Ponting is the biggest choker of them all !

[Robertinho]

No, my point is that he isnt a good pressure batsman in ODIs (with the added dimension of having to maintain a good enough SR too) when chasing big totals. And first innings arent as pressurising IMO to the extent 4th innings are, and even less for Punter who has Langer and Hayden to cushion him.

.. Then why were you talking about 4th innings? There's only 2 in ODIs, MooMoo

And his 4th innings average is 50, anyway, so it's not like he fails there.

 

[Deja moo]

.. Then why were you talking about 4th innings? There's only 2 in ODIs, MooMoo

And his 4th innings average is 50, anyway, so it's not like he fails there.

C'mon Rob, obviously Hayden and Langer open in tests only, therefore the other reference was to tests.

Anyway, Happy New Year

 

[Slow Love™]

I reckon most of this choking stuff is bulldust, and is basically character assassination directed at players we don't like. It's a way of not only questioning a player's skills or technique, but going for the more personal allegation that they lack "heart" or that they're mentally weak. Probably 'cause we think that it stings more - both for the player and the player's fans.

Sometimes I guess it'll be true, but I think these things are usually self-evident. Having to dig up stats on somebody like Ponting to say "look, I bet you guys didn't know he choked!" seems to imply to me that it wasn't self-evident in the first place. I'm hardly a fan of Ponting (in fact, I can't stand the guy, and if I'd been Graeme Smith in that tunnel when the little runt decided to hand out a lecture, and the cameras hadn't been on, I'd have put him down on his hairy little ar$e, but I digress...). He's hardly someone who would come to mind as a choker, though.

I also think there's issues with the term choker anyway - being outplayed by another team or subjected to pressure and failing doesn't necessarily indicate you choked - it may well just mean you were being outplayed on the day, or the pressure was well applied by your opposition. Did you go out to a great ball, was the run-rate simply out of hand, or did you actually throw your wicket away? (In which case the criticism might be more warranted, provided you can be shown to do this repeatedly.) Personally, I see choking as forfeiting a winning position, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, much more so than failing when the pressure's on. Case in point, the South African cricket team through the 90's and early 00's.

Using sheer averages in second or fourth innings or whatever bleeds all the context out of the innings played. I don't think they substantiate the argument that somebody's a choker, or weak under pressure. I know damn well from watching the game that Steve Waugh at his peak (which was about a decade) was one of the best players under pressure you could hope to have batting for you. I also think that from what I've seen and read, so is Inzamam-ul-Haq. And bugger their second or fourth innings averages.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No, I say they dont bat well under pressure on as many occasions as some other batsmen do. They do have fine innings under pressure in their careers, but surely the average suggests that there have been many more occasions when they havent pulled it off as consistently as some others.

Wait a second. There are very few people who make runs "under pressure" as such. You make it sound as though there are plenty of people who do it all the time.

 

[Robertinho]

You've got your "overall average", Richard's "first-chance" average and now MooMoo's "under pressure" average

 

[Deja moo]

Wait a second. There are very few people who make runs "under pressure" as such. You make it sound as though there are plenty of people who do it all the time.

No, I dont mate. I mean there are all time greats who do it.. Bradman, Headley, Gavaskar, Hobbs, Viv, Chappell....Why havent Waugh, Sachin and Lara managed it ?

 

[Deja moo]

I reckon most of this choking stuff is bulldust, and is basically character assassination directed at players we don't like. It's a way of not only questioning a player's skills or technique, but going for the more personal allegation that they lack "heart" or that they're mentally weak. Probably 'cause we think that it stings more - both for the player and the player's fans.

Sometimes I guess it'll be true, but I think these things are usually self-evident. Having to dig up stats on somebody like Ponting to say "look, I bet you guys didn't know he choked!" seems to imply to me that it wasn't self-evident in the first place. I'm hardly a fan of Ponting (in fact, I can't stand the guy, and if I'd been Graeme Smith in that tunnel when the little runt decided to hand out a lecture, and the cameras hadn't been on, I'd have put him down on his hairy little ar$e, but I digress...). He's hardly someone who would come to mind as a choker, though.

I also think there's issues with the term choker anyway - being outplayed by another team or subjected to pressure and failing doesn't necessarily indicate you choked - it may well just mean you were being outplayed on the day, or the pressure was well applied by your opposition. Did you go out to a great ball, was the run-rate simply out of hand, or did you actually throw your wicket away? (In which case the criticism might be more warranted, provided you can be shown to do this repeatedly.) Personally, I see choking as forfeiting a winning position, and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, much more so than failing when the pressure's on. Case in point, the South African cricket team through the 90's and early 00's.

Using sheer averages in second or fourth innings or whatever bleeds all the context out of the innings played. I don't think they substantiate the argument that somebody's a choker, or weak under pressure. I know damn well from watching the game that Steve Waugh at his peak (which was about a decade) was one of the best players under pressure you could hope to have batting for you. I also think that from what I've seen and read, so is Inzamam-ul-Haq. And bugger their second or fourth innings averages.

Listen SL, sure Mr Waugh has saved Aus the blushes on many occasions. But like it or not, 4th innings are a different cup of tea. I'll just provide a list of all his fourth innings scores, and let it do the talking:

10, 19, 26, 3, 21*, 4, 4*, 4, 47*, 0, 0, 0, 14, 18, 6, 34, 27, 15*, 30*, 28, 15, 18*, 38, 24, 1*, 67, 14, 14, 6, 80.

 

[social]

Listen SL, sure Mr Waugh has saved Aus the blushes on many occasions. But like it or not, 4th innings are a different cup of tea. I'll just provide a list of all his fourth innings scores, and let it do the talking:

10, 19, 26, 3, 21*, 4, 4*, 4, 47*, 0, 0, 0, 14, 18, 6, 34, 27, 15*, 30*, 28, 15, 18*, 38, 24, 1*, 67, 14, 14, 6, 80.

Given his career record, it's just as likely that these figures are indicative of the fact that he wasnt needed to score runs.

 

[Deja moo]

Given his career record, it's just as likely that these figures are indicative of the fact that he wasnt needed to score runs.

Thats a possibility, but a very lean one IMO. Dont you find it disturbing that he gets out so cheaply in such circumstances, however we may read it ? Wouldnt he have loads of not outs in that case ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think a thing to keep in mind was that, throughout Waugh's career, Australia had a very dicey record of chasing targets in the 4th innings - especially small ones - and Waugh's record in 4th innings' shows that he did little to rectify that himself.

 

[luckyeddie]

You've got your "overall average", Richard's "first-chance" average and now MooMoo's "under pressure" average

The world is crying out for the "overall under pressure first chance non-variant mean median average average".

Mind you, someone will then decide to eliminate scores made on any Thursday on the grounds that in 1 case in 52, it falls 2 days after Shrove Tuesday and in another completely unrelated 1 case in 52, it falls 5 days before Shrove Tuesday.

 

[Top_Cat]

Thats a possibility, but a very lean one IMO. Dont you find it disturbing that he gets out so cheaply in such circumstances, however we may read it ? Wouldnt he have loads of not outs in that case ?

Your argument is thin because it in no way addresses how many times Australia were under the pump in the 3rd innings of a match (2nd innings after batting first) and Steve came through. So what if he suffers on 4th innings? I'll allow him that failure because he saved Aus's collective butts on so many other occasions. Besides, after 1990, most of those knocks were in dead rubbers. Very few were in live Tests. Yes it's strictly speaking a failing for a guy rated so highly but in terms of comparing that to which sections of matches he excelled in, again, who cares?

 

[honestbharani]

The world is crying out for the "overall under pressure first chance non-variant mean median average average".

Mind you, someone will then decide to eliminate scores made on any Thursday on the grounds that in 1 case in 52, it falls 2 days after Shrove Tuesday and in another completely unrelated 1 case in 52, it falls 5 days before Shrove Tuesday.

lol. That post should be preserved for eternity.



BTW, is there ever a run scored that is not valuable?

 

[Deja moo]

Your argument is thin because it in no way addresses how many times Australia were under the pump in the 3rd innings of a match (2nd innings after batting first) and Steve came through. So what if he suffers on 4th innings? I'll allow him that failure because he saved Aus's collective butts on so many other occasions. Besides, after 1990, most of those knocks were in dead rubbers. Very few were in live Tests. Yes it's strictly speaking a failing for a guy rated so highly but in terms of comparing that to which sections of matches he excelled in, again, who cares?

Fair enough if thats the case more often than not. I'm still not convinced though. I still maintain that he couldnt bat on wearing pitches. Hes certainly saved Australia on plenty of occasions in less than perfect conditions, but not when the pitches tend to be at their worst.

And just for the record, Steve Waughs 3rd innings average was 36. :

Although TBF in this case, he has made his third innings' count. There are some very good ones there.

 

[Top_Cat]

And let's not forget how many times Steve Waugh batted well when Australia needed him to in the first-innings, arguably where it matters most of all. Look, we could play these games for hours but Steve Waugh was rated as THE man under pressure by so many of his opponents it's not funny. You don't gain that sort of 'player's player' credo without being damn good, especially since he was hardly friendly to opponents so they wouldn't exactly be looking to compliment him.

This is why I personally rate Virender Sehwag so highly, despite him averaging sub-30 in the second innings. Guys like him and Waugh set the tone for the match by scoring heavily when the opposition bowlers are at their best and freshest and the match is really on the line.

 

[age_master]

hes only chased 240+ in 15 innings too, which isn't alot

 

[Pratters]

Yes.. some times persevering wickets is the valuable thing and runs are not important/valuable.

 

[social]

The world is crying out for the "overall under pressure first chance non-variant mean median average average".

Mind you, someone will then decide to eliminate scores made on any Thursday on the grounds that in 1 case in 52, it falls 2 days after Shrove Tuesday and in another completely unrelated 1 case in 52, it falls 5 days before Shrove Tuesday.

What about leap years?

All performances recorded on 29 Feruary should be totally disregard as they cannot be repeated on a regular basis.

 

[Deja moo]

And let's not forget how many times Steve Waugh batted well when Australia needed him to in the first-innings, arguably where it matters most of all. Look, we could play these games for hours but Steve Waugh was rated as THE man under pressure by so many of his opponents it's not funny. You don't gain that sort of 'player's player' credo without being damn good, especially since he was hardly friendly to opponents so they wouldn't exactly be looking to compliment him.

This is why I personally rate Virender Sehwag so highly, despite him averaging sub-30 in the second innings. Guys like him and Waugh set the tone for the match by scoring heavily when the opposition bowlers are at their best and freshest and the match is really on the line.

See TC, I'm not saying players who score heavily in the initial stages of a match are worthless. Its just indisputable that pitches get more batsman-unfriendly as the match progresses (and thats undisputable because the general batting averages of all batsmen supports it). And some players are found wanting ( or rather, not upto their normal self ) in those circumstances. Waugh, Sachin and Lara are among those who find the going difficult. Gavaskar, Viv, Chappell did much better in those situations on the other hand. Its not a question of whether runs scored in certain innings are worth more than others, its simply a question of which batsmen excel in all conditions, and which do not adapt to a similar extent.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

See TC, I'm not saying players who score heavily in the initial stages of a match are worthless. Its just indisputable that pitches get more batsman-unfriendly as the match progresses (and thats undisputable because the general batting averages of all batsmen supports it).

Not always. The Natwest Series this year showed the dangers of batting first on a damp wicket early in the day. After the innings, it invariably flattened out into a batting paradise. Day matches in the subcontinent usually produce the same result.