Just how good is Ntini?

[Richard]

I think I posted a thread on Ntini a little while back showing how phenomenally inconsistent he is. The figures shown on a year-by-year basis go a little way to telling the story but the season-by-season ones show it far more accurately. CBA repeating it all again but Ntini has basically veered from outstanding to execrable, often on a season's notice. How effective he is depends on how accurate he is, and he's capable of being both extremely accurate and extremely profligate. The angle, pace and length he typically bowls accentuates both accuracy and inaccuracy.

As for the comparison with Brett Lee certainly Lee always was and still is a far more multidimensional bowler than Ntini, but Lee for all his ability to do lots of things doesn't tend to do it very often. Ntini has few tools at his disposal but he's far better at using them than Lee is. Lee was outstanding briefly on a couple of occasions and very poor for lots of the rest of the time; Ntini as I say veers from very good to very bad. Lee's best > Ntini's best but Ntini's ability to produce his best >>>>>> Lee's said ability.

As for Ntini's overall worth there's no question it extends far beyond his merit as a bowler - as a bowler overall I'd rate him ordinary and not in a sense of ordinary = poor, as in ordinary = decent but far from outstanding. In terms of how much he's contributed to South African cricket in terms of being the first Black African to genuinely succeed, he's immesurable.

 

[Uppercut]

I think it's quite patronising to speak of his contribution in terms of the social impact of his performances. He's played 100 tests over 11 years and taken just under 400 wickets at an average of 28, which is excellent considering the era. How many fast bowlers can do that? They're so notoriously plagued with injury and extended periods of poor form. It brings so, so much to a cricket team to have someone performing to such a high standard for such a long time. England or New Zealand would kill for someone who could do it, because they haven't had anyone like that in years.

 

[aussie]

. Firstly Mr. & Mr. "Kallis was awesome with the ball vs ENG & AUS 2008/09", two of you got to be brothers from the same circus act, since this is ridiculous. How the **** what i said about Flintoff in ANOTHER THREAD has anything to do with what Uppercut said about Ntini in THIS THREAD???. You CWers if you disagree with a persons opinion need to stop holding a grudge in your mind like some girl whose virginity was taken away & the guy never spoke to them again...MY GOD. You dont see my running behind Richard every post constantly bringing up his opinion on FCA or Matthew Hayden although i fundamentally disagree with them. Just let if ride FFS..

What makes it worst here is that you two have continued to mischaracterise what i said about Flintoff & Flintoff 's career in general. I will not tolerate anyone talking down any of my fellow Lancastrians..

Sounds like Flintoff. But for some reason we're supposed to only judge him on his peak and ignore everything else.

Whereas with Ntini we're supposed to ignore his peak and judge him on everything else.

Yeah, Ntini's bowling average is artificially lowered by all those games he played well in, whereas Flintoff's bowling average is artificially lifted by all those games he didn't play well in. Awesome logic this.

Haa...more madness. EWS This is your logic, dont put words into my mouth since i never said anything like this.

Big difference with Ntini & Flintoff as i said before. After Master Fred became test quality in Bridgetown 2004 - & reached the beginning of his zenith as bowler between Ashes 05 to IND 06. The next 3 years of his career (SRI 06 - Ashes 09) was marred by injury, which prevented him frong taking his bowling to another level although he remained very much test quality & ENG best bowler during this period. Do you two understand this now???

Ntini was one of the fittest bowlers around. I dont believe he ever missed a test/test series because of injury (although i could be wrong). After his short 3 year peak which IMO was from Trinidad 05 to Nagpur 08, his declined because he lost form & pace a la Gillespie 05 Ashes - not injury.

This is why Flintoff like Cairns, Frank Tyson, Bond, S Jones & to a degree (Brett Schultz) are the special cases & we unfortunately can only judge on their short peaks since injury robbed us of seeing them at their best for an extended period.

Are you two clear of the destinction here now??


If you disagree, that is fine with me. But dont me misquoting me along with giving people the wrong impression..Bullet!!

 

[aussie]

Fair point.

On the topic of Nitini. He was a good but limited bowler that was very good for a period.

Certainly an important cricketer for SA in a historical sense and his record cant be denied.

However, given the choice of Lee or Ntini for my team I would take Lee every time.

On point like a laser beam...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Big difference with Ntini & Flintoff as i said before. After Master Fred became test quality in Bridgetown 2004 - & reached the beginning of his zenith as bowler between Ashes 05 to IND 06. The next 3 years of his career (SRI 06 - Ashes 09) was marred by injury, which prevented him frong taking his bowling to another level although he remained very much test quality & ENG best bowler during this period. Do you two understand this now???

Ntini was one of the fittest bowlers around. I dont believe he ever missed a test/test series because of injury (although i could be wrong). After his short 3 year peak which IMO was from Trinidad 05 to Nagpur 08, his declined because he lost form & pace a la Gillespie 05 Ashes - not injury.

Does it matter why either bowler became less effective or failed to extend their peak performance periods? The fact is they both didn't. One isn't automatically better than the other because he was unfortunate to get injured.

 

[aussie]

Firsly a yearly/by season breakdown isn't the best way to gauge a player, since peripheral factors like injuries & loss form, family issues, breaks from the game etc etc are highlighted. All is does is give a general average of how you did during a set season.

It is best to know players a peak or dip in form, then use stats to highlighted. Rather than the other way around.

Poor assessment. Here is the breakdown by season:

1998: 35.8
2000: 22.2
2001: 47.7
2002: 24.4
2003: 26.5
2004: 35.7
2005: 24.8
2006: 21.6
2007: 28.2
2008: 28.4
2009: 46.6

As you can see he's been more consistent over a longer period of time. If you want to break it down, his start was poor and improved.

Basically thats what i said in my previous post to you:

- In the early years of his career between 98-2003 Ntni averaged (evening leaving out ZIM & BANG) 29. Now this i found very suprising since i remember seeing Ntini bowl live vs ENG 98, AUS 2001/02 & WI 20001 & he was really a nothing test bowler, i was expecting an average of in the mid 30s or something. I don't know if because during the period he was able to carried behind Donald/Pollock etc, but IMO stats of those early days dont reflect his career well at all.

- He first qualified as test quality IMO when he took that 10 wicket haul @ Lord's 2003 & from Lord's 2003 to Georgetown 2005 he averaged 31. Now i think thats reflect this period fairly well. Since he just about test quality here, still nothing fantastic - just a solid workhorse

- His peak IMO began when he took 13 wickets in 2005 Trinidad test & from Trinidad 2005 to Nagpur 2008 he averaged 24. He was arguably the best bowler in the world during this period as well.

He then encountered a 2001 Australia side and they took him apart. At that stage he averaged 37.

Yes but it wasn't because as you are suggesting "he just ran into the mightly & they took a part a very good Ntini in 2001/02". He was crap then so he smoked because he was crap. When he was argubably the best bowler int he world the next time he played AUS 05/06 he gave Australia alot of problems. Key difference.

2002 was the year he turned it around and apart from 2004, he has consistently taken wickets and spearheaded the attack, but he has an great period between 2005 and 2007 where he was (probably) the best in the world.

Disagree he turned it around in 2002. IMO it was his 10 wicket haul @ Lord's 2003. But the rest of your post i basically said the same thing.

Lee's breakdown:

1999: 11.7
2000: 17.0
2001: 36.2
2002: 41.3
2003: 35
2004: 69
2005: 32.3
2006: 32.3
2007: 17
2008: 33

Given that he was apart of one of the best teams ever, he always been in the shadow of McGrath and Warne. Never was able to take apart a side and as you can see, his statistics fail to flatter. Had a great start and fell away badly for 4 seasons.

Ha all you doing is basically saying what i just said my friend..

Around 2005 he got more consistent but at an 32 average.

No sir an average of 25. His peak was from WI 05 to WI 08.

People thought he turned it around in 2007 when the greats retired but he's back to mediocrity.

Not true. When McWarne retired in 2006/07. Lee was fantastic in 2007/08 vs SRI/IND/WI on some really flat pitches.

As i said before his decline after WI 08 during series vs IND/NZ/SA 08/09 was a combination family issues & injury woes. The injury woes which had been get worse in the last year is what prevented him from playing in the Ashes & the current series vs WI not because he was back to any mediocrity.

So much for my poor assement when you repeated about 90% of what i said to you...

 

[Uppercut]

Does it matter why either bowler became less effective or failed to extend their peak performance periods? The fact is they both didn't. One isn't automatically better than the other because he was unfortunate to get injured.

There's nothing unfortunate about it. Flintoff's action was unsustainable, and he opted not to change it when this became clear because it was so late in his career. Ntini, in contrast, famously works tirelessly on his fitness. If it weren't for him actually being better at bowling, Ntini's superior fitness would make him a better bowler anyway. A fit bowler>>>>>>>>>>an unfit bowler.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There's nothing unfortunate about it.

I'm not the one portraying it as a misfortune, ftr.

 

[Prince EWS]

Does it matter why either bowler became less effective or failed to extend their peak performance periods? The fact is they both didn't. One isn't automatically better than the other because he was unfortunate to get injured.

You missed the most important part of his post.

I will not tolerate anyone talking down any of my fellow Lancastrians..

Logic is obviously secondary. At best.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Logic is obviously secondary. At best.

Fair.

Keedeh.

 

[Smudge]

I will not tolerate anyone talking down any of my fellow Lancastrians..

Oh, so you're an Englishman this week?

 

[Richard]

I think it's quite patronising to speak of his contribution in terms of the social impact of his performances.

Nah, in many respects the social impact is even more important than the cricketing one. I don't mean it in a patronising way at all.

He's played 100 tests over 11 years and taken just under 400 wickets at an average of 28, which is excellent considering the era. How many fast bowlers can do that? They're so notoriously plagued with injury and extended periods of poor form. It brings so, so much to a cricket team to have someone performing to such a high standard for such a long time. England or New Zealand would kill for someone who could do it, because they haven't had anyone like that in years.

Ntini is indeed a most impressive fitness-related bowler; he is indeed capable of bowling exceptionally well and has indeed done so on a number of occasions. He has not, however, been the sort of bowler who will conquer non-seam-friendly conditions. Find me one example of him bowling genuinely well to get large numbers of batsmen out withouth conceding hundreds of runs on a non-seaming deck.

 

[Jono]

Sounds like Flintoff. But for some reason we're supposed to only judge him on his peak and ignore everything else.

Whereas with Ntini we're supposed to ignore his peak and judge him on everything else.

Yeah, Ntini's bowling average is artificially lowered by all those games he played well in, whereas Flintoff's bowling average is artificially lifted by all those games he didn't play well in. Awesome logic this.

Very good.

 

[Uppercut]

Ntini is indeed a most impressive fitness-related bowler; he is indeed capable of bowling exceptionally well and has indeed done so on a number of occasions. He has not, however, been the sort of bowler who will conquer non-seam-friendly conditions. Find me one example of him bowling genuinely well to get large numbers of batsmen out withouth conceding hundreds of runs on a non-seaming deck.

Tbf, given both his overall record and the era in which he's played, if he doesn't take many wickets on flat decks he must be so unthinkably awesome when there's the slightest bit of seam to make up for it.

Actually I think South African pitches have been generally much more bowler-friendly this decade than the worldwide norm, but I know you disagree.

 

[GIMH]

See, I certainly don't agree with everything EWS & Uppercut say but I love the way they regularly challenge CW convention

 

[Uppercut]

I could back it up statistically, although I suspect you won't have much interest .

In South Africa in the 2000s the average runs per wicket is 30.42. The figure for all other countries is 32.25.

That means absolutely nothing without context, so the worldwide figure for the 90s was 29.45. Either way it looks like the whole thing has been horribly overstated. But the difference between South Africa in the 2000s and everywhere else in the 2000s is bigger than the difference between the 2000s and the 1990s in general. Which is a pretty important point when debating the merits of someone like Jacques Kallis.

 

[SJS]

Today not very.

. . . although the occasion of his hundredth and final Test appearance might get him to show us a bit of the bowler he once was.

 

[stephen]

I could back it up statistically, although I suspect you won't have much interest .

In South Africa in the 2000s the average runs per wicket is 30.42. The figure for all other countries is 32.25.

That means absolutely nothing without context, so the worldwide figure for the 90s was 29.45. Either way it looks like the whole thing has been horribly overstated. But the difference between South Africa in the 2000s and everywhere else in the 2000s is bigger than the difference between the 2000s and the 1990s in general. Which is a pretty important point when debating the merits of someone like Jacques Kallis.

29.10 was what South Africa averaged in the 90s. Thus demonstrating that pitches worldwide flattened significantly in the 00s except those in SA.

More to the point. Batsmen worldwide have averaged 9.5% higher in the 00s than they did in the 90s. I cannot believe that those stats exist because we simply had better bowlers in the 90s. I just don't buy that, given the number of games played, runs scored and batsmen and bowlers used.

 

[Uppercut]

29.10 was what South Africa averaged in the 90s. Thus demonstrating that pitches worldwide flattened significantly in the 00s except those in SA.

More to the point. Batsmen worldwide have averaged 9.5% higher in the 00s than they did in the 90s. I cannot believe that those stats exist because we simply had better bowlers in the 90s. I just don't buy that, given the number of games played, runs scored and batsmen and bowlers used.

Oh hell yeah. Pitches have flattened out, don't get me wrong.

It's just horribly overstated. If batsmen have averaged 9.5% more in the 00s, doesn't it make sense to reduce their average by that amount in order to get a good, standardised figure? So,(given that he did play some part of his career in the 90s) you're presuming someone like Ponting would be averaging about 52 had he played completely in the 90s. Makes sense, right?

Does anyone actually translate an average of 55 in the 00s to one of 50 in the 90s though?

 

[stephen]

Oh hell yeah. Pitches have flattened out, don't get me wrong.

It's just horribly overstated. If batsmen have averaged 9.5% more in the 00s, doesn't it make sense to reduce their average by that amount in order to get a good, standardised figure? So,(given that he did play some part of his career in the 90s) you're presuming someone like Ponting would be averaging about 52 had he played completely in the 90s. Makes sense, right?

Does anyone actually translate an average of 55 in the 00s to one of 50 in the 90s though?

Well statisically that might be a good idea. I think that we forget though that the 80s and 90s were probably statistically the best era for fast bowlers that the world has ever seen. The 60s and 70s were more average eras and the 30s and 40s were batsman friendly. These things come and go in cycles with the ever changing climate and preparation technology around the world.