My reasons for choosing SRT over Ponting would be:-
Lower Limit:-3000 runs.
In the 1970s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:- Gavaskar, Chappel, Boycott & Richards (Kalicharan and Amiss come close at 49)(Redpath doesn't satisfy 3k run limit)
In the 1980s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:- Miandad & Border.(Richards comes darn close at 49)(Chappel & Lloyd don't satisfy the 3k run limit)
In the 1990s the batsmen averaging over 50 are:-Tendulkar, Waugh, Lara & Gooch.(With SRT averaging an outland-ish 58 and Ponting averaging 44)(no 49s or run limit exceptions)
In the 2000s the Batsmen averaging over 50 are:-Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Hayden, Jayawardene, Sangakkara, Tendulkar, Yousuf, Chanderpaul, Lara, Sehwag, Younis Khan, Inzamam, Samarweera, Hussey & Thorpe. (With Smith, Laxman, Pietersen, Kristen and Clarke coming close at 49)(Waugh, Gambhir and Flower don't satisfy the 3k limit)
So in the 1970s:-4 batsmen(2 come close)
1980s:-2 bastmen(1 comes close)
2000s:-16 batsmen(5 come close)
So, I hold Tendulkar in higher regard due to the fact that he blossomed and was the best in a decade with very very few people averaging over 50 in an era of not only with some of the best bowling attacks attacks but also plenty of good ones. However, Ponting despite all his greatness blossomed in a decade where there have been plenty of others who have also averaged close to him.
It is purely my opinion that SRT is slightly but definitely better than Ponting, if people think otherwise I can understand why, as Ponting is one of my most favourite players ever and at his best a massive massive run-scorer.
Working further on the idea given by Shankar, I decided to do a small analysis.
Since everything in cricket is relative, I decided to compare both batsmen's averages against individual opposition with what top order batsmen of top 8 test nations overall averaged against them in the respective periods.
Then I assigned a new average by adjusted player average with the Top6 average. Ie, if player A averages 50 against an opposition against whom top order batsmen of the same period average 40, then adjusted average would be 50/40 * 50 = 62.5 thus rewarding them for outperforming other batsmen of the same period.
The results are interesting:
Ricky PontingCode:Opposition Span Mat Avg Runs Top6Avg AdjAvg AdjRuns v Australia 1991-2008 29 56.08 2,748 33.58 93.66 4,589 v Bangladesh 2000-2010 7 136.66 820 61.38 304.27 1,826 v England 1990-2008 24 61.42 2,150 40.08 94.12 3,294 v New Zealand 1990-2009 19 52.07 1,406 42.77 63.39 1,712 v Pakistan 1989-2007 18 42.28 1,057 39.08 45.74 1,144 v South Africa 1992-2010 22 38.24 1,415 35.19 41.55 1,538 v Sri Lanka 1990-2009 22 57.32 1,605 40.06 82.02 2,296 v West Indies 1994-2002 16 57.73 1,328 36.61 91.03 2,094 v Zimbabwe 1992-2002 9 76.50 918 44.15 132.55 1,591 Overall Total 55.57 13,447 82.99 20,084
While Ponting has been exceptional, Tendulkar has just outclassed him in relation to their peers.Code:Team Span Mat Avg Runs Top6Avg AdjAvg AdjRuns v Bangladesh 2003-2006 4 65.00 260 65.46 64.54 258 v England 1997-2009 31 48.22 2,363 39.26 59.22 2,902 v ICC World XI 2005-2005 1 50.00 100 37.58 66.52 133 v India 1996-2008 23 47.02 1,787 42.14 52.47 1,994 v New Zealand 1997-2010 15 57.47 977 43.24 76.38 1,299 v Pakistan 1998-2010 13 75.73 1,439 43.15 132.91 2,525 v South Africa 1997-2009 21 56.38 2,030 36.07 88.13 3,173 v Sri Lanka 1995-2007 12 50.05 851 38.82 64.53 1,097 v West Indies 1996-2009 21 59.06 1,831 43.91 79.44 2,463 v Zimbabwe 1999-2003 3 96.66 290 51.59 181.10 543 Overall Total 55.22 11,928 75.87 16,387
Sir Alex, genuine question. Do you feel intellectually stimulated and/or have fun when you argue with Ikkie about Tendulkar vs. Ponting?
I can understand why you initially did it, but to still keep doing it. Do you still enjoy it, or find it helps your knowledge about cricket?
Same with Ikki I suppose.
I actually just can't see how any rational person would want to still keep arguing it. Sure before it had become so common it was a relatively interesting debate, as was Lara vs. Sachin and Dravid vs. Ponting (back in 2003/4 prior to Ponting passing him).
But eventually... surely it gets tiring arguing with the same person?
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
The snide aside,
I love stats, I love playing with numbers. Besides happened to have some free time also.
Further both these players are very much active and kicking, so a Tendulkar vs Ponting 2004 will never make any sense in 2010. Does it?
Further it has made me appreciate the greatness of these players in so different levels. Actually I am not discovering their brilliance in their numbers, but discovering their brilliance through their numbers as well.
Why did you have to break it down by team? What can that possibly add? There's no valid statistical reason to do so whatsoever. Why do you increase batsmen's averages by a factor of the overall average rather than the difference between the number of runs scored? That merely rewards annihilating one team while being below-average against another as opposed to being consistently above-average against all teams. Why is that inherently better? Especially considering the most annihilated team here is Bangladesh. And why do you use only top six batsmen?
Does it have anything to do with the fact that, if you use all batsmen and simply use overall aggregates, Ponting's "adjusted" average is (55/31)*55=97.5 to Tendulkar's 55/31*55=97.5? Batsmen average 0.3 runs less over the duration of Tendulkar's career than they do over the duration of Ponting's.
Even if you use top six batsmen, they average 38.43 over Tendulkar's career and 38.77 over the course of Ponting's. The difference is miniscule.
I don't even care who's better. I just rather like stats, because they're really quite useful, and it annoys me when people so blatantly rape them in an attempt to "prove" their point.
Last edited by Uppercut; 29-03-2010 at 03:41 AM.
It doesn't matter. Tendulkar could make 1 century against x and y, but having played 10 times still come out with a poor average. That's no success story.Now we are talking one innings! Tendulkar made centuries against every great bowler he's faced.
You're talking about Sheffield Shield in the 90s. Most of the teams in that domestic competition would be stronger than half the teams in the Test circuit.We are talking about test cricket at McG's and Warne's peak dude not schoolcricket
Steyn himself is no great bowler. It's early to compare him to greats like McGrath, Donald, Pollock, Waqar, etc.Yet can't seem to score anything against the fastest bowler he had to face since Shoiab Akhtar (Steyn)
Of course he had his worst years in the 00s, that's the whole point. If it was so easy between eras then it's down to Tendulkar's own failings.You are creating goalposts. REPEAT, Tendulkar had his worst years in the 2000s, so automatically his average also got affected in the 2000s. It says nothing conclusive other than that.
If a batsman averages 60 against Australia for 10 tests...that deserves praise. If he averages 10 against Bangladesh for 10 tests...that deserves equal critique. Not excuses.
You didn't. Your arguments and stats are increasingly shambolic and I am wondering why I don't have you on ignore to be honest. You bait me well with your nonsense but I don't have the time or the energy to debunk it in every thread.They easily are. I infact supported that with their career averages in another thread. CBA to find it now.
However, in the end, if you want to break it down at it's finest it's still 36.77 in 9 tests, and getting your wicket taken by the same bowler 1/3 innings is not particularly strong. I wouldn't call that particularly good. It's obviously a mixed bag though. I dunno, take from it what you will.
Last edited by Ikki; 29-03-2010 at 04:32 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)