The better batsman the bettter #3 Ponting vs Dravid

[thierry henry]

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.

Actually, it seems to me that your post proves that Ponting, Kallis and Dravid have all been not out a lot. Also I could just use your logic and say that that proves nothing. When is it to a batsman's benefit to get out?

I've also seen the Lara stat before and fail to see what that proves beyond the fact that Lara is/was incapable of not getting out, and I struggle to see how that's a positive for a batsman.

 

[Robertinho]

Actually, it seems to me that your post proves that Ponting, Kallis and Dravid have all been not out a lot. Also I could just use your logic and say that that proves nothing. When is it to a batsman's benefit to get out?

I've also seen the Lara stat before and fail to see what that proves beyond the fact that Lara is/was incapable of not getting out, and I struggle to see how that's a positive for a batsman.

Well, you see, batsman don't try to get out. A variety of factors contribute to their getting out. One of which is the aggression with which they bat. Obviously if a batsman could stay in for 100% of his innings, he would...

Ricky Ponting has such a large figure because Australia generally chase down small totals. Rahul Dravid is the same (to a lesser extent). Even taking those into account, Kallis' ratio is much higher than both. You said you were a stats buff? Surely you'd notice the significance of such a disproportionate ratio? I mean, you were able to deduct that Kallis and Dravid bat similarly purely by looking at their strike rates - this would be like veggie maths for you?

Regardless, you don't even need to look at statistics to determine whether a batsman bats selfishly. It's really not that difficult, from WATCHING Kallis bat (this test is a perfect example), that he bats selfishly. Statistics, when dealing with things like how selfish a batsman is, are unreliable because you can't determine whether 43 (102) was selfish. You need to watch the game to get any real sense of how a batsman bats.

 

[thierry henry]

Well, you see, batsman don't try to get out. A variety of factors contribute to their getting out. One of which is the aggression with which they bat. Obviously if a batsman could stay in for 100% of his innings, he would...

Ricky Ponting has such a large figure because Australia generally chase down small totals. Rahul Dravid is the same (to a lesser extent). Even taking those into account, Kallis' ratio is much higher than both. You said you were a stats buff? Surely you'd notice the significance of such a disproportionate ratio? I mean, you were able to deduct that Kallis and Dravid bat similarly purely by looking at their strike rates - this would be like veggie maths for you?

Regardless, you don't even need to look at statistics to determine whether a batsman bats selfishly. It's really not that difficult, from WATCHING Kallis bat (this test is a perfect example), that he bats selfishly. Statistics, when dealing with things like how selfish a batsman is, are unreliable because you can't determine whether 43 (102) was selfish. You need to watch the game to get any real sense of how a batsman bats.

No- you need to watch ALL of the games. Not one.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

Australia doesn't like to chase. Since Tubby's day, it's Australia's preferred tactic to bat first and set a target for the opponent to chase, and use Warne and Pigeon to bowl out the opponent.

Before the Ashes, I probably would have taken Dravid over Punter, but Punter has closed the gap considerably. He notched up two hundreds in his 100th Test and seems to be in career-best form, although South Africa's attack was not the best.

It's almost dead even, but I wouldn't pick Punter as my captain just yet.

 

[Robertinho]

No- you need to watch ALL of the games. Not one.

... is that honestly the only thing you could muster in response to my post?...

I see.

 

[social]

Australia doesn't like to chase. Since Tubby's day, it's Australia's preferred tactic to bat first and set a target for the opponent to chase, and use Warne and Pigeon to bowl out the opponent.

Before the Ashes, I probably would have taken Dravid over Punter, but Punter has closed the gap considerably. He notched up two hundreds in his 100th Test and seems to be in career-best form, although South Africa's attack was not the best.

It's almost dead even, but I wouldn't pick Punter as my captain just yet.

Great batsman.

Great batsman as captain.

Ordinary tactician.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

No- you need to watch ALL of the games. Not one.

Can you pay me to replace the income I'd lose by quitting my current job? If so, then gladly.

 

[thierry henry]

... is that honestly the only thing you could muster in response to my post?...

I see.

................

so that was your post? You're right because you personally saw Kallis play selfishly on this one occasion?

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that it's better to see a player play one poor innings, rather than looking at trends over a very long career and making a few assumptions (educated guesses, even) from them. It certainly didn't take much for me to "muster a response" to that, no.

 

[Robertinho]

................

so that was your post? You're right because you personally saw Kallis play selfishly on this one occasion?

Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that it's better to see a player play one poor innings, rather than looking at trends over a very long career and making a few assumptions (educated guesses, even) from them. It certainly didn't take much for me to "muster a response" to that, no.

Unless I am mistaken, I was rebutting your point that Kallis & Dravid both bat similarly (in terms of batting for either themselves or their team) because they had similar strikerates.

 

[luckyeddie]

meh who cares tooextracool. you can think as passionately as you want about it. Fact is Ponting has made over 1500 test runs in a calendar year, and is making you look like even more blind in 2006.

Beating the Bookies 101

1. Log on to Cricket Web
2. Identify all posts by TEC
3. Determine which players come in for the most criticism
4. Go to bookies
5. Bet on those same players to score centuries, take hat-tricks, invent time-travel, be reincarnations of Elvis
6. Profit.

 

[Jono]

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.

Show me some examples of where Dravid has played a vital test innings for India scoring quickly.

4th Test in Sydney, 2003/04 - 2nd innings.

91 runs off 114 balls. That's some quick scoring my friend.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/IND_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/IND_AUS_T4_02-06JAN2004.html

 

[Jono]

Beating the Bookies 101

1. Log on to Cricket Web
2. Identify all posts by TEC
3. Determine which players come in for the most criticism
4. Go to bookies
5. Bet on those same players to score centuries, take hat-tricks, invent time-travel, be reincarnations of Elvis
6. Profit.

I totally should have done that for Trescothick

 

[marc71178]

Beating the Bookies 101

1. Log on to Cricket Web
2. Identify all posts by TEC
3. Determine which players come in for the most criticism
4. Go to bookies
5. Bet on those same players to score centuries, take hat-tricks, invent time-travel, be reincarnations of Elvis
6. Profit.

7. Look at Hayden in the Ashes and what he'd told us all several times beforehand.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

He maybe better players of spin than those 2(although KP is arguable), but i simply used those 2 as examples to illustrate how players can be decent and score runs against quality spinners while still being weak against them. Ponting lasted a sum total of 34 balls in that game, and if i remember correctly a large proportion of them were bowled by zaheer khan.

 

[tooextracool]

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

my point is that until he proves himself in India i cant assume that hes anywhere near as good as Dravid or that he can play spin convincingly(given that his only successful series in the subcontinent came before he made an absolute joke of himself in India in 2001).

 

[aussie]

my point is that until he proves himself in India i cant assume that hes anywhere near as good as Dravid or that he can play spin convincingly(given that his only successful series in the subcontinent came before he made an absolute joke of himself in India in 2001).

fair enough i can live with that.

 

[aussie]

Ponting lasted a sum total of 34 balls in that game, and if i remember correctly a large proportion of them were bowled by zaheer khan.

well probably i cant remember too clearly myself but i do remember the times he faced Kumble & Harbhajan especially (his nemisis of 2001) in the 1st innings he played him MUCH better.

 

[tooextracool]

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

yes there maybe less risk involved with playing defensively but that doesnt mean it is easier to do so. otherwise we'd see a lot more players being capable of batting for an entire day to save games for their country these days. ask me and i'll tell you that Pontings 156 was far far harder for him than any of his fast scoring centuries or double centuries hes scored in his entire career.

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.
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.

well whatever you want to call it, the point is that any sensible captain would play for a draw if the likelyhood of his team managing a draw is far greater than the likelyhood of his team winning.

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.

indeed and if you watched the England-Pakistan series, you'd realise that players with such a mindset are also quite likely to end up losing plenty of games in the process.

... 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.

err the super series was nothing but an exhibition game. and any game where players dont play for their country is hardly worth any value to anybody on the field. and please, 4 tests as opposed to 8 tests is a significant difference, it is twice as many tests. 4 tests is effectively as much as one series. 8 tests spread over 8 years is completely different.

 

[tooextracool]

Beating the Bookies 101

1. Log on to Cricket Web
2. Identify all posts by TEC
3. Determine which players come in for the most criticism
4. Go to bookies
5. Bet on those same players to score centuries, take hat-tricks, invent time-travel, be reincarnations of Elvis
6. Profit.

no the problem is that you and others fail to read my posts properly. by calling someone an FTB, i am by definition suggesting that hes a prolific player, because FTBs are supposed to score prolifically against rubbish bowlers on flat wickets. however you miss the more salient points that i make. Graeme Smith and Matt Hayden both scored over 1000 runs at 50+ averages in the last year. but did they or did they not do exactly as well as i predicted that they would do in series against Australia and England respectively? In Haydens case i even once went on to suggest that he would probably end up scoring on a flat oval pitch, which is exactly what happened.

 

[tooextracool]

well probably i cant remember too clearly myself but i do remember the times he faced Kumble & Harbhajan especially (his nemisis of 2001) in the 1st innings he played him MUCH better.

i distinctly remember him getting out in the very first over in which kumble came on in the first inning(cant remember which ball of the over) and then getting out in the first over when karthik came on in the 2nd inning, and karthik came on much before kumble. so he certainly didnt play kumble a lot. now i'd highly doubt that in a few balls against harbhajan he proved so much of his capabilities against spin in India.