Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[TT Boy]

Home.

 

[JBH001]

He shouldn't have a problem against the current SL attack. Ponting is better than Kallis no doubt, in my mind there is a significant difference, but if Kallis continues in this run of form then that gap will close and, who knows, he may come to be considered better than Ponting. Unlikely though that sounds to me at the moment.

 

[kingkallis]

To be very honest as a batsman Kallis has achieved almost everything as Ponting did.

People considering Ponting better than Kallis just on the basis of SR or style factor doesnt make sense.

 

[centurymaker]

He shouldn't have a problem against the current SL attack. Ponting is better than Kallis no doubt, in my mind there is a significant difference, but if Kallis continues in this run of form then that gap will close and, who knows, he may come to be considered better than Ponting. Unlikely though that sounds to me at the moment.

Kallis doesn't play another test for 9 months, so who knows what his form would be like then. Plus, his next series after 9 months is against his bogey home opposition Australia.

 

[centurymaker]

To be very honest as a batsman Kallis has achieved almost everything as Ponting did.

People considering Ponting better than Kallis just on the basis of SR or style factor doesnt make sense.

Aesthetics aswell.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry to have missed the context of the thread for the last 4-5 pages which I read, but is it an exercise in running innovative queries on stats guru?

It's not just that though, it's all about making excuses for any poor stat that your favourite may have incurred.

Personally I'd rather reserve my judgement on watching the game, but I'm a bit old fashioned like that.

 

[honestbharani]

Cricinfo has the stats from about mid-2001 onwards. Player vs player stats for every match.... I suppose its easier for them at cricinfo since they can just query their database with the required parameters

post 2001 will miss quite a bit of Kallis against top spinners though, won't it, esp. against Warne/Murali/Kumble..

 

[Avada Kedavra]

big diff between punty and kallis AFAIAC is kallis is a better player easily under pressure.Ricky is a gud bat but he has been part of ATG team with no pressure.Punty has only avg 40 since mw retired.

 

[GotSpin]

Or maybe he was an instrumental force in Australia being so dominant?

 

[robelinda]

Or maybe he was an instrumental force in Australia being so dominant?

No your'e miles off the mark pal, every time Ponting came out to bat the score was 1/734 on a road.

 

[GotSpin]

No your'e miles off the mark pal, every time Ponting came out to bat the score was 1/734 on a road.

Yeah obviously. So stupid of me

While Langer and Hayden obviously had incredible starts, I doubt Ponting, considering the form he was in then, would have had any trouble

 

[akilana]

Kallis can't be good.. he's boring.

 

[Furball]

big diff between punty and kallis AFAIAC is kallis is a better player easily under pressure.Ricky is a gud bat but he has been part of ATG team with no pressure.Punty has only avg 40 since mw retired.

This is quite possibly the most ******** argument on CW at the moment.

 

[Ikki]

I got that tongue in cheek thing, mate. but i do want you to hear me out that he did not fail against akram and waqar.

TBF, I've only seen videos of him facing them and to me the impression was that he was rarely comfortable. The stats only seem to back that up.

of course it happened. if his overall average against pakistan is 42 then he must have done better against them in the future series, right?

Against Pakistan; but Pakistan got worse as an attack during the 00s - which is my point.

Imagine Hayden playing Ambrose and Walsh for more than few innings he had; doing mediocrely, then once they retire he does much better.

kallis' poor record in england (avg , 30) and his overall bad record against SL (no hundreds yet!) should also tilt the kallis vs ponting argument in favor of ricky because other than ponting's failures in india and a weak ashes career he has a pretty fine record. even in india he has shown signs of great improvement over the last two series. but his earlier failures have been so colossal that the average has stayed in the 20s.

Ponting averages 44 - was 48 IIRC before this last series - so he hasn't had a weak Ashes career. Sorry to mention it but it bothers me to no end that people pick on it. It may not be a superlative record like his one against other teams but it certainly isn't weak or poor.

Sounds to me like you are splitting hairs again. But I'll go with the first sentence and note that your opinion is that as a pure exercise, presumably that means some sort of "objective" analysis, Tendulkar failed in his debut series against Pakistan because he averaged close to 36 against Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir. Thanks.

IMO, and I think others have said this, Tendulkar usually had more trouble against precise and crafty line and length pace merchants like McGrath, Pollock and Asif than out and out attacking speedsters like Wasim or Waqar or Steyn (or for that matter Akhtar). (Donald, however, is something of an exception.) He also had some trouble against Saqlain and Murali although he usually gave as good as he got in these battles and the final tally ended up even.

I am not sure what's unclear about it, let alone splitting hairs. I concede that you may think as a 16 year old he did well, but even an average 25 might be deemed good to some, with respect to his age. That's a standard relevant only to Tendulkar since I don't recall any players in the last few decades that debuted at 16 so I pay no allegiance to that logic in assessing how he did overall against those bowlers. It makes more sense for me to say "don't really look at that record as he was picked too early" rather than saying he did very well, because of his age.

If the pitch was a batters nightmare or some context that could explain a low score for the match then I'd be more agreeable to think he did very well. This argument is akin to saying: X batsman was injured for this series and he averaged 36...which means that is really good because he was injured.

 

[Steyn.DaleSteyn]

I think that they are so close and nobody can tell untill both of them end there careers in about 3-4 yers time.

Here's the progressions between them for every 25 innings ( the at bats / runs per inning's ) ---- Ponting's runs 1st.

25 Inn: 956 - 609 -- Ponting + 347 runs
50 Inn: 2004 - 1780 -- Ponting + 224 runs
75 Inn: 2835 - 2818 -- Ponting + 17 runs
100 Inn: 4253 - 3971 -- Ponting + 282 runs
125 Inn: 6019 - 5728 -- Ponting + 291 runs
150 Inn: 7226 - 6945 -- Ponting + 281 runs
200 Inn: 10222 - 9641 -- Ponting + 581 runs
225 Inn: 11188 - 10479 -- Ponting + 709 runs
246 Inn: 11960 - 11947 -- Ponting + 13 runs

Last 25 Inn:
Kallis: 1670 runs @ 83.50
Ponting: 882 runs @ 36.75

The only diffenence between them at the moment is the current form, otherwise very very even ... To close to call a winner now

 

[Bun]

I think that they are so close and nobody can tell untill both of them end there careers in about 3-4 yers time.

Here's the progressions between them for every 25 innings ( the at bats / runs per inning's ) ---- Ponting's runs 1st.

25 Inn: 956 - 609 -- Ponting + 347 runs
50 Inn: 2004 - 1780 -- Ponting + 224 runs
75 Inn: 2835 - 2818 -- Ponting + 17 runs
100 Inn: 4253 - 3971 -- Ponting + 282 runs
125 Inn: 6019 - 5728 -- Ponting + 291 runs
150 Inn: 7226 - 6945 -- Ponting + 281 runs
200 Inn: 10222 - 9641 -- Ponting + 581 runs
225 Inn: 11188 - 10479 -- Ponting + 709 runs
246 Inn: 11960 - 11947 -- Ponting + 13 runs

Last 25 Inn:
Kallis: 1670 runs @ 83.50
Ponting: 882 runs @ 36.75

The only diffenence between them at the moment is the current form, otherwise very very even ... To close to call a winner now

That is quite a misleading argument.

eg - Player A plays 3 tests and because he is privelaged to be part of a great bowling attack, his team win 2 tests by innings margins. His scores in that series as follows:

80 & dnb
45 & 75
50 & dnb

Total 250 runs from 4 innings

Player B plays 2 tests but bats in all 4 innings, but stays not out in the 2nd innings both times,

100 & 10*
110 & 5*

Total 225 runs from 4 innings

Even though player B has done little wrong, by your analysis, he apparently is an inferior player to Player A, despite having scored more hundreds and possessing a brilliant batting average as well.

 

[marc71178]

The 4 innings sample argument is well and truly invalidated by the presence of a sample size of 246.

 

[Bun]

The 4 innings sample argument is well and truly invalidated by the presence of a sample size of 246.

Not really, it just needs to be repeated about 60 times So there is no real guarantee that a larger sample size will negate the effect of such distortions.

 

[smash84]

Not really, it just needs to be repeated about 60 times So there is no real guarantee that a larger sample size will negate the effect of such distortions.

yeah but what are the chances that it will be repeated 60 times???

 

[ankitj]

That is quite a misleading argument.

eg - Player A plays 3 tests and because he is privelaged to be part of a great bowling attack, his team win 2 tests by innings margins. His scores in that series as follows:

80 & dnb
45 & 75
50 & dnb

Total 250 runs from 4 innings

Player B plays 2 tests but bats in all 4 innings, but stays not out in the 2nd innings both times,

100 & 10*
110 & 5*

Total 225 runs from 4 innings

Even though player B has done little wrong, by your analysis, he apparently is an inferior player to Player A, despite having scored more hundreds and possessing a brilliant batting average as well.

I see your point. I guess looking at averages after playing n number of innings is better.