Best #3 between 1986-2006 (Preliminary Vote)

[bagapath]

Batting averages do not require SR to be factored in.

that may be your opinion - not a universal rule i am supposed to accept without argument. when two players average the same - like ponting and dravid - SR is one of the factors that can separate them.

 

[Perry Mason]

that may be your opinion - not a universal rule i am supposed to accept without argument. when two players average the same - like ponting and dravid - SR is one of the factors that can separate them.

Yes, but the seperation is limited to only the kind of game they played. Unless one can conclusively prove that a quick scoring batsman > slow scoring one, or vice versa, it cannot be a factor in what is essentially a statistical exercise as this.

 

[Perry Mason]

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.

Mate, you contradict yourself. First you claim that both high and low SR's have pros and cons. Then you go on to state that a high SR > lower SR.

A fast scoring batsman gives the opposition more time to bowl his own team out. A slow scoring batsman might conceivably lessen the chances of his team winning. But a fast scoring batsman by the same token heightens the chances of his team losing.

 

[aussie tragic]

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

Final # 3 Poll is already up and running.

Mods, appreciate it if you could lock this thread as we have another Poll running and we still have the main 1986-2006 World XI thread to discuss issues like SR.

Thanks.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

He played the last test and failed... And he played in the 2003 ODI series where he had a LOT of trouble against Murali Kartik. He had like 5 successive lifes off Murali Kartik because of Parthiv and VVS Laxman in the finals. I honestly think it is more likely that he would have failed than succeeded in that series. Sure, he would have done better than his past runs, but I don't think he would have succeeded in a big way at all in that series. Remember, in 2001, India were just a one man bowling team and he had trouble with that.

And regarding SR, it only comes into the equation when you have a poor bowling attack or when you have slow batters as a majority in your line up... Only then do you need to bring in the SR into the equation. I am assuming that this XI we are selecting will have the best bowlers and will also have a few attacking batsmen from nos. 4 to 6. So I see no reason why Dravid's strike rate should be the reason to keep him out of the side. If anything, I think he will be the perfect foil to guys like Lara, Viv and Sachin (if those guys do get picked).

 

[bagapath]

And regarding SR, it only comes into the equation when you have a poor bowling attack or when you have slow batters as a majority in your line up... Only then do you need to bring in the SR into the equation. I am assuming that this XI we are selecting will have the best bowlers and will also have a few attacking batsmen from nos. 4 to 6. So I see no reason why Dravid's strike rate should be the reason to keep him out of the side. If anything, I think he will be the perfect foil to guys like Lara, Viv and Sachin (if those guys do get picked).

So his SR can be a reason for choosing him along with explosive batsmen. fair enough. all that i am saying is take SR into account. one way or other it will help you in the mix. thats all.

 

[JBH001]

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?

I don't know if I agree with that - I believe you are pointing out the pitfalls of being overly aggressive, in which case I would agree with you. But that would only apply to batsman like Afridi, or Sehwag, or KP for instance who - so caught up in attack - can actually cost their side by attacking all the time. If I am right, and I have not looked this up, their SR are around the 70 - 80 mark, and that is indicative of an attack, attack, attack mentality.

However, where batsman like Ponting and Lara and Tendy are concerned, they are attacking batsman who can also play defensively when they need to. It is not something they are incapable of, and we all know of innings where they have curbed their attacking instincts and played more defensive innings. Given this context, and the excellent technique of all these batsman I would choose them over Dravid any day.

It is the KP's and the Afridi's who are mutually incompatible with the idea of defense - the Lara's and the Tendy's and the Ponting's can do both.

I believe the difference lies here. A Dravid type batsman (notwithstanding his technical excellence) looks to defend and respect good balls, as his first instinct, then to score off them, if possible. Batsman in the mold of Ponting look to score off good balls if possible, even it is just a single, as their first instinct, then to defend it if they have to.

I'd go for the Pontings every time.

 

[JBH001]

Mate, you contradict yourself. First you claim that both high and low SR's have pros and cons. Then you go on to state that a high SR > lower SR.

A fast scoring batsman gives the opposition more time to bowl his own team out. A slow scoring batsman might conceivably lessen the chances of his team winning. But a fast scoring batsman by the same token heightens the chances of his team losing.

Where have I contradicted myself?
All along I have maintained that an attacking batsman, imo, is to be preferred to a defensive one - all other things being equal (as Dravid and Ponting eerily are).
What I am drawing attention to is the numbers game that seemed to be going on, you know, a 17 run difference per hundred balls etc. That, I said, was missing the point, that the differing SR of both batsman is indicative of the type of batsman they are, and that is the point I wished to make. I don't think anyone would really deny that Ponting is an attacking batsman and that Dravid is a defensive batsman.

Also, I have never heard of a batting team telling themselves, "guys we need to bat slowly so we don't get out!" as a general rule. The only circumstance in which this may happen is if a batting side were attempting to save a match, victory was out of the question, and all hope was for a draw. Then, yes. But I cannot imagine a circumstance where a team tell a batsman who has scored a hundred before lunch, "Slow it down, please. You are scoring too fast, and giving them more time to bowl us out". Sorry, mate - but that is one of the silliest notions I have ever heard of, it is really only applicable in certain situations.

One last comment regarding SR and it's importance. Dravid's SR is about 2.5/over. Whilst Ponting's is about 3.6/over. Imagine 2 batsman batting a whole day at these SR's, and facing 90 overs. The team at 2.5/over would end the day at 225 runs scored whilst the team that scores at 3.6/over would end the day at 324 runs scored.
Which would you prefer?

 

[C_C]

all other things being equal (as Dravid and Ponting eerily are).

Err no they are not. Dravid has had to face McWarne-Ponting hasnt. Dravid also isnt abyssmal in any particular scenrio as Ponting is.
Realistically speaking, when it comes down to individual batsmen, 12-14 runs strike rate difference in test cricket is largely irrelevant.
All these 'imagine 11 pontings vs 11 dravids' is hypothetical and largely superfluous because you need both kind of batsmen in differing scenrios.
This is a sign of total ODI-mentality to even think that strike rate matters much in tests.
I guess by the same token Greenidge is a better pick than Boycott as there isnt much to pick and choose between them either !

 

[JBH001]

C_C I have already agreed with you, regarding that.
As I have said in a couple of other posts, if Ponting scores big next time he is in India then he would be the better batsman, beyond dispute.(in terms of any objective judgement)
However, if he does not, then at the end of their careers, Dravid may well be reckoned the better batsman.(again, in terms of any objective judgement).

What I am stating is my personal preference regarding both and why I think so - but I can also see the other point of view, and the other arguments for what they are, therefore my agreement that Ponting's woeful record in India can and should be held against him.

My point of contention with you, was your earlier remark that Dravid can be rated alongside Lara and Tendulkar, but that Ponting could not, and that therefore Dravid is better than Ponting.
I do not see how that can be - Lara and Tendulkar are both better than Ponting and Dravid, and so far, nothing you have said has given me cause to believe otherwise - or that your judgement regarding this is not poor and/or a result of blatant bias.

Also, though I see your point that Ponting has not faced McWarne, I do not see that it has much relevance when you consider that when Dravid did in fact face McWarne in Australia he ended the tour with an average of 15!

 

[Salamuddin]

If the ptch is a nice flat track and yopu are looking for quick runs against mediocre bowlers, I would say Ponting is your man.

If theere is movement off the pitch and/or thru teh air and the bowling attack is of good quality, Dravid is your man any day of the week.