Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Teja.]

To hit a good ball for runs takes more skill than to block a good ball... More risky as well and therefore men who consistently pull it off AND show that they can defend when required are rater higher than batsmen who can block good balls but can't always put away the good balls for runs... Then again, why even consider the fact that human beings play this game and miss out all the fun the lack of perspective brings?

Because essentially, Your job is to be score more runs not be more skilled. If an exceptionally talented batsman consistently destroyed the 2 ATG bowlers of an attack and scored 55 runs, while a batsman with a very ungraceful technique in the same side defended the ATG bowlers and waited for the part-timers to come on so he could score his runs and scored 65 runs, and if they did this over a 10 - match test series and if both the ATG bowlers said the first batsman was the best batsman they bowled to while the second batsman was not dominant enough to be a great bat, I couldn't care less, I'd pick the second batsman every time.

Cricket might be a human game but what really matters more than the glorious display of batsmanship which celebrates the game of cricket(yada,yada,yada) is the scoring one more bloody run.

 

[honestbharani]

Because essentially, Your job is to be score more runs not be more skilled. If an exceptionally talented batsman consistently destroyed the 2 ATG bowlers of an attack and scored 55 runs, while a batsman with a very ungraceful technique in the same side defended the ATG bowlers and waited for the part-timers to come on so he could score his runs and scored 65 runs, and if they did this over a 10 - match test series and if both the ATG bowlers said the first batsman was the best batsman they bowled to while the second batsman was not dominant enough to be a great bat, I couldn't care less, I'd pick the second batsman every time.

Cricket might be a human game but what really matters more than the glorious display of batsmanship which celebrates the game of cricket(yada,yada,yada) is the scoring one more bloody run.

scoring one more bloody run might win you the game.. But when I say "best batsman" I am looking at the more skilled batsman, not the batsman who is gonna get me the EXTRA 4 runs through a french cut...


And I think we are discussing who was the "better" batsman here.. Not who has helped his team win more. In that case, Ponting and Richards and the likes would tower above others..


And the real bull**** is the attitude of scoring one more run wins you the game. No, it bloody doesn't unless your bowlers help you out... And why should how good a batsman;s bowling team mates were matter in a discussion about the batsman? And the thing about the example you quoted is that it NEVER happens in real life... And cricket, unfortunately for you, actually happens in REAL LIFE unless you are talking about some great series that you have simmed..

 

[honestbharani]

No, it'd cause me to re-evaluate my stance atm.

For Ponting to have such a sublime peak but then a significantly lower average than Kallis means that it's impossible for him to be as good as Kallis in other areas.
It doesn't work.
It means than in other areas, outside "peaks", Kallis triumphs over Ponting. Yet these are conveniently ignore or diminished because they're not deemed to be as "awe-inspiring" parts of batting.
Which is bull****.

Why ignore "peaks" first of all? It is as if the batsman didn't have to play well to achieve those peaks.. The fact is a batsman like Kallis in a poor team can help you remain competitive most of the time but rarely win you anything. A batsman like Ponting is gonna win you a LOT of games and then cause you to lose a few.. I would ALWAYS pick the latter.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because essentially, Your job is to be score more runs not be more skilled.

Yes, exactly. Scoring 50 while standing on one leg for your entire innings would be vastly more skilful and entertaining than scoring 80 in the exact same match state and conditions with full use of both legs, but the latter is obviously more valuable and if you choose to do the former you're nothing more than an entertaining, skilful, show-pony.

Now there are several good arguments for Ponting being regarded a better batsman than Kallis, but "he was better at his absolute peak" and "he was more skilful which makes him better even if he had less utility" are not amongst them. A batsman who is freaking awesome for 10 years is worth more to the team who one who is a little bit better than freaking awesome for 3 years and a little worse than freaking awesome for 7. I'm not saying that these hypothetical players are indeed Ponting and Kallis, but it nullifies the peak argument for mine. Obviously if you're comparing someone who played for 15 years with someone who played for 5, career averages are going to be a terrible judge even as a starting point, but when you have careers of very similar lengths, ignoring parts of them for no real reason makes no sense.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, exactly. Scoring 50 while standing on one leg for your entire innings would be vastly more skilful and entertaining than scoring 80 in the exact same match state and conditions with full use of both legs, but the latter is obviously more valuable and if you choose to do the former you're nothing more than an entertaining, skilful, show-pony.

Now there are several good arguments for Ponting being regarded a better batsman than Kallis, but "he was better at his absolute peak" and "he was more skilful which makes him better even if he had less utility" are not amongst them. A batsman who is freaking awesome for 10 years is worth more to the team who one who is a little bit better than freaking awesome for 3 years and a little worse than freaking awesome for 7. I'm not saying that these hypothetical players are indeed Ponting and Kallis, but it nullifies the peak argument for mine. Obviously if you're comparing someone who played for 15 years with someone who played for 5, career averages are going to be a terrible judge even as a starting point, but when you have careers of very similar lengths, ignoring parts of them for no real reason makes no sense.

try adding according to you. To put my argument in a nutshell, I think there is VERY VERY GOOD reason why so much of the cricketing world DO NOT rate him where you do... And I would trust the judgement of the men who have been there and done that when they are almost universal in their consent on where certain players stand...


Try simming the next game based on your adjusted averages and tell me who is likely to score what, PEWS... Let's compare with the real game and finally, for once, see exactly how good stats are when used predictively, or in other words, selectively..

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, exactly. Scoring 50 while standing on one leg for your entire innings would be vastly more skilful and entertaining than scoring 80 in the exact same match state and conditions with full use of both legs, but the latter is obviously more valuable and if you choose to do the former you're nothing more than an entertaining, skilful, show-pony.

Now there are several good arguments for Ponting being regarded a better batsman than Kallis, but "he was better at his absolute peak" and "he was more skilful which makes him better even if he had less utility" are not amongst them. A batsman who is freaking awesome for 10 years is worth more to the team who one who is a little bit better than freaking awesome for 3 years and a little worse than freaking awesome for 7. I'm not saying that these hypothetical players are indeed Ponting and Kallis, but it nullifies the peak argument for mine. Obviously if you're comparing someone who played for 15 years with someone who played for 5, career averages are going to be a terrible judge even as a starting point, but when you have careers of very similar lengths, ignoring parts of them for no real reason makes no sense.

It is all well and good about the rant but the fact is Ponting had a peak that lasted just as long or perhaps longer than Kallis and he was much more freaking awesome during it than Kallis ever was. Just because Kallis is ordinary rather than borderline poor like Ponting was at his worst, doesn't mean it undoes all of the awesomeness Ponting achieved at his peak.. I know who I would rather pick to play for the school team I coach right now,when considering them purely as batsmen.

 

[Furball]

try adding according to you. To put my argument in a nutshell, I think there is VERY VERY GOOD reason why so much of the cricketing world DO NOT rate him where you do... And I would trust the judgement of the men who have been there and done that when they are almost universal in their consent on where certain players stand...

Because people are stupid.

Loads of people picked Tendulkar over Dravid in a team of the 00s, which defies all logic.

 

[Prince EWS]

Try simming the next game based on your adjusted averages and tell me who is likely to score what, PEWS... Let's compare with the real game and finally, for once, see exactly how good stats are when used predictively, or in other words, selectively..

You've said this to me before, and I've never seen a more lolworthy, misrepresenting, straw man argument used against me by someone who isn't an idiot before this in my life, so I've just ignored it up until now. But I'm in an argumentative mood, so here goes.

The only thing I've ever claimed that work to be is a better indicator of what a player has done than scorebook averages. I never compared it to anything else, or said it would work well as a prediction tool (for several very obvious reasons, not limited to the fact that players improve and decline, and the fact that they measure long-term output rather than sample sizes of one..), or even said it was anywhere near perfect at what it was trying to measure. I said it was a better measure of what a player had done in comparison to other players than his scorebook average. That's it.

I'll tell you what though - how about you predict the outcomes of the next game with second hand opinions, anecdotes and flawed conclusions drawn from limited aesthetic sample sizes and we'll see how close we both get.

 

[weldone]

...or said it would work well as a prediction tool (for several very obvious reasons, not limited to the fact that players improve and decline, and the fact that they measure long-term output rather than sample sizes of one..)...

I have never heard of a dumber reason to belittle the importance of statistics than the point made by hb about its prediction power over a small sample size, with all due respect.

The essence of probability (or even an extension, expectation), in itself, doesn't lie in its predictive power over a 5 test match series for instance.

When you toss a coin the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss is 0.5...does it mean that I can predict (with 100% accuracy) how many tosses Dhoni will win in the remaining two tests of this series? Even if my prediction comes true, will I be able to predict the same all the time? No. Does that change the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss?

 

[Prince EWS]

I have never heard of a dumber reason to belittle the importance of statistics than the point made by hb about its prediction power over a small sample size, with all due respect.

The essence of probability (or even an extension, expectation), in itself, doesn't lie in its predictive power over a 5 test match series for instance.

When you toss a coin the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss is 0.5...does it mean that I can predict (with 100% accuracy) how many tosses Dhoni will win in the remaining two tests of this series? Even if my prediction comes true, will I be able to predict the same all the time? No. Does that change the probability of a 'heads' call winning you a toss?

I wouldn't go there. There are actually people on this forum who legitimately believe that if you've just flipped three heads in a row, it's more likely to be a tail than a head on the fourth flip. As if that, not only is there a cosmic force that exists purely for the divine purpose of evening out all coin-flipping, but that it works individually and targets people who have just flipped streaks.

I'm serious. People do really believe that.

 

[weldone]

I wouldn't go there. There are actually people on this forum who legitimately believe that if you've just flipped three heads in a row, it's more likely to be a tail than a head on the fourth flip. As if that, not only is there a cosmic evening out of all coin-flipping, but that it works individually and targets people who have just flipped streaks.

I'm serious. People do really believe that.

Yeah, they have termed it 'the law of averages' ...Though this stupid term is heard outside CW also.

People do believe that if Sachin averages 57, and he scores two 'zilch'es in the next two innings, then the 'expectation' of his score in the 3rd inning automatically becomes 171 ... I wish that was the case! Then I could know from beforehand when Tendulkar is highly likely to score a century, and watch only those matches...

 

[Bun]

Good thread.

 

[Hit Wicket]

A thread comparing Ponting and Kallis as batsmen racks up 130 replies, one discussing Kallis' position as a batsman in the annals of cricket is on 200, and another one comparing him as an all rounder to no less than Sobers gets 1000 replies. Then some people talk about Kallis being underrated?

 

[0RI0N]

Lulz at Kallis haters believing in the "law of averages".
They just umadkat Kallis stylin' on their country's bowlers.
hatersgonnahate.mkv

 

[kingkallis]

A thread comparing Ponting and Kallis as batsmen racks up 130 replies, one discussing Kallis' position as a batsman in the annals of cricket is on 200, and another one comparing him as an all rounder to no less than Sobers gets 1000 replies. Then some people talk about Kallis being underrated?

You need to go couple of years back to understand this.

 

[Jarquis]

A thread comparing Ponting and Kallis as batsmen racks up 130 replies, one discussing Kallis' position as a batsman in the annals of cricket is on 200, and another one comparing him as an all rounder to no less than Sobers gets 1000 replies. Then some people talk about Kallis being underrated?

Yes because everyone single one of those posts is in appreciation of Kallis. gmafb.

 

[Jarquis]

scoring one more bloody run might win you the game.. But when I say "best batsman" I am looking at the more skilled batsman, not the batsman who is gonna get me the EXTRA 4 runs through a french cut...


And I think we are discussing who was the "better" batsman here.. Not who has helped his team win more. In that case, Ponting and Richards and the likes would tower above others..


And the real bull**** is the attitude of scoring one more run wins you the game. No, it bloody doesn't unless your bowlers help you out... And why should how good a batsman;s bowling team mates were matter in a discussion about the batsman? And the thing about the example you quoted is that it NEVER happens in real life... And cricket, unfortunately for you, actually happens in REAL LIFE unless you are talking about some great series that you have simmed..

You can't win a game by scoring less runs than your opponent. Having batsmen who will score more runs is always better than having batsmen who will score less runs.

 

[Jarquis]

Why ignore "peaks" first of all? It is as if the batsman didn't have to play well to achieve those peaks.. The fact is a batsman like Kallis in a poor team can help you remain competitive most of the time but rarely win you anything. A batsman like Ponting is gonna win you a LOT of games and then cause you to lose a few.. I would ALWAYS pick the latter.

That's not the argument. The argument is that for a small period of time Ponting played at a level Kallis hasn't, but that for the rest of his career he's been below Kallis's level.
Why is the batsman who is inferior for the longest period of time considered the best even when his period of being the best doesn't overcome this?

 

[G.I.Joe]

What are people's thoughts on Ken Barrington vs Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe ? Rate the players in order if possible.

 

[BoyBrumby]

What are people's thoughts on Ken Barrington vs Hammond/Hobbs/Sutcliffe ? Rate the players in order if possible.

Hoe, as is often the case, cuts to the very crux of the matter.

Most people rate Barrington and Sutcliffe a notch below Wally & JB for the simple reason that it's not just how many, the "how" matters too. If it was all about the numbers why the **** would anyone ever watch the game?

& To everyone saying Kallis is "underrated", he's not; he's rightly rated as an all-time great. He just doesn't stir the soul in the same way as some other players do. What he is is unloved expect by SA fans and those with unhealthy stats obsessions.