I think people on here make the claim that batting time is just as important scoring fast often because it sounds like a sound position to take intellectually but it doesn't actually play out that way. I mean, look back to the first Pak vs Oz test. If Pakistan hadn't taken 2 whole days to score 400 they would've had a much better chance of winning. Teams rarely lose from scoring 400 odd in a day and a bit. And yes, clearly batting faster makes your average go down. Peak Ponting was the perfect #3.
Saying context counts is not an intellectual postition.
Ponting's SR is typically going to be better, assuming no context.
Kallis having a low SR was typically better for his team, assuming we don't add context. It was sometimes worse for his team.
Ponting having a high SR was almost always better for his team. The odd example is the exception that proves the rule.
I'm not sure if Ponting's SR would have been more useful than Kallis's if he had played for RSA... my gut says no, but his ability to change pace based on situation was something Kallis lacked.
I'm 100% that Kallis' SR would have been less useful than Ponting had he played for AUS. I'm also 100% sure we should regard Ponting's ability to pace an innings as better within the context of the team he played for.
Ponting's SR obviously better within his context. I'm a big Kallis fan, and one of the few on this site who watched almost his whole career, but I have no problem admitting his limitations in this regard.
The simple statement that xyx is better that abc cos of a higher SR is crap though. Context. Dean Elgar was mentioned earlier. He's good, not cos he scores heavily (he seldom does), but cos he sticks around, and it's what RSA needs.
