Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[akilana]

Now SA are stronger(batting wise) and we're finally seeing Kallis in all gears.

 

[Jarquis]

Na, if you pull off an attacking innings in that situation it is much more valuable than a defensive one. The former demoralises the opposition and gives your team momentum whilst the latter plays more into their hands - bowlers like seeing batsmen being forced to play defensively because it makes them feel like they are still on top.

Nah, throwing the kitchen sink at a batsman to see him defend it with disdain is infuriating.
Swings and roundabouts.

 

[Uppercut]

Would argue that Kallis has achieved the same as Ponting with a different style of play.

Yep.

 

[Ruckus]

I guess all of these points can be summarised as: does SR matter in test cricket? Does it matter whether a batsmen scores his runs at a SR of 40, 60, or 80?

I would argue that it definately does have an impact on the outcome of the game.

 

[Eclipse]

Nah, throwing the kitchen sink at a batsman to see him defend it with disdain is infuriating.
Swings and roundabouts.

Even worse when it goes through cover for four.

 

[Jarquis]

Even worse when it goes through cover for four.

Nah, because then I'm in the contest. Can shape one away to try and take the edge. Etc etc.
Basically its all unfounded hypothetical bull****.

 

[Jarquis]

I guess all of these points can be summarised as: does SR matter in test cricket? Does it matter whether a batsmen scores his runs at a SR of 40, 60, or 80?

I would argue that it definately does have an impact on the outcome of the game.

But is it an indicator of ability? And if so, more so than scoring runs?
Not conclusively and no respectively.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Now SA are stronger(batting wise) and we're finally seeing Kallis in all gears.

This is my personal opinion too. I don't think Kallis is capable of consistently hitting the fourth gear like Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting, but he's capable of batting at a decent pace, which the new found strength and reliability of the current SA lineup allows him to do.

 

[Uppercut]

I guess all of these points can be summarised as: does SR matter in test cricket? Does it matter whether a batsmen scores his runs at a SR of 40, 60, or 80?

I would argue that it definately does have an impact on the outcome of the game.

Well, there's no "real" advantage to scoring quickly at all. It could leave you more time to win the game, or it could leave your opponents more time to win the game. It could maximise scoring with the tail collapsing, or it could minimise scoring with another set batsman getting stranded because you got out sooner than you would have had you scored the same number of runs playing defensively.

Any advantage gained from the rate at which you score is purely intangible. That's not to say such an advantage doesn't exist, it might well do, but it's extremely shaky and dubious grounds on which to claim that one batsman is better than another. That a higher strike rate will, in itself, be advantageous isn't really a reasonable assumption- when it gets to the stage where some people are alleging that it's advantageous enough to make up for the effect of 250 test wickets, it's just a bit ridiculous.

 

[sachin200]

attacking option >> defensive option
Proof

In the recent test in perth the attacking method of hussey completely demoralised swann so much so he didn't bowl much in 2nd inn. Had he opted to play defensively option swann would have certainly bowled more overs in 2nd inn.

 

[Cricketismylife]

I don't see Ponting being any better than Kallis because of his strike rate. It's not like Kallis is that slow, and sometimes scoring slower can be better than scoring more quickly. It's a test match and 5 days is a long time. A question for those people who are putting Ponting ahead of Kallis based on strike rate; would that not make Virender Sehwag the best batsman after Bradman? To score at 81 strike rate is far higher than both Ponting and Kallis and pretty much anyone...

For me I rate Ponting very slightly higher, and as I said before if Ponting keeps failing it will change. It really is that close... Kallis does average higher, but I believe Ponting just about makes up that average due to slightly less minnow bashing than Kallis.

Kallis is not rated as high as he should be because people do not find him entertaining. This does not make him any less effective. Unfortunately for him, a typical Kallis matchwinning performance is a fairly colourless first innings century which sets up the test win for SA, but by the time the test is over, most people have forgotten about Kallis' machine like performance.

 

[NasserFan207]

Na, if you pull off an attacking innings in that situation it is much more valuable than a defensive one. The former demoralises the opposition and gives your team momentum whilst the latter plays more into their hands - bowlers like seeing batsmen being forced to play defensively because it makes them feel like they are still on top.

True, but I'd say that a defensive approach is more likely to succeed and therefore they level out at about the same in terms of effectiveness.

Obviously it differs from batsman to batsman, some are simply better on the offense and should always go that route, while others are more 'versatile'.

I don't blame you for preffering one style over another.

 

[vcs]

This is my personal opinion too. I don't think Kallis is capable of consistently hitting the fourth gear like Tendulkar/Lara/Ponting, but he's capable of batting at a decent pace, which the new found strength and reliability of the current SA lineup allows him to do.

Agree. FTR, I believe Tendulkar's recent resurgence also owes a lot to the success of the Gambhir/Sehwag pair at the top (though Dravid's recent form often means he comes in after two quick wickets these days).

 

[Ruckus]

That a higher strike rate will, in itself, be advantageous isn't really a reasonable assumption- when it gets to the stage where some people are alleging that it's advantageous enough to make up for the effect of 250 test wickets, it's just a bit ridiculous.

This thread is about Kallis only as a batsmen. If we are comparing Kallis the all-round player with Ponting, then Kallis wins hand down.

 

[vcs]

If people are bringing up instances of Kallis's slow scoring hurting his team's chances in an ODI, I believe this is a better example than the ones mentioned earlier..

22nd Match, Group A: Australia v South Africa at Basseterre, Mar 24, 2007 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[akilana]

Would anyone take Donald over McGrath because of his superior SR?

 

[Uppercut]

This thread is about Kallis only as a batsmen. If we are comparing Kallis the all-round player with Ponting, then Kallis wins hand down.

Yeah, that wasn't directed at you but a lot of people around here would take Ponting overall.

 

[Eclipse]

True, but I'd say that a defensive approach is more likely to succeed and therefore they level out at about the same in terms of effectiveness.

Obviously it differs from batsman to batsman, some are simply better on the offense and should always go that route, while others are more 'versatile'.

I don't blame you for preffering one style over another.

Your missing the point - being that Ponting matched attacking cricket with consistant run scoring. He might have been more likely to get out but in his prime he very rarely did which is what was so special

 

[Black_Warrior]

Well, there's no "real" advantage to scoring quickly at all. It could leave you more time to win the game, or it could leave your opponents more time to win the game. It could maximise scoring with the tail collapsing, or it could minimise scoring with another set batsman getting stranded because you got out sooner than you would have had you scored the same number of runs playing defensively.

Any advantage gained from the rate at which you score is purely intangible. That's not to say such an advantage doesn't exist, it might well do, but it's extremely shaky and dubious grounds on which to claim that one batsman is better than another. That a higher strike rate will, in itself, be advantageous isn't really a reasonable assumption- when it gets to the stage where some people are alleging that it's advantageous enough to make up for the effect of 250 test wickets, it's just a bit ridiculous.

Strike rate does matter in test cricket. Getting runs is one thing, how you get those runs is another. People like Viv Richards, Virender Sehwag, Adam Gilchrist are so destructive purely because of their ability to score runs at a great rate..which often in a test match can take the game away from the opposition. Now you might not find figures and facts to back that up..its purely a mental thing. Viv has done that many times, Sehwag has done that..Gilchrist has done that..Just to illustrate my point a bit further, I will highlight two games
This and this

In the first one, people hail Tendulkar's knock which is not to be ignored but it was Sehwag's innings that really set up the successful chase of 387 in that match..
As for the second one, until Gilchrist came into bat, England were still somewhat in that game...but the way he got those runs in that match just completely shut England out of that game..

Now I am not trying to suggest Ponting's higher strike rate makes him a better player than Kallis..just pointing out that strike rate does matter in test cricket..especially psychologically...

 

[Black_Warrior]

Would anyone take Donald over McGrath because of his superior SR?

Ultimately it all boils down to personal preferences after a certain point. I would pick Donald over McGrath anyday..now I am aware McGrath was much more consistent, took a lot more wickets, but I never found him exciting as a bowler. Donald steaming in on the other hand..I would take that anyday.