Jacques Kallis vs Ricky Ponting

[kyear2]

lol. Never have.

I just credit equally the benefits of slower scoring. I guess my lack of bias could be frustrating.

Nothing to do with lack of bias, one is more difficult to accomplish and more valuable.

 

[Bolo.]

Nothing to do with lack of bias, one is more difficult to accomplish and more valuable.

Is fast striking from bowlers more difficult to accomplish and more valuable?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Bowling strike rate >>> Batting strike rate in tests

 

[Coronis]

Is fast striking from bowlers more difficult to accomplish and more valuable?

tbf you could argue slow striking is more difficult. How many Goddard like bowlers are there?

 

[Bolo.]

tbf you could argue slow striking is more difficult. How many Goddard like bowlers are there?

You could argue this for bats too, and ask how many Sutcliffe like bats there have been that could survive a million balls an innings.

Quicks pretty much always have the option of slowing things down by bowling wide and setting fields to it. They just tend not to take this route unless they think things are stacked against them/their team at the time. They prefer not toiling for nothing. And their team generally prefers it too.

 

[Coronis]

You could argue this for bats too, and ask how many Sutcliffe like bats there have been that could survive a million balls an innings.

Quicks pretty much always have the option of slowing things down by bowling wide and setting fields to it. They just tend not to take this route unless they think things are stacked against them/their team at the time. They prefer not toiling for nothing. And their team generally prefers it too.

Just him and Bradman both 164 balls per innings.

edit: Actually Sutcliffe 163

 

[capt_Luffy]

Just him and Bradman both 164 balls per innings.

Bruce Mitchell was also in that range IIRC

 

[Thala_0710]

Bowling strike rate >>> Batting strike rate in tests

With bowling Avg and WPM stats, how much is bowling SR really relevant though?

 

[OverratedSanity]

With bowling Avg and WPM stats, how much is bowling SR really relevant though?

That logic applies to batting as well.

Getting wickets faster (at the same average) has more of an impact on winning matches than scoring runs faster (at the same average).

 

[Howe_zat]

If you think that bowlers striking more quickly is more valuable than not, then you also presumably think that batsmen who play for longer innings and therefore *stop* bowlers from striking quickly is also more valuable than not.

Or maybe you want to just have a number to appendage your vague ideas of aesthetic preference to and pretend like you've got something objective. Either way.

 

[Thala_0710]

That logic applies to batting as well.

Getting wickets faster (at the same average) has more of an impact on winning matches than scoring runs faster (at the same average).

But surely the amount of wkts taken matter too (and more than the SR). My point was less comparison to the batsmen and more of bowling SR's validity as a useful bowling metric.
For ex, ppl look at Kallis and his stats of 292 wkts @32.65 and 69 SR and grossly overrate his bowling when in reality he was a good 5th (sometimes 4th) bowling option who bowled in short bursts when required for workload management. He only picks 1.75 wkts per match which is low even for AR standards. Not much of an impact from spells like 1/32.

 

[Bolo.]

But surely the amount of wkts taken matter too (and more than the SR). My point was less comparison to the batsmen and more of bowling SR's validity as a useful bowling metric.
For ex, ppl look at Kallis and his stats of 292 wkts @32.65 and 69 SR and grossly overrate his bowling when in reality he was a good 5th (sometimes 4th) bowling option who bowled in short bursts when required for workload management. He only picks 1.75 wkts per match which is low even for AR standards. Not much of an impact from spells like 1/32.

Neither WPM nor SR give a complete picture by themselves.

WPM is probably a slightly better measure, but the number is extremely range bound stuff by like the quality/composition of your team in both disciplines and your role in it. There are 20 wickets max to be shared amongst bowlers, and this number can effectively be much lower.

SR gets around this problem, and will typically have advantages like requiring less bowling from other teammates (fresher bowlers, newer ball, less part-timers etc). But it doesn't reflect your capacity/willingness to bowl a lot (well).

 

[Thala_0710]

Neither WPM nor SR give a complete picture by themselves.

WPM is probably a slightly better measure, but the number is extremely range bound stuff by like the quality/composition of your team in both disciplines and your role in it. There are 20 wickets max to be shared amongst bowlers, and this number can effectively be much lower.

SR gets around this problem, and will typically have advantages like requiring less bowling from other teammates (fresher bowlers, newer ball, less part-timers etc). But it doesn't reflect your capacity/willingness to bowl a lot (well).

Yeah but Avg coupled with WPM covers most bases. As for the listed advantages, a higher WPM probably has more of them. A bowler bowling 20 overs and 4 wkts in a match helps his teammates more than someone bowling 8 overs and taking 2 wkts.

 

[GIMH]

I know the numbers don't justify it but I rate Ponting over pretty much any batsman of the last 20 years. If you didn't get him early, you weren't getting him and he could kill the game in a session by cutting and pulling at ease.

 

[Bolo.]

Yeah but Avg coupled with WPM covers most bases. As for the listed advantages, a higher WPM probably has more of them. A bowler bowling 20 overs and 4 wkts in a match helps his teammates more than someone bowling 8 overs and taking 2 wkts.

Ya, fair enough if you prefer WPM. For specialists with the same role, SR and WPM mostly tend to be rough proxies for each other, with each covering different gaps. For specialist bowlers, a faster SR will normally get you a higher WPM, and when they don't, you can generally see why.

WPM isn't really relevant to the faster bowling/batting SR discussion though, except so far as it is a consequence of bowling SR.

 

[kyear2]

I know the numbers don't justify it but I rate Ponting over pretty much any batsman of the last 20 years. If you didn't get him early, you weren't getting him and he could kill the game in a session by cutting and pulling at ease.

Don't think people get the advantages this provides to a captain. Or they pretend not to.

And no one can convince me that cutting out shots and scoring at a s/r of 35 requires as much skill.

 

[GIMH]

Don't think people get the advantages this provides to a captain. Or they pretend not to.

And no one can convince me that cutting out shots and scoring at a s/r of 35 requires as much skill.

I agree. I’ve often waxed lyrical on here about the only time I saw him bat live. Headingley 09 day one. England were bowled out for 102, got Katich out for a duck and you think, oh maybe we’ll roll them too. Then Ponting comes out to bat and before long, the game is over and it’s not even long been Tea. He ‘only’ got 78 that day but for me it was batting perfection. I wanted to hate it and couldn’t. He got wildly booed on, and an enormous ovation off.

Discussed it recently with the mate I went with and he said ‘the only thing I can compare it to is the time I went to see Messi play.’

It’s one innings and it wasn’t even a ton. But it was incredible. Right then, you forget your parochial tendencies and appreciate a master of his craft. Genuinely don’t think I’ll ever be so lucky to witness batting that good in the flesh again.

 

[centurymaker]

The 'batsmanship' displayed by the likes of Ponting, Tendulkar and Lara was something else.

 

[kyear2]

Yes, yes it was.

 

[ma1978]

Ponting in Tendulkar and Lara’s league for best after Bradman. Probably not as good as the first two but in the conversation. Kallis is not. You had to watch the cricket to understand.