Best #3 between 1986-2006 (Preliminary Vote)

[JBH001]

The flaming match worked!

j/k

Seriously though C_C you should have scrolled down a little - as I said I was merely taking the mickey putting in that last line. And yes, I have agreed that Ponting is a shocker on Indian wickets - an absolute shocker, therefore I said he needs to work on that if he wants to be recognised post career as one of the greats.

(Rather like Miandad had to make centuries against WI to be recognised as one of the greatest 80s batsman - though it took him 10 years or so and some goading from Imran to actually do it)

My point was similiar to SS's. Simply that omitting Ponting and keeping Dravid was and is a mistake, and can only be seen as either misjudgement or bias.
(Which is why I voted for Lara).

In terms of their respective merits I still believe them to be close, as I said, but Ponting does have the edge based on better SR, more centuries and a better conversion rate. (Though I have not looked at their respective away records and that may be a point in Dravids favour - though not much if Ponting still has a decent average away from home)

In one respect I do agree though, Lara and Tendulkar are a class above the rest over the last 15 years.

 

[C_C]

In terms of their respective merits I still believe them to be close, as I said, but Ponting does have the edge based on better SR, more centuries and a better conversion rate.

I fail to see how SR is even remotely relevant in Test cricket. As far as tests go, 85 from 200 balls is a more valuable contribution than 70 from 100.
Punter converts more but he is less consistent IMO.

Though I have not looked at their respective away records and that may be a point in Dravids favour - though not much if Ponting still has a decent average away from home)

Oh its quite a big gap.

Punter away from home : 77 innings, 8 not outs, 3543 runs @ 51.34 with 13 tons and 12 fifties.

Dravid away from home : 95 innings, 14 not outs, 5288 runs @ 65.28, 15 tons and 25 fifties.

 

[bagapath]

strike rate combined with the number of balls a batsman plays in an innings gives you his batting average. so it is a relevant stat. also quick scoring can win you matches and slower batting can save you from lost causes. both are important. you can always make your choice. strike rate is important but both fast scoring and slow scoring have equal merit. depends on the team to go for one kind of batsman or the other. both gavaskar and richards were great batsmen. see!!

moving on... thanks to http://cricket24x7.blogspot.com/2005/01/most-runs-made-at-each-batting.html for the following stat. i guess it has some numbers in it connected to what we are discussing otherwise.

Highest Aggregate for Each Batting Position

Opening - SM Gavaskar - 9,607
3 - R Dravid - 5,955
4 - SR Tendulkar - 7,996
5 - SR Waugh - 6,821
6 - SR Waugh - 3,098
7 - AC Gilchrist - 3,068
8 - Kapil Dev - 1,777
9 - CEL Ambrose - 973
10 - Waqar Younis - 496
11 - CA Walsh - 553

Highest Average for Each batting position (Minimum 30 innings)
Opening - H Sutcliffe - 61.1
3 - DG Bradman - 103.63
4 - JH Kallis - 76.56
5 - GS Sobers & CL Walcott - 59.22
6 - ST Chanderpaul - 66.3
7 - AC Gilchrist - 52.00
8 - MV Boucher - 34.08
9 - IDS Smith - 28.46
10 - DK Lillee - 19.05
11 - WA Johnston - 14.45

 

[Perry Mason]

strike rate combined with the number of balls a batsman plays in an innings gives you his batting average. so it is a relevant stat.

No, it doesn't. All it gives you is the number of runs the batsman scored in that particular innings.
The irrelevance, for the most part, of batting strike rate in Test cricket can be shown by the fact that it isn't even a required factor when it comes to calculating batting averages. All you need is total runs scored and number of innings the batsman was dismissed in (nice spin you've tried to put on a simple calculation there ). Batting average has always been the prime statistic for Test batsmen over the decades. Batting strike rates in test cricket haven't been gives that status. They weren't even considered worthy of being measured for a large part of the existence of Test cricket in the fashion that it is now. When people speak of strike rates in test cricket now, it is with the mind set of Limited overs cricket that they do so.

 

[JBH001]

I fail to see how SR is even remotely relevant in Test cricket. As far as tests go, 85 from 200 balls is a more valuable contribution than 70 from 100.
Punter converts more but he is less consistent IMO.
Oh its quite a big gap.
Punter away from home : 77 innings, 8 not outs, 3543 runs @ 51.34 with 13 tons and 12 fifties.
Dravid away from home : 95 innings, 14 not outs, 5288 runs @ 65.28, 15 tons and 25 fifties.

C_C you misunderstand me.
My point was difference within a batsman's average - for example, if Ponting had an away average of 40 and a total average of 58, whilst Dravid had an away average of 65 and a total average of 58, then I would agree with you.

But an away average of 51 is a very good away average (over 50!) and nothing to be ashamed of. Granted there is a big difference in away average difference with Dravid, but the sole criterion of judging batsman is not the difference between their respective away differences. It is a consideration, but is only - imo - a trumping consideration if one of the batsman has a poor record away from home, which Punter does not.

Moreover, we need to have two things in mind.
One, It is all very well to go on about away pitches - but wickets on the Subcontinent are more or less similiar, slow batting tracks which tend to wear and tear and crumble as in India, or become slow turners as in Sri Lanka, or remain absolute belters as they have in Pak in recent series's. Therefore Dravid has a great Asian average of :

15 23 4 1198 270 160 128* 63.05 5 3 2

whilst Punter has an Asian average of:

17 29 3 933 118* 105* 96 35.88 2 6 3

This is weighted against him by his, truly, woeful record in India of:

8 14 0 172 60 18 16 12.28 0 1 3.

Looking elsewhere Punter has better records in WI, and SA, and NZ (notoriously difficult for touring batsman) whilst Dravid has a better record in England.

(Africa's - note Dravid has a substantally better record against Zimbabwe)
T I NO Runs High Sc 1- 3 Avg C HC Ducks
10 17 2 854 148 118 98 56.93 2 5 0 ----- Dravid
7 12 1 688 116 103 100* 62.54 3 2 0 ----- Ponting

(America's)
14 22 4 1260 146 144* 92 70.00 2 10 0 ---- Dravid
5 9 2 691 206 117 113 98.71 4 0 0 ---- Ponting

(Oceania - note Dravid averages 64 in NZ))
12 24 4 1187 233 190 103* 59.35 3 4 3 --- Dravid
3 5 2 293 105 86* 47* 97.66 1 1 0 --- Ponting

(Europe)
6 9 0 789 217 148 115 87.66 3 3 0 --- Dravid
13 22 0 938 156 144 127 42.63 3 3 1 --- Ponting

My second point was the woeful record of Punter in India.
It skews his away record in a terrible manner - granted that even if it was ignored it would still not match Dravid's, but it would not suffer so much in comparison. As I have maintained, Ponting needs to rectify that on the next tour of India - if he does not it will stand against him at the end of his career, and would mean that Dravid was indeed the better batsman.

As to scoring rate, I see it differently. The assessment of runs scored per hundred balls is a modern thing but from what I recall it had its equivelant in pre ODI days in terms of runs scored per minute. I remember reading Benaud's account of the ashes tour of 61-62 (?) and many comments were made regarding team scoring rates and batsman scoring rates. They were not done in terms of runs/100 ball but in terms of runs/minute. The ideal being to score a run a minute - he often compared the English tour for its average scoring rate (and shabby over rate) compared to the WI tour of the previous summer (the one with the famous tied test etc). Even going back to the Golden Age we find great knocks by say Jessop defined in terms of runs scored per minute (for example, a hundred made in 77 minutes and so on). The aim of scoring a 100 runs a session or making 300 in a day has a similar basis. That of quick runs.

Quick runs make a lot of difference in terms of establishing dominance over the bowler and fielding side, making it look easier for other batsman in the dressing room, and most of all, in terms of getting a good total quickly so that one's own bowlers have more time to bowl the opposition out. Quick scoring batsman make victory more assured for a team than slow scoring batsman. There may be situations where slow runs and occupation is required - say in the 4th innings with victory out of the question, but even here counter-attack has a place of its own, in terms of throwing the bowlers and fielders off.

Given then 2 batman with roughly similiar records I would choose the attacker over the blocker (only a rough analogy) every time. Therefore Ponting over Dravid.
Moreover, I tend to rate higher a batsman who attacks and takes risks (thus increasing his chance of dismissal) and averages 58 with 31 C/ 34 HC over a batman who takes less risks (lowers his chance of dismissal) and averages 58 with 23 C/ 46 HC.

I do agree that Punters record in India can be held against him (not that Dravids record in Australia when he does face McWarne is much better) but if he does set that record to right in the future, then I maintain that he would be undisputably the better batsman.

 

[Steulen]

Of course Ponting didn't play on Australia's last Test tour to India, and given his exploits before and after that tour, he'd probably come away with a heightened average.

 

[bagapath]

No, it doesn't. All it gives you is the number of runs the batsman scored in that particular innings.

It does!!! If a batsman averages 100 balls per innings and has a strike rate of 60, his batting average will be 60. if his strike rate is 50 his average will be 50. For example, bradman had a strike rate of about 60 and herbert sutcliffe, about 35. They both played about 165 balls per innings. bradman ended with an average of 99 and sutcliffe with 60. they both had the same capacity to stay at the wicket (could play 25+ six ball overs without getting out) but the difference in their strike rates accounts for this huge difference in their averages.

now, dravid and punter both average 58. while dravid's strike rate is about 44 , punter's is 58. it means ponting will finish his job in 100 balls where as dravid might need about 130. for fast scoring, if you want to declare your innings for example, go for ricky. to play for time, you should opt for dravid. SR is not the be all of batting assessment but it is important nevertheless.

 

[silentstriker]

To say SR is not important in Test cricket is ludicrous. Why do you think people feared SRT and Lara so much in the 90s? It wasn't that they could score a lot of runs (they could), it was that they would score them so fast that it would put the bowling side under severe pressure.

Say the score reads:

100/0 after 40 overs

vs.


100/0 after 10 overs


Don't you think there is a bit of difference if you're the bowling side? In one case, you may be behind, but you won't panick, but in the second case, you'll be sweating like there is no tomorrow trying for a wicket.

 

[C_C]

To say SR is not important in Test cricket is ludicrous. Why do you think people feared SRT and Lara so much in the 90s? It wasn't that they could score a lot of runs (they could), it was that they would score them so fast that it would put the bowling side under severe pressure.

Say the score reads:

100/0 after 40 overs

vs.


100/0 after 10 overs


Don't you think there is a bit of difference if you're the bowling side? In one case, you may be behind, but you won't panick, but in the second case, you'll be sweating like there is no tomorrow trying for a wicket.

Uhh 100/10 in tests...that would be sickening really. Anyways, Lara/Tendy types are feared because they carried their team for a while- ie, nobody stood up and yet they pulled their team outta trouble time and time again. True, the ideal test batsman doesnt really get bogged down ala Chris Tavare but strike rate is rather irrelevant in test cricket. It matters very little in test cricket whether you scored your 50 in 90 balls or your 50 in 120 balls.

Only in the rare cases is batting strike rate of any relevance- when the team is trying to score some quick runs before declaring their 2nd innings closed for eg. And in that kind of scenario a Ponting would be better suited than Dravid. But that is so case-specific that it isnt even a proper benchmark. Dravid by the same standard would be the pick for saving an innings. So all in all, strike rate is of much less relevance in Test cricket. Sure,Viv would be a better choice than a Tavare with a 50 average but that is pretty much end of spectrum comparisons. For most batsmen head-to-head, it is a non-issue.
That Lara scores 7 runs more per 100 balls than Tendulkar in test cricket, for eg, is utterly irrelevant to their value or worth.

 

[silentstriker]

Uhh 100/10 in tests...that would be sickening really. Anyways, Lara/Tendy types are feared because they carried their team for a while- ie, nobody stood up and yet they pulled their team outta trouble time and time again. True, the ideal test batsman doesnt really get bogged down ala Chris Tavare but strike rate is rather irrelevant in test cricket. It matters very little in test cricket whether you scored your 50 in 90 balls or your 50 in 120 balls.

Only in the rare cases is batting strike rate of any relevance- when the team is trying to score some quick runs before declaring their 2nd innings closed for eg. And in that kind of scenario a Ponting would be better suited than Dravid. But that is so case-specific that it isnt even a proper benchmark. Dravid by the same standard would be the pick for saving an innings. So all in all, strike rate is of much less relevance in Test cricket. Sure,Viv would be a better choice than a Tavare with a 50 average but that is pretty much end of spectrum comparisons. For most batsmen head-to-head, it is a non-issue.
That Lara scores 7 runs more per 100 balls than Tendulkar in test cricket, for eg, is utterly irrelevant to their value or worth.

Think of it from the mind of the opposition: Don't you think there is a different type of pressure when Sehwag goes beserk pre-lunch, than if Dravid is chugging along at a steady rate?

Note: Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not comparing Dravid to Sehwag as a batsman, just their styles.

If two people average the same amount of runs, I would always take the guy that scores faster. Unless he had some other weakness that the slower scoring batsman didn't have. You would take Dravid over anyone else mainly because he has no real weaknesses, but neither does Ponting....so in that case, Ponting wins out.

 

[marc71178]

Only in the rare cases is batting strike rate of any relevance- when the team is trying to score some quick runs before declaring their 2nd innings closed for eg. And in that kind of scenario a Ponting would be better suited than Dravid. But that is so case-specific that it isnt even a proper benchmark. Dravid by the same standard would be the pick for saving an innings. So all in all, strike rate is of much less relevance in Test cricket. Sure,Viv would be a better choice than a Tavare with a 50 average but that is pretty much end of spectrum comparisons. For most batsmen head-to-head, it is a non-issue.
That Lara scores 7 runs more per 100 balls than Tendulkar in test cricket, for eg, is utterly irrelevant to their value or worth.

Another point where strike rate becomes more relevant is that the faster you score, the more time you have to take 20 wickets.

I remember that was one of the main reasons Warwickshire won the 94 title, Lara and co scored so quickly it left a less-talented bowling attack with more time to get the men out.

 

[Dasa]

You would take Dravid over anyone else mainly because he has no real weaknesses, but neither does Ponting....so in that case, Ponting wins out.

He does have one huge weakness - his record in India.

 

[silentstriker]

He does have one huge weakness - his record in India.

Its just one country, and he was unable to play on the 2004 tour. I think his record would likely be different now - he's been playing at another level.

 

[silentstriker]

Another point where strike rate becomes more relevant is that the faster you score, the more time you have to take 20 wickets.

I remember that was one of the main reasons Warwickshire won the 94 title, Lara and co scored so quickly it left a less-talented bowling attack with more time to get the men out.

Yea, I mean if you had the option to score fast vs. score slow, you would always take the faster route (unless you are trying to save a match). I think its way off base to suggest that S/R doesn't matter.

You say Lara and Sachin only had that aura because there was no one else in their teams. What about Sir Viv? Imran Khan said you needed a helmet bowling to him. He intimidated people, and the way and speed that he scored was a major reason why.

 

[C_C]

Yea, I mean if you had the option to score fast vs. score slow, you would always take the faster route (unless you are trying to save a match). I think its way off base to suggest that S/R doesn't matter.

You say Lara and Sachin only had that aura because there was no one else in their teams. What about Sir Viv? Imran Khan said you needed a helmet bowling to him. He intimidated people, and the way and speed that he scored was a major reason why.

You are way overhyping the situation.
Take a Dravid vs Ponting here - the difference in strike rate is 16 runs per 100 balls. Ie, if they score a 100, one will've taken, on average, 5-10 overs more. Thats pretty much irrelevant bulk of the time in test cricket as matches very very rarely come down to the last 5-10 overs.

As per Viv, yes he intimidated the bowling but as a test batsman, there isnt much to pick and choose between Viv, Greg Chappell and Gavaskar from that era.

I think strike rates in test cricket matter only in extreme cases but in case of most batsmen, it doesnt enter the picture. You dont look at strike rate when you compare BCL and Tendulkar in tests and that would be just ridiculous to say the least.
In a format where scoring 100 in 200 balls is seen 'par for the course', someone taking 5-6 balls more would hardly matter.


Marc- i think the taking wicket part is a valid reasoning for 3-day or 4-day matches but in test matches, rarely is batting slow an excuse for not being able to take 20 wickets.

 

[open365]

But what people don't see about strike rates is that maybe it means that the batsman with a high strike rate gets out cheaply when his team are in trouble and scoring is tough so his record isn't effected.

I'm not saying that this is the case with Ponting, but with players like Afridi and KP, if they don't score quickly, they get out, so they'll allways have a high strike rate.

 

[Perry Mason]

It does!!! If a batsman averages 100 balls per innings and has a strike rate of 60, his batting average will be 60. if his strike rate is 50 his average will be 50. For example, bradman had a strike rate of about 60 and herbert sutcliffe, about 35. They both played about 165 balls per innings. bradman ended with an average of 99 and sutcliffe with 60. they both had the same capacity to stay at the wicket (could play 25+ six ball overs without getting out) but the difference in their strike rates accounts for this huge difference in their averages.

now, dravid and punter both average 58. while dravid's strike rate is about 44 , punter's is 58. it means ponting will finish his job in 100 balls where as dravid might need about 130. for fast scoring, if you want to declare your innings for example, go for ricky. to play for time, you should opt for dravid. SR is not the be all of batting assessment but it is important nevertheless.

Its a roundabout way of looking at batting averages . Batting averages do not require SR to be factored in. The fact that one can sneak SR into the calculation anyway is a moot point. Its like preferring to travel from Moscow to London via New York when you can easily skip New York and take the straight line route. All you need for an average is runs and completed innings.

Besides, a very fundamental reason why batting strike rate is a flawed parameter in test cricket is the inability to derive a reasonable conclusion from it, which is not the case with batting average.
Take batting average first. There are two extremes, high and low. One can reasonably claim that the higher the average, the better (all other factors remaining constant) the batsman. Therefore it is a statistic which one can derive a reasonable conclusion from, ie - the higher the better.

Batting Strike rate, on the other hand (as you yourself have explained) cannot lead to a similar conclusion. There is no basis for claiming that a higher SR is better than a lower one, or vice-versa.

A slow batsman may fail to accelerate when needed, and cost his team time to bowl the opposition out.

A fast scoring batsman may fail to occupy the crease for as long as the slow-scoring one, and thus ironically give the opposition more time to bowl his own team out (why no one considers this aspect, I don't know).

Thus there is absolutely no basis for claiming one better than the other. Batting SR in test cricket is a almost a useless statistic. It can only be used to paint a picture of how a batsman plays his game, it cannot be used to claim one better than the other.

 

[marc71178]

Marc- i think the taking wicket part is a valid reasoning for 3-day or 4-day matches but in test matches, rarely is batting slow an excuse for not being able to take 20 wickets.

Yes, can see where you're coming from for a 3 day game, but there's only about 10 or so overs difference between a Test and a 4 day game over here.

 

[JBH001]

I think we are becoming too literal in terms of SR.
What I meant was SR as an indicator (and it is usually a good one) of the kind of batsman the players concerned are. In this case, Dravid is predominantly a defensive batsman, whilst Ponting (and Lara, and Tendy, and perhaps to a lesser extent Younis) is an attacking batsman.

In this context given their roughly similar records I would opt for the attacking batsman every time.

A Ponting in full swing intimidates and demoralises the opposition bowlers and fielders, and though Dravid may look as though he may never get out, it is rare that he gets on top of them - as Ponting often does. Ponting often makes bowling and fielding sides look like incompetent fools, Dravid does this much less often - if ever.

Even if you extrapolate SR in terms of 100, there is a significant difference.
Dravids SR of 42/100 balls becomes a 100/240 balls (roughly).
Pontings SR of 58/100 balls becomes a 100/170 balls (roughly).

That is a big discrepancy regarding the type of 100 made - even more so when we factor in minutes taken, balls consumed, and runs that might have been scored by the batsman at the other end. A team has a better chance of winning a match, and imposing themselves on the opposition, with faster scoring attacking batsman - it is not an overarching consideration, but it is an important one, and is a reason why a batsman like Lara, Tendy and yes, Ponting, should be rated higher than Dravid.

 

[bagapath]

A slow batsman may fail to accelerate when needed, and cost his team time to bowl the opposition out.

A fast scoring batsman may fail to occupy the crease for as long as the slow-scoring one, and thus ironically give the opposition more time to bowl his own team out

you are right on the money. that is what i am trying to say too. so, SR is a factor that needs to be considered when you are choosing a team. it helps you determine the balance of your batting lineup. and in a situation like choosing a team comprising of the best players over a 20 year period you have the option of going for the best mix possible. i am not pushing the case for either ponting or dravid. all i want is to think of their playing styles using their strike rates as an indicator before voting for either of them.

hey, we are talking about two veterans who average in the high 50s after 100+ tests. there is probably nothing to choose between them. but since you have hayden and anwar, two attacking batsmen, to open the innings you can either continue to attack with ponting or drop anchor with dravid. how do we know ponting is aggressive and dravid is tight? that is where the SR helped you understand their pace; like how long they will take to achieve their average.

aussie tragic! when are we going for the final voting for this postion, mate?