Best ODI batsman?

[LongHopCassidy]

Longest and least conclusive page in CW history? Beggars belief.

 

[biased indian]

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.

who argued about tendulkars performance in world cup finals compared to ponting..when clearly they had not played the same amount of game

 

[SJS]

I know why Richard voted for Ashish Nehra.

He is the only international batsman whose 'first chance" average is the same as his 'normal' average.

 

[Sanz]

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...

And your complete turn around.

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.

No, it doesn't make Hayden better, it never will. Dont even know the significance of this, it smacks of your inability to make a case for Ponting as good as Tendulkar., Hence jumping from Imran, to Akram to Hadlee to Mcgrath and now to Sobers. No wonder you are not talking about Hadlee/Mcgrath example. You were simply owned ther.

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

Only person who has been guessing is You. You are the one who has been saying that the only reason SRT has more runs and 100s because he has played more. So why does he have better Strike Rare ? (See I can add smiles too)

Beside I have clearly demonstrated that equal no. of ODIs SRT had 7 more 100s than Ponting.

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.

What a disgrace of the logic the above is, another one of your attempts to denigrate the great bowler. Kapil didn't have much competition either, why wasn't he as prolific. Hadlee took all those wickets because he was that good. He would have taken those wickets.

Anyways, shattering another one your myths that Mcgrath didn't take those 5ers/10ers because he had competition from another prolific wicket taker i.e. Shane Warne. Pigeon's 26 5ers(out of 29) and 2 10ers (out of 3) have come when he played with Warne.

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?

Please tell me how you got the SR of SRT in tests. No SRT has been over the hill in the longer format of the game for last 4 years. Ponting is at his peak. Once again you dont get the point. In any case you continue to prove my point about crapping all over when you dont have much to say. Tendulkar was a legend before he played a single test match, ponting was a drunkard until 2000. That's the difference between the two. One is genius and a gentleman, the other is a genius and a crackpot.

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

It does. Tendulkar will score more runs at a faster rate, hence better Statistically.

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

He did not ? Are you blind or have you been away from the earth since 2004 ? Tendulkar Since 2004 has scored only 5 100s in 96 games and particularly struggled in 2004 and 2005. Yes Ponting's performance past his peak is not known yet, although I am sensing that it is closer now.

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.

The reason that Tendulkar has played more matches is because he has been able to contribute at a decent rate despite not being able to contribute those big 100s.

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.

Once again, only guess work that is being done here is by you, claiming that Ponting will make as many runs and centuries as SRT if he played as many matches. It has been shown enough times that in 298 matches Ponting had less runs, less 100s, lesser SR.

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.

Hayden as good as he is, isn't good enough to wipe Tendulkar's shoes. Even at his peak, he is averaging less than SRT. Case closed. Not even considering any other argument.

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.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. SRT has clearly been over the hill but has still been able to maintain the average in ODIs. That's the reason why he is so much better than the likes of Ponting, who are yet to see the fall of their caree.

I'm just showing you how wrong you are.

Where ? All you have shown so far is your own bias and hypocrisy.

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.

????? Makes no sense whatsoever.

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

And ? Already explained how that argument works in favor of SRT.

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.

This is Hillarious really, considering that of those 112, 41 innings have been 5 or lower down the order. You are really worse than

@ no. 4 SRT has batte in 61 innings, has 4 100s. Compared to Ponting's 1 100 in 17 games, once again Tendulkar scores 1 every 15, Ponting 1 in 17.

Between No.s 5-7 SRT has played 41 matches and scored 5 50s as opposed to Ponting who has none in 12 matches played. Clearly more prolific batting down the order as well.

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.

Once again, you do not understand simple logic and hence another incorrect analogy. Bradman doesn't have a lower average than SRT in Tests.

Ponting who doesn't match Tendulkar at his peak isn't likely to match him at the end of his career in pretty much any category as an ODI batsman.

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.

His speed and his wicket keeping ability makes him a good bargain, otherwise he is just another ODI batsman. Purely as an opener, he is not even comparable to the likes of Mark Waugh, who was much superior player.

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.

I dont care what you care. Gilchrist isn't better than SRT just because he scores his runs faster. Gilchrist is a good value as a batsman because of his wicket keeping skills. As a batsman alone he wouldn't have found a place in the Aussie XI.

Balls > Wickets.

Nonsense. There are only 10 wickets to lose, but there are 300 balls to score off. If you miss one ball no big deal, you have the chance to score at least 6 runs off the next ball.

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

No, He doesn't.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/291370.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66365.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66137.html

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 relevance to this discussion.

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.

Ponting will never be able to overtake SRT in ODIs. Neither in runs, nor in 100s. You heard it here first.

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.

And overall SRT comes out on TOP in every category.

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

That is the height of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to 'He gets less chances to score runs, 100s etc' logic ? Because If any batsman who can rightfully claim that he had to wait for his turn to bat, it would be him. SRT+ SG have 64 100s among them. Not to forget the fact that he was asked to keep wickets, asked to open, was treated like a bastard child of Indian cricket (in ODIs) and still scored 10500 runs and he is not fit enough to lave Ponting's boots and you claim that Gilchrist, Ponting etc are as good as SRT ?

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.

You have no moral right to make that argument after the Garbage you posted about Dravid's ODI career.

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.

Once again, you have lost the moral right to make that argument.

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.

Ponting will never be able to catch up SRT in no. of ODI 100s or Total no. of runs scored. He will never be able to match his SR either.

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.

I am standing tall. May be you should check where your head is.

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.

If I were biased I would have voted for SRT, you on the other voted for the Aussie and want other aussies to be considered as good as them when they simple aren't. SRT isn't even my favorite Indian player.

As for bringing Imran and Akram again in this discussion- You demonstrate that you have lost the argument.

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.

Ponting does worse than SRT in Finals. He also does worse than SRT against Kenya.

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.

Actually Silver medalist is giving too much credit. He comes on the 4th place. so no medals.

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.

I consider Wasim better than Imran and logically there can't be a fair statistical comparison, but if at all we are going to do that Imran will come out on top.

That said, the only reason I am quoting Statistics is to put you in your place. You have been harping about statistics far too long and this time I just thought of shoving the stats up yours.
Otherwise I am never one to look for stats when stating my opinion about players.

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

Yes, watching Tendulkar is much more pleasing than watching Gilchrist or Ponting.

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.

Once again you have got it wrong. I did not quote VB finals stats, I quoted GRAND FINALS stats which includes all the Grand Finals SRT and Ponting have plaeyed in. SRT clearly own Ponting in that category.

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 are picking and choosing.

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?

A final is a final is a final. VB finals may not have as much appeal as the WC finals, yet it is a final and that is a fact.

 

[Sanz]

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.

What nonsense. If Hayden OR Gilchrist are on the crease, obviously Ponting is there on the Crease too. Ponting is not there in the middle only when Both Hayden AND Gilchrist are there.

Apparently Hayden's and Gilchrist's presence helps Ponting's batting average. He has scored 15 of his 100s with both Hayden and Gilly in the team. He averages 49 with a SR of 85 in their presence in the XI. So your argument really falls flat that Ponting's no. of 100s are less because he has to wait for his turn to bat.

Out of 110 innings (with both Gilly and Hayden in the team) Ponting has 15 100s, i.e. a 100 every 7.3 innings. When there are not there, Ponting suffers.

Even with Mark Waugh and Gilchrist both in the team, Ponting's average, although not as good as the previous scenario(mainly due to the his maturity as a batsman than anything else), is still better than his over all average.

So your theory that Ponting suffers because of the openers falls flat.

 

[ret]

some nice points by Sankar and Sanz

 

[Ikki]

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.

But you are assuming they'd behave the same way despite the fact that they now have different openers. One that saves less balls and takes more runs.

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.

It IS limited by the number of balls the face. This is a fact. If you face 1 ball, the maximum amount of runs you can score is a 6. If you face 2 balls, the maximum you can score is 12. The point is not many people are capable of consistently scoring a 6. In ODI, players don't even score 1 run off 1 ball.

Now whether you are constrained by more balls does not mean you will stay not out. Because you HAVE to score more than the opposition. So you are FORCED to score more and hence if you are FORCED to score more per ball then you are less likely to score MORE per ball.

This is the problem with your model. You are assuming everybody else will behave as their averages do despite the difference in input (opener).

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, the question is not about Ponting but the whole team. The difference can be made up by a tailender if it wants. Most tailenders do not even get to bat. McGrath for example bats in only 1/4 of his innings. Or somebody like Bracken: the extra runs Tendulkar could be scoring could have been the extra runs Bracken would score had he had those extra balls.

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...

But that's the whole point: you are not finding an equivalent. It may be harder for a SINGLE Ponting to raise his average 11 points but that is given he faces 17 more balls. His own average is 43 so the likelihood of him doing it himself, is less. However, and fortunately, there are 9 other wickets to distribute the runs 11 runs and 17 balls. As I said before, by this measure you would rather a batsman that scores 5 more runs despite taking 30 more balls to do it because it seems Ponting is less likely to raise his career average by 5.

You said: 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

That's pretty much the point. Every other batsmen could raise their average by 1 or 1.5 LOL points and will get the ability to reduce their SR. A batsman who is asked to score 1 or 2 runs more given 3-4 balls is a much likelier occurrence then all the difference being made up on 1 batsman.

 

[Ikki]

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.

Haha, okay then let's do the match:

289-254 = 35 matches where he lasted long enough.

His career 100/inning record: 9%. 9% of 35 = 3.15 centuries...wow, coincidence.

 

[Ikki]

What nonsense. If Hayden OR Gilchrist are on the crease, obviously Ponting is there on the Crease too. Ponting is not there in the middle only when Both Hayden AND Gilchrist are there.

Apparently Hayden's and Gilchrist's presence helps Ponting's batting average. He has scored 15 of his 100s with both Hayden and Gilly in the team. He averages 49 with a SR of 85 in their presence in the XI. So your argument really falls flat that Ponting's no. of 100s are less because he has to wait for his turn to bat.

Out of 110 innings (with both Gilly and Hayden in the team) Ponting has 15 100s, i.e. a 100 every 7.3 innings. When there are not there, Ponting suffers.

Even with Mark Waugh and Gilchrist both in the team, Ponting's average, although not as good as the previous scenario(mainly due to the his maturity as a batsman than anything else), is still better than his over all average.

So your theory that Ponting suffers because of the openers falls flat.

Ponting has only scored 5 of his centuries when either Hayden Gilchrist made a century. Not even both.

LOL but because both are on the field at the same time they somehow attribute to Ponting scoring 15. You sure the other 9 aren't when either of those openers hadn't even debuted?

 

[Sanz]

Ponting has only scored 5 of his centuries when either Hayden Gilchrist made a century. Not even both.

And ?? Tendulkar has only 3 or 4 while opening with Ganguly and when Ganguly also scored a 100. 3/4 out of 25 Vs. 5 out of 26. So who has the advantage here ? Needless to mention that SRT used to be more prolific(when he opened with Sourav i.e. at his peak ) as well as faster and still hasn't had that advantage that seem to be claimed by you.

LOL but because both are on the field at the same time they somehow attribute to Ponting scoring 15. You sure the other 9 aren't when either of those openers hadn't even debuted?

I am not attributing anything besides clearing the myth that 'Ponting has to wait when Gilly/Hayden' are around. If that is so then how come he has scored more centuries with them in the team. When Giilly and Hayden have not played, Ponting has 2 100s in 40 ODIs, when they have played Ponting has 15 in 110 innings. How can one be more clear to you ? You are in consistent denial here.

And Yes, Ponting doesn't have to bat under that much pressure when Hayden and Gilchrist are there, one is scoring fast while the other is grafting.Obviously it helps him. Ponting without Hayden/Gilly Averages < 30 with SR <70. Whereas when he has Gilly and Hayden in the team His average goes up to 49 and SR close to 85.

Are you going to argue that Gilly/Hayden Presence doesn't help Ponting's batting in ODIs ?

 

[Sanz]

Haha, okay then let's do the match:

289-254 = 35 matches where he lasted long enough.

His career 100/inning record: 9%. 9% of 35 = 3.15 centuries...wow, coincidence.

The only coincidence I could see here is that he played for a better team.

 

[Ikki]

And your complete turn around.

Where was the turnaround? I am starting to believe that it's not a reading comprehension problem but an optical one. See an optometrist.

No, it doesn't make Hayden better, it never will. Dont even know the significance of this, it smacks of your inability to make a case for Ponting as good as Tendulkar., Hence jumping from Imran, to Akram to Hadlee to Mcgrath and now to Sobers. No wonder you are not talking about Hadlee/Mcgrath example. You were simply owned ther.

Haha, look at you squirm. I put the SAME criteria for your favourites and they fall flat on their face. But the same criteria SHOULD go for Ponting and Tendulkar because it happens to make Tendulkar's case stronger. What a biased git.

You said Tendulkar makes more 100s per inning so he is better than Ponting.

Hayden also makes more 100s per inning than Sachin so using your OWN criteria he is better. Thank you, when we discuss said players in somewhere else I'll be sure to note down that you consider both Wasim and Hayden superior to Imran and Tendulkar, respectively.

Only person who has been guessing is You. You are the one who has been saying that the only reason SRT has more runs and 100s because he has played more. So why does he have better Strike Rare ? (See I can add smiles too)

I am saying the only significance in the difference between Ponting's total runs and Tendulkar's is that Tendulkar has played more innings hence he will have more aggregate runs - even if he had a lower average.

This is exactly like saying Tendulkar > Bradman because Tendulkar has 11782 runs and Bradman has 6996. Yes, I know you sound silly.

Beside I have clearly demonstrated that equal no. of ODIs SRT had 7 more 100s than Ponting.

You proved nothing. Hayden also has more centuries than Sobers having played the same amount of tests. Doesn't make Hayden better than Sobers. Nor does it mean Sobers would start to perform worse off had he played the same amount of Tests as Hayden - because that was a part of your disgraceful diatribe that if Ponting plays more he WILL lose his form. Guesswork, anyone?

What a disgrace of the logic the above is, another one of your attempts to denigrate the great bowler. Kapil didn't have much competition either, why wasn't he as prolific. Hadlee took all those wickets because he was that good. He would have taken those wickets.

Ahh yes. But Kapil is not in the same league as Hadlee. He concedes many many more runs than Hadlee and also takes many more balls to dismiss a victim. So their ratios do not match for the comparison for 5/fers 10/fers to take shape. Murali also takes more 5/fers and 10/fers than anyone else. But that doesn't make him better than Lillee or Hadlee or McGrath. It's a simple by-product of playing in a team with no wicket-taking competition.

That's why you only judge him by his average/sr/er. Otherwise he is 4-5 times the bowler everybody else is. LOL

Anyways, shattering another one your myths that Mcgrath didn't take those 5ers/10ers because he had competition from another prolific wicket taker i.e. Shane Warne. Pigeon's 26 5ers(out of 29) and 2 10ers (out of 3) have come when he played with Warne.

You don't shatter anything except my windows with my laughter.

McGrath DID take 5fers and 10fers but relatively less than a whole lot of other bowlers like Waqar or Botham because Warne was on the end taking more. It doesn't make Waqar or Botham better than McGrath - the kind of reasoning you are bringing.

Please tell me how you got the SR of SRT in tests. No SRT has been over the hill in the longer format of the game for last 4 years. Ponting is at his peak. Once again you dont get the point. In any case you continue to prove my point about crapping all over when you dont have much to say. Tendulkar was a legend before he played a single test match, ponting was a drunkard until 2000. That's the difference between the two. One is genius and a gentleman, the other is a genius and a crackpot.

This is why I love discussing things with you. You eventually argue MY point for ME. So you CAN'T simply judge by a few points on average or a few SR points alone. You said previously even a FRACTION ahead means one is a legend and the other is a silver-medalist.

So yeah, I think when you stare in the mirror say hi to the crackpot.

It does. Tendulkar will score more runs at a faster rate, hence better Statistically.

LOL, and Waqar Younis is statistically better than Dennis Lillee. Your point?

Imran Khan also takes wickets cheaper and faster than Wasim? Your point?

He did not ? Are you blind or have you been away from the earth since 2004 ? Tendulkar Since 2004 has scored only 5 100s in 96 games and particularly struggled in 2004 and 2005. Yes Ponting's performance past his peak is not known yet, although I am sensing that it is closer now.

Well, either you love to guess or you have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. Regardless, I couldn't care less how you think Ponting will do. I only care what Ponting has done.

And Tendulkar, what a trough... average falling from 44 to 42. Shameless.

The reason that Tendulkar has played more matches is because he has been able to contribute at a decent rate despite not being able to contribute those big 100s.

Uh, that makes 0 sense and has nothing to do with what I am saying. My point was that you can't even make the argument that Ponting won't do as well as Tendulkar because of the amount of ODIs Tendulkar has played in the almost 20 decade career. Because Tendulkar averages about 22 ODIs a year: the same as Ponting.

Once again, only guess work that is being done here is by you, claiming that Ponting will make as many runs and centuries as SRT if he played as many matches. It has been shown enough times that in 298 matches Ponting had less runs, less 100s, lesser SR.

Nope, all the guessing is done with you. You are saying Ponting would do worse which is a guess. I am saying Ponting will do as he has been doing. Whether that means 1-2% less 100s per innings than Tendulkar and 1 run and 1 less ball difference to Tendulkar doesn't matter. It is too close to make a choice either way. I only care about ratios here. Tendulkar averages 44 and Ponting averages 43. No matter how many matches they play based on these averages, Tendulkar will always score more runs. The contention is that the difference is so small it doesn't make a difference and does not shift the argument either way. It doesn't make one a legend and the other a silver-medalist.

Hayden as good as he is, isn't good enough to wipe Tendulkar's shoes. Even at his peak, he is averaging less than SRT. Case closed. Not even considering any other argument.

Hahahaha, WHAT a cop out. Do I see someone putting their tail between their legs?

YOU said that a player with a higher proportion of 100s is better than the one with a lower proportion of 100s. Hence Hayden > Tendulkar by that SHODDY logic. Thank you and come again.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. SRT has clearly been over the hill but has still been able to maintain the average in ODIs. That's the reason why he is so much better than the likes of Ponting, who are yet to see the fall of their caree.

Average is all that matters. If he is able to keep the average then it doesn't make a difference whether he is scoring less 100s per inning. I'd rather a player who scores 40,40,40 than one that scores 0,0,120. Same average and one has a century. It's only you who insists on this silly detail.

And ? Already explained how that argument works in favor of SRT.

No, you've picked at your bum fluff but it's still nothing but bum fluff.

This is Hillarious really, considering that of those 112, 41 innings have been 5 or lower down the order. You are really worse than

@ no. 4 SRT has batte in 61 innings, has 4 100s. Compared to Ponting's 1 100 in 17 games, once again Tendulkar scores 1 every 15, Ponting 1 in 17.

Between No.s 5-7 SRT has played 41 matches and scored 5 50s as opposed to Ponting who has none in 12 matches played. Clearly more prolific batting down the order as well.

LOL! There you go again! You and your reading!

EVEN if Tendulkar scores 1/15 it doesn't make a difference because the entire point was that 19% of Ponting's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century whereas a fat 0% of Tendulkar's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century (him not being an opener obviously, like Ponting). The fact that it's so hard to score 2 centuries within the same inning yet Ponting has managed to do it 5/26 times makes it a greater feat.

Go read it again .

Once again, you do not understand simple logic and hence another incorrect analogy. Bradman doesn't have a lower average than SRT in Tests.

See, again, proving MY point FOR me. I love this.

Yes, I know the average is important so aggregate runs don't mean squat. That's my point: Tendulkar 44, Ponting 43. And you said Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. If this is an April fool's joke you're 2 months late mate!

Ponting who doesn't match Tendulkar at his peak isn't likely to match him at the end of his career in pretty much any category as an ODI batsman.

Ponting averages 45 and strikes at 85 since 2004. He doesn't have to meet Tendulkar's peak. He just has to continue doing what he is doing.

His speed and his wicket keeping ability makes him a good bargain, otherwise he is just another ODI batsman. Purely as an opener, he is not even comparable to the likes of Mark Waugh, who was much superior player.

Yes, his run making ability is ordinary, his speed is absolutely awesome. No one can hold that run-making ability, speed and do it so often. His whole job as an opener was to do this. You can't compare him to someone like Mark Waugh who was not asked the same of Gilchrist. And even though he wasn't, he scored on average 2 runs more and took 20 balls more to do it. Gilchrist is on a different level.

I dont care what you care. Gilchrist isn't better than SRT just because he scores his runs faster. Gilchrist is a good value as a batsman because of his wicket keeping skills. As a batsman alone he wouldn't have found a place in the Aussie XI.

Er, Wrong. Gilchrist would walk into an Aussie XI simply because of his batting. He was voted best ever, not because he is simply a great wicketkeeper.

And no one said Gilchrist is better - in fact, if you actually READ what I post I said I would take Tendulkar over Gilchrist. BUT I said because they play such different roles that you can't compare them on a run by run, ball by ball basis. Gilchrist is a great at what he does and Tendulkar is a great at what he does. Tendulkar and Gilchrist are as different to Bevan and Richards.

Nonsense. There are only 10 wickets to lose, but there are 300 balls to score off. If you miss one ball no big deal, you have the chance to score at least 6 runs off the next ball.

Wrong. 10 wickets don't need to be taken by the bowling side. But they HAVE to bowl 300 balls.

No, He doesn't.

http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/291370.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66365.html
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/66137.html

Yeah, this is a direct referral to when he scores a century. Not just a 60 or an 80.

No relevance to this discussion.

Haha, what? Is that another cop-out? It is harder to score 47 runs on average striking at 80 in Tests than it is in ODIs.

Ponting will never be able to overtake SRT in ODIs. Neither in runs, nor in 100s. You heard it here first.

Neither will Richards. Doesn't make Viv worse. Your arguments are of such a poor standard I feel like I am talking to a different Sanz. Do you have a kid that sometimes pops on your username?

And overall SRT comes out on TOP in every category.

When the margin is 1 run more or 1 ball less or 1-2% difference in 100s/innings it doesn't matter. But where it does matter, is that one player 3/4 times led well in a WC final and Tendulkar is still unproven.

That is the height of hypocrisy. Whatever happened to 'He gets less chances to score runs, 100s etc' logic ? Because If any batsman who can rightfully claim that he had to wait for his turn to bat, it would be him. SRT+ SG have 64 100s among them. Not to forget the fact that he was asked to keep wickets, asked to open, was treated like a bastard child of Indian cricket (in ODIs) and still scored 10500 runs and he is not fit enough to lave Ponting's boots and you claim that Gilchrist, Ponting etc are as good as SRT ?

You seem to have no clue about proportions. Even I said:

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.

What I am talking about 100s is a difference of 3 hundreds over almost 300 ODIs.

Dravid is simply not in the same league. Not average wise and not SR wise. I don't care that he is inferior, but he is not even in the same league as ODI players.

And the only way it would make sense is if BOTH Ganguly and Tendulkar made centuries. That's how far behind he is. He is not behind like Ponting's 3, Dravid needs 19 centuries to equal the same proportion. It's not even in the same realm. In fact, Ganguly himself only has a slightly better 100/inning record than Dravid and there are only 57 100s between Ganguly and Tendulkar as openers.

You have no moral right to make that argument after the Garbage you posted about Dravid's ODI career.


Once again, you have lost the moral right to make that argument.

Sure, I don't. 3 centuries vs 19. You keep that tail down there.

Ponting will never be able to catch up SRT in no. of ODI 100s or Total no. of runs scored. He will never be able to match his SR either.

Ok Richard.

I am standing tall. May be you should check where your head is.

Sure you are. Remember, Innings only. Not matches .

If I were biased I would have voted for SRT, you on the other voted for the Aussie and want other aussies to be considered as good as them when they simple aren't. SRT isn't even my favorite Indian player.

Wrong. You are biased for saying that Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. Say he is better but the garbage that you've put forth should never be uttered by anyone who considers himself unbiased.

You would really have to be pulling out all the stops to argue that Tendulkar is better than Richards. Thankfully, you're not that far gone.

As for bringing Imran and Akram again in this discussion- You demonstrate that you have lost the argument.

Yeh, I demonstrated your own logic goes against your own opinion.

You think Wasim > Imran and Tendulkar > Ponting. The Tendulkar bit because he is 1 run more and 1 ball faster. Yet even though Wasim is inferior in both average and SR you still vote for him ahead of Imran.

A round of applause for the consistency.

I consider Wasim better than Imran and logically there can't be a fair statistical comparison, but if at all we are going to do that Imran will come out on top.

That said, the only reason I am quoting Statistics is to put you in your place. You have been harping about statistics far too long and this time I just thought of shoving the stats up yours.
Otherwise I am never one to look for stats when stating my opinion about players.

Er, WRONG. I never said Ponting is better or even worse than Tendulkar. Check the thread. I said they are CLOSE. You said they aren't even CLOSE.

I also said I can see someone picking another player for non-statistical reasons - like I did Lillee - and that is where the discussion began.

You see, if you actually read and pay attention, you wouldn't have to put your tail between your legs.

Yes, watching Tendulkar is much more pleasing than watching Gilchrist or Ponting.

Tendulkar is especially pleasing to watch in a World Cup final.

Once again you have got it wrong. I did not quote VB finals stats, I quoted GRAND FINALS stats which includes all the Grand Finals SRT and Ponting have plaeyed in. SRT clearly own Ponting in that category.

LOL, once again YOU have it wrong. This is unbelievable, I think you are partially blind. I don't accept that someone can misread something so many times.

When I quoted you regarding VB finals, I WAS referring to the grand final. Hence, my Carling Cup/Champions League finals example. They're grand finals.

You are picking and choosing.

A final is a final is a final. VB finals may not have as much appeal as the WC finals, yet it is a final and that is a fact.

Picking and choosing would be me saying VB finals don't count but CB finals did. I say neither are in the same realm as a WC final. The argument isn't about "appeal" it is about pressure, it is about difficulty. No VB final has carrier pressure enough to compare it with a final of a tournament that comes every 4 years and is the pinnacle of ODIs.

Give it a break, get some rest. You're making less and less sense as this goes on.

 

[shankar]

This is the problem with your model. You are assuming everybody else will behave as their averages do despite the difference in input (opener).

I'm not assuming the above at all. I'm saying - "Yes everybody else will have bat differently if the opener changes. The question is - Is the new requirement beyond their reach or is it less than their usual output?"

You say - It's just 11 runs off 17 balls so it's easy based on the fact that 11/17 is ~65%. But this math is erroneous. For example let's say Ponting's share of this extra comes to 1 run off 1.5 deliveries. Ponting's usual inning is say, 44 off 55 deliveries. The type of analysis that you've done would say - "1 off 1.5 comes to just ~67%. Since Ponting's SR is 80, he should easily be capable of the above". The error here is that it's not 1/1.5 that's important. It's 1 extra run for 1.5 extra balls. So the question is whether Ponting can average 45 if he is allowed 56.5 deliveries i.e. a SR of 79.65. So the depreciation in SR allowed is just 0.35 for an average increase of 1. So the question is not as easy to answer as thought before.

But that's the whole point: you are not finding an equivalent. It may be harder for a SINGLE Ponting to raise his average 11 points but that is given he faces 17 more balls. His own average is 43 so the likelihood of him doing it himself, is less. However, and fortunately, there are 9 other wickets to distribute the runs 11 runs and 17 balls. As I said before, by this measure you would rather a batsman that scores 5 more runs despite taking 30 more balls to do it because it seems Ponting is less likely to raise his career average by 5.

You said: 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

That's pretty much the point. Every other batsmen could raise their average by 1 or 1.5 LOL points and will get the ability to reduce their SR. A batsman who is asked to score 1 or 2 runs more given 3-4 balls is a much likelier occurrence then all the difference being made up on 1 batsman.

You are confusing my method with yours. I'm not talking about making up any diffrence. I'm just finding a line-up which has an equal in output to the following:

A

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

I put forward that a line-up which is equivalent in output to the above is

B

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
SomeGuy 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

Simple question: Is B an equivalent line-up in terms of total final output to A or not? If not, why?

Of course, one can find other equivalent line-ups as well. But I'm just saying B is one such example of an equivalent line-up.

 

[Ikki]

The only coincidence I could see here is that he played for a better team.

Haha, what? Is that tail dropping down again? You were arguing that being in a strong side restricts run scoring. So, pick your argument and stick to it.

And ?? Tendulkar has only 3 or 4 while opening with Ganguly and when Ganguly also scored a 100. 3/4 out of 25 Vs. 5 out of 26. So who has the advantage here ? Needless to mention that SRT used to be more prolific(when he opened with Sourav i.e. at his peak ) as well as faster and still hasn't had that advantage that seem to be claimed by you.

LOL, sorry again that I have to point out the difference. Whilst Ganguly is out in the middle, Tendulkar is THERE too. And even IF you wanted to count it the same way it is 3/42 centuries compared to 5/26 for Ponting.

And if you wanted to argue the above, you'd have to suspend the fact that Ponting had a much better team around him taking more 100 opportunities than Tendulkar's teammates would take off him. That's how...unintelligent that reply is.

I am not attributing anything besides clearing the myth that 'Ponting has to wait when Gilly/Hayden' are around. If that is so then how come he has scored more centuries with them in the team. When Giilly and Hayden have not played, Ponting has 2 100s in 40 ODIs, when they have played Ponting has 15 in 110 innings. How can one be more clear to you ? You are in consistent denial here.

LOL, because you are arguing that just because they are on the pitch they are helping him score 100s. This just goes against the logic in the above quote where you are trying to say that teammates stop you from taking 100s. De nile is a riva!

And Yes, Ponting doesn't have to bat under that much pressure when Hayden and Gilchrist are there, one is scoring fast while the other is grafting.Obviously it helps him. Ponting without Hayden/Gilly Averages < 30 with SR <70. Whereas when he has Gilly and Hayden in the team His average goes up to 49 and SR close to 85.

Considering one sample contains 249 innings and the other only 40 I can see why you're so deadly right.

Are you going to argue that Gilly/Hayden Presence doesn't help Ponting's batting in ODIs ?

When Ponting isn't with McGrath he also averages 46 and he averages 41 when McGrath is there. So by that we can deduce that Ponting only did well when McGrath wasn't there.

 

[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.

They've just shown this innings of 127* from Border against Garner, Holding and Marshall. Incredible ODI knock against brilliant bowlers. Garner looked unplayable.

 

[Ikki]

I'm not assuming the above at all. I'm saying - "Yes everybody else will have bat differently if the opener changes. The question is - Is the new requirement beyond their reach or is it less than their usual output?"

You say - It's just 11 runs off 17 balls so it's easy based on the fact that 11/17 is ~65%. But this math is erroneous. For example let's say Ponting's share of this extra comes to 1 run off 1.5 deliveries. Ponting's usual inning is say, 44 off 55 deliveries. The type of analysis that you've done would say - "1 off 1.5 comes to just ~67%. Since Ponting's SR is 80, he should easily be capable of the above". The error here is that it's not 1/1.5 that's important. It's 1 extra run for 1.5 extra balls. So the question is whether Ponting can average 45 if he is allowed 56.5 deliveries i.e. a SR of 79.65. So the depreciation in SR allowed is just 0.35 for an average increase of 1. So the question is not as easy to answer as thought before.

I understand what you are saying, but the answer is essentially the same.

You are confusing my method with yours. I'm not talking about making up any diffrence. I'm just finding a line-up which has an equal in output to the following:

A

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

I put forward that a line-up which is equivalent in output to the above is

B

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
SomeGuy 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

Simple question: Is B an equivalent line-up in terms of total output to A or not? If not, why?

Of course, one can find other equivalent line-ups as well. But I'm just saying B is one such example of an equivalent line-up.

You seriously have to ask? If you are asking are they equivalent line-ups: then yes they are. Because the teams are still scoring the same amount of runs with the same amount of balls.

 

[shankar]

I understand what you are saying, but the answer is essentially the same.

All you've done is reduced the question to 'it's easy to score 1 or 2 extra runs if extra balls are available' which doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. You haven't given any convincing reason as to why such a thing is possible in mathematical terms. But I'm tired of going over this repeatedly. So let's leave it here.

You seriously have to ask? If you are asking are they equivalent line-ups: then yes they are. Because the teams are still scoring the same amount of runs with the same amount of balls.

Thank you.

So now what you've said so far is that this line-up B:

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
SomeGuy 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

is inferior to line-up C which is:

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

Between B and C, the only difference is batsman no.3. That is if Ponting woke-up tomorrow and became a batsman averaging 55 at a SR of 77.5, it would be detrimental to Australia.

 

[Ikki]

All you've done is reduced the question to 'it's easy to score 1 or 2 extra runs if extra balls are available' which doesn't come anywhere close to answering the question. You haven't given any convincing reason as to why such a thing is possible in mathematical terms. But I'm tired of going over this repeatedly. So let's leave it here.

How do I illustrate it more mathematically than: 11 runs are needed at a minimum of 65. 65 is a very low SR. The average SR of all batsmen, including even tailenders, is around 70. You can score those runs at even slower than the average of all batsman and if you do it slightly faster you will actually win. That's what it comes down to. Maybe I am not as mathematically accomplished as you but that's logically it.

Thank you.

So now what you've said so far is that this line-up B:

Gilchrist 37(38)
Hayden ...(...)
SomeGuy 55(71)
Clarke ...(...)
etc...

is inferior to line-up C which is:

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

Between B and C, the only difference is batsman no.3. That is if Ponting woke-up tomorrow and became a batsman averaging 55 at a SR of 77.5, it would be detrimental to Australia.

Wrong, it is not inferior. There is a matter of 17 balls left to play - that is the difference between the two sides. This is what the comparison hinges on: will/can the rest make up 11 runs in the 17 balls left to play. ODIs do not just end with wickets but with balls. They end more because balls finish than wickets do. Whether 11 runs will be made up is not even the concern here, but there ARE 17 balls left to face. So if they do make the 11 runs off 17 balls then they've essentially negated Tendulkar's runs and made it equal. If they score even more THEN they are superior. So if Ponting were to score those extra runs with those extra balls (him waking up) it would merely make his side equal to Tendulkar's.

What has often happened is that not only do Australia make up those runs, that Gilchrist doesn't make because he scores less than Tendulkar, but they often score more because they are given more time. Sometimes the other batsmen will score more and at higher than the needed SR of 64. This turns the deficit into a positive.

In the end, I am not sure what you're trying to prove? Is Tendulkar > Gilchrist, is Gilchrist > Tendulkar? Is it a large difference? What?

 

[Sanz]

You said Tendulkar makes more 100s per inning so he is better than Ponting.

Tendulkar makes more 100s, faster, more runs, so statistically he is better in pretty much all categories. People generally consider a lot of things apart from Statistics when they evaluate players. You are the one who brought Stats ino this argument. So here you go, Stats getting shoved to you.

Hayden also makes more 100s per inning than Sachin so using your OWN criteria he is better. Thank you, when we discuss said players in somewhere else I'll be sure to note down that you consider both Wasim and Hayden superior to Imran and Tendulkar, respectively.

There you go again, Putting words in my mouth. You are best at it.

For the Record :- IMO on batting performance grounds Hayden is denied the permission to wipe the Tendulkar's shoes. Wasim is indeed the better bowler IMO, Couldn't care less about what his stats are. IMO he is teh best bowler ever.

pI am saying the only significance in the difference between Ponting's total runs and Tendulkar's is that Tendulkar has played more innings hence he will have more aggregate runs - even if he had a lower average.

Asummptions at best. Tendulkar doesn't have a lower average, Ponting does. Pontng will have less runs, average, 100s, SR even if he continued at the same level for rest of his career.

This is exactly like saying Tendulkar > Bradman because Tendulkar has 11782 runs and Bradman has 6996. Yes, I know you sound silly.

My God you have some serious issue in reading stuff. Bradman Scores @ 99.94 which is obviously much than SRT's average. So If Bradman played as many Tests as SRT, he would score 20000+ runs, so easily he will score more.

Same is not true for Ricky. He average less than SRT in ODIS, lower SR, even if he continues to score at the same rate, he will not pass SRT in total runs scored because of the simple fact is that his avg is < SRT avg. in ODIs.

You proved nothing. Hayden also has more centuries than Sobers having played the same amount of tests. Doesn't make Hayden better than Sobers. Nor does it mean Sobers would start to perform worse off had he played the same amount of Tests as Hayden - because that was apart of your disgraceful diatribe that if Ponting plays more he WILL lose his form. Guesswork, anyone?

What is Sobers Average ? Case Closed.

Ahh yes. But Kapil is not in the same league as Hadlee. He concedes many many more runs than Hadlee and also takes many more balls to dismiss a victim. So their ratios do not match for the comparison for 5/fers 10/fers to take shape. Murali also takes more 5/fers and 10/fers than anyone else. But that doesn't make him better than Lillee or Hadlee or McGrath. It's a simple by-product of playing in a team with no wicket-taking competition.

Jesus where have I claimed that Kapil is better than Hadlee/Mcgrath ? I couldn't care less about how many fifers Murali takes. It is just another of your crap theories in order to glorify your Aussie Gods.

What is funny is that you yourself have argued elsewhere that Mcgrath has a weakness in taking the bigger hauls and here is you are just arguing the opposite. Tells so much about own inconsistency in the discussion.

That's why you only judge him by his average/sr/er. Otherwise he is 4-5 times the bowler everybody else is.

If I judged Mcgrath or for that matter other players on the basis of Average, I wouldn't have Wasim Akram as my best bowler ever. Mcgrath is a great bowler and I couldn't care less about what his 5er 10er tally show. I was merely quashing the myth that Mcgrath's wicket tally would have been more if not other wicket takers in his team.

McGrath DID take a 5fers and 10fers but relatively less than a whole lot of other bowlers like Waqar or Botham because Warne was on the end taking more. It doesn't make Waqar or Botham better than McGrath - the kind of reasoning you are bringing.

Nonsense. So why does he have only 3 fifers when he is playing without Warne ? Waqar also had another potent bowler sharing wickets with him. No Waqar/Bothan are not better than Mcgrath and I have never claimed as such. But that doesn't mean that Mcgrath's wicket taking ability (fifers and 10ers) take a hit because of Warne's presense.

This is why I love discussing things with you. You eventually argue MY point for ME. So you CAN'T simply judge by a few points on average or a few SR points alone. You said previously even a FRACTION ahead means one is a legend and the other is a silver-medalist.

I was not comparing Ponting and SRT on the basis of Stats alone. I didn't even know Pontings stats, TBH when this discussion started. You are the one brought the stats. So I have to show you the stats too. You get what you wished for.

LOL, and Waqar Younis is statistically better than Dennis Lillee. Your point?

I dont know, you are the Stats Freak on this forum. You tell us. Are you going to argue that Dennis Lillee is better or worse because of his stats or because of your own perception ? For me I would pick Lillee with my eyes closed over Waqar regardless of what their stats show.

Imran Khan also takes wickets cheaper and faster than Wasim? Your point?

Nothing except that Imran has better stats, doesn't necessarily make him better though unless you use Stats as the only criteria. I said in the past, I dont judge players on the basis of stats alone, but you jumped in and started showing your statsguru surfing skills in Ponting Vs. SRT, so I had to put you where you belong.

Well, either you love to guess or you have a crystal ball hidden somewhere. Regardless, I couldn't care less how you think Ponting will do. I only care what Ponting has done.

Okay and based od what he has done - He has lower average, lower SR.

And Tendulkar, what a trough... average falling from 44 to 42. Shameless.

Uh, that makes 0 sense and has nothing to do with what I am doing. My point was that you can't even make the argument that Ponting won't do as well as Tendulkar because of the amount of ODIs Tendulkar has played in the almost 20 decade career. Because Tendulkar averages about 22 ODIs a year: the same as Ponting.

And ? Ponting still has a lower average, SR, The more he plays, the more the difference is going to widen even if we assume that Ponting maintains his current form for next 150 matches.

Nope, all the guessing is done with you. You are saying Ponting would do worse which is a guess. I am saying Ponting will do as he has been doing. Whether that means 1-2% less 100s per innings than Tendulkar and 1 run and 1 less ball difference to Tendulkar doesn't matter.

You need to learn your maths. 33 minus 26 is 7 - It isn't 1-2 %, It is 27 % more than Ponting's no. of 100s in 298 matches. When I say that you start making excuses.

It is too close to make a choice either way. I only care about ratios here. Tendulkar averages 44 and Ponting averages 43. No matter how many matches they play based on these averages, Tendulkar will always score more runs. The contention is that the difference is so small it doesn't make a difference and does not shift the argument either way. It doesn't make one a legend and the other a silver-medalist.

I dont care what you consider or do not consider. Statistically SRT is superior in almost every category. Obviously there is much more to batting than pure stats and hence SRT is clearly ahead of Ponting as an ODI batsman.

Hahahaha, WHAT a cop out. Do I see someone putting their tail between their legs?

Well If you have got one.

YOU said that a player with a higher proportion of 100s is better than the one with a lower proportion of 100s. Hence Hayden > Tendulkar by that SHODDY logic. Thank you and come again.

Once again - Higher 100s, higher average, Higher SR all together. Case Closed. Hayden Denied permission to wipe SRT's shoes again.

Average is all that matters.

Really, What happene to the SR theory ?

If he is able to keep the average then it doesn't make a difference whether he is scoring less 100s per inning. I'd rather a player who scores 40,40,40 than one that scores 0,0,120. Same average and one has a century. It's only you who insists on this silly detail.

Excuse me ? Are you arguing that Ponting gives more consistent scores than SRT ? If you are, than get ready to have your ass busted again.

EVEN if Tendulkar scores 1/15 it doesn't make a difference because the entire point was that 19% of Ponting's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century whereas a fat 0% of Tendulkar's centuries occur when his openers have already scored a century (regardless where he bats). The fact that it's so hard to score 2 centuries within the same inning yet Ponting has managed to do it 5/26 times makes it a greater feat.

Check the stats again - And please tell me how many 100s Ponting has scored when there is another Centurian in the same inning. I can bet you even without going through all the 100s that Ponting has higher % than SRT. (i.e. %wise Ponting has more 100s in an inning where another one of his teammare scored one)

Yes, I know the average is important so aggregate runs don't mean squat. That's my point: Tendulkar 44, Ponting 43. And you said Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. If this is an April fool's joke you're 2 months late mate!

Dont worry it is not an April Fool Joke. It is a COLD HARD fact that SRT is a much better ODI batsman than Ponting. Statistically or otherwise.

Ponting averages 45 and strikes at 85 since 2004. He doesn't have to meet Tendulkar's peak. He just has to continue doing what he is doing.

What does he average in 2008 ? Is it in double digits ?

Yes, his run making ability is ordinary, his speed is absolutely awesome. No one can hold that run-making ability, speed and do it so often. His whole job as an opener was to do this. You can't compare him to someone like Mark Waugh who was not asked the same of Gilchrist. And even though he wasn't, he scored on average 2 runs more and took 20 balls more to do it. Gilchrist is on a different level.

So now Gilly is better than Mark Waugh as well ? What have been smoking really ?

Er, Wrong. Gilchrist would walk into an Aussie XI simply because of his batting. He was voted best ever, not because he is simply a great wicketkeeper.

So those who voted him the best ever believe that Gily is a better ODI batsman than Waugh, Ponting etc ?

And no one said Gilchrist is better - in fact, if you actually READ what I post I said I would take Tendulkar over Gilchrist. BUT I said because they play such different roles that you can't compare them on a run by run, ball by ball basis. Gilchrist is a great at what he does and Tendulkar is a great at what he does. Tendulkar and Gilchrist are as different to Bevan and Richards.

So you see the light for a moment once again.

Wrong. 10 wickets don't need to be taken by the bowling side. But they HAVE to bowl 300 balls.

Hillarious.

No they dont have to If they too all the wickets in 10 balls. If every batsman got out on the first ball, only 10 balls are needed. Wickets >>>>>> Balls(In Cricket I meant).

Neither will Richards. Doesn't make Viv worse. Your arguments are of such a poor standard I feel like I am talking to a different Sanz. Do you have a kid that sometimes pops on your username?

There you go again.

When the margin is 1 run more or 1 ball less or 1-2% difference in 100s/innings it doesn't matter. But where it does matter, is that one player 3/4 times led well in a WC final and Tendulkar is still unproven.

Not again.

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.

What I am talking about 100s is a difference of 3 hundreds over almost 300 ODIs.

7 in equal no. of ODIs.

Dravid is simply not in the same league. Not average wise and not SR wise. I don't care that he is inferior, but he is not even in the same league as ODI players.

See, Didn't I say that all you use is Stats to make an opinion. That is the reason you being buste here.

And the only way it would make sense is if BOTH Ganguly and Tendulkar made centuries. That's how far behind he is. He is not behind like Ponting's 3, Dravid needs 19 centuries to equal the same proportion. It's not even in the same realm. In fact, Ganguly himself only has a slightly better 100/inning record than Dravid.

Sure you are. Remember, Innings only. Not matches .

And you should know 7 in 298 matches not 3.

Wrong. You are biased for saying that Tendulkar is EASILY better than Ponting. Say he is better but the garbage that you've put forth should never be uttered by anyone who considers himself unbiased.

Only Garbage spewed on this thread is by you. I am just throwing them back @ you.

You would really have to be pulling out all the stops to argue that Tendulkar is better than Richards. Thankfully, you're not that far gone.

I never have, never will. IVA is the better batsman than SRT very easily. I couldn't care less what his stats looks like.

Otoh, You are on record picking Bevan and already accepted your Bias :-

I'm biased. .

You think Wasim > Imran and Tendulkar > Ponting. The Tendulkar bit because he is 1 run more and 1 ball faster. Yet even though Wasim is inferior in both average and SR you still vote for him ahead of Imran.

No, Tendulkr bit because of the same reason it is for Wasim. The only reason Stats are being shown to you because that's all matters to you..

A round of applause for the consistency.

Charit begins at home. You get what you ask for.

Er, WRONG. I never said Ponting is better or even worse than Tendulkar. Check the thread. I said they are CLOSE. You said they aren't even CLOSE.

Yes, In my opinion they are not close. Then you started showing stats. So there you go. Take a look SRT is better in almost all categories.

I also said I can see someone picking another player for non-statistical reasons - like I did Lillee - and that is where the discussion began.

And then you starte showing your stupid Statsguru to the forum. So there you go, I show the same to you.

You see, if you actually read and pay attention, you wouldn't have to put your tail between your legs.

Wow, You must be having one in your behind to talk so much about it.

Tendulkar is especially pleasing to watch in a World Cup final.

Yes. He was until he got out.

When I quoted you regarding VB finals, I WAS referring to the grand final. Hence, my Carling Cup/Champions League finals example. They're grand finals.

I couldn't care less about what you consider a Grand Final or not. If Ponting isn't motivated enough to perform in a tournament final then It is a problem with him.

Picking and choosing would be me saying VB finals don't count but CB finals did. I say neither are in the same realm as a WC final. The argument isn't about "appeal" it is about pressure, it is about difficulty. No VB final has carrier pressure enough to compare it with a final of a tournament that comes every 4 years and is the pinnacle of ODIs.

That's what you are doing. Relace CB with the world cup.

As for the Pressure - Tendulkar has more pressure in every match he plays than Ponting has in a tournament Final. It is so much well document the level of expectation from SRT. Ponting doesn't have an iota of that pressure in any kind of situation.

Give it a break, get some rest. You're making less and less sense as this goes on.

Yeah, only if you had the brains to understand and respect for others opinions.

 

[pasag]

Seen enough.