Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Ruckus]

Yeah, I know. I was just speaking in general. Players A and B certainly aren't Ponting and Kallis in that example.

I think DeusEx thought that I'd rate Player B higher because he had a higher average over the course of his career, so I was just clearing it up.

You said before though "Kallis's strength in the debate lies in the fact that he's in form more often". If Ponting retired when he averaged 60 Kallis wouldn't have been in form more often than Ponting.

 

[Prince EWS]

You said before though "Kallis's strength in the debate lies in the fact that he's in form more often". If Ponting retired when he averaged 60 Kallis wouldn't have been in form more often than Ponting.

Yeah, but then Kallis's strength would lie in the fact that he'd played more cricket. I'd rate Ponting's career lower, or the same at absolute best, if he'd retired five years ago.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, but then Kallis's strength would lie in the fact that he'd played more cricket. I'd rate Ponting's career lower, or the same at absolute best, if he'd retired five years ago.

So then why doesn't that make Kallis better than Bradman?

 

[weldone]

Yeah, but then Kallis's strength would lie in the fact that he'd played more cricket. I'd rate Ponting's career lower, or the same at absolute best, if he'd retired five years ago.

Exactly.

Longevity is soooo underrated...

 

[Prince EWS]

So then why doesn't that make Kallis better than Bradman?

...

Longevity is a really tricky thing to compare between eras

^^^^

I've standardised averages before; maybe it's time to standardise matches as well. By the standards of the day, Bradman actually had greater longevity than Kallis.

 

[Ruckus]

...


I've standardised averages before; maybe it's time to standardise matches as well. By the standards of the day, Bradman actually had greater longevity than Kallis.

You said "played more cricket" though, which is somewhat different to longevity.

But anyway the era is irrelevent to this, assume a Bradman existed in the same era as Kallis and only played 50-odd tests with an average of 99.94? Would that make Kallis better than 'modern Bradman' in your eyes ?

 

[weldone]

Matches (or 'standardized matches' or whatever) isn't a good way to compare longevity across eras. 'Standardized years' might be a much much better idea...

 

[weldone]

But anyway the era is irrelevent to this, assume a Bradman existed in the same era as Kallis and only played 50-odd tests with an average of 99.94? Would that make Kallis better than 'modern Bradman' in your eyes ?

Not for me. But 52 tests with an average of (say) 62 today would be lower for me than what Kallis has achieved. It's somewhat subjective actually, how much value one assigns to longevity. But the bottomline is that it's valuable.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not for me. But 52 tests with an average of (say) 62 today would be lower for me than what Kallis has achieved. It's somewhat subjective actually, how much value one assigns to longevity. But the bottomline is that it's valuable.

Yeah, AWTA.

When you have two batsmen who have played very similar amounts though, just ignoring certain segments of it makes little sense tbh.

 

[Ruckus]

Not for me. But 52 tests with an average of (say) 62 today would be lower for me than what Kallis has achieved. It's somewhat subjective actually, how much value one assigns to longevity. But the bottomline is that it's valuable.

I think it shows that using 'overall contribution to a teams success' as the sole criterion for rating batsmen is too simple.

But the bolded bit is an excellent point, and gets to the only legitimate answer possible for these threads: ultimately who you rate as a better player is going to be subjective. The relative value of longevity, peak performance etc. can't be made objective, and therefore, it depends what you value personally.

 

[Jarquis]

Bagapath, bore off

 

[silentstriker]

Viv's average fell heaps near the end of his career yet he's comfortably remembered as an all-time great.

The thing hurting Ponting's legacy is his captaincy and Ashes losses, not his batting. People understand when greats decline.

Agreed. I've said repeatedly how terrible a captain Ponting is (tactically). Not mediocre, but out and out terrible. And I'm sure people use that to detract from his batting but to me, whether he is a good captain or not, the fact is that he has had to focus on both the captaincy and his batting, and that can't be easy - especially when you're presiding over the decline of one of the most dominant eras in cricket history.

He gets a lot of points from me, in that he has been able to continue to score heavily while captaining for a long period.

 

[silentstriker]

Not that it has an effect on the poll of who's the better batsmen - it's about scoring runs and how. Ponting scores as many as Kallis but does it in a way that's much more beneficial to his team - hence he wins.

Same argument goes for Dravid vs. Ponting. Ponting wins.

The much closer argument is Dravid vs. Kallis (Kallis wins as a player due to his bowling of course, but speaking purely of batting).

 

[akilana]

Not that it has an effect on the poll of who's the better batsmen - it's about scoring runs and how. Ponting scores as many as Kallis but does it in a way that's much more beneficial to his team - hence he wins.

Same argument goes for Dravid vs. Ponting. Ponting wins.

The much closer argument is Dravid vs. Kallis (Kallis wins as a player due to his bowling of course, but speaking purely of batting).

While I don't agree or disagree but it's interesting that the "how" isn't extended to bowling discussions. I don't think many rate Waqar over Akram.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

I don't think many rate Waqar over Akram.

I do, actually. Loved watching Waqar more so than I loved watching Akram.

Anyway, Kallis. He's alright I s'pose.

 

[JBH001]

Finally cast my vote, Ponting. Looking at the votes cast 46 - 28 is closer than I thought it would be, tbh.

Ponting has fallen off and Kallis (like Tendulkar) seems to have found a second wind at the tail end of his career. But, I think, Ponting has done more over the course of his career to be, in my mind, comfortably ahead. Kallis would have to do one hell of a lot over the couple of years remaining of his career to catch up to Ponting, let alone surpass him. I think it beyond him. More to the point, statistics and achievements aside, Ponting is just the better batsman, IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

While I don't agree or disagree but it's interesting that the "how" isn't extended to bowling discussions. I don't think many rate Waqar over Akram.

Actually, Waqar at his best was quite possibly the best bowler in history. It's when the whole career is taken into account that Wasim is ahead.

 

[Goughy]

I don't think many rate Waqar over Akram.

I do by a long way.

 

[Zinzan]

Finally cast my vote, Ponting. Looking at the votes cast 46 - 28 is closer than I thought it would be, tbh.

Ponting has fallen off and Kallis (like Tendulkar) seems to have found a second wind at the tail end of his career. But, I think, Ponting has done more over the course of his career to be, in my mind, comfortably ahead. Kallis would have to do one hell of a lot over the couple of years remaining of his career to catch up to Ponting, let alone surpass him. I think it beyond him. More to the point, statistics and achievements aside, Ponting is just the better batsman, IMO.

What's he supposed to be catching up on? He has a better average, as many centuries & around the same amount of runs as Ponting. This is just more prove Kallis is criminally underrated with the bat IMO, just because he's not quite as free scoring & seems to value his wicket more than others

 

[Athlai]

Yeah I'm a Waqar > Wasim rater.