Just how good is Ntini?

[jboss]

This is not really a debate and is more intended to be a discussion on Ntini before what may be his 100th and last test match. To measure a players worth, we often go visit the stats to see what's on paper, but with Ntini there are a few exceptions to be made. For one Ntini comes from a non cricketing background and an upbringing of little, to no coaching from a young and tender age. On can argue that he also had the disadvantage of not bowling against talented youngsters in his youth due to the area and level of cricket in the area that he comes from. On paper he is a great but not a legend, take note I say on paper. When looking at his stats, one would see a fabulous number of wickets there but there is a huge factor that is overlooked. His 388 test wickets are inaccurate in that as a fast bowler, under normal curcimstances, a bowler would pick up around a 6th of thier wickets by LBW(these are my estimates). When looking at Ntini, almost all of his wickets are from decisions not involving LBW sue to the angle that he runs up in and delivers the ball from. Thus we could probably say that to look at Ntini on paper would also be inaccurate and he may not be looked at in a hundred years as a modern great due to a record that should read more like 440 wickets. This sould put him up there with the very greats of both the modern game and the yesterdays grates likr Ambrose and Walsh.

Big up to Ntini. Go do some damage in what may be your last test and go and ensure that your name is foreveretched as a great

 

[Jarquis]

Ntini ; Sean can confirm

 

[Prince EWS]

His 388 test wickets are inaccurate in that as a fast bowler, under normal curcimstances, a bowler would pick up around a 6th of thier wickets by LBW(these are my estimates). When looking at Ntini, almost all of his wickets are from decisions not involving LBW sue to the angle that he runs up in and delivers the ball from. Thus we could probably say that to look at Ntini on paper would also be inaccurate and he may not be looked at in a hundred years as a modern great due to a record that should read more like 440 wickets. This sould put him up there with the very greats of both the modern game and the yesterdays grates likr Ambrose and Walsh.

God, this is the second time I've seen this sort of logic in the last two days. I was horribly surprised that one person had come up with something like this; now there's two. A flaw in someone's ability to take wickets is not a mitigating circumstance when analysing how effective they were at taking wickets.

That Ntini struggled to take lbws made him a less effective bowler than if he had been more adept in taking them, but only in the same way as Daren Powell's struggle to take wickets in general made him a shockingly bad Test bowler - if Powell had McGrath-like accuracy and planning he'd have taken 440 Test wickets too, but he didn't. Or to stretch that example further, if I could take wickets as regularly as the great bowlers, I'd take 440 Test wickets as well... but I can't.

Another example would be Stuart Clark's case as one of the great batsmen. Clark has all the shots in the book bar the forward defence, and given how valuable the forward defence is to batsmen, his record on paper is vastly deflated by this deficiency and hence it's only fair to declare him 'not out' every time he was dismissed by a ball he could have defended with ease should he had been been much, much better at it. Hence we should respect Stuey as the 65-average Test batsmen he really was.

Not being able to take lbws does not make you a better bowler, in other words. Ntini was one of the best quicks of his era and was, IMO at least, actually the best fast bowler in the world at one point, so I think he should be respected as that. However, his ability to take lbws regularly does not make him better than he if he had been able to take them and achieved exactly the same results.

 

[TT Boy]

I've noticed that Ntini has got a few LBW's recently domestically against left-handers. Which either suggests he is bringing the ball back into the batsman, not just going across on the angle or the batsman are playing all around straight deliveries which should be put away for four. Probably the latter.

Anyhow, congrats on the 100th. Hopefully he proves me wrong and surpasses Polly. As Prince said, there was a period post 2005 where Ntini was the best fast bowler going. Had a dream eighteen months where he carried the South African attack.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not being able to take lbws does not make you a better bowler

*worse?

 

[Prince EWS]

*worse?

Nah, jboss was seriously suggesting that Ntini's inability to take lbws makes him a better bowler than his record suggests. Don't believe me? Read the first post.

His 388 test wickets are inaccurate in that as a fast bowler, under normal curcimstances, a bowler would pick up around a 6th of thier wickets by LBW. When looking at Ntini, almost all of his wickets are from decisions not involving LBW sue to the angle that he runs up in and delivers the ball from. Thus we could probably say that to look at Ntini on paper would also be inaccurate and he may not be looked at in a hundred years as a modern great due to a record that should read more like 440 wickets. This sould put him up there with the very greats of both the modern game and the yesterdays grates likr Ambrose and Walsh.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nah, jboss was seriously suggesting that Ntini's inability to take lbws makes him a better bowler than his record suggests. Don't believe me? Read the first post.

Ah, I just skimmed the first post, and read yours in entirety. I'm such a bastard.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ah, I just skimmed the first post, and read yours in entirety. I'm such a bastard.

Haha, I feel special now.

 

[popepouri]

Ntini wouldn't be as good if Polly was not building pressure on the other end. After Polly went, his performances declined drastically.

 

[aussie]

Was having the same debate on how good Ntini was in a thread with Richard just a few days ago. IMO this is how his career went/has gone so far:


From Lord's 2003 - Georgetown 2005 , this is when he first qualified as test quality. Before then he anything special in test cricket, a bit like what Morkel is right now.

Then from Trinidad 2005 - Nagpur 2008 He peaked & at point here was arguably the best fast bowler in the buisness, especially when SA where playing AUS around 05/06.

Since the tour of ENG 2008 he has been decling gradually & by the end of AUS series in march this year it was clear SA where just carrying him along.

 

[Uppercut]

My opinion, he was very good. Took lots of wickets and didn't concede many runs. Better than any seamer England have produced in the last 20 years, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[aussie]

Gough, Caddick at their peaks where defiantely better than Ntini IMO. Ntini vs Flintoff at their peaks is probably even though.

 

[BoyBrumby]

My opinion, he was very good. Took lots of wickets and didn't concede many runs. Better than any seamer England have produced in the last 20 years, as far as I'm concerned.

Think that's a bit of a stretch, tbh. Gough & Fraser were his superiors and, although injury intervened in both cases Headley and Jones (S) also had more about then when fit.

 

[Uppercut]

Think that's a bit of a stretch, tbh. Gough & Fraser were his superiors and, although injury intervened in both cases Headley and Jones (S) also had more about then when fit.

Yeah, but they weren't fit anywhere near often enough. Same applies to Gough, Fraser has a case but not IMO a convincing one, having taken less than half as many wickets. I'm giving the man credit for getting through 99 tests bowling pace to a very, very good standard. England haven't had a player who's even come close to being able to do that.

Even if you want to completely ignore longevity and fitness, he still has a better record than any Englishman when you consider the Flat Pitches Theorem in reverse (which nobody ever seems to want to do, for some reason).

 

[aussie]

Yeah, but they weren't fit anywhere near often enough. Same applies to Gough, Fraser has a case but not IMO a convincing one, having taken less than half as many wickets. I'm giving the man credit for getting through 99 tests bowling pace to a very, very good standard.

Well for one its not as if 99 test like a McGrath where he was a world-class bowler. He had a very small peak, for the majority of his career he was a workhorse. His peak for one was not better than Gough & Caddick at all IMO.

England haven't had a player who's even come close to being able to do that.

Even if you want to completely ignore longevity and fitness, he still has a better record than any Englishman when you consider the Flat Pitches Theorem in reverse (which nobody ever seems to want to do, for some reason).

Whats this reverse Flat pitches theorem?

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, but they weren't fit anywhere near often enough. Same applies to Gough, Fraser has a case but not IMO a convincing one, having taken less than half as many wickets. I'm giving the man credit for getting through 99 tests bowling pace to a very, very good standard. England haven't had a player who's even come close to being able to do that.

Even if you want to completely ignore longevity and fitness, he still has a better record than any Englishman when you consider the Flat Pitches Theorem in reverse (which nobody ever seems to want to do, for some reason).

You can't call a theory a theorem just because you think it's right

 

[Manee]

Whats this reverse Flat pitches theorem?

The flat pitches theorem is that batsman's runs are less valuable, post 2000-ish, when pitches became flatter on the whole and continued to do so for the rest of this decade. The reverse theorem may either be that bowler's wickets are more valuable now because of the flatter pitches or that, in the 1990s, they were less valuable because the pitches were more helpful.

 

[aussie]

The flat pitches theorem is that batsman's runs are less valuable, post 2000-ish, when pitches became flatter on the whole and continued to do so for the rest of this decade. The reverse theorem may either be that bowler's wickets are more valuable now because of the flatter pitches or that, in the 1990s, they were less valuable because the pitches were more helpful.

Oh this. Well i guess there is some merit to that argument, but overall i personally wouldn't argue it because i think i think any of great fast bowlers/fast bowling combo's of the past (the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s). Once they had the skills to would have been able to tka e wickets on the flat decks on this 2000s era if AUS with McGrath/Gillespie/Kasper/Lee/Clark could.

Look at the WI pace attack of 70s & 80s for eg. All those cats got alot of wickets in the Indian roads back then which are very similar to the pitches now.

 

[Uppercut]

You can't call a theory a theorem just because you think it's right

Haha, I meant to say theory.

I also think it's overplayed, tbf. PEWS said it better than I did.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh this. Well i guess there is some merit to that argument, but overall i personally wouldn't argue it because i think i think any of great fast bowlers/fast bowling combo's of the past (the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s). Once they had the skills to would have been able to tka e wickets on the flat decks on this 2000s era if AUS with McGrath/Gillespie/Kasper/Lee/Clark could.

Look at the WI pace attack of 70s & 80s for eg. All those cats got alot of wickets in the Indian roads back then which are very similar to the pitches now.

I've no idea what you just said.

I'm just talking about how Hayden's average of 50+ is always taken with a pinch of salt whereas Ntini's average of 28 is just treated as an average of 28. Ntini's a very successful bowler in a time when bowlers are struggling all over the world.

Check out bowling records for this decade: Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com. The only players with a better record than him are genuine top-class bowlers. And that's Ntini. Excellent, but one step below top-class.