Best ODI batsman?

[Ikki]

You are getting confused and misunderstanding what I'm saying. You have been saying that Gilchrist performs a role for Australia. I'm trying to show you the difference between two scenarios where Tendulkar plays in the place of Gilchrist. We take what happens at the other batsman's end to be the same and neglect it. So in Gilchrist's case, Ponting would come in at 37 off 38 balls scored whereas in Tendulkar's case he would come in at 48 off 54 balls.

Now, to gauge the effect of replacing Gilchrist by Tendulkar I split an average Tendulkar inning into two parts - 37(40) + 11(14). This doesn't mean that he will score the runs in this order only. He could get 11(14) initially and 37(40) later. It's just a way of splitting into two parts his contribution.

That's the whole point, you are doing it INCORRECTLY. You are presuming Tendulkar would take 37/40 - which he wouldn't, that is an SR of 92.5. And then you add 'Ponting' - with an SR of 78 - and because you have given Tendulkar more SR slack with Gilchrist, you don't need as much with Ponting. You are doing this arbitrarily.

To compare the two scenarios, we need to compare the net contribution of Gilchrist+Ponting vs Tendulkar+Ponting (Doesn't have to be Ponting could be anyone). The net Tendulkar+Ponting contribution is equivalent to a combo of an Almost-Gilchrist who averages 37 at a SR of 92.5 and Super-Ponting who averages 55 at a SR same as Ponting of 80.

Ah, but it isn't equivalent. Even if you add the two it is still only 11 runs made that took 17 balls to make. We are not comparing part of Gilchrist's SR and part of Ponting's. We are comparing only Gilchrist's SR and only Tendulkar's. For Gilchrist to score the same amount of runs - 48 - it will only take him 49 balls to do so.

 

[Ikki]

The relevant statistics for Tendulkar are his innings opening the batting. He has played more innings at this position than Ponting has done overall, so there's no problem in comparing the two. So he averages 4 more than Ponting at a SR higher by 7.

Ponting has played only 1 inning at opening and Tendulkar has played much more than that. I'm not going to discount the rest of Tendulkar's career here. May have been apt with Gilchrist if you are comparing hem solely as openers but not with Ponting who never was an opener. That's like me comparing Ponting's record at only #3 to Tendulkar's career.

 

[Sanz]

And what does form in Tests have to do with form in ODIs?

That thread was comparing them as batsman, The post you quoted (Pickup's) and other subsequent posts clearly suggest that. So, who is having a reading problem now ?

1000s of runs scored because of 110+ more innings. And as I proved to you before, the average and SR are hardly enough to make one player better than another. 1 run more for 1 less ball. That's it .

There is no gaurantee that Ponting will last another 100+ ODIs and would be as prolific as he has been. So No, Tendulkar just scores more 100s than Ponting. After 298 ODIs SRT had 33 100s (7 more than Ponting's) and no you can not claim that he got more opportunties to do so because he was opening because SRT started opening only after 70 ODIs or so. SRT has a SR better than Ponting and has better average too, more 100s and more 50s not because he has played more matches but because he is simply better.

Yes, but Afridi has a poor average by ODI standard. I mentionde this before. A played can average 1 and score at a rate of 1 ball. It doesn't mean they are better than Gilchrist simply because of the balls saved and such.

36 isn't a great average either, It is merely decent in this era. Otoh 44 is a great Avg esp with the SR which SRT has. How many people have that kind of SR in ODIs despite playing for 20 years. Even someone like Ponting who is such a fluent scorer, it is so hard to score with that kind of SR.

And no, the primary responsibility of a batsman is to make runs as fast as they can - this is ODI. If a batsman averages 100 runs but takes 40 overs to do it then he is useless at the ODI level.

No, it is not 'as fast as they can', it is to score 'Fast Enough' which Tendulkar does more efficiently than everyone else except IVA Richards. Scoring 50 runs in 35 balls in chasing 150 odd runs in 50 overs is meaningless and much less important than scoring 90 runs in 105 balls.

It doesn't matter. The point you made pertained to centuries scored. Somehow the lack of centuries explained Richards' failure but not Ponting's?

Not it's not just lack of 100s, its lack of 100s, at lower average at lower SR all combined. IVA played in a different era and had one of the most prolific ODI opening before him, played in a low scoring era, still ened up with 11 100s and 45 50s in only 187 ODIs.

That Richards' example may work against Tendulkar but not Ponting. Ponting averages less (like Tendulkar) but scores proportionately many more 100s than Richards.

No, he doesn't. In equal no. of ODIs Ponting will have 7 less 100s than SRT, despite SRT playing only 230 of those ODIs as opener.

This actually serves to prove the point that Ponting even batting lower has been prolific - almost Sachin like, without batting higher.

It works both ways, If Ponting bats up in the order, he may get slightly more opportunties to score 100s(although I am not sure how much because he already bats @ no. 3) but at the same time he will also have to face the new ball, he will also have the chance of getting out more often. So I dont believe his average or no. of 100s will go up any more.

I'll say it again: the difference between Ponting scoring as many 100s per inning as Tendulkar is time at the crease. Because the margin is only 3 centuries.

Margin is 7 100s after 298 games.

I am saying, had Ponting played most of his ODIs opening (200+ games worth) I could see him clearly making up that deficit if not more. It's not even remotely apt to the Lillee case.

No he wont.

You're obviously not getting the point. This is why I give you my comprehension jibes.

No, You are the one who is not getting the point and in consistend denial. I have shown enough times that you suffer from similar deficiancies in your writting as well as reading skills despite being from a country where English happens to be your mother tongue.

The point is not about Ponting playing as many no. ODI as Tendulkar. The point is to score on proportion the same amount.

He simply wont. That's the point. Have shown you enough times. You continue to live in denial.

Player X may have 10 centuries from 20 matches. Player Y may have 15 centuries from 30 matches. It is the same proportion of centuries to matches.

No matter how many ways you try to convince me, the fact will remain that Ponting isn't as prolific as Tendulkar, neither in total runs scored, nor in SR.

LOL, you usually have good arguments. This is just a very poor one. Cricket does not work like the 100m dash. There are times where a 50 is more valuable than someone else's 40. I'd rather Ponting do well in the harder more important games than against Kenya in 3 relatively unimportant matches.

It is not. Your refusal to accept the reality is making you see every argument as a poor one. I would rather have Tendulkar score another 100 against BD and see India in the second round of the WC. For me scoring runs against every opponent is important.

If you take the point you made seriously, then Imran Khan is a legend and Wasim Akram is a silver medalist in Test bowling.

Statistically maybe, Artistically NO, obviously IMO. Whereasin Tendulkar Vs. Ponting. Tendulkar is ahead on all counts, almost universally.

No it isn't. Not when the opposition team has posted a relatively low score that you'll have enough time to chase down (averaging 41; SR 75, as you said).

Make sure what you are arguing. Either you argue cold hard statistics or you argue Statistics with other tangibles. You arguments have been very hypocritical in pretty much every discussion. You keep beating about Stats when they are in your favor, but when they are not in your favor, you start considering tangibles. (e.g. in Tendulkar Vs. Gilchrist you have never considered the different roles those two and keep harping about 11 runs in 10 balls or whatever)

No, I didn't pick and choose finals. I said I only care about 1 final from the start. The rest are, relatively, unimportant to say the least.

Yes you did. You do not decide which finals are important and which are not. If you think Ponting doesn't perform at his best (because he is not motivated enough) in a VB series final, you are questioning Ponting's integrity as well.

It doesn't work like that but Tendulkar has 30/407 innings and Ponting has 26/289 innings.

Tendulkar: 30/407=7.37%
Ponting: 22/289=7.61

Ponting has a higher percentage. In fact, more of Ponting's centuries led to wins than Tendulkar's.

Tendulkar: 30/42=71.43%
Ponting: 22/26=84.62%

Tendulkar has 42 in 407 innings. Get your facts right first. And above just proves that SRT plays for a weaker team that even his 100s are not good enough to win.

My claim to Bevan's superiority does not conflict with this. Bevan did not need to score centuries to compare. He only has 6 in 196 innings btw. Bevan also averages high because he batted towards the end and wasn't dismissed as much.

Indeed. If you bat lower, you average will be boosted too (not a knock on Bevan though) Ponting has neither. Neither his average is higher, nor his SR. You can not argue both ways.

Tthis actually further proves the point that the lower you play the less likely you are to score a century. You are not likely to see 2 centuries in a ODI inning from the same side. If Gilchrist/Hayden/X scored a century it made it THAT much less likely Ponting would score a century. So him only needing 3 to have the same record as Tendulkar actually works in his favour as it is a massive feat given his circumstances.

What you are forgetting that Tendulkar played with Sourav Ganguly, Who was an ODI Ton scoring monster. Infact even that argument works in SRT's favor.

 

[pasag]

Not really on topic as such, but they've just showed this innings from Greg Chappell in the Test match break. A real stunner.

 

[shankar]

That's the whole point, you are doing it INCORRECTLY. You are presuming Tendulkar would take 37/40 - which he wouldn't, that is an SR of 92.5. And then you add 'Ponting' - with an SR of 78 - and because you have given Tendulkar more SR slack with Gilchrist, you don't need as much with Ponting. You are doing this arbitrarily.

You're not getting the point. I'm not saying that Tendulkar gets 37(40) initially and 11(14) later. You can split it up in any way you want. The reason I take 11(14) balls is to because Ponting's SR is 80. If say Ponting averaged 40 with a SR of 60 then I would split it up as 37(36) + 11(18).

Ah, but it isn't equivalent. Even if you add the two it is still only 11 runs made that took 17 balls to make.

The mistake you make is by saying 'oh it's just 11 off 17 balls. Ponting can easily make it.' It's 11 extra runs. That is to make up for Tendulkar, Ponting has to average 55 runs (His usual runs per inning + 11) off 72 balls (His usual balls per inning + 17) i.e. with a SR of 76.4. He gets only a slight reprieve from his usual SR of 80 but a massive increase in average of 11.

 

[Ikki]

That thread was comparing them as batsman, The post you quoted (Pickup's) and other subsequent posts clearly suggest that. So, who is having a reading problem now ?

Again, with the reading comprehension...where does my post clearly suggest I am talking about ODI? In fact, the post I quote refers to Ponting's poor record in India - Tests.

What does it matter what it was comparing them as anyway? Neither have had a decline in ODI and have similar age. The only reason Tendulkar has better aggregate figures is because he played more. What does that thread have to do with anything?

There is no gaurantee that Ponting will last another 100+ ODIs and would be as prolific as he has been. So No, Tendulkar just scores more 100s than Ponting. After 298 ODIs SRT had 33 100s (7 more than Ponting's) and no you can not claim that he got more opportunties to do so because he was opening because SRT started opening only after 70 ODIs or so. SRT has a SR better than Ponting and has better average too, more 100s and more 50s not because he has played more matches but because he is simply better.

There doesn't have to be another guarantee. Hadlee only played 86 Tests to McGrath's 124. Doesn't make McGrath better simply because he took more wickets because he played more nor do we question Hadlee on his record because he played 38 less Tests.

Yes, Ponting's record could go worse - as could Tendulkar's - but if he were to retire tomorrow he'd have a completely sound record with no ifs and buts about him having played more 298 ODI is not a small sample.

What does it matter how many more centuries Tendulkar had then or now anyway? That's like saying Hayden is better than Tendulkar because he scores more centuries per inning than Sachin (in tests of course). Their run average is the balancer. If a player scores a 100 in every innings but one scores 200 in every other innings it is still an average of 100.

Sachin post 2000 (where he has been declining in Tests, if you're referring to that thread) actually averages even more but his proportion of centuries very slightly falls.

This is like saying Tendulkar's first 78 ODI innings = 0 centuries and Ponting had 5 centuries. Ignoring that Tendulkar would later do better. Which also serves to ask, how do you know Ponting won't get better?

It's mere conjecture on your part and the only relevance is judging their records as they stand.

36 isn't a great average either, It is merely decent in this era. Otoh 44 is a great Avg esp with the SR which SRT has. How many people have that kind of SR in ODIs despite playing for 20 years. Even someone like Ponting who is such a fluent scorer, it is so hard to score with that kind of SR.

Well, 37 is a good average. But an SR of 98 to go with it is what makes it unbelievable.

SR is only really valuable when the player keeps a good average. It makes the likelihood of that player getting those runs in that pace all the more.

No, it is not 'as fast as they can', it is to score 'Fast Enough' which Tendulkar does more efficiently than everyone else except IVA Richards. Scoring 50 runs in 35 balls in chasing 150 odd runs in 50 overs is meaningless and much less important than scoring 90 runs in 105 balls.

Yes, it is to "score as many runs as fast as they can". As aforesaid, it is a balancing act. The more you want to score the less likely you are to do it fast and the faster you score the less likely you are to score more. This is ODI where "fast enough" only relates to the runs you score. In Tests, an SR of 50 is fast enough because there are so many balls and so much time. In ODI, it's the exact opposite.

The example you provide may hold true, but is an isolated case. As I explain earlier, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are different batsmen, different openers, who had different roles. The primary role and concern of Gilchrist was to score and do it fast and for Tendulkar it was to score more and do it relatively fast.

Not it's not just lack of 100s, its lack of 100s, at lower average at lower SR all combined. IVA played in a different era and had one of the most prolific ODI opening before him, played in a low scoring era, still ened up with 11 100s and 45 50s in only 187 ODIs.

That explains it more. I rate Bevan and Richards above the rest.

It still cannot denigrate Ponting's own awesome propensity to score 100s.

No, he doesn't. In equal no. of ODIs Ponting will have 7 less 100s than SRT, despite SRT playing only 230 of those ODIs as opener.

That's an arbitrary take. You are simply taking no. of ODIs as the main factor again. Tendulkar himself didn't score a 100 till his 79th ODI. It shows he was a different player before and after that. Some do it earlier, some later. Only looking overall will you fairly discern their propensity to score. Your take assumes they are the same player regardless when they played.

It works both ways, If Ponting bats up in the order, he may get slightly more opportunties to score 100s(although I am not sure how much because he already bats @ no. 3) but at the same time he will also have to face the new ball, he will also have the chance of getting out more often. So I dont believe his average or no. of 100s will go up any more.

Yeah, it's not like Ponting hasn't faced the new ball and all the other factors you mentioned.

The biggest difference is that if the openers do well (which they do quite a bit of the time for Australia) and score a century, it makes it that much harder for Ponting to do so. Seeing as the difference is only 3 centuries. I find it astounding, considering the success of Gilchrist/Hayden/others that it is only 3.

Margin is 7 100s after 298 games.

Nope. That's your cop out margin.

No he wont.

Haha, a tinge of Richard in there. "No he won't, no he can't". Not interested in what you think he would do, more interested in what is likely.

No, You are the one who is not getting the point and in consistend denial. I have shown enough times that you suffer from similar deficiancies in your writting as well as reading skills despite being from a country where English happens to be your mother tongue.

I usually type around 2-3am or when I get up and as I said I tend to edit a lot. Typos or mentioning one word in place another is a totally different ball of wax as 'interpreting' and 'comprehending' whole arguments incorrectly.

He simply wont. That's the point. Have shown you enough times. You continue to live in denial.

And how would he not? Thanks, I'd love to hear you explain this one.

No matter how many ways you try to convince me, the fact will remain that Ponting isn't as prolific as Tendulkar, neither in total runs scored, nor in SR.

I don't really care to convince you. The rest of your diatribe has convinced me you are only convinced of yourself. You can't prove it or even argue in a way that makes sense at least, so I am destined to disagree.

It is not. Your refusal to accept the reality is making you see every argument as a poor one. I would rather have Tendulkar score another 100 against BD and see India in the second round of the WC. For me scoring runs against every opponent is important.

Who said it was just WCs? Tendulkar has faced Kenya 10 times averaging 100 against them. Kenya itself lifts Tendulkar's average. So he averages about the same as Ponting without Kenya and more than him (less than a run) because of them. Wow, great difference.

Statistically maybe, Artistically NO, obviously IMO. Whereasin Tendulkar Vs. Ponting. Tendulkar is ahead on all counts, almost universally.

Artistically, obviously and universally. Haha, great argument.

Imran = Legend. Wasim = Silver medal. Okay.

Make sure what you are arguing. Either you argue cold hard statistics or you argue Statistics with other tangibles. You arguments have been very hypocritical in pretty much every discussion. You keep beating about Stats when they are in your favor, but when they are not in your favor, you start considering tangibles. (e.g. in Tendulkar Vs. Gilchrist you have never considered the different roles those two and keep harping about 11 runs in 10 balls or whatever)

Wrong. I see both sides of that argument. You gave me one and I said "I can rebut with...'. It doesn't make the argument any more black or white. You simply cannot separate the two by much.

Yes you did. You do not decide which finals are important and which are not. If you think Ponting doesn't perform at his best (because he is not motivated enough) in a VB series final, you are questioning Ponting's integrity as well.

You mention VB finals as something that compares to a WC final. It doesn't. There is no pressure in a VB final like there is a WC final. The only similarity is that they are both called finals. For what it's worth I think a quarter or semi in the WC carries more pressure than a VB final.

As I said before, there is a difference in performing in the Carling Cup final or performing in the Champions League final - or World Cup final for that matter.

Tendulkar has 42 in 407 innings. Get your facts right first. And above just proves that SRT plays for a weaker team that even his 100s are not good enough to win.

Wrong, he only had 30 winning centuries in 407 innings. Check the facts/stats yourself.

Indeed. If you bat lower, you average will be boosted too (not a knock on Bevan though) Ponting has neither. Neither his average is higher, nor his SR. You can not argue both ways.

Yes you can. Whilst it is more likely that you will have more not outs it is not that much so that it will make a difference when comparing an opener and a #3. This is not tests where all 10 wickets have to be taken. A lot of the times they aren't.

Whereas centuries scored by openers will greatly reduce the number chances of centuries scored by a #3.

What you are forgetting that Tendulkar played with Sourav Ganguly, Who was an ODI Ton scoring monster. Infact even that argument works in SRT's favor.

Here, you've proved again that you don't understand the argument. Sourav Ganguly will not inhibit Tendulkar from scoring a ton as they bat together - opening. Whereas Ponting is on the bench when Hayden or Gilchrist or some other batsman is in.

 

[Ikki]

You're not getting the point. I'm not saying that Tendulkar gets 37(40) initially and 11(14) later. You can split it up in any way you want. The reason I take 11(14) balls is to because Ponting's SR is 80. If say Ponting averaged 40 with a SR of 60 then I would split it up as 37(36) + 11(18).

It doesn't matter how you split it, unless you are trying to prove that Tendulkar does the same job as Gilchrist - which he doesn't and hence you cannot use your arbitrary split.

The point is it cannot be 2 balls for an extra 11 runs. Tendulkar takes 2 more balls to score the SAME amount of runs as Gilchrist, but he uses up another 14-15 balls to score the rest of the 11 runs.

So no matter how you cut it, it's 11 runs and 17 balls.

The mistake you make is by saying 'oh it's just 11 off 17 balls. Ponting can easily make it.' It's 11 extra runs. That is to make up for Tendulkar, Ponting has to average 55 runs (His usual runs per inning + 11) off 72 balls (His usual balls per inning + 17) i.e. with a SR of 76.4. He gets only a slight reprieve from his usual SR of 80 but a massive increase in average of 11.

No, you're the one saying Ponting can make it up. I am saying you can split the 11 runs by 1-2 runs per batsmen. They WILL get the 11 runs. But most of them CAN'T and WON'T make up the amount of balls Gilchrist saves. Australia obviously wanted more balls in hand than the comparative runs otherwise Gilchrist wouldn't have batted that way.

 

[shankar]

Ponting has played only 1 inning at opening and Tendulkar has played much more than that. I'm not going to discount the rest of Tendulkar's career here. May have been apt with Gilchrist if you are comparing hem solely as openers but not with Ponting who never was an opener. That's like me comparing Ponting's record at only #3 to Tendulkar's career.

It's not like one can't compare openers with middle-order batsman. Otherwise we can't say if Ponting is superior to say, Smith or not.

Sure you can do that if you feel his best position is 3. He just needs to have played a significant number of innings at that position. For example Sachin has played 300 innings at the opening slot - more than most people in a whole career. If he had played only 100 innings opening, then it wouldn't be proper to consider only those. The fact that he was unwisely made to play at other positions where he was inferior does not affect the evaluation of his batsmanship.

Ponting has played a significant number of innings (250+) at 3. So it's fair to take his record there for the comparison.

 

[Ikki]

It's not like one can't compare openers with middle-order batsman. Otherwise we can't say if Ponting is superior to say, Smith or not.

Sure you can do that if you feel his best position is 3. He just needs to have played a significant number of innings at that position. For example Sachin has played 300 innings at the opening slot - more than most people in a whole career. If he had played only 100 innings opening, then it wouldn't be proper to consider only those. The fact that he was unwisely made to play at other positions where he was inferior does not affect the evaluation of his batsmanship.

Ponting has played a significant number of innings (250+) at 3. So it's fair to take his record there for the comparison.

You just proved your own case wrong. If you can compare openers and middle-order batsmen, then why just take Tendulkar's opener stats? Because it benefits him?

This makes it all the more reason to use their whole careers.

 

[haroon510]

lol
ashish nehra or agerkar..

anyways in all seriousness.. voted for Sir Viv.. very close call though.. sachin is good also..

 

[shankar]

No, you're the one saying Ponting can make it up. I am saying you can split the 11 runs by 1-2 runs per batsmen. They WILL get the 11 runs. But most of them CAN'T and WON'T make up the amount of balls Gilchrist saves. Australia obviously wanted more balls in hand than the comparative runs otherwise Gilchrist wouldn't have batted that way.

Look, we are trying to see if the rest of Australia's batsmen have a tougher time when Gilchrist plays or when Sachin plays. That is if Gilly plays instead of Sachin then they have to score 11 extra runs in 17 extra balls. The extra is key here - The question is not whether they can score 11 runs off 17 balls. It is whether they can score 11 extra runs off 17 extra balls. So we have to see if need to be better batsmen to make up these 11 extra runs off 17 extra balls. The point to note is - This is not a question of whether they can score 11 off 17 in some match. It's a question of whether they can do it match after match i.e. their averages need to be higher by 11 (in sum).

Now, to show the effect of replacing Gilchrist with Tendulkar we can look at another way. Tendulkar's extra contribution is as you said 11(17). So replacing Gilchrist with Tendulkar is equivalent to replacing Ponting with a batsman who averages 55 at a SR of 76.4. So the batting line-up is clearly benefitted greatly by this. If on the contrary Tendulkar's extra contribution had been only 2 off 10 balls then Ponting would be replaced by a batsman averaging 46 but having a SR off only 70. In such a case Gilchrist would be the superior bat.

 

[shankar]

You just proved your own case wrong. If you can compare openers and middle-order batsmen, then why just take Tendulkar's opener stats? Because it benefits him?

Obviously. Why neglect the stats of a bowler when he was injured? Why neglect stats of players against weak teams? Because it doesn't reflect their usual quality.

He was unwisely played at other postions and was found to be decent but not as good as he is at opening. So what? All it shows is that he is not a great middle-order batsman. Why should this be muddled up with the fact that he is the best opener ever? Tendulkar has played enough innings at 1-2 to make a judgement on that alone.

 

[Ikki]

Look, we are trying to see if the rest of Australia's batsmen have a tougher time when Gilchrist plays or when Sachin plays. That is if Gilly plays instead of Sachin then they have to score 11 extra runs in 17 extra balls. The extra is key here - The question is not whether they can score 11 runs off 17 balls. It is whether they can score 11 extra runs off 17 extra balls. So we have to see if need to be better batsmen to make up these 11 extra runs off 17 extra balls. The point to note is - This is not a question of whether they can score 11 off 17 in some match. It's a question of whether they can do it match after match i.e. their averages need to be higher by 11 (in sum).

You're not making an iota of sense here for me mate. No one's average needs to be 11 runs higher. Tendulkar scores an extra 11 runs, Gilchrist saves an extra 17 balls. That's all you need to appreciate. Neither do both. Not every batsman is guaranteed to score what they average or strike what they usually do. Or how do you know they already haven't added the extra runs (in sum), in the records? They obviously have. The problem is only in the likelihood of them needing to score those extra runs, how likely is it they are to do it in 17 balls - very likely.

If the difference between the two teams were Gilchrist's inning and Sachin's inning. It is a team getting 17 more balls to score 11 more runs. The team can do that only needing to strike the 11 runs at 64 SR. That is the point. Gilchrist makes it that much easier to score the runs because of the balls he saves. What Gilchrist's innings does further is allow the team to make even more runs than that if they are the ones setting the score.

Now this is just if hey score their average amounts. Once they get going, Gilchrist is more dominant. For example, every time Gilchrist scores a century, Australia win 100% of the time. Everytime, Tendulkar scores a century, they only win 71% of the time. This is based on a team's ability to support these scores of course, but not entirely as no other Australian has this century record either.

Now, to show the effect of replacing Gilchrist with Tendulkar we can look at another way. Tendulkar's extra contribution is as you said 11(17). So replacing Gilchrist with Tendulkar is equivalent to replacing Ponting with a batsman who averages 55 at a SR of 76.4. So the batting line-up is clearly benefitted greatly by this. If on the contrary Tendulkar's extra contribution had been only 2 off 10 balls then Ponting would be replaced by a batsman averaging 46 but having a SR off only 70. In such a case Gilchrist would be the superior bat.

Your whole example seems wrong. You keep assuming that Australia only have 1 batsmen to make up the difference. They have 10 others. And it's not a question of 'could' they as they had been doing that throughout Gilchrist's career. The question should address the likelihood of scoring 11 runs in 17 balls and that alone.

 

[Sanz]

Again, with the reading comprehension...where does my post clearly suggest I am talking about ODI? In fact, the post I quote refers to Ponting's poor record in India - Tests.

You quoted a post that wasn't talking about ODIs/Tests specific, it was just comparing them as batsman and if you participate in the discussion, it will be assumed as such.

What does it matter what it was comparing them as anyway? Neither have had a decline in ODI and have similar age. The only reason Tendulkar has better aggregate figures is because he played more. What does that thread have to do with anything?

I have shown quite emphatically that even at equal no. of ODIs SRT has better stats, not just as an opener but overall. And that post was just to sugges how you change your statements based on what you want to prove.

There doesn't have to be another guarantee. Hadlee only played 86 Tests to McGrath's 124. Doesn't make McGrath better simply because he took more wickets because he played more nor do we question Hadlee on his record because he played 38 less Tests.

Wrong. Mcgrath doesn't trump Hadlee in all categories. Despite playing 38 less tests Hadlee has more 5ers and 10'ers. If Hadlee played as many tests as Mcgrath, he would take almost 60 wickets more than Mcgrath did. Whereas this is not true in Ponting's case. He would still score less 100s than Tendulkar even if he played 400 ODIs.(As demonstrated earlier, in equal no. of ODIs SRT has 7 more 100s).

Yes, Ponting's record could go worse - as could Tendulkar's - but if he were to retire tomorrow he'd have a completely sound record with no ifs and buts about him having played more 298 ODI is not a small sample.

Once again wrong - It has been proven that Tendulkar's record has not become worse even after his peak. Ponting's is at best unproven. Even @ 298 Ponting doesn't have a better record than Tendulkar. Once again you are making the assumption that Ponting is retiring tomorrow, because he is not.
Even if he did a Player with 42 100s in 400+ matches is >>>>> a player with 26 in 300 matches.

What does it matter how many more centuries Tendulkar had then or now anyway? That's like saying Hayden is better than Tendulkar because he scores more centuries per inning than Sachin (in tests of course). Their run average is the balancer. If a player scores a 100 in every innings but one scores 200 in every other innings it is still an average of 100.

??? Tendulkar has more 100s, more runs, high SR, higher consistency etc etc. No it is not a blalancer. Hayden Vs. Tendulkar is really a joke, it is not even a fair comparison in any format of game.

Sachin post 2000 (where he has been declining in Tests, if you're referring to that thread) actually averages even more but his proportion of centuries very slightly falls.

That thread talks in general not partcularly about ODIs. SRT's decline has been obvious and this has definetly affected his scoring in every format of the game. That he has still maintained that high average is a credit to him.

This is like saying Tendulkar's first 78 ODI innings = 0 centuries and Ponting had 5 centuries. Ignoring that Tendulkar would later do better. Which also serves to ask, how do you know Ponting won't get better?

Becaues @ no. 3 he gets plenty of opportunities to bat and If he were any better than his stats suggest then he would have demonstrated it with higher average. Batting lower also has the opportunity of remaining not out and hence helping your average. Ponting doesn't have that and has lower average than Tendulkar.

It's mere conjecture on your part and the only relevance is judging their records as they stand.

That's what I am doing. You are the one who is bringing Ifs and Buts. You are the one who is claiming that If Ponting had played 400, he would have done so and so. What you are doing is pure speculation based on Ponting performance upto his peak. I am merely suggesting that it is not a fair assumption to make.

Well, 37 is a good average. But an SR of 98 to go with it is what makes it unbelievable.

37 is not a Good average, The only reason it is considered good because Gilly has a higher SR and also because he is a wicketkeeper. It is a good average for a WicketKeeper Batsman, but not for a regular batsman.

its acceptable esp in an era where averaging 40 is pretty common. It is a good average only when you add the SR. ( I am assuming that you are counting Gilly's perrformance only as an opener).

Tendulkar's avg as an opener is just exceptional and he blows away pretty much everyone except IVA.

SR is only really valuable when the player keeps a good average. It makes the likelihood of that player getting those runs in that pace all the more.

There you go again...

Yes, it is to "score as many runs as fast as they can". As aforesaid, it is a balancing act. The more you want to score the less likely you are to do it fast and the faster you score the less likely you are to score more. This is ODI where "fast enough" only relates to the runs you score. In Tests, an SR of 50 is fast enough because there are so many balls and so much time. In ODI, it's the exact opposite.

No. 'Fast enough' mean that With Tendulkar's SR the total score in a 50 over game would be around 260 which is more than the Average ODI score of the that were made by winning teams in last 20 years. With Gilly's SR you would have a chance of making a higher score but also the risk of losing more wickets.

The example you provide may hold true, but is an isolated case. As I explain earlier, Tendulkar and Gilchrist are different batsmen, different openers, who had different roles. The primary role and concern of Gilchrist was to score and do it fast and for Tendulkar it was to score more and do it relatively fast.

And Tendulkar did both and with great effect. There you go. Finally you see the light. That's the reason Tendulkar is easily the better. He is proven in both cases. Gilchrist isn't proven where his primary role is to score more and build the innings.

That explains it more. I rate Bevan and Richards above the rest.

It still cannot denigrate Ponting's own awesome propensity to score 100s.

No one is denigerating Ponting. but just stating that Ponting wouldn't make more 100s or as many runs even if he played as many ODIs as SRT.

That's an arbitrary take. You are simply taking no. of ODIs as the main factor again. Tendulkar himself didn't score a 100 till his 79th ODI. It shows he was a different player before and after that. Some do it earlier, some later. Only looking overall will you fairly discern their propensity to score. Your take assumes they are the same player regardless when they played.

He was not a different player, he was just not batting at the right position. Once he moved there, he was just a different batsman. Even recently when SRT was made to bat in the middle order, he wasn't as prolific.

Yeah, it's not like Ponting hasn't faced the new ball and all the other factors you mentioned.

Facing it once in a while and facing it everytime is a different proposition, ask Rahul Dravid.

The biggest difference is that if the openers do well (which they do quite a bit of the time for Australia) and score a century, it makes it that much harder for Ponting to do so. Seeing as the difference is only 3 centuries. I find it astounding, considering the success of Gilchrist/Hayden/others that it is only 3.

It's 7, after 298 matches. But as usual I can see how you have been harping on no. 3. you make it sound as SRT was batting in a team of Schoolboys. Jesus, he had guys who were scoring runs like anything and more prolific than the likes of Gilchrist and Hayden. SRT not only outscored them but did at a much higher SR.

Nope. That's your cop out margin.

I know you can not beat that argument, so you take your usual route of BS.

Haha, a tinge of Richard in there. "No he won't, no he can't". Not interested in what you think he would do, more interested in what is likely.

If you are going to make idiotic assumptions, thats what you are going to get. I couldn't care less about how Richard posts, because I have forgotten how he posts.

And how would he not? Thanks, I'd love to hear you explain this one.

\

Ponting would score less total runs, less 100s at lower SR. It has been explained enough no. of times.

I don't really care to convince you. The rest of your diatribe has convinced me you are only convinced of yourself. You can't prove it or even argue in a way that makes sense at least, so I am destined to disagree.

You can't convince me about your illogical and biased suggestions. I dont have a problem if someone makes an argument with open and unbiased mind. You certainly do not. Only thing you do is continously deride players based on your bias and double standards. You have one standard for the players you like and other for players you do not.

Who said it was just WCs? Tendulkar has faced Kenya 10 times averaging 100 against them. Kenya itself lifts Tendulkar's average. So he averages about the same as Ponting without Kenya and more than him (less than a run) because of them. Wow, great difference.

Why should I take Kenya out of the equation ? Because it benefits Pontig ? It has been shown that you can lose against minnows too if you didn't take them seriously. It is certainly a problem in Ponting's performance if he can't handle lesser players or teams.

Artistically, obviously and universally. Haha, great argument.

Imran = Legend. Wasim = Silver medal. Okay.

As usual you are back to bull****ting when can not counter my argument. My views on Imran and Akram are pretty well known.

Wrong. I see both sides of that argument. You gave me one and I said "I can rebut with...'. It doesn't make the argument any more black or white. You simply cannot separate the two by much.

Its clear you do not see the other side of the argument. Statistically SRT is ahead of Ponting in pretty much every category and he is ahead artistically too.

You mention VB finals as something that compares to a WC final. It doesn't. There is no pressure in a VB final like there is a WC final. The only similarity is that they are both called finals. For what it's worth I think a quarter or semi in the WC carries more pressure than a VB final.

There you go putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that VB series finals is same sa WC finals ? You are the one who is picking one over the other to suit your argument. I am just using the finals. So far all you have done is pick and chose performance , because otherwise your whole pressure argument doesn't look very well.

As I said before, there is a difference in performing in the Carling Cup final or performing in the Champions League final - or World Cup final for that matter.

A final is a final. Tendulkar and the Indian team clearly mentioned how much VB series win meant for them. And for you to come here and denigerate the value of that final win is just pure BS.

Wrong, he only had 30 winning centuries in 407 innings. Check the facts/stats yourself.

Check the bold part. He has 42 centuries in 407 matches (where you claimed 30 in 407 and in the same sentence mentioned 26 in 298). 30 of those have been winning one out 200 odd wins for India. Obviously his Centuries have won India more than Ponting. who has only 22 in 200 odd wins.

Yes you can. Whilst it is more likely that you will have more not outs it is not that much so that it will make a difference when comparing an opener and a #3. This is not tests where all 10 wickets have to be taken. A lot of the times they aren't.

So do you accept that Ponting's average is boosted by his not outs because he comes lower in the order ? And that said, how i

Whereas centuries scored by openers will greatly reduce the number chances of centuries scored by a #3.

Same thing will happen if your other partner is scoring as well as you, In SRT's case Ganguly was doing the same thing.

Here, you've proved again that you don't understand the argument. Sourav Ganguly will not inhibit Tendulkar from scoring a ton as they bat together - opening. Whereas Ponting is on the bench when Hayden or Gilchrist or some other batsman is in.

He will because he is a fluent scorer. Hayden and Gilchrist will stop Ponting only if both of them are batting and scoring heavily at the same time, which is rarely the case. Besides, it will also improve Ponting's Not out Chances hence boost his average. So either ponting has higher average of or more 100s, if he is as good. Ponting has neither, and add to the fact that he scores at lower SR.

 

[shankar]

The problem is that you're not able to understand the mathematical implication of your way of analysis.

Tendulkar scores an extra 11 runs, Gilchrist saves an extra 17 balls. That's all you need to appreciate. Neither do both.

Nope. Gilchrist doesn't save any balls - Remember you are subtracting his average from Tendulkar's. IF Tendulkar plays he equals Gilchrist's contribution and takes 17 additional balls to score 11 extra runs.The question is whether this is desirable or not.

Not every batsman is guaranteed to score what they average or strike what they usually do. Or how do you know they already haven't added the extra runs (in sum), in the records? They obviously have. The problem is only in the likelihood of them needing to score those extra runs, how likely is it they are to do it in 17 balls - very likely.

Well that's obvious isn't it? I was just following you method of analysis where you take a representative inning of each batsman.

If the difference between the two teams were Gilchrist's inning and Sachin's inning. It is a team getting 17 more balls to score 11 more runs. The team can do that only needing to strike the 11 runs at 64 SR. That is the point. Gilchrist makes it that much easier to score the runs because of the balls he saves. What Gilchrist's innings does further is allow the team to make even more runs than that if they are the ones setting the score.

This is where you fail to appreciate the implications. We are comparing two teams with only Sachin in place of Gilchrist. The rest of the team has already played to the limit of its capability. Now it has to make 11 extra runs from 17 extra balls. So the question is are they capable of this. You need to check this by splitting it into contributions from each member and see if the batsmen can improve their averages if they are allowed lower strike-rates. This is not easy since increasing one's average is not a given. By saying it only boils down to scoring 11 (17) you are missing the implication of the method of analysis.

Now this is just if hey score their average amounts. Once they get going, Gilchrist is more dominant. For example, every time Gilchrist scores a century, Australia win 100% of the time. Everytime, Tendulkar scores a century, they only win 71% of the time. This is based on a team's ability to support these scores of course, but not entirely as no other Australian has this century record either.

There's nothing shown here that we didn't know already i.e. Australia is a better team than India.

Your whole example seems wrong. You keep assuming that Australia only have 1 batsmen to make up the difference. They have 10 others. And it's not a question of 'could' they as they had been doing that throughout Gilchrist's career. The question should address the likelihood of scoring 11 runs in 17 balls and that alone.

Forget about this whole method of seeing if difference can be made up. I offer an easier method to compare the two:


Tendulkar 48(54)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting 44(55)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

is equivalent to

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting* 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

(By distributing Tendulkar's extra contribution to Ponting)

>

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting 44(55)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

 

[Ikki]

You quoted a post that wasn't talking about ODIs/Tests specific, it was just comparing them as batsman and if you participate in the discussion, it will be assumed as such.

I quoted him with regards to Tests as that is what the thread was about. Is there any mention of ODI in the entire thread?

Even if there was, what are you trying to get out?

It's funny that the post I mention clearly talks about his trough in Tests, as there is no trough in ODIs. But you and your reading again...

I have shown quite emphatically that even at equal no. of ODIs SRT has better stats, not just as an opener but overall. And that post was just to sugges how you change your statements based on what you want to prove.

You've assumed that they are the same players given the same amount of ODIs. It's wrong to assume as such. Gary Sobers took 93 tests to get 26 centuries and in the same amount of tests Hayden got 30. Doesn't make Hayden better nor does it mean if Sobers were to play more he'd start doing worse.

Essentially, you made no sense. If you are going to extrapolate, extrapolate based on what you know. Not what you are guessing at.

Wrong. Mcgrath doesn't trump Hadlee in all categories. Despite playing 38 less tests Hadlee has more 5ers and 10'ers. If Hadlee played as many tests as Mcgrath, he would take almost 60 wickets more than Mcgrath did. Whereas this is not true in Ponting's case. He would still score less 100s than Tendulkar even if he played 400 ODIs.(As demonstrated earlier, in equal no. of ODIs SRT has 7 more 100s).

That doesn't matter an iota. Hadlee did so because he had no competition for wickets. Average and SR - these kinds of ratios - are the only ones that will reflect individual performance.

Or how about this, if you didn't like that example: Ponting not only averages more than Tendulkar in Tests he strikes better too. Therefore Ponting is a legend and Tendulkar is a silver medalist?

Your logic is a joke. 1 run or 1 less ball does not make one better than another player.

Once again wrong - It has been proven that Tendulkar's record has not become worse even after his peak. Ponting's is at best unproven. Even @ 298 Ponting doesn't have a better record than Tendulkar. Once again you are making the assumption that Ponting is retiring tomorrow, because he is not.
Even if he did a Player with 42 100s in 400+ matches is >>>>> a player with 26 in 300 matches.

Once again, poor reading comprehension. The entire premise of that point is that Tendulkar did NOT see a trough in his record. Ponting is "at best" unproven"

The only reason Tendulkar has played more matches is because he has been around longer. That's it. They even play roughly the same amount of ODI per year.

And it doesn't matter if Ponting retires 10 years from now. The argument is regarding them as they stand now. You are extrapolating Ponting's form based on nothing more than 'guesswork'. Silly, silly mistake.

??? Tendulkar has more 100s, more runs, high SR, higher consistency etc etc. No it is not a blalancer. Hayden Vs. Tendulkar is really a joke, it is not even a fair comparison in any format of game.

Care to explain why? On your shoddy logic a player who has a higher proportion of centuries to matches played is the superior player. Hence Hayden is a superior test player to both Ponting and Tendulkar. Format doesn't make a difference at all.

That thread talks in general not partcularly about ODIs. SRT's decline has been obvious and this has definetly affected his scoring in every format of the game. That he has still maintained that high average is a credit to him.

You just said in the above that Tendulkar hasn't dropped in form in ODI - and that's right he actually hasn't. In fact, he averages more runs per inning post 2000 (46) but has a slightly less great record in his 100s per innings. I'm just showing you how wrong you are.

Becaues @ no. 3 he gets plenty of opportunities to bat and If he were any better than his stats suggest then he would have demonstrated it with higher average. Batting lower also has the opportunity of remaining not out and hence helping your average. Ponting doesn't have that and has lower average than Tendulkar.

Average is different. Ponting gets enough chances to average above Tendulkar. That wasn't the contention. The point was if Gilchrist/Hayden/Openers get a century, it makes it less likely that Ponting would also get a century. Whereas having 1 more wicket in hand is not as big of an impediment to getting not outs - simply because all you have to do is keep your own wicket and unlike tests not all wickets have to be taken.

Two centuries by two individuals in an innings does not occur often.

Out of Ponting's 288 innings not opening; he makes 26 centuries, only 5 occur when an opener has made one as well.

Out of Tendulkar's 112 innings not opening; he makes 4 centuries, none occuring when an opener has made one as well.

That's what I am doing. You are the one who is bringing Ifs and Buts. You are the one who is claiming that If Ponting had played 400, he would have done so and so. What you are doing is pure speculation based on Ponting performance upto his peak. I am merely suggesting that it is not a fair assumption to make.

Completely wrong. If you think so then you have no grasp on even simple statistics.

I am not judging Ponting by his peak, but by his whole career. Likewise Tendulkar.

You saying Tendulkar has scored x amount of runs more than Ponting is as relevant as saying Tendulkar has scored x amount of runs more than Bradman. The only reason to that is more matches resulting in more runs for Tendulkar. HOW we know Bradman is that much better is on average. This ratio is all that matters, aggregate runs tells you nothing by itself.

37 is not a Good average, The only reason it is considered good because Gilly has a higher SR and also because he is a wicketkeeper. It is a good average for a WicketKeeper Batsman, but not for a regular batsman.
its acceptable esp in an era where averaging 40 is pretty common. It is a good average only when you add the SR. ( I am assuming that you are counting Gilly's perrformance only as an opener).

Average wicket in the last 18 years is worth 27 runs on average and the average opener is worth 32 runs. 37 runs on average is a good solid average. If it was this and had a low SR, then it would not be passable for a side like Australia. You're right in that his high SR makes up for it. But that's the whole effort with regards to Gilchrist: his speed.

However, average alone is not key. I don't care if 10 players average 40 but have an SR of 70. That's simply not good compared to Gilchrist. There are only a handful of batsmen that average in the 40s and have a good SR to make Gilchrist's 37 merely seem good.

There you go again...

Considering your whole argument is littered with mistakes, I'd really like to know why the above got a rolleyes there.

No. 'Fast enough' mean that With Tendulkar's SR the total score in a 50 over game would be around 260 which is more than the Average ODI score of the that were made by winning teams in last 20 years. With Gilly's SR you would have a chance of making a higher score but also the risk of losing more wickets.

Balls > Wickets.

And Tendulkar did both and with great effect. There you go. Finally you see the light. That's the reason Tendulkar is easily the better. He is proven in both cases. Gilchrist isn't proven where his primary role is to score more and build the innings.

Er, no he isn't. When Gilchrist gets going and scores he guarantees a win. Not close.

Gilchrist's role never had to be one like Tendulkar's. Whether he is proven or not, there is a big case when pointing to his Test career: average of 47 with an SR of 80. And don't tell me we shouldn't look at that simply because it's Tests...because in Test's there is even less need to score faster.

No one is denigerating Ponting. but just stating that Ponting wouldn't make more 100s or as many runs even if he played as many ODIs as SRT.

He doesn't have to score as many runs or play as many matches as SRT. He's done enough already. The fact that he comes in at #3 yet is within striking distance of Tendulkar's 100s/inning shows that he would be closer if not better than Tendulkar had he had more chances. Still, there is a long way to go for Ponting and he may end up overtaking it as we dialogue here.

He was not a different player, he was just not batting at the right position. Once he moved there, he was just a different batsman. Even recently when SRT was made to bat in the middle order, he wasn't as prolific.

Er, hence, he was a different player. Just for a very explainable reason. Some players learn the game fast and some slow. Some are better in different positions. The problem with your arbitrary "when they both played 289 innings" is that sometimes players start better, sometimes they finish better and it's neither here nor there. So the only fair front is looking at it overall. That way you are not doing any guesswork.

Facing it once in a while and facing it everytime is a different proposition, ask Rahul Dravid.

Rahul Dravid is not fit to lace Ponting's ODI boots whether as an opener or otherwise.

There are only so many times that Hayden or Gilchrist will wear down the new ball and etc, and that number really won't exceed 50. That's about 200+ innings of facing what you're talking about. I think Ponting would have done fine.

It's 7, after 298 matches. But as usual I can see how you have been harping on no. 3. you make it sound as SRT was batting in a team of Schoolboys. Jesus, he had guys who were scoring runs like anything and more prolific than the likes of Gilchrist and Hayden. SRT not only outscored them but did at a much higher SR.

You've also seemed to miss this point. It is not about players AROUND Ponting scoring runs making it less likely - that was not the contention. It is about players ABOVE Ponting making runs, facing balls before he even gets onto the pitch. When players above you are making centuries and facing more balls then it does make scoring that century after they have much harder.

Tendulkar does not have this problem because he opens. Whether batsmen coming after him are capable too does not matter: he is going to be in there with them with enough time. Granted, there is not such a great difference because Ponting can still make the centuries (as he obviously has) but not to the same degree as Tendulkar which would go someway to explain their difference.

I know you can not beat that argument, so you take your usual route of BS.

Your point was BS. You don't even understand that matches - the 298 you point to - is not the relevant criteria but INNINGS are. You fall flat before your foot touches the ground.

If you are going to make idiotic assumptions, thats what you are going to get. I couldn't care less about how Richard posts, because I have forgotten how he posts.

Your whole argument is...nevermind.

Ponting would score less total runs, less 100s at lower SR. It has been explained enough no. of times.

Yeah, but not once making any sense.

You can't convince me about your illogical and biased suggestions. I dont have a problem if someone makes an argument with open and unbiased mind. You certainly do not. Only thing you do is continously deride players based on your bias and double standards. You have one standard for the players you like and other for players you do not.

The irony of this coming from you. You are biased and you have different standards. Mr. Imran is a Legend and Wasim is a Silver medalist.

Why should I take Kenya out of the equation ? Because it benefits Pontig ? It has been shown that you can lose against minnows too if you didn't take them seriously. It is certainly a problem in Ponting's performance if he can't handle lesser players or teams.

Yeah but while on one hand someone is arguing that Ponting is proven in finals, you are countering that with Ponting is unproven against Kenya.

Pardon me, but the comparison is utter tosh.

As usual you are back to bull****ting when can not counter my argument. My views on Imran and Akram are pretty well known.

If that is bull****ting? Then that is YOUR argument. You said it does not matter if a player is fractionally better in SR and average. That is ALL you cared about. I was the one who said 1 point on average or 1 point on SR does not settle the debate any way. YOU said one is a legend the other is a silver medalist.

Considering you reckon Wasim a better bowler than Imran, that is highly hypocritical as Imran not only averages less than Wasim but strikes better too.

Its clear you do not see the other side of the argument. Statistically SRT is ahead of Ponting in pretty much every category and he is ahead artistically too.

See, there you go again. Statistically 1 run more and less ball. WHAT A DIFFERENCE! Oh, I forgot to mention ARTISTICALLY TOO!

There you go putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that VB series finals is same sa WC finals ? You are the one who is picking one over the other to suit your argument. I am just using the finals. So far all you have done is pick and chose performance , because otherwise your whole pressure argument doesn't look very well.

You quoted the VB finals statistics as if it measured against the WC ones. So anyone reading that would be under the assumption that you are trying to hold it of value against it.

I know you are using finals, that is what I said you were doing. What you were not doing was looking at the reason I rate the WC final over VB finals. You said I was picking and choosing. You're lost mate.

A final is a final. Tendulkar and the Indian team clearly mentioned how much VB series win meant for them. And for you to come here and denigerate the value of that final win is just pure BS.

WHAT?! Didn't you just say in the above you are saying the VB final is NOT comparable to the WC Final? Now you are saying "final is a final"? Do you enjoy making your argument look silly?

Check the bold part. He has 42 centuries in 407 matches (where you claimed 30 in 407 and in the same sentence mentioned 26 in 298). 30 of those have been winning one out 200 odd wins for India. Obviously his Centuries have won India more than Ponting. who has only 22 in 200 odd wins.

LOL when I posted those figures I quoted YOUR post talking about centuries in matches won.

Your method of calculating it is also incorrect. No match is decided from the start so you have to include all matches. No match is also won DIRECTLY because of a century, so you cannot only include matches won.

So the only stat you can say for sure is that out of 407 innings, Tendulkar played 30 match winning centuries. And out of 289 innings, Ponting played 22 match winning centuries. As mentioned previously: Ponting wins in this regard.

So do you accept that Ponting's average is boosted by his not outs because he comes lower in the order ? And that said, how i

It's likely to help but there is no automatic way about it. If we take not outs out altogether, Tendulkar averages 40 and Ponting averages 38. One run difference than their overall career record. Whoop-di-doo.

Same thing will happen if your other partner is scoring as well as you, In SRT's case Ganguly was doing the same thing.

Wrong. When you're on the field you can dictate it - at least to some degree. When you are on the bench, you cannot dictate anything.

And if players around you scoring more affected your chance of getting centuries then Ponting is clearly ahead in this facet.

He will because he is a fluent scorer. Hayden and Gilchrist will stop Ponting only if both of them are batting and scoring heavily at the same time, which is rarely the case. Besides, it will also improve Ponting's Not out Chances hence boost his average. So either ponting has higher average of or more 100s, if he is as good. Ponting has neither, and add to the fact that he scores at lower SR.

If Gilchrist and Hayden only score at their averages that deprives Ponting at least 15 overs. It takes him 20 overs at his own SR to make 100 runs. That means there will only be left 15 overs for the other 7 batsmen. 2 overs each. You're kidding, right?

 

[Spinksy]

Michael Bevan imo.

 

[Ikki]

Well that's obvious isn't it? I was just following you method of analysis where you take a representative inning of each batsman.

That's simply to isolate 1 pair of batsmen and seeing how that would affect the team - what they could and would likely be able to do. Assuming everybody else would take the same average disregarding that a whole different approach is taken (different openers) serves to lose the route. How do you know, for example, that Ponting wouldn't average less but strike higher if it were someone like Tendulkar opening?

This is where you fail to appreciate the implications. We are comparing two teams with only Sachin in place of Gilchrist. The rest of the team has already played to the limit of its capability. Now it has to make 11 extra runs from 17 extra balls. So the question is are they capable of this. You need to check this by splitting it into contributions from each member and see if the batsmen can improve their averages if they are allowed lower strike-rates. This is not easy since increasing one's average is not a given. By saying it only boils down to scoring 11 (17) you are missing the implication of the method of analysis.

No, it actually is quite easy. The general assumption is: the more time you have the more runs you are able to score off.

What you're saying can also apply for two players where one makes 5 more runs but takes 30 balls more too. And then you say, it is not a given that the rest of the batsmen will score those 5 runs more even if they do have more time.

Now, we are talking only 11 runs and 17 balls difference here. Both very doable and one does not outweigh the other. If using the same ratios we got a difference of 22 runs and 34 balls, then I'd say even though it is doable, the amount of runs made by the two players is getting too far apart to equally compare one player with the other.

Forget about this whole method of seeing if difference can be made up. I offer an easier method to compare the two:


Tendulkar 48(54)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting 44(55)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

is equivalent to

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting* 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

(By distributing Tendulkar's extra contribution to Ponting)

>

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting 44(55)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

Again, you keep bringing the difference down to 1 player. It can be the rest of the 9 wickets Australia still has in hand to make the difference. That's why Gilchrist opens and bats the way he does and not at #7, for example - so that the rest have plenty of chances to make it up if not score more.

 

[shankar]

That's simply to isolate 1 pair of batsmen and seeing how that would affect the team - what they could and would likely be able to do. Assuming everybody else would take the same average disregarding that a whole different approach is taken (different openers) serves to lose the route. How do you know, for example, that Ponting wouldn't average less but strike higher if it were someone like Tendulkar opening?

That is exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to see if remaining players in a team played after Gilchrist instead of Tendulkar what is the extent of the adjustment they'd have to make and if it is within their reach. For example if a batsman averages 42 with a SR of 75, you could say that maybe if had batted at a SR of 70 he could have averaged 43.

No, it actually is quite easy. The general assumption is: the more time you have the more runs you are able to score off.

Wrong. You are wrongly assuming that players' average is limited by the balls they get to face. For example Ganguly's average is not constrained by the fact that he only faces a certain number of balls per inning since he doesn't carry the bat in 99% of his innings. He has more balls available to play. But he cannot play more balls because at the SR he scores at he can only last a certain number of balls. So the only way he can play more balls is by lowering his SR. If he was actually constrained in terms of balls faced then he would remain not-out which would be reflected in his average.

Hence a batsman's average is constrained by his ability to score runs at a given Strike-rate. To score more runs, he needs to lower his strike-rate. So the question of can Ponting make up for 3 extra runs if he faces 5 extra balls is not solved by saying "3/5 = 60% which is slower than his normal SR., so of course he can". The question translates to "Is he capable of averaging 47 (44+3) if he is allowed a lower strike-rate of 78.33 [47/(55+5)]".

Again, you keep bringing the difference down to 1 player. It can be the rest of the 9 wickets Australia still has in hand to make the difference. That's why Gilchrist opens and bats the way he does and not at #7, for example - so that the rest have plenty of chances to make it up if not score more.

The method I outlined has nothing to do with making up differences. I'm just distributing Tendulkar's influence to two players and creating an equivalent line-up.

In what way is the second line-up not equivalent to the first? Remember this is not an actual match scenario. So I'm not saying this is how it would pan out in a match. I'm simply finding a mathematical equivalent of a line-up with Tendulkar in it in terms of another line-up.

Tendulkar 48(54)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting 44(55)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

=

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
Ponting* 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

 

[Sanz]

If Gilchrist and Hayden only score at their averages that deprives Ponting at least 15 overs. It takes him 20 overs at his own SR to make 100 runs. That means there will only be left 15 overs for the other 7 batsmen. 2 overs each. You're kidding, right?

Wrong. The fact is that Off the 289 innings, in 254 innings Ponting didn't last long enough to have that argument work in his favor. In Completed Innings Ponting takes 13.4 matches to score a 100.

Whereas in completed innings SRT scores a 100 every 12.7 games.

In Not out Innings also, SRT scores at faster rate and and has more centuries despite the fact that Out of 38 incomplete innings, he played only 20 as an opener and has a ridiculous 10 100s and and 7 50s at a SR close to 100.