point. The thing is, Top batters batting is comparable to top bowlers bowling; but top bowler's batting is not comparable to top batter's bowling. As simple as that.

Sachin and McGrath are close in their primary discipline, so their primary discipline could be considered equivalent; but could you do the same with their secondary discipline? Definitely not.

My issue with 20 runs a wicket is that it is going to lose the majority of games. The value of a wicket is surely the point at which you are winning and losing equally?

Wasn't it your motive to only calculate the "workload"? I mean, that's the reason I did what I did. And it was you who proposed 1 wickets=30 runs at first. My aim was just to see if that holds up.

 

[Rob Wesley]

I think in Tests it would be Kallis. Picking 296 wickets suggests to me that he was always giving you an additional seam bowling option. Add his slip catching/ fielding into the mix.

Look at Stokes , he has played 100+ tests but how much his bowling has reduced. He is playing as a specialist batter who bowls occasionally.
Kallis is arguably the best test cricketer of his era, although I think McGrath could be #1 combining all format due to his legendary achievements in both formats. As soon as he retired, Aussies lost their invincible tag.

In ODIs, Sachin is a better cricketer and a better batsman both.

 

[Randomfan]

Picking 296 wickets suggests to me that he was always giving you an additional seam bowling option..

Look at Stokes , he has played 100+ tests but how much his bowling has reduced. He is playing as a specialist batter who bowls occasionally.

This is a great point you raised here.

Only 13 pacers have bowled more balls than Kallis in entire history. See below,



Yes, Kallis played a lots of test, but if you are appearing in the top 15 in volume of balls in entire history despite being a support bowler then it means you were consistenly available to bowl and did bowl.

It's a whole lot different than just having a pretty average due to bolwing in some games or batting in some games for many others in history. Kallis with nearly 300 test wickets and 20K balls, means he was contributing with weaker skill in his very long career.

I think many of us may be underrating how big this is for any team. If you are picking an XI then it's a huge huge luxury to have a 5th bowler who can be used all the time in his career and not just for 40 odd tests.

The same holds true for bowling all rounders. How many were continuosly contributing in their career and figure in the top 15 volume of balls faced and 7-8K runs. I would guess none did.

Kallis being available and contributing for such a long time with his weaker skill is pretty big. We may be underestimating this factor as a group.

I may think a bit more here and rate him higher as a cricketer. The same holds true for all rounders, I think he makes a strong case after Sobers.

 

[Bolo.]

Don't think you got the point. The thing is, Top batters batting is comparable to top bowlers bowling; but top bowler's batting is not comparable to top batter's bowling. As simple as that.

Sachin and McGrath are close in their primary discipline, so their primary discipline could be considered equivalent; but could you do the same with their secondary discipline? Definitely not.

Wasn't it your motive to only calculate the "workload"? I mean, that's the reason I did what I did. And it was you who proposed 1 wickets=30 runs at first. My aim was just to see if that holds up.

No, I don't get the point. Other bats doing less with the ball means that Kallis is further ahead of bats than Imran is of bowlers. Kallis was a batting AR. Why is he only being compared to bowlers?

The orignal criticism of Kallis was the impact of his WPM. I think it's an incredibly reductive approach as most of his value came through impact on the rest of the team. I'm just pointing out the problem with using this as a criticism of Kallis but ignoring Imran's RPT (which I also think he was better than).

An alternative this is to say that Kallis took 5.6% of match wickets. Imran scored 4.6% of match runs. I don't like these numbers either due to the above point, but it's a better way of doing things than comparing them to top bats or bowlers.

 

[sayon basak]

No, I don't get the point. Other bats doing less with the ball means that Kallis is further ahead of bats than Imran is of bowlers. Kallis was a batting AR. Why is he only being compared to bowlers?

Definitely, and that is expected. Because Batters seldom bowl (as they are not obliged to, and bowlers have to bat, that's why their numbers are better than batter's bowling stats).

The orignal criticism of Kallis was the impact of his WPM. I think it's an incredibly reductive approach as most of his value came through impact on the rest of the team. I'm just pointing out the problem with using this as a criticism of Kallis but ignoring Imran's RPT (which I also think he was better than).

An alternative this is to say that Kallis took 5.6% of match wickets. Imran scored 4.6% of match runs. I don't like these numbers either due to the above point, but it's a better way of doing things than comparing them to top bats or bowlers.

Agree with the rest, don't think I ever questioned the quality of the wickets Kallis took.
Though I rate Imran's batting a bit higher, still think it's very close (along with Sobers' bowling)

 

[kyear2]

Bogus example since India lost because they were down one specialist bat and one specialist bowler.


Yet you had precisely the same in your Aus ATG XI when you dropped Miller to have Simpson, Border and Chappell as 5th bowling options.


No they aren't. They aren't picked for slips.


You are reversing your own position that slips are of equal value to lower order runs and 5th bowler wicket. Not surprising.

Yes, but would their spearhead broken down if they had that guy they could depend on to throw down some inexpensive overs.

Don't get what you're saying in that second paragraph. You're just repeating what I said.

Where I think you're trying to say

Re the last point, what have I reversed.
1. I said in victories, and I'm not backing down from that.
2. I've also said that I believe that all 3 aspects are important, but in ranking them I've also said that as a whole the slip cordon is slightly more important. I wouldn't say though, that lower order batting isn't important.

I think the difference between myself and most of the bat deep crew is that I don't think that the primary selection criteria for your entire team should be based on the secondary skill.

Should be a mix, but somehow most here would easily choose a bowling attack based purely on batting. It's like if the primary skills takes precedence and it is, with an attack of Imran, Hadlee, Marshall and Warne, it's a similar argument when persons suggest Miller should be a 5th bowler. It's like Imran's the best no. 8 and Miller is the best 5th option so they must be chosen, by similar argument Hammond is the best ATG option for 1st so he must be selected, and you end up with the best ATG at every option with Hammond, Sobers and Richards, so it's not like I apply that standard either.

 

[kyear2]

Playing in SA made Kallis look like a better bowler than he was.

How about as a batsman?

Should give him an edge over his peers as well?