No. 6 for Post Packer XI

[Ikki]

Well, if you were to think Tendulkar is better than Ponting, you're automatically arguing that Ponting's test record flatters him because it's a considerable bit better than Tendulkar's. And, if you were so inclined, you could put it down to variance. But his FC record is large enough to show that up as bollocks.

Yes, that is very much true. Others could argue that his Test record flatters him and then show the FC record. I just disagreed with the reasoning that minnows would flatter him - as they don't really...at all. His record without minnows is 56.04 his record with minnows is 56.87. It would be a dumb argument as it would flatter the players you would be comparing him with much more .

 

[Uppercut]

what is wrong with you uppercut? i made it clear to you i dont subscribe to "ponting should paly more" theory. you are fighting with an imaginary enemy here.

Haha no worries, i'm not arguing with you, i'm just showing a line of debate where his FC record could, IMO, be fairly useful.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Not all great FC players will become great Test players...but this is a poor argument. You can't talk about what is uncommon to prove a point about trend or likelihood. Warne's domestic figures are hardly what you would call good. I wouldn't then build a case that Aus FC > Tests.

That is exactly what Bagapth's point is. FC records cannot be relied upon to act as pedestals to reach or support conclusions on Test records.

 

[bagapath]

Not all great FC players will become great Test players...but this is a poor argument. You can't talk about what is uncommon to prove a point about trend or likelihood. Warne's domestic figures are hardly what you would call good. I wouldn't then build a case that Aus FC > Tests.

so what does it prove? you cannot use FC stats to judge a test cricketer. that is all

because it suits you, you want to use it in ponting's case. whereas in warne's case you would not want to use it.

 

[Ikki]

if the first part of the argument is true then you wont need the second part. but if the first part is not true then the second wont make much difference to the overall argument anyway. that is why i say FC stats are irrelevant.

But that's the funny part...it is true. Sampras has won more than Federer and Ponting has a better/more complete record than Tendulkar.

say ponting is better in test cricket. and stop with that. i am willing to argue on that basis. FC records are less reliable than tests. you cant match them.

btw, in ODIs - minus minnows.

SR Tendulkar (India) 362 355 28 13716 186* 41.94 16317 84.05 32 79 20
RT Ponting (Aus) 265 263 30 9726 164 41.74 12096 80.40 22 56 17

I will not use these numbers to prove sachin is better than ponting because that doesnt belong in this thread.

Yep, Ponting is damn close to Tendulkar in ODIs too (yet people think there is an even bigger gap there, go figure).

But FC cricket and Test cricket are both the same format; the same game. Bringing in ODIs is like comparing Indoor football to Outdoor football. FC cricket and Tests are more like clubs vs national teams.

The only difference between FC cricket and Tests is the standard of cricket. It's the same in every other facet. If you can relate the standard of a certain FC competition, then it's completely matchable and relevant.

 

[bagapath]

But that's the funny part...it is true. Sampras has won more than Federer and Ponting has a better/more complete record than Tendulkar.



Yep, Ponting is damn close to Tendulkar in ODIs too (yet people think there is an even bigger gap there, go figure).

But FC cricket and Test cricket are both the same format; the same game. Bringing in ODIs is like comparing Indoor football to Outdoor football. FC cricket and Tests are more like clubs vs national teams.

The only difference between FC cricket and Tests is the standard of cricket. It's the same in every other facet. If you can relate the standard of a certain FC competition, then it's completely matchable and relevant.

if the the standards are different how can you use one set of stats to support another? enough ikki. the dead horse is pregnant now.

i think you are a very funny guy. cheers!!!

 

[Slifer]

Well Ikki i see u have once again proven my point. u r unashamedly biased for Australians and i for one have no problems with that, ur Australian and Australia is by far the greatest cricket team on earth. On an earlier debate about Gary Sobers vs Kallis u discredited many of Sobers achievements in FC cricket in Australia yet :

"The only difference between FC cricket and Tests is the standard of cricket. It's the same in every other facet. If you can relate the standard of a certain FC competition, then it's completely matchable and relevant. "

I

 

[Ikki]

so what does it prove? you cannot use FC stats to judge a test cricketer. that is all

It doesn't prove that, it just proves there are rarities and differences. For example, Bevan only played 18 tests and was tossed away because Australia had alternatives. Had he stayed there is every chance he could have come into his own and gotten success. Ironically, the argument against Bevan is an argument FOR Ponting. That the standard of FC cricket was so high and Australian FC cricket had so much talent that they could do that to Bevan. They dropped Matty Hayden (an all-time great opener) for a handful of Tests. Imagine if he never got the chance to bat again in Tests, that record would have stayed forever. But he was lucky enough to get his chances and thrive...precisely because of his FC success.

because it suits you, you want to use it in ponting's case. whereas in warne's case you would not want to use it.

In Warne's case I wouldn't use it because he hardly played enough FC cricket during seasons for it to be a very important or a niggling worry. I think the Test standard was higher so the rest is irrelevant. Also, he bowled in Australia which is a very unhelpful place for spin.

It would only be relevant for me to use that argument against Warne if I actually thought FC standard was higher than Test standard. It's not, I'm not judging things by one record alone or purposely picking on irrelevant things when I can see the bigger picture.

 

[Ikki]

Well Ikki i see u have once again proven my point. u r unashamedly biased for Australians and i for one have no problems with that, ur Australian and Australia is by far the greatest cricket team on earth. On an earlier debate about Gary Sobers vs Kallis u discredited many of Sobers achievements in FC cricket in Australia yet :

"The only difference between FC cricket and Tests is the standard of cricket. It's the same in every other facet. If you can relate the standard of a certain FC competition, then it's completely matchable and relevant. "
I

Of course I'd discredit them...because he (Sobers) failed at the higher standard. It would be exactly like saying Bevan is a better batsman than Dravid because of his FC stats...so what, he failed Tests.

Ponting is entirely different...because he owned both competitions. The comparison doesn't even begin to be similar. I am using his FC record as a compliment to his Test record. Unlike you who was trying to use FC stats for Sobers as the basis of his ability/talent - ignoring his Test record.

Nevermind the fact that we're comparing across decades of difference, different countries and the FC standards have changed in that time (with regards to Kallis vs Sobers).

 

[Ikki]

if the the standards are different how can you use one set of stats to support another?

Which standard? I am saying the standard of FC cricket and Test cricket is different, meaning one is better than the other. But that doesn't mean they are irrelevant or different entirely and can't be compared - as you seem to suggest. If they were so different, you wouldn't pick the best of FC to play Tests.

If FC cricket had the same exact players/talent/ability as Test cricket...what would be their difference? None, zip, nada...no difference.

enough ikki. the dead horse is pregnant now.

i think you are a very funny guy. cheers!!!

I think you're a funny guy too.