Best batsman against mediocre bowling

[stephen]

Ponting was the opposite of a mediocre bowler bully. He was a bully unless he came up against a couple of mediocre bowlers (usually a new kid on the block like Sharma or Roach).

Against someone like Murali his record was as good as Tendulkar vs Warne. He never seemed to struggle at all against bowlers like Shoaib or peak Flintoff or the South African quicks.

 

[honestbharani]

And had 3 ducks in a row against W & W. Ponting was the master plunderer of poor attacks, he can combine the consistency of Kallis with the aggression of a Lara and he was basically impossible to stop if you had a poor or even ordinary attack. Has struggled a lot against the best bowlers though... So for me, its Ponting hands down.

 

[mr_mister]

And had 3 ducks in a row against W & W. Ponting was the master plunderer of poor attacks, he can combine the consistency of Kallis with the aggression of a Lara and he was basically impossible to stop if you had a poor or even ordinary attack. Has struggled a lot against the best bowlers though... So for me, its Ponting hands down.

Followed by a 197...

 

[Spark]

I mean, unless you modify the criteria to the best batsman against mediocre bowling who was mediocre against good bowling, then why can I just not give the exact same answers as I would if deleted "mediocre bowling" from the criteria? I'd pick Steve Smith of the current crop of batsmen against **** bowling, but I'd pick him against the best bowlers too!

 

[Spark]

But from the actual options listed, I would almost give it to ABdV by default simply because he batted 5 for most of his career and the others batted top 3 (Rohit's success in Tests having really been most pronounced of late as an opener). Simply by virtue of facing the new ball a lot gives the openers in this list a lot of leniency IMO.

 

[mr_mister]

It's a bit of a myth that Ponting was no good in the '90s when the bowlers were of a higher quality. His ODI record was already amazing for a kid under 25 and he'd played some pretty memorable innings against Ambrose and Murali by '99

 

[Burgey]

Followed by a 197...

In Perth...

 

[Burgey]

Ponting was the opposite of a mediocre bowler bully. He was a bully unless he came up against a couple of mediocre bowlers (usually a new kid on the block like Sharma or Roach).

Against someone like Murali his record was as good as Tendulkar vs Warne. He never seemed to struggle at all against bowlers like Shoaib or peak Flintoff or the South African quicks.

The weird thing is the bowler he struggled most against was Harbhajan who had one epic series but was otherwise serviceable rather than exceptional.

 

[Dendarii]

From where I stand, if something is designated as a Test but your attack is poor, the worst player (in my lifetime at least) to have in the opposition is Kallis. He's much more likely to ton up than not in that scenario, and a player that's more likely to ton up than not is an absolutely disaster as a fielding captain.

Kallis's record against Zimbabwe is ridiculous, averaging 169.75. Granted, it was only seven innings, but those seven innings contained three hundreds, three fifties, and the other score was a 42 not out.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/45789.html?class=1;opposition=9;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[Howe_zat]

Yeah my first thought on reading the thread was 'probably just the best batsman'. Sure enough Don Bradman averaged 178 against India and 201 against South Africa, minnow-bashing hack that he was.

 

[sledger]

Thread may as well be called "best batsman against India"

 

[Flem274*]

tom latham has never faced a sri lankan he didn't like

they and the bangers have kept his average above 30 and his career in existence.

 

[trundler]

Miandad, Morris, Trumper, Hazare, Dexter.

Some searing hot takes.

 

[h_hurricane]

Ian Botham averaged 70+ against India's mediocre bowling attack. A sharp contrast from his record against the very strong WI(a very poor average of 21).

 

[h_hurricane]

Ponting was the opposite of a mediocre bowler bully. He was a bully unless he came up against a couple of mediocre bowlers (usually a new kid on the block like Sharma or Roach).

Against someone like Murali his record was as good as Tendulkar vs Warne. He never seemed to struggle at all against bowlers like Shoaib or peak Flintoff or the South African quicks.

Failed in his litmus test, fared miserably against India in India. That record is a huge hole in his career. There really shouldn't be two opinions about it.

 

[Kirkut]

I think it depends of whether you're asking whether a batsman can capitalise on the weak link of an decent attack, or reliably average an absolutely stupid amount against an attack comprised of weak bowlers.

IMO, if your attack is **** as a captain, you'd actually rather Sehwag or Warner or maybe even Lara in the opposition then Sanga or Kallis, because the latter two are almost literally Bradman against **** ****s in Test cricket. If you have one or two **** bowlers and they're on to bowl it may be a different answer though.

From where I stand, if something is designated as a Test but your attack is poor, the worst player (in my lifetime at least) to have in the opposition is Kallis. He's much more likely to ton up than not in that scenario, and a player that's more likely to ton up than not is an absolutely disaster as a fielding captain.

I agree, Sehwag may give you chances with a risky shot but Sangakkara especially at home will gradually wear you down both mentally and physically..

 

[Kirkut]

I remember watching highlights of big Jayawardene 100s/200s against South Africa and Pakistan back in 2006 on ten sports channel and it was comical. Full length ball - four, short ball - four, yorker - four, good length ball - four, nothing seemed to work against him :P

 

[Kirkut]

Also that Sehwag 256 in Lahore when India toured in 2006, that was also comical thrashing. But even as an Indian fan I felt bad for Akhtar and Sami who were bowling at 90 mph and above. Always thought why Pakistan never prepared greentops at home when they had bowlers with excellent speed?

 

[SteveNZ]

tom latham has never faced a sri lankan he didn't like

they and the bangers have kept his average above 30 and his career in existence.

Yikes, you're not wrong. 93 v Bangladesh, 77 v Sri Lanka, 41 v Windies and 84 v Zimbabwe. And nothing over 40 v the rest.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yikes, you're not wrong. 93 v Bangladesh, 77 v Sri Lanka, 41 v Windies and 84 v Zimbabwe. And nothing over 40 v the rest.

Tommy Latham picked his poison deliberately.