Jayasuriya v Ponting in odi as cricketers

[Bun]

His economy rate was 4.7, which meant if he gave away 37 runs to take a wicket, he'd also ensure that if he bowled 10 overs, he'd given away only 47 runs on an average, which translates into about 230 per 50 overs, which in the modern age is a sub par total on almost all surfaces. This means he makes the job of his batsmen easier, not to mention his own destructiveness with the bat. And this completely discounting his utility as a reliable deep fielder and the fact that he has effected some great run outs on his own.

Equating his dismissals to Ponting's run outs was overtly charitable to Ponting. Jayasurya's wicket taking and economy rate just about trumps by miles Ponting's strike rate of what, a dismissal every 2-3 matches???

Ikki here are the stats put in the most crudest fashion:

On average, Jayasurya scores 33 (36) and bowls about 7 overs every match for about 33 runs (he takes a wicket every 47 balls also). Ponting on the other hand scores about 43 (54) and that's it.

If you're saying Ponting's contribution in the field per match is better than Jayasurya's effort with the ball, please substantiate how.

 

[Ikki]

Ah, so the summary of what you are trying to say is that the matchwinning contributions are the only things that count when we are assessing the value added by a player in a team? By that logic, Tendulkar has only scored 1000 test runs or so...

No, that for the large part Sanath's bowling is expensive and slow. So, it really is not much of a talking point. I use the term "match-winning" but I do not mean only in matches won; but as a truly significant contribution.

His economy rate was 4.7, which meant if he gave away 37 runs to take a wicket, he'd also ensure that if he bowled 10 overs, he'd given away only 47 runs on an average, which translates into about 230 per 50 overs, which in the modern age is a sub par total on almost all surfaces. This means he makes the job of his batsmen easier, not to mention his own destructiveness with the bat. And this completely discounting his utility as a reliable deep fielder and the fact that he has effected some great run outs on his own.

Equating his dismissals to Ponting's run outs was overtly charitable to Ponting. Jayasurya's wicket taking and economy rate just about trumps by miles Ponting's strike rate of what, a dismissal every 2-3 matches???

So at best you're saying Sanath is an economical bowler; who on relatively rare occasions contributes big hauls? Fantastic, what a bowler. Does that make up the difference between him and Ponting in all other facets of the game? I don't think so.

 

[weldone]

World Cup is coming Ikki...Wouldn't you be willing to give Ponting some rest from fielding if he could bowl like Jayasuriya, and add value to your team (so that you can drop Steve Smith and play Shaun Marsh or David Hussey, perhaps)?...

 

[vcs]

He doesn't really have to TBH. Running someone out is like an extra - it doesn't come at the cost of runs/balls as bowling will do. Jayasuriya make take a wicket...but he'll - on average - concede 37 runs and take 7 overs to do it. Which is neither quick nor cheap. I am sure Sanath has affected matches much better than that with his bowling, and those innings are the talking points and not his aggregate total of wickets. That number is sure to be much less as well.



It's well known by now already

Can't wait for the WC.

Seems to me you're judging ODI bowling stats (for a fifth-bowler) by Test cricket standards.. how is it not useful to get through 7 or so middle overs conceding around 4 and a half an over, picking up an occasional wicket in the bargain?

 

[Ikki]

Ikki.. you've missed weldone's point that Jayasuriya added so much balance to his team by being a reliable fifth bowling option. If your fifth bowler takes 1-45 in 10, most people would take that. Especially considering Jayasuriya bowled at the death, where you'd gladly concede a run a ball.

Agreed...

But saying that Ponting's fielding added more value to the Aussie team than the value added by Sanath's bowling to the SL team is much more pathetic really. Simple as that...

If you go over my post; I actually mentioned that it depends which team you are talking about.

In other words, even if Ponting had a lesser ratio, but still a high one, in affected wickets I'd consider that more valuable for his team.

And as I say that, I guess it depends which team you're talking about. If you're talking about a team that needs the overs bowled by someone like Sanath due to a lack of options then I guess that consideration differs.

If you are picking an all-time XI for example, Sanath's bowling is simply not a consideration whereas all of Ponting's facets are, for example.

Anyway, my point was, as it appears to be lost now, that expecting Ponting to have as many affected-runouts per match as Sanath has wickets per match is unreasonable. If it did occur, Ponting would be far and away the more valuable player. But it won't, as run-outs naturally don't occur as much - there are rarely going to be 10 genuine opportunities for a run-out in a match. Whatever that comparable ratio may be, it certainly isn't 1=1.

 

[Ikki]

Seems to me you're judging ODI bowling stats (for a fifth-bowler) by Test cricket standards.. how is it not useful to get through 7 or so middle overs conceding around 4 and a half an over, picking up an occasional wicket in the bargain?

If anything, Test cricket standards would have more value. You don't have to take all wickets in ODIs.

 

[Bun]

Jayasurya scores runs at a better rate and more or less ensure that he turns out a net positive return for Sri lanka if one ought to blindly deduct what he costs while bowling from what he scores. He scores roughly as many runs as he gives away per match, but at a superior ER so a team comprised of 11 Jayasuryas are going to win almost every match they play.

Ponting on the other hand scores about 43 runs at a SR of 80, which means if he bats 300 balls, his team would score 240 which is below par. He contributes nothing with the ball remember, so this means an additional bowler is needed to take care of that aspect.

Battingwise Ponting scores about 10 extra runs every innings than Jaya but also consumes 18 more deliveries to do so. Bowling wise, Ponting contributes nothing while Jayasurya zips away 7 overs for 33 which takes a lot of pressure of frontline bowlers and lets SL play an extra batsman or bowler as they wish.

 

[Ikki]

World Cup is coming Ikki...Wouldn't you be willing to give Ponting some rest from fielding if he could bowl like Jayasuriya, and add value to your team (so that you can drop Steve Smith and play Shaun Marsh or David Hussey, perhaps)?...

No, the way I see it we have better bowlers. The batsmen you have named are there primarily on their batting. Their bowling is merely a second consideration once they're in the team. Someone like Hastings or Hopes would be more comparable.

 

[Bun]

No, that for the large part Sanath's bowling is expensive and slow. So, it really is not much of a talking point. I use the term "match-winning" but I do not mean only in matches won; but as a truly significant contribution.



So at best you're saying Sanath is an economical bowler; who on relatively rare occasions contributes big hauls? Fantastic, what a bowler. Does that make up the difference between him and Ponting in all other facets of the game? I don't think so.

Big hauls aren't the point here Ikki. Fact is if every bowler were to be like Jayasurya, the opposition would score only about 230/6 runs per 50 overs.

And what more, as a batsman, on an average, Jayasurya scores those 33 odd runs he gives away every innings at a SR of 91 which means a team of Jayasuryas would score 275/8 in an ODI match.

A team of Pontings on an average scores about 240/5 in a 50 over match. And that's about it/

 

[weldone]

The batsmen you have named are there primarily on their batting. Their bowling is merely a second consideration once they're in the team.

That's why I named them...in other words, if Ponting could bowl like Jayasuriya, you could have one more specialist batsman in the team dropping your weakest bowler...does that make sense? Or, you think getting 2 more runouts in the tournament is more important?

 

[Ikki]

Big hauls aren't the point here Ikki. Fact is if every bowler were to be like Jayasurya, the opposition would score only about 230/6 runs per 50 overs.

And what more, as a batsman, on an average, Jayasurya scores those 33 odd runs he gives away every innings at a SR of 91 which means a team of Jayasuryas would score 275/8 in an ODI match.

Cricket doesn't work that way. If Sanath is failing to take wickets, the ER, in the long run, is going to suffer. The batsmen have wickets in hand and will play more shots. Furthermore, Sanath has a certain function in the team; if his bowling was relied on to open, etc, those figures would change. It's an irrational extrapolation.

 

[Bun]

Cricket doesn't work that way. If Sanath is failing to take wickets, the ER, in the long run, is going to suffer. The batsmen have wickets in hand and will play more shots. Furthermore, Sanath has a certain function in the team; if his bowling was relied on to open, etc, those figures would change. It's an irrational extrapolation.

His bowling average and eco rate are after 400+ matches mate. There is no "extrapolation" here, only interpolation. These numbers also take on account the numerous occassions when Sanath came in and bowled at the death overs as well, don't they?

I agree about Sanath's role, he has dual responsibilities, ie to open the batting as well as provide a reliable 5th bowling option (sometimes 4th even). Ponting has just the responsibility of batting at no.3 from a cricketing pov.

 

[Ikki]

That's why I named them...in other words, if Ponting could bowl like Jayasuriya, you could have one more specialist batsman in the team dropping your weakest bowler...does that make sense? Or, you think getting 2 more runouts in the tournament is more important?

I think in our side it really isn't a consideration. Smith, Hussey and Marsh are in the team as specialist bats; not all-rounders. Someone like Hastings or Hopes would be. But they are bowling all-rounders and so that makes the comparison different as a whole. The real question should be:

If you could have Ponting average 10 less runs per dismissal and bowl like Sanath. I personally wouldn't want that as I think our bowling covers the overs fine (4 specialists + 2 batting part-timers). It was even less of a consideration when we had Symonds around.

 

[Ikki]

His bowling average and eco rate are after 400+ matches mate. There is no "extrapolation" here, only interpolation. These numbers also take on account the numerous occassions when Sanath came in and bowled at the death overs as well, don't they?

I agree about Sanath's role, he has dual responsibilities, ie to open the batting as well as provide a reliable 5th bowling option (sometimes 4th even). Ponting has just the responsibility of batting at no.3 from a cricketing pov.

No, you are extrapolating. You are using his 10 overs per match (of which he doesn't actually average) to explain what would happen in a 50 over match.

 

[Bun]

No, you are extrapolating. You are using his 10 overs per match (of which he doesn't actually average) to explain what would happen in a 50 over match.

Not really, I interpolated based on his career returns of runs, deliveries, innings and wickets.

 

[smash84]

I was interested in many of the Asian fielders HB claimed were better than Ponting. Waugh was a fine slip fielder but as an overall fielder Ponting is superior. The only Aussie I've seen that I could say was better than him was Symonds, and even then it's a debate. Ponting was so good he made amazing stuff seem easy.

Waugh was equally good in the gully. Ponting was nowhere near as good as Mark Waugh in the slip, leg slip, or the gully. Ponting's areas were point and cover region, and midwicket. I don't recall Mark Waugh fielding at Point but he would have been quite good. I can't really say that Ponting is the best fielder with this analysis in mind.

 

[Teja.]

Fielding is the worst art to measure by peak imo. Jayasurya being a elite fielder in the first few years of his career does not mean he can be compared to Ponting who was elite for fifteen. You don't measure fielding by just how good one was at their peak, It's an overall comparison.

I'm not participating in the discussion bout Jaya's bowling vs Ponting's fielding btw but I reckon, like Ikki, that Jayasury's bowling is somewhat overstated on a general level.

 

[Ikki]

Not really, I interpolated based on his career returns of runs, deliveries, innings and wickets.

Yes, but they are only based on the small haul he bowls per match - not how 50 overs bowled in that way will end (you have no data on that). No team goes out with 5 bowlers who have trouble taking wickets just to keep the ER low. If the bowler has trouble taking wickets the batsmen will raise the RR. They may not do that for the handful of overs Sanath bowls here and there in a match; but across 50 overs it is inevitable.

 

[Bun]

Yes, but they are only based on the small haul he bowls per match - not how 50 overs bowled in that way will end (you have no data on that). No team goes out with 5 bowlers who have trouble taking wickets just to keep the ER low. If the bowler has trouble taking wickets the batsmen will raise the RR. They may not do that for the handful of overs Sanath bowls here and there in a match; but across 50 overs it is inevitable.

Son, you don't get it. Good nite

 

[Migara]

Ranatunga was the best too. no?

Taken some blinders in early 80s (82-86 time). Then he grew fat and became an immobile object. 82-89 was a nippy medium pacer as well.