Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

[Jarquis]

Hoe, as is often the case, cuts to the very crux of the matter.

Most people rate Barrington and Sutcliffe a notch below Wally & JB for the simple reason that it's not just how many, the "how" matters too. If it was all about the numbers why the **** would anyone ever watch the game?

& To everyone saying Kallis is "underrated", he's not; he's rightly rated as an all-time great. He just doesn't stir the soul in the same way as some other players do. What he is is unloved expect by SA fans and those with unhealthy stats obsessions.

Yeah, not like he possesses one of the most glorious cover drives in the game or can turn the game on its head by means of any of the 3 ways which it is possible to turn a game on its head.

The job of a batsman is to score runs, Kallis does that job better than Ponting more often than not. The fact Ponting was great in his peak ignores the fact that he was worse than Kallis outside of that time. Also "the how" is entirely subjective. Grinding down an attack is as much a talent or an art as scoring boundaries. For each situation where a higher SR is preferable, there are situations where lowers are too.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yeah, not like he possesses one of the most glorious cover drives in the game or can turn the game on its head by means of any of the 3 ways which it is possible to turn a game on its head.

The job of a batsman is to score runs, Kallis does that job better than Ponting more often than not. The fact Ponting was great in his peak ignores the fact that he was worse than Kallis outside of that time. Also "the how" is entirely subjective. Grinding down an attack is as much a talent or an art as scoring boundaries. For each situation where a higher SR is preferable, there are situations where lowers are too.

Yes & no, absolutely not, respectively.

Grinding down an attack is the preserve of the artisan, not the artist. The gifted can play dogged innings, but a batsman like Dravid could no more play like (say) Lara than he could flap his arms and fly to the moon.

That enjoyment of sport is subjective is a point so obvious as to go without saying, surely?

 

[Jarquis]

Yes & no, absolutely not, respectively.

Grinding down an attack is the preserve of the artisan, not the artist. The gifted can play dogged innings, but a batsman like Dravid could no more play like (say) Lara than he could flap his arms and fly to the moon.

That enjoyment of sport is subjective is a point so obvious as to go without saying, surely?

If that were the case then why would be all talk about the likes of Pietersen and Sehwag "playing their natural game" and then blame some of their failures on the fact "they're trying to play circumspectly" and it's not working.
Players play in the manner which suits them best, obviously there is some flexibility in this. For instance Ponting doesn't score at his career SR each innings but if there was a situation where runs were irrelevant but I needed a batsman to face 250 balls to draw a match, I'd pick Kallis in such a situation.

As for the last point of your post, if that's the case then why would you say :

He just doesn't stir the soul in the same way as some other players do. What he is is unloved expect by SA fans and those with unhealthy stats obsessions.

Who are you speaking on behalf of there? I have no real unhealthy stats obsession but I love Kallis and would rather watch one of his innings than one of Ponting's.

 

[BoyBrumby]

If that were the case then why would be all talk about the likes of Pietersen and Sehwag "playing their natural game" and then blame some of their failures on the fact "they're trying to play circumspectly" and it's not working.
Players play in the manner which suits them best, obviously there is some flexibility in this. For instance Ponting doesn't score at his career SR each innings but if there was a situation where runs were irrelevant but I needed a batsman to face 250 balls to draw a match, I'd pick Kallis in such a situation.

As for the last point of your post, if that's the case then why would you say :

Who are you speaking on behalf of there? I have no real unhealthy stats obsession but I love Kallis and would rather watch one of his innings than one of Ponting's.

I speak for myself and anyone who appreciates the aesthetic side of the sport. Some people might appreciate a good forward defensive as much as a perfect late-cut or a flowing cover drive, but I'd take the latter options every time.

As for Kallis batting to save an innings, how many times has he done that? I'm sure he has, but none linger long in the memory like Punter's at OT or even Smith's & McKenzie's at Lords in 2008.

Even during Kallis's double ton he was overshadowed by the darting genius of AB de V.

 

[akilana]

As for Kallis batting to save an innings, how many times has he done that? I'm sure he has, but none linger long in the memory like Punter's at OT or even Smith's & McKenzie's at Lords in 2008.

His first hundred in Australia.

 

[Jarquis]

I speak for myself and anyone who appreciates the aesthetic side of the sport. Some people might appreciate a good forward defensive as much as a perfect late-cut or a flowing cover drive, but I'd take the latter options every time.

As for Kallis batting to save an innings, how many times has he done that? I'm sure he has, but none linger long in the memory like Punter's at OT or even Smith's & McKenzie's at Lords in 2008.

Even during Kallis's double ton he was overshadowed by the darting genius of AB de V.

*your perception of the aesthetic side of sport
There's nothing wrong with preferring the way Kallis scores his runs, which is why the suggest that "Ponting's way" is better is ludicrous. If Daniel Vettori averaged 140 we'd have to call him the best batsman ever, even if they were all scored behind square of the wicket in "funky areas".

I'm not well versed in every Kallis innings to date, the point was that sometimes taking more deliveries to score your runs can be the better thing for the situation.

 

[BoyBrumby]

*your perception of the aesthetic side of sport
There's nothing wrong with preferring the way Kallis scores his runs, which is why the suggest that "Ponting's way" is better is ludicrous. If Daniel Vettori averaged 140 we'd have to call him the best batsman ever, even if they were all scored behind square of the wicket in "funky areas".

I'm not well versed in every Kallis innings to date, the point was that sometimes taking more deliveries to score your runs can be the better thing for the situation.

True enough, and other times it can actively harm one's team's chances too. Famously Kallis slowed down once he reached his ton in the 2nd innings of the 5th test of our 2004/05 tour and blatantly played for the red ink while his teammates tried to force the pace to get to a total from where they might force a result. It was the most one-eyed innings I've seen. Technically great and all, but yuck.

Look, if you prefer Kallis fair play to you, but he'll never float my boat in the same way as guys who leave me in awe at how they've played a shot or put aside personal accumulation for the good of the team.

 

[Top_Cat]

TC disagreed with me re: Kallis tbh. Cop that Top Cat

You can have it. Ponting will come good again.

*he says in a more-vain-by-the-day hope*

 

[Ruckus]

For basically no real reason.

There is a good reason why a player who has a higher SR and dominates attacks more is generally more revered. The perfect example is Sehwag - he completely destroys the confidence of bowlers and puts a massive amount of pressure on the opposition. If he gets a century at a run-a-ball it will enhance his teams overall performance far more than if Kallis gets a century at a SR of 35. A century at a SR of 35 (on an individual level) obviously brings about the same end-result as a century at a SR of 100, but the psychological effect on the opposition and the players own team is reduced.

 

[Ruckus]

I wouldn't go there. There are actually people on this forum who legitimately believe that if you've just flipped three heads in a row, it's more likely to be a tail than a head on the fourth flip. As if that, not only is there a cosmic force that exists purely for the divine purpose of evening out all coin-flipping, but that it works individually and targets people who have just flipped streaks.

I'm serious. People do really believe that.

Actually no, the fallacy is people who equate flipping a coin with batsmen in the real world. Do you really think the probability of a batsmen achieving a certain amount of runs is as simple as a coin toss? A coin toss is a completely fair and independant event, where as the performance of a batsmen in a particular innings is NOT independant. E.g. if a batsman makes 250 in the first innings, it is less likely they will fall early in the second - their form and confidence from their first innings probably carries to their second innings. I don't want to go into it further here, because it is completely irrelevent, but that is just one example of why sitting behind a computer and using 'mathematical' theories to explain cricket is stupid.

 

[Jarquis]

Actually no, the fallacy is people who equate flipping a coin with batsmen in the real world. Do you really think the probability of a batsmen achieving a certain amount of runs is as simple as a coin toss? A coin toss is a completely fair and independant event, where as the performance of a batsmen in a particular innings is NOT independant. E.g. if a batsman makes 250 in the first innings, it is more likely they will fall early in the second - the psychological and physical drain of batting for so long influences the performance in the second innings. I don't want to go into it further here, because it is completely irrelevent, but that is just one example of why sitting behind a computer and using 'mathematical' theories to explain cricket is stupid.

So you completely and utterly disagree with the notion of "form"?

 

[Ruckus]

So you completely and utterly disagree with the notion of "form"?

'Form' is just another example of why the performance of batsmen is not like tossing a coin. When a player is in good form one solid performance often increases the chance they will peform well in subsequent matches (due to increasing confidence).

Edit: I just checked some stats, and what I thought initially was actually wrong. If a player gets a double in the first innings they are almost 50% more likely to not get out early in the second innings (probably explained by their confidence and form carrying across, and the teams strong position). But the general point remains the same - how a batsmen performs in a particular innings is definately not just like a coin toss.

 

[Jarquis]

Basically I disagree but would be interested to see if there's any real link there.

 

[Mike5181]

There is a good reason why a player who has a higher SR and dominates attacks more is generally more revered. The perfect example is Sehwag - he completely destroys the confidence of bowlers and puts a massive amount of pressure on the opposition. If he gets a century at a run-a-ball it will enhance his teams overall performance far more than if Kallis gets a century at a SR of 35. A century at a SR of 35 (on an individual level) obviously brings about the same end-result as a century at a SR of 100, but the psychological effect on the opposition and the players own team is reduced.

Only three of Kallis' thirty eight centuries have come with a strike rate of less than 40.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Two of those three innings were to save the match in the fourth innings

1st Test: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: West Indies v South Africa at Georgetown, Mar 31-Apr 4, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His first/second innings of the match centuries have come at an average SR of greater than 50.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[ankitj]

There is a good reason why a player who has a higher SR and dominates attacks more is generally more revered. The perfect example is Sehwag - he completely destroys the confidence of bowlers and puts a massive amount of pressure on the opposition. If he gets a century at a run-a-ball it will enhance his teams overall performance far more than if Kallis gets a century at a SR of 35. A century at a SR of 35 (on an individual level) obviously brings about the same end-result as a century at a SR of 100, but the psychological effect on the opposition and the players own team is reduced.

Agree with that. Specially because you use Sehwag as an example

 

[Ruckus]

Only three of Kallis' thirty eight centuries have come with a strike rate of less than 40.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Two of those three innings were to save the match in the fourth innings

1st Test: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 1997 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

1st Test: West Indies v South Africa at Georgetown, Mar 31-Apr 4, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

His first/second innings of the match centuries have come at an average SR of greater than 50.

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

haha yeah, I wasn't saying all of Kallis' centuries are at a SR of 35, I was just using that as an example of a slower century. The point about SR's is all relative - the higher the SR the more bowlers will be affected.

Here are Ponting's first innings centuries and the SR's:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Take note of not only the much higher overall SR, but also the number of centuries with VERY high SR's and low no. of 40's SR's compared to Kallis.

 

[Black_Warrior]

LOL I knew this topic was coming..

Kallis is my favourite so I'm going to be biased and vote for Kallis

 

[akilana]

Of course it's easier when you have some really good batsmen in your team.

 

[robelinda]

Facing the new ball Punter for a long time was dynamite when an early wicket fell. Kallis didnt last too long at #3, always felt he shouldve stayed at 3, regardless of his bowling. SA went through about 8 years of woeful #3's after Kallis before Amla finally cemented his spot. Always give Ponting credit for being Viv like in his attacking method at #3, he always is looking to punish anything. Hence why I attempt to refrain from comparing batsmen who bat in different positions, it means quite a lot in my mind even batting one spot lower. Lara was excellent at #3 too, always though he shouldve stayed there.

 

[kingkallis]

haha yeah, I wasn't saying all of Kallis' centuries are at a SR of 35, I was just using that as an example of a slower century. The point about SR's is all relative - the higher the SR the more bowlers will be affected.

Here are Ponting's first innings centuries and the SR's:

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Take note of not only the much higher overall SR, but also the number of centuries with VERY high SR's and low no. of 40's SR's compared to Kallis.

Bad example mate!