Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Furball]

Ponting's 80 odd vs Steyn on Day 1 of the Joburg test was one of his best test innings, ball was seaming everywhere.

Was that the same innings that Graeme Smith dropped an absolute sitter?

 

[Furball]

Yeah well Warne was a touch better than Macgilla Gorilla in any case though.

It'd be interesting to see how Sehwag fares in Perth next summer considering it's got a bit of bounce back in it

If Perth plays like it did this year, Johnson will take all 10 wickets for 2 runs, with the runs coming off looseners that go 6 yards down the leg side.

 

[abmk]

He usually didn't bat long enough for Wasim to get him himself. IIRC, early on Waqar and Imran took a few off him and later on Saqlain. It's a good point in that it doesn't tell you with great detail how one fared against a bowler but it does say that Tendulkar struggled against the Pakistan attack - which is usually the point that is being made.

no one from Pak got him out more than 3 times ... waqar also got him out only once ( imran twice )

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the bold part doesn't really make much sense nor is it factual by any means

 

[Bun]

41.25

Oh thanks.

 

[Ikki]

no one from Pak got him out more than 3 times ... waqar also got him out only once ( imran twice )

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

the bold part doesn't really make much sense nor is it factual by any means

How doesn't it make sense? Tendulkar barely averaged 30 against the aforementioned bowlers. He was usually taken early - hence Wasim would have had less of a chance to take him than otherwise. It's factually true. I said Waqar and Imran took him a few times (when Wasim was playing) and later on in 99 Saqlain did 3 times. Considering he only played 12 innings against these bowlers, that's quite a bit many times that the others took him.

 

[bagapath]

How doesn't it make sense? Tendulkar barely averaged 30 against the aforementioned bowlers. He was usually taken early - hence Wasim would have had less of a chance to take him than otherwise. It's factually true. I said Waqar and Imran took him a few times (when Wasim was playing) and later on in 99 Saqlain did 3 times. Considering he only played 12 innings against these bowlers, that's quite a bit many times that the others took him.

waqar got him only once. however you twist it, it is not "quite a bit many" times.

of late your arguments have become lazy ikki. if you are busy with work and want to bull**** through a cricket forum for fun that is fine. but if you are serious about what you are saying, then i am worried you are losing your sharpness, pretty much like ricky ponting on the cricket field. come on mate. dont sleepwalk through an argument and expect others to not catch blatant mistakes.

when it is clear that tendulkar wasnt dismissed a lot by wasim and waqar attributing his comparatively low average against pakistan to them is downright dishonesty. you might as well say sachin didnt score runs against ijaz ahamad and saeed anwar.

 

[Jono]

You guys shouldn't be talking about Sachin vs. Ponting in this thread. Not fair on Kallis.

 

[Prince EWS]

Averaging Y against Bowler X, and averaging Y in games Bowler X happened to play, are two completely different things. Irrespective of how this tilts the debate, that people can't make that distinction is annoying me tbh.

 

[Teja.]

Averaging Y against Bowler X, and averaging Y in games Bowler X happened to play, are two completely different things. Irrespective of how this tilts the debate, that people can't make that distinction is annoying me tbh.

However, The statistic which tells you the former is considerably screwed up. Hence, We have to make do with what we have.

 

[Prince EWS]

However, The statistic which tells you the former is considerably screwed up. Hence, We have to make do with what we have.

The statistic which claims to tell you the former doesn't do that either. I just want people to get the terminology right tbh.

 

[Teja.]

-Insert witty comeback about you being a pedant-

 

[Avada Kedavra]

How doesn't it make sense? Tendulkar barely averaged 30 against the aforementioned bowlers. He was usually taken early - hence Wasim would have had less of a chance to take him than otherwise. It's factually true. I said Waqar and Imran took him a few times (when Wasim was playing) and later on in 99 Saqlain did 3 times. Considering he only played 12 innings against these bowlers, that's quite a bit many times that the others took him.

Avg ov sadgopan ramesh against ww is 51
avg ov ricky against ww is 0.now twist more stats.

 

[Ikki]

waqar got him only once. however you twist it, it is not "quite a bit many" times.

of late your arguments have become lazy ikki. if you are busy with work and want to bull**** through a cricket forum for fun that is fine. but if you are serious about what you are saying, then i am worried you are losing your sharpness, pretty much like ricky ponting on the cricket field. come on mate. dont sleepwalk through an argument and expect others to not catch blatant mistakes.

when it is clear that tendulkar wasnt dismissed a lot by wasim and waqar attributing his comparatively low average against pakistan to them is downright dishonesty. you might as well say sachin didnt score runs against ijaz ahamad and saeed anwar.

I think you've misunderstood the point. Whether Waqar took him more times is not the point. He only faced Tendulkar in 4 matches so it's fine. I am referring to that attack. In attacks which have several good bowlers, like Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Akhtar and Saqlain (combination of them depending on the series) you are going to have trouble taking a large amount of wickets against a specific batsman. He only played 12 innings against them and was run-out twice IIRC. Imran took him twice, Waqar, Wasim and Akhtar once and Saqlain 3 times. To compound that, he was out cheaply very often; meaning the window to take his wicket was less. It's not like Wasim and Waqar struggled to bowl to him and he held them out. He was getting out cheaply most of the time and rarely caused them a problem.

So relying on the fact that Wasim only took his wicket once is disingenuous if you are trying to say he succeeded against that attack. He failed and didn't make many runs.

Using your argument, a batsman can average 10 and is taken by Waqar every time and that means he only failed against one bowler. Does that make sense? In Tendulkar's case his wicket was shared around a lot- 7/10 possible bowlers took his wicket so they worked wonderfully as an attack. In effect, you're saying unless a bowler takes that batsman's wicket he didn't succeed against them. It misses out factors such as adding pressure/unsettling batsmen or keeping the run-rate down.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Tendulkar - thanks a lot ankit.

 

[abmk]

I think you've misunderstood the point. Whether Waqar took him more times is not the point. He only faced Tendulkar in 4 matches so it's fine. I am referring to that attack. In attacks which have several good bowlers, like Imran, Waqar, Wasim, Akhtar and Saqlain (combination of them depending on the series) you are going to have trouble taking a large amount of wickets against a specific batsman. He only played 12 innings against them and was run-out twice IIRC. Imran took him twice, Waqar, Wasim and Akhtar once and Saqlain 3 times. To compound that, he was out cheaply very often; meaning the window to take his wicket was less. It's not like Wasim and Waqar struggled to bowl to him and he held them out. He was getting out cheaply most of the time and rarely caused them a problem.

So relying on the fact that Wasim only took his wicket once is disingenuous if you are trying to say he succeeded against that attack. He failed and didn't make many runs.

Using your argument, a batsman can average 10 and is taken by Waqar every time and that means he only failed against one bowler. Does that make sense? In Tendulkar's case his wicket was shared around a lot- 7/10 possible bowlers took his wicket so they worked wonderfully as an attack. In effect, you're saying unless a bowler takes that batsman's wicket he didn't succeed against them. It misses out factors such as adding pressure/unsettling batsmen or keeping the run-rate down.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Tendulkar - thanks a lot ankit.

that average is misleading tbh. His first series against Pak was his debut series in 89 at the age of 16. He did fine in that series.

What that average of 35 odd in that series does not show is that he faced quite a few balls in the 50s that he faced . all 3, imran,wasim and waqar played in that series

then we had the chennai test in 99 where he he foolishly got himself run out in the first innings, then the 136 in the 2nd when he injured his back. ( with saqlain at his absolute best and wasim bowling well )

he played the second test in delhi inspite of that and failed

kolkatta test, Shoaib got him with yorker in the first and was run-out in the second when he was obstructed by the bowler ( that caused quite a commotion in Kolkatta )

the sample size after his debut series vs akram/waqar is small and does not give a fully accurate measure , neverthless, in the tests that he played, he had no difficulties against the bowling of anyone in the Pak bowling line-up. He did not have to wait for waqar/wasim to retire by any means

 

[abmk]

Ponting's 80 odd vs Steyn on Day 1 of the Joburg test was one of his best test innings, ball was seaming everywhere.

that was a fine innings, but I reckon his 99 at the MCG was better

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/351682.html

 

[abmk]

England during Ponting's career have the 4th best attack. If you remove minnows; they have the 3rd best attack.

Ironically, Before the 2005 series he'd played 16 tests and averaged 41.72. Since 2005 - when they started having good attacks - he averages 46.22.

Before this current series he was averaging 48.22 against them overall and 55 against them since 2005.

So, really, you're wrong.

Eng bowled crappily in 2006-07 Ashes. versus the good-excellent Eng attacks since 2005, his averages were:

~40 in 2005 in Eng
~48 in 2009 in Eng
~16 in 2010 in Aus

P.S. Before that vs England, Ponting had some trouble with gough , just saying

 

[Ikki]

They bowled crappily or they were smashed? Was basically the same attack as in 05.

 

[abmk]

They bowled crappily or they were smashed? Was basically the same attack as in 05.

they bowled crappily.

no simon jones, harmison was crappy outside of Eng except probably for that one series vs WI ... sajid mahmood played in 3 tests, anderson couldn't do much except when there was swing at that time , half-fit and at times unlucky flintoff .... panesar and hoggard were pedestrian

 

[abmk]

How do they calculate the averages vs. pace and spin? Do they do a run-by-run analysis of exactly which bowler he scored off? That's amazing.

Cricinfo has the stats from about mid-2001 onwards. Player vs player stats for every match.... I suppose its easier for them at cricinfo since they can just query their database with the required parameters

 

[Ikki]

Exactly...same attack bar Jones. I see the English bowlers get let off for bowling "crappily" aka getting smashed in the 2nd ever Ashes whitewash...whereas Australia whom had many players out of form in 05 were just overwhelmed. Amazing coincidence...every time Ponting plays well against them they're playing crappily and everytime they're up for it he is in bad form. He's so unlucky that Ponting.