The better batsman the bettter #3 Ponting vs Dravid

[tooextracool]

After the first fifteen minutes of his innings', he just looks immovable.

Yes its a pity he never lasts that long in India.....

 

[howardj]

that's why I prefaced it with 'after'

 

[Buddhmaster]

Haha, why's there even a discussion on this? Ponting is soooo much better

 

[Dasa]

Haha, why's there even a discussion on this? Ponting is soooo much better

Great objective analysis there.

 

[Deja moo]

Haha, why's there even a discussion on this? Ponting is soooo much better

Because some people can look beyond just the past 2 years

 

[Buddhmaster]

Ahhhh, I remember Ponting's 197 verse Pakistan a few years back. What a player

 

[Jono]

Great objective analysis there.

Lol why would you even bother?

 

[aussie]

ponting is weak against spin on a turner. he might not be completely shocking, but hes still extremely ordinary against spin in much the same way that gibbs, pietersen etc are.
and to say that injury prevented him from rectifying his record in India is quite ludicrous to say the least, given that he got one test in that series, poor wicket or not, to change that and a 50 on that pitch would have provided enough evidence to suggest that things were different.

hell no the current Ponting plays spin both types much better than KP & Gibbs. Those two push hard at the ball Ponting doesn't do that anymore. Also it think its a fair assumption to say injury prevented him from showing off his improvements againts spin on turners, that Mumbai pitch was a shocker but if you remember those two innings he definately didn't look out of place.

 

[aussie]

this is inane, you thinking that ponting will do well in India doesnt automatically mean that he will do well in India and therefore should be considered the equal of someone whos done well all over the world. Similarly i think SP Jones could do as well as any other fast bowler, but that doesnt mean i rate him along side Glenn Mcgrath because of that. you've produced an excuse that ponting has improved as a player since 2001,and yet used his performance against murali from 99 to suggest that he can play spin. and i certainly dont buy the excuse that he was out of form on all of the last 3 occasions that he came to India either. Im not willing to rate Ponting as a great until i see him score in India, and 8 tests spread over nearly 10 years cannot be simply ignored.

I dont think will do well in India just because Faaip says he will, its because he has shown improvements againts spinners on turners i.e SRI 2004 he averaged 33, it wasn't fantastic but if you watched how he played Murali & co he definately look more assured never looked out of order i.e India 2001 got many of starts but just didn't carry on other than his 92 in Colombo.

No one is saying he was out of form on his 3 tours to India he was a poor player in 98 & 2001 but he was out of form & had just come back from injury in 2004 & played one test on an absolute shocker of a pitch & you did badly but didn't look out of place & you already saying he is still a joker againts spin when he showed improvements in SRI on equally turning surfaces vs the best off-spinner of all time, come on TEC

 

[Robertinho]

firstly if ponting had batted for a draw he would most likely have gotten out earlier, given that hes a far better player playing aggresively than he is playing defensively.

Yes, and there's less risk involved in playing defensively than there is playing aggressively - therefore your point means nothing.

and as i said before, in certain situations a draw is more important than a win and in others a win is more important.

When would any team rather draw than win? You're confusing that with a team willing to settle for a draw as opposed to a win.

in the 5th Ashes test, England were better off going for the draw on the last day than a win. At Old Trafford, Australia were better off going for a draw than a win.

Going for a draw was a less risky, more viable & easy to acheive alternative to going for the win. That doesn't mean that a draw is more important than a win.

in the first test of the SA-WI series, SA were better off going for a draw than a win. Fact is playing for a draw is just as important as going for a win. Im not sure what failures in certain innings from dravid in going for a draw is supposed to prove, surely it only proves as much as failed innings from Ponting going for the win?

A win is always more important than a draw. If teams could win every game, they WOULD, they wouldn't think "Oh, well, a draw could really help us in the long run." You can never win series by drawing, therefore having a player with a positive, attacking mindset and the ability to back up such a mindset is going to contribute more to winning games than someone who can stay in and nurdle 50 runs off 200 balls.

Wow hes played a whole 3 tests against Mcgrath and co in Australia(and please dont even bother including the joke of a series that is the super series), which is nowhere near as many as 8 tests spread over 8 years. good job coming up with that one.

... 4 tests (including the Super Test, just because the concept was a failure doesn't mean a batsman's failure in it is irrelevant) as opposed to 8 tests? Sorry buddy, if you're going to write off a record based on 4 tests, it's only fair to do the same to a record based on 8 tests.

 

[thierry henry]

I've been debating Kallis v Ponting at another forum recently. I'm trying to argue that they are pretty evenly matched, but the opposing argument is that Ponting has so many different gears and is effective in so many more situations.

If you compare the career strike rates, in both test and ODI cricket, of Kallis and Dravid, the similarity is freakishly uncanny. They are both clearly relatively slow scorers compared to other batsman around the world atm. As much as I hate to say it, this probably puts Ponting slightly ahead of them in my books.

As much as I'm a stats buff, I think it is really splitting hairs to try and say that Ponting is clearly inferior because he has performed in certain conditions and hasn't in others etc etc. Ponting has performed so often in so many different situations for so long that you must admit he is an incredible batsman, and I think the same is true of Kallis and Dravid.

But Ponting gets my vote for being able to really score quickly when required.

 

[Robertinho]

I would rate the 3 like this:
1. Ponting
2. Dravid
3. Kallis

I think Kallis could offer so much more to his team if he started playing FOR the team rather than for himself. I think both Ponting & Dravid are team-minded and can both accumulate runs consistently, but it's been said before, Ponting's attacking batting contributes more to a winning cause - and that's what teams should be trying to do - win. Take nothing away from Dravid (and only a little away from Kallis), all 3 are great batsmen, but Kallis is too selfish, and I would just prefer to have an attacking batsman than a defensive one.

 

[Burpey]

I would rate the 3 like this:
1. Ponting
2. Dravid
3. Kallis

I think Kallis could offer so much more to his team if he started playing FOR the team rather than for himself. I think both Ponting & Dravid are team-minded and can both accumulate runs consistently, but it's been said before, Ponting's attacking batting contributes more to a winning cause - and that's what teams should be trying to do - win. Take nothing away from Dravid (and only a little away from Kallis), all 3 are great batsmen, but Kallis is too selfish, and I would just prefer to have an attacking batsman than a defensive one.

Well said.

 

[thierry henry]

I would rate the 3 like this:
1. Ponting
2. Dravid
3. Kallis

I think Kallis could offer so much more to his team if he started playing FOR the team rather than for himself. I think both Ponting & Dravid are team-minded and can both accumulate runs consistently, but it's been said before, Ponting's attacking batting contributes more to a winning cause - and that's what teams should be trying to do - win. Take nothing away from Dravid (and only a little away from Kallis), all 3 are great batsmen, but Kallis is too selfish, and I would just prefer to have an attacking batsman than a defensive one.

Like I said, look at Dravid's record and Kallis's record. The strike rates are so similar that you can't help but conclude that they play in pretty much the same style. Hence I don't see how you can say that one plays for the team and the other plays for his average.

 

[Robertinho]

Strikerate doesn't even give you an idea of whether a batsman bats for his team or his average. Honestly. Some players just accumulate runs slowly, it doesn't mean they're trying to boost their average...

Edit - you could use my last point to defend Kallis' innings, but all you had to do is watch it, and it's pretty clear that he was oblivious (or chose to ignore it) to the team's situation.

 

[Burpey]

Like I said, look at Dravid's record and Kallis's record. The strike rates are so similar that you can't help but conclude that they play in pretty much the same style. Hence I don't see how you can say that one plays for the team and the other plays for his average.

Stats don't always tell the full story. If you saw Kallis batting this morning you would know Rob is right. One run in 20 mins when you're looking for quick runs to set up a target for Australia.

 

[thierry henry]

lol, I'm afraid I wouldn't "know Rob is right" based on one innings. I'd prefer to go on career stats that show an obvious trend. Truth is, Dravid wouldn't have been the best player for that situation either. Dravid's previous good performances against Australia (which I'm bringing up for your benefit as Australians, and since that's all 99% of Aussie fans I know seem to go on) have all been when he is under no pressure to score quickly.

 

[Burpey]

lol, I'm afraid I wouldn't "know Rob is right" based on one innings. I'd prefer to go on career stats that show an obvious trend. Truth is, Dravid wouldn't have been the best player for that situation either. Dravid's previous good performances against Australia (which I'm bringing up for your benefit as Australians, and since that's all 99% of Aussie fans I know seem to go on) have all been when he is under no pressure to score quickly.

All I'm pointing out is Kallis showed no urgency to lift the scoring rate for the better of the team. I am using this as an example. Do you need me to tell you what that is? Career strike rate tells you nothing on whether a player puts himself or the team first.

 

[thierry henry]

Show me some examples of where Dravid has played a vital test innings for India scoring quickly. It is not a regular occurrence for either player.

 

[Robertinho]

lol, I'm afraid I wouldn't "know Rob is right" based on one innings. I'd prefer to go on career stats that show an obvious trend. Truth is, Dravid wouldn't have been the best player for that situation either. Dravid's previous good performances against Australia (which I'm bringing up for your benefit as Australians, and since that's all 99% of Aussie fans I know seem to go on) have all been when he is under no pressure to score quickly.

What, so when arguing that Kallis is unselfish, you believe the fact he has a strikerate of 40-something is adequate to outweigh a gleaming example of his selfish batting? Really makes no sense.

One other thing that you've completely missed. A much, much more effective way to look at whether a batsman is \committed to the team cause or a little more interested in bumping that average up is his number of not-outs in proportion to his total innings played.

Kallis has managed to hang in for a gargantuan 17% of all his innings. When compared to others, this figure is much higher than the norm. Some other prolific #3s:

Ponting - 13.4% Bloated by the fact Australia chased down small totals and usually win by 8-9 wickets.

Dravid - 11.4%. Similar, but less extreme case to Ricky Ponting's.

Lara - 2.8%. Incredible statistic - slightly skewed by the fact the West Indies end up being bowled out more often than not, opposite to Ponting & Dravid.

Younis Khan - 4.3%. Once again, very low, a reasonable figure for a batsman who comes in mostly at first drop.

This evidence is far more compelling in supporting the argument that Kallis is a selfish batsman than the fact he has a similar SR to Rahul Dravid is in rebutting it.