Kallis Vs Sobers

[Richard]

Basically, Dravid went: excellent--->excellent--->useless (you left that part out).

Whereas Ponting went: pretty good--->unbelievably good.

Hardly conclusive, really.

I left the Dravid useless stage out because many players do that. Ponting himself has been considerably lesser as of the last Test of 2006, though still obviously easily Test-class. Neither run which I excluded is of significance - the significance ends with how they scored at the time they were prolific.

Ponting went from averaging 45 to early-70s. Dravid went from averaging 56 to late-60s. There's a considerable difference between what Dravid started at and what Ponting did (45 = pretty good; 56 = exceptional) and essentially no difference between what they ended with (early-70s and late-60s both = imperceptably differently exceptional).

 

[Richard]

It was superior because Dravid knocked the stuffing out of the weaker sides, not because of anything else. As Ponting's record in the 90s shows; against the best opposition, he did well. It's, ironically, against the weaker ones that he did worse. And he fixed that post 2000. So he did not fail in the "tough conditions" as you put forth.

No, of course not.

As I say, you simply will not accept that weak attacks 1996-2001 were sometimes stronger than strong ones 2001/02, oh no, that'd just be completely wrong.

Batting 1996-2001 was inestimably more difficult than batting 2001/02-2006 was. That's all there is to it. Stronger, weaker, it's all near-irrelevant.

 

[Ikki]

No, of course not.

As I say, you simply will not accept that weak attacks 1996-2001 were sometimes stronger than strong ones 2001/02, oh no, that'd just be completely wrong.

Batting 1996-2001 was inestimably more difficult than batting 2001/02-2006 was. That's all there is to it. Stronger, weaker, it's all near-irrelevant.

You said Ponting failed in the tougher conditions. Well when the pitches were more lively and against the best bowling attacks he did very very well. So your criticism for his form against the weaker sides doesn't make any sense.

It was only against the weaker sides, i.e. New Zealand that he struggled. And no matter how hard you think the pitches may have been in the 90s, Ponting averaging in the 70s post 2000 against them disproves there was any such problem he couldn't fix. Your assertion that batting conditions are "inestimably" more difficult is a cop-out and just shows your biased and prejudiced nature for what it is. He may not have averaged 70 against them, hell lets even knock it down to 60 (10 damn points lower)...it's still an average of 60. So no such "problem".

Furthermore, your lack of scrutiny for certain players' records post 2000 not being NEAR what they "should" be, if conditions are so easy, compounds the meaningless nature of your argument.

The weaker attacks of the 90s were better than the ones of the 2000s? Was NZ 90s stronger than Pakistan of 2000s? Was India in the 90s stronger than S.Africa in the 2000s? Please, you make no sense.

That you can say for 6-7 years one is "declining" and give them benefit yet try to stain someone else's record for their first 3-4 years when they were finding their feet is just petty.

The fact that you have to rely on such a ridiculous argument is surely a credit to Ponting.

P.S. Dravid didn't average 56 in the 90s. He averaged 49 IIRC.

 

[Ikki]

Nothing of the sort happened, but as I say, I really can't be arsed getting into the matter. There are all sorts of things that happened from 2001/02 onwards that'd never happened before, but I don't expect you to recognise this so I'm not going to bother trying to make you.

Sure, there are all sorts of things...yet you can't mention one that stands out enough for it to be reason enough.

That was a result, not a cause.

Yes, doing the same thing, failing, happens when you're no good. When you're good, you turn failure into success. No one jumps from averaging 22 to 50+ because of flat-pitches and weaker bowling.

What a ridiculous argument.

Don't they? I suggest you take a closer look and stop relying on assumptions.

So all the curators in the world timed themselves from September 2001 onwards to flatten pitches and the bowlers decided to be crap at the same time too.

We're still waiting on the reason why September 2001 is the starting date. It seems just a convenient date for you to mention your ideals.

When a player's useless period is him averaging 45...then you know he's awesome.

 

[bunny]

Ikki: I dont contribute at all in this forum, but am a lurker and keep following threads which interest me. This is one such.

i) Thumbs up to you and uppercut for breaking the myth of Gary Sobers.

ii) Ponting vs Dravid is an issue dear to my heart so I had to comment. I think it'd be hard to come up with a stat which would convince you (or any Ponting fan) that Dravid is at least the equal of Ponting, but I think analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of Dravid and Ponting would help.

Dravid is an amazing player of fast bowling especially on the backfoot (and he judges the length of the delivery better than almost anyone and you would rarely see him getting out to a bouncer or a ball keeping low. Even during his bad run, he still has possessed this capability ).

He doesnt shuffle across that much especially when he is playing on a seaming pitch but over the last 5 years he seems to have lost this ability. He was a also a great leaver of the ball but somehow all the years of ODI cricket have made him defend the ball more rather than leave them.

The biggest strength of Dravid has always been to shine in matches where run scoring was almost an impossibility. (A friend had mined some stats long back and Dravid almost contributed 18-19% of team runs when India scored < 200 in a test innings. Even the great SRT and the ever dependable VVS managed to score only 12-13% in such scenarios). Some examples of this are the Durban test of 96, the entire NZ series of 2002, one of the WI tests in 2006. This has also been true in ODIs played on seaming wickets such as the Toronto series, 1996 SA tour, 1999 WC, etc. He has a terrific 4th innings record (which is obviously going down hill now).

The biggest weakness of Dravid is his play against spin bowling especially when he cant read the spin from the hand. This has been exposed by Warne (with his flippers and drift), Murali and Saqlain (by their doosras), Paul Adarms and Mendis (by his carrom ball). Also, when struggling with form or confidence he is a bad judger of length of off spin bowling and you would be surprised to know that Pat Symcox and Symonds have got him out more times than the greats Alan Donald, Ambrose and Akram.

Just going by Dravid's play against fast bowling I'd put him on par with Lara and Sachin, and probably ahead of Steve Waugh. But the way he struggles against spin sometimes he is definitely a rung below both Lara and Sachin.

Ponting, on the other hand, seems to be a player who can get exposed against fast bowling because of his habit of almost jumping on the front foot. Bowlers who can move the ball away with reasonable bounce have almost always troubled him. Of course he has easily got more shots than Dravid (and that pull shot is a delight to watch) but in tough conditions what really matters is technique and I wouldn't hesitate to put him a rung below Dravid in such conditions.

Ponting is probably a better player of spin bowling than Dravid but that's not due to his technique (which is flawed just like Dravid) but more the fact that he reads better from the hands (especially off Murali) and is also not afraid to step down the track.

Based on their techniques I'd put Dravid ahead of Ponting. Based on their career achievements (of course excluding the last two years of Dravid's career) I'd put them on par.

 

[archie mac]

Kallis is irrefutably at worst almost as good as Ponting and others who've made hay since 2001/02.

Hopefully in time the 2001/02-onwards run-scoring boom might come to be viewed more carefully and less callously. Because it's the before-and-after that, not any nonsense about not being a dominator, which really shows Tendulkar, Lara, and Stephen Waugh to be so clearly superior to the likes of Kallis and Ponting.

Almost and Clearly are very different things though

 

[Ikki]

Ikki: I dont contribute at all in this forum, but am a lurker and keep following threads which interest me. This is one such.

i) Thumbs up to you and uppercut for breaking the myth of Gary Sobers.

ii) Ponting vs Dravid is an issue dear to my heart so I had to comment. I think it'd be hard to come up with a stat which would convince you (or any Ponting fan) that Dravid is at least the equal of Ponting, but I think analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of Dravid and Ponting would help.

Dravid is an amazing player of fast bowling especially on the backfoot (and he judges the length of the delivery better than almost anyone and you would rarely see him getting out to a bouncer or a ball keeping low. Even during his bad run, he still has possessed this capability ).

He doesnt shuffle across that much especially when he is playing on a seaming pitch but over the last 5 years he seems to have lost this ability. He was a also a great leaver of the ball but somehow all the years of ODI cricket have made him defend the ball more rather than leave them.

The biggest strength of Dravid has always been to shine in matches where run scoring was almost an impossibility. (A friend had mined some stats long back and Dravid almost contributed 18-19% of team runs when India scored < 200 in a test innings. Even the great SRT and the ever dependable VVS managed to score only 12-13% in such scenarios). Some examples of this are the Durban test of 96, the entire NZ series of 2002, one of the WI tests in 2006. This has also been true in ODIs played on seaming wickets such as the Toronto series, 1996 SA tour, 1999 WC, etc. He has a terrific 4th innings record (which is obviously going down hill now).

The biggest weakness of Dravid is his play against spin bowling especially when he cant read the spin from the hand. This has been exposed by Warne (with his flippers and drift), Murali and Saqlain (by their doosras), Paul Adarms and Mendis (by his carrom ball). Also, when struggling with form or confidence he is a bad judger of length of off spin bowling and you would be surprised to know that Pat Symcox and Symonds have got him out more times than the greats Alan Donald, Ambrose and Akram.

Just going by Dravid's play against fast bowling I'd put him on par with Lara and Sachin, and probably ahead of Steve Waugh. But the way he struggles against spin sometimes he is definitely a rung below both Lara and Sachin.

Ponting, on the other hand, seems to be a player who can get exposed against fast bowling because of his habit of almost jumping on the front foot. Bowlers who can move the ball away with reasonable bounce have almost always troubled him. Of course he has easily got more shots than Dravid (and that pull shot is a delight to watch) but in tough conditions what really matters is technique and I wouldn't hesitate to put him a rung below Dravid in such conditions.

Ponting is probably a better player of spin bowling than Dravid but that's not due to his technique (which is flawed just like Dravid) but more the fact that he reads better from the hands (especially off Murali) and is also not afraid to step down the track.

Based on their techniques I'd put Dravid ahead of Ponting. Based on their career achievements (of course excluding the last two years of Dravid's career) I'd put them on par.

Great post. And thanks for your compliments.

See, I love it when someone posts something like this to back their opinion that makes complete sense in why they may rate certain players. I may not totally agree with it, but it's damn interesting, is totally coherent and doesn't rely on petty myths to demean the player they're arguing against. Kudos to you. Welcome to the forum and please post more often.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ikki: I dont contribute at all in this forum, but am a lurker and keep following threads which interest me. This is one such.

i) Thumbs up to you and uppercut for breaking the myth of Gary Sobers.

ii) Ponting vs Dravid is an issue dear to my heart so I had to comment. I think it'd be hard to come up with a stat which would convince you (or any Ponting fan) that Dravid is at least the equal of Ponting, but I think analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of Dravid and Ponting would help.

Dravid is an amazing player of fast bowling especially on the backfoot (and he judges the length of the delivery better than almost anyone and you would rarely see him getting out to a bouncer or a ball keeping low. Even during his bad run, he still has possessed this capability ).

He doesnt shuffle across that much especially when he is playing on a seaming pitch but over the last 5 years he seems to have lost this ability. He was a also a great leaver of the ball but somehow all the years of ODI cricket have made him defend the ball more rather than leave them.

The biggest strength of Dravid has always been to shine in matches where run scoring was almost an impossibility. (A friend had mined some stats long back and Dravid almost contributed 18-19% of team runs when India scored < 200 in a test innings. Even the great SRT and the ever dependable VVS managed to score only 12-13% in such scenarios). Some examples of this are the Durban test of 96, the entire NZ series of 2002, one of the WI tests in 2006. This has also been true in ODIs played on seaming wickets such as the Toronto series, 1996 SA tour, 1999 WC, etc. He has a terrific 4th innings record (which is obviously going down hill now).

The biggest weakness of Dravid is his play against spin bowling especially when he cant read the spin from the hand. This has been exposed by Warne (with his flippers and drift), Murali and Saqlain (by their doosras), Paul Adarms and Mendis (by his carrom ball). Also, when struggling with form or confidence he is a bad judger of length of off spin bowling and you would be surprised to know that Pat Symcox and Symonds have got him out more times than the greats Alan Donald, Ambrose and Akram.

Just going by Dravid's play against fast bowling I'd put him on par with Lara and Sachin, and probably ahead of Steve Waugh. But the way he struggles against spin sometimes he is definitely a rung below both Lara and Sachin.

Ponting, on the other hand, seems to be a player who can get exposed against fast bowling because of his habit of almost jumping on the front foot. Bowlers who can move the ball away with reasonable bounce have almost always troubled him. Of course he has easily got more shots than Dravid (and that pull shot is a delight to watch) but in tough conditions what really matters is technique and I wouldn't hesitate to put him a rung below Dravid in such conditions.

Ponting is probably a better player of spin bowling than Dravid but that's not due to his technique (which is flawed just like Dravid) but more the fact that he reads better from the hands (especially off Murali) and is also not afraid to step down the track.

Based on their techniques I'd put Dravid ahead of Ponting. Based on their career achievements (of course excluding the last two years of Dravid's career) I'd put them on par.

Great post. And thanks for your compliments.

See, I love it when someone posts something like this to back their opinion that makes complete sense in why they may rate certain players. I may not totally agree with it, but it's damn interesting, is totally coherent and doesn't rely on petty myths to demean the player they're arguing against. Kudos to you. Welcome to the forum and please post more often.

Agreed, good post. I don't agree with all of it either, but at least it shows signs of a cricket lover and not a number cruncher.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Kallis. Take Sobers' stats against Pakistan & India out and he averages 48. Sobers' bowling is massively overrated aswell.

To add to this little Ponting vs Dravid arguement. I've seen Dale Steyn (during his 5-23 spell against India) turn Rahul Dravid inside out with an outswinger which knocked over his off-stump. Great technique, eh?

Ponting oozes with class, wheather his making runs or not, while when Dravid struggles (much like every defensive batsman) he struggles.

I've seen Ponting make runs in difficult conditions, against quality bowling, when the team has been struggling. His 99 on Boxing Day and his 83 last week are prime examples.

 

[The Sean]

Take Sobers' stats against Pakistan & India out and he averages 48.

Why would you do that?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Why would you do that?

They were both minnows before 1970.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sobers >>>>> Kallis. There's no competition for me. Sobers is the most naturally gifted cricketer to ever play the game. Brilliant batting record, a very, very handy bowler and a superb fielder. Kallis only surpasses Sobers in the bowling department, and there's not much in that tbh. Sobers everytime.

 

[archie mac]

They were both minnows before 1970.

No way, they had some great batsman

 

[The Sean]

They were both minnows before 1970.

Depends on your definition of minnow - it's true that both spent a lot of the 1950s and 1960s in the lower ranks of Test cricket nations, but at the same time they produced many outstanding players in this period and proved themselves competitive regularly enough. To my mind, they were certainly superior to the Zimbabwe/Bangladesh of the modern era or the Sri Lanka of the 1980s and I definitely wouldn't be excluding matches played against them in my assessment of anyone's record.

 

[The Sean]

No way, they had some great batsman

And some very, very fine bowlers too.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They were both minnows before 1970.

Depends on your definition of minnow - it's true that both spent a lot of the 1950s and 1960s in the lower ranks of Test cricket nations, but at the same time they produced many outstanding players in this period and proved themselves competitive regularly enough. To my mind, they were certainly superior to the Zimbabwe/Bangladesh of the modern era or the Sri Lanka of the 1980s and I definitely wouldn't be excluding matches played against them in my assessment of anyone's record.

Unfortunately it's a classic example of the crude style of Statsguruing. New Zealand were also a very weak side during Sober's career so they should be removed as well. It happens that he had a very poor record against them which when removed sends his average back up from 48 to 53.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Depends on your definition of minnow - it's true that both spent a lot of the 1950s and 1960s in the lower ranks of Test cricket nations, but at the same time they produced many outstanding players in this period and proved themselves competitive regularly enough. To my mind, they were certainly superior to the Zimbabwe/Bangladesh of the modern era or the Sri Lanka of the 1980s and I definitely wouldn't be excluding matches played against them in my assessment of anyone's record.

I wouldn't say that they were better then Zimbabwe, but there was a few batsman who excelled particulary against India & Pakistan during the 1950's & 60's, more so then any other country.

 

[archie mac]

And some very, very fine bowlers too.

Yes, I should have mentioned that

 

[Ikki]

Unfortunately it's a classic example of the crude style of Statsguruing. New Zealand were also a very weak side during Sober's career so they should be removed as well. It happens that he had a very poor record against them which when removed sends his average back up from 48 to 53.

Except you should note that failing against a minnow is a...failure. Hence it shouldn't be disregarded. When comparing players, we want to see why they are the best. You expect players of the caliber of Tendulkar, Kallis, Hammond to beat up minnows. You don't expect them to lose out to minnows. It's as big, if not bigger, stain failing against a minnow than one of the best teams of your time. And it's not like Sobers didn't play enough against them.

 

[Ikki]

Depends on your definition of minnow - it's true that both spent a lot of the 1950s and 1960s in the lower ranks of Test cricket nations, but at the same time they produced many outstanding players in this period and proved themselves competitive regularly enough. To my mind, they were certainly superior to the Zimbabwe/Bangladesh of the modern era or the Sri Lanka of the 1980s and I definitely wouldn't be excluding matches played against them in my assessment of anyone's record.

It depends how you view those matches. In the 50's and 60's the pace at which the game was played created many, many draws. Whereas when you look at their win/loss record, the teams of New Zealand, Pakistan and India were no better, if better at all, than a team like Zimbabwe. This is also reflected in their comparative batting and bowling averages. So one must look at the feats of players against such opponents within the context. There were 3 or 4 (S.Africa didn't play much IIRC), good teams and about as many minnows too.

Certainly, all were better than Bangladesh.