Just how good is Ntini?

[aussie]

I've no idea what you just said.

Oh well simply put. The reverse FTB theory doesn't hold water for me, since i see no reason why the past great fast-bowlers from Larwood to Donald would not have been able to take wickets on the flat decks of this 2000s era.

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.

Well i personally do think Ntini's 28 average should be taken with a pinch of salt. I have always seen him as a 30 average quick. He wasn't better than Lee at their respective peaks as a test bowlers & Lee averages 30.

Plus historically you have players like McKenzie, McDermott, Botham, Dev, Gough, Caddick who averaged around 28/29, they were certainly a level ahead of Ntini.

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.

As i said on the previous page, that excellence is helped by a very good peak period in which he averaged 24. Overall for most of his 11 year career he was just a tireless workhorse, that 28 average slightly flatters him IMO.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lee's peak was for 18 months. Ntini bowled well for an extended period of time.

 

[aussie]

A bit longer than that TBH. WI 2005 to WI 2008 was his peak thats almost 3 years, where averaged 25. Plus when Lee started in those early days betwen IND 99 to WI 2000 he was far more effective than Ntini in his early days who was gash.

Ntini's peak IMO based on how i gauged his career as i mentioned before was from Trinidad 2005 to Nagpur 2008. Just about 3 years, where he averaged 24.

 

[popepouri]

Well i personally do think Ntini's 28 average should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Because there's evidence that states otherwise? He averaged over 30 in the beginning of his career but then have 3 fine seasons to bring it to 27. His 28 now shows his age and lack of pace.

Lee was a better ODI player but Ntini was a much bowler in tests. Lee never had the capability to run through a batting line up. Ntini was more consistent. He took oodles of wickets against good opposition.

 

[Uppercut]

As i said on the previous page, that excellence is helped by a very good peak period in which he averaged 24. Overall for most of his 11 year career he was just a tireless workhorse, that 28 average slightly flatters him IMO.

WTF. What sparked this sudden CW influx of completely illogical points? You've just told me Ntini's average flatters him because he played really, really well for a period of three years. What the actual ****.

 

[Black_Warrior]

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.

wow...just wow!!

 

[Jono]

I love Makhaya. Best bloke in cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

WTF. What sparked this sudden CW influx of completely illogical points? You've just told me Ntini's average flatters him because he played really, really well for a period of three years. What the actual ****.

The king is dead. Long live King Option C.

 

[Zinzan]

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

Your point is utterly nonsensical. On one hand you correctly point out that the major weakness in his bowling armory is his inability to get LBW's because of the angle from which he bowls from. Then you go on to suggest he should be credited with the average of LBW dismissals OTHER bowlers achieve to his wicket tally? Sense-non

 

[aussie]

Because there's evidence that states otherwise? He averaged over 30 in the beginning of his career but then have 3 fine seasons to bring it to 27. His 28 now shows his age and lack of pace.

Not sure if this is the fairess statistical assesment. Let me break down Ntini vs Lee test career illustrating the highs & lows based on how i saw it.

NTINI:

- 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.

- Then as the ENG tour began last year until the recent series vs AUS. AFAIC he definately lost a bit of nip in his bowling & as you said his age probably is showing up he averaged 39 (leaving out BANG)


LEE:

- He started fantastic in his first year in international cricket. Averaging 16 before he got injured during the 2000/01 summer.

- Then when he returned in ENG 2001, between ENG 01 to ENG 05 he was really average test bowler, averaging 38 (although he bowled better in 05 Ashes than his 40 ave suggested).


- After his hot & cold Ashes & the super test. Lee peaked as a test bowler during the 2005 AUS summer & from WI 05 to WI 08 he averaged 25

At the back end of 2008 he had his family issues & injuries which really affected his bowling vs IND/NZ/SA & well that probably could be last Lee will be seen with the red ball.


Overall the stats reflect Lee's career very accurately AFAIC since i saw pretty much all of his tests live (except for NZ 2000, since NZ tours dont get shown over here much over the years) & i accept that an average of 30 reflects his career on point. With Ntini as i illustrated above that 28 average is very surprising given how his career peaked & dropped off. So if Lee is 30 average bowler surely was Ntini IMO.

Lee was a better ODI player but Ntini was a much bowler in tests. Lee never had the capability to run through a batting line up. Ntini was more consistent. He took oodles of wickets against good opposition.

Disagree. At their respective peak as i showed above which about 3 years each.

- Ntini averaged 24

- Lee 25

Note: If you take out BANG it is slightly better for both of them.

Nothing to split there. Coincidentally during the 05/06 AUS vs SA series both where in top form & both where equally lethal to the respective opposition batting line-ups, i would find it very dubious if you where to tell me Ntini was better then.

 

[Matt79]

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.

Oh well simply put. The reverse FTB theory doesn't hold water for me, since i see no reason why the past great fast-bowlers from Larwood to Donald would not have been able to take wickets on the flat decks of this 2000s era.



Well i personally do think Ntini's 28 average should be taken with a pinch of salt. I have always seen him as a 30 average quick. He wasn't better than Lee at their respective peaks as a test bowlers & Lee averages 30.

Plus historically you have players like McKenzie, McDermott, Botham, Dev, Gough, Caddick who averaged around 28/29, they were certainly a level ahead of Ntini.



As i said on the previous page, that excellence is helped by a very good peak period in which he averaged 24. Overall for most of his 11 year career he was just a tireless workhorse, that 28 average slightly flatters him IMO.

Uppercut - it's called a double standard.

 

[Goughy]

Oh well simply put. The reverse FTB theory doesn't hold water for me, since i see no reason why the past great fast-bowlers from Larwood to Donald would not have been able to take wickets on the flat decks of this 2000s era.

Larwood bowled on some of the flattest tracks known to man

 

[aussie]

WTF. What sparked this sudden CW influx of completely illogical points? You've just told me Ntini's average flatters him because he played really, really well for a period of three years. What the actual ****.

I dont see whats so illogical about it.

What is the aim of a bowler?. Isn't it to take wickets or in a larger context aid your side in taking 20 wickets to win a test? Right...

So shouldn't a bowler who is effective only in bowler friendly conditions, be rated below a bowler who is proven in all conditions i.e bowler-friendly conditions& flat decks?. This is why performances of the great fast-bowlers in history on Indian wickets has such importance.

Its the same why the batsman (the FTBs) of this 2000s era are constantly criticized for smoking poor attacks on roads - but struggle in bowler friendly conditions.

Ntini for the majority of his 11 years test career he had 3 excellent years (31 tests out of 100, with the majority on helpful wickets). In the other 8 years he was either poor or just a workhorse. If he never had that small peak his average would have been much higher i.e in the 30s - Simple. (but although it may end up around 28/29 if he last the ENG series, as i illustrated in my previous that 28 average certainly flatters him slightly)

He wasn't a McGrath or Marshalll whose peak lasted for a decade or over for us to cast his poor/average periods as irrelevant factor in his overall test record.

 

[popepouri]

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

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.

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. Around 2005 he got more consistent but at an 32 average. People thought he turned it around in 2007 when the greats retired but he's back to mediocrity.

 

[aussie]

Larwood bowled on some of the flattest tracks known to man

Exaclty & he had those 1930s batsmen in test & county cricket skating. So theirfore surely if he was bowling on the roads of today he would have right at home..

 

[Goughy]

Exaclty & he had those 1930s batsmen in test & county cricket skating. So theirfore surely if he was bowling on the roads of today he would have right at home..

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.

 

[jboss]

Your point is utterly nonsensical. On one hand you correctly point out that the major weakness in his bowling armory is his inability to get LBW's because of the angle from which he bowls from. Then you go on to suggest he should be credited with the average of LBW dismissals OTHER bowlers achieve to his wicket tally? Sense-non

my point about him being credited is more related to the question of asking just how good he is.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ntini for the majority of his 11 years test career he had 3 excellent years . In the other 8 years he was either poor or just a workhorse.

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

 

[Uppercut]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.