***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[ankitj]

I don't know if this has been analysed before, but I was thinking the other day how important it is for a batsman who scores a hundred in the first innings to back it up with another substantial score (+40) in the second innings (as opposed to collapsing). So I decided to compare Ponting and Tendulkar in this area, and I got some interesting results:

The test matches analysed were only ones where the player is involved (bats) in two innings, and where they have scored 100+ in the first innings. For these matches, Ponting follows up with a 40+ score in the second innings 59% of the time, where as Tendulkar only follows up 22% of the time.

These are pretty staggering results, but do they really mean much, or do you think the importance of following up a big first innings score is insignificant?

Tendulkar's second innings average is more than 20 runs below his first innings average. So would it make any huge difference if we just looked at second innings average irrespective of how much he scored in the first innings.

 

[Ikki]

And if you have enough of Batsmen B you might only need to bat once a game.

You'd need enough of them doing that in enough matches for that to outweigh the importance of scoring in the second innings. Which wouldn't happen because much more often than not batsmen bat both innings.

 

[ankitj]

Btw how do you find out a players 1st and 2nd innings average using stats guru? I can only find the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 'innings in a match' average.

It's there in the 'career batting summary' itself. For example search for '1st team innings' in:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Ikki]

Someone who was excellent across innings was Hayden. In fact, he averaged more in 2nd team innings than first which is very unusual. Goes to show that ironically he was scoring runs when it was more difficult afterall.

 

[vcs]

VVS is a great 2nd innings player.

 

[Ikki]

Indeed.

 

[Ruckus]

Tendulkar's second innings average is more than 20 runs below his first innings average. So would it make any huge difference if we just looked at second innings average irrespective of how much he scored in the first innings.

Yeah you could look at that, but it is would be looking at seperate points to the one I initially brought up. Both Tendulkar and Ponting have very similiar 1st innings and 2nd innings differences (both average 60+ in the first, and low 40's in the second). However, what was found is the distribution of Ponting's runs over his career is different to Tendulkar's. When Ponting scores over a hundred in the first innings he tends to often follow up with a 40+ score in the second - so basically when Ponting scores well in the first innings, it is quite likely he will really dominate in the entire match. However, when Tendulkar scores over a hundred in the first innings, he more often than not doesn't follow up well in the second innings. So Tendulkar is less likely to dominate an entire match if he has scored well in the first innings. However, to compensate, Tendulkar also has more matches than Ponting where he scores moderately in both innings. Ponting will often fail in both innings.

So overall, I don't really think its makes much difference to winning matches - on one hand Ponting will help win more matches when he has scored well in the first innings,but will also probably contribute to losses when he fails in both innings. On the other hand, Tendulkar will be less likely to help win matches when he has scored well in the first innings, but will also contribute to wins by consistently scoring some runs in other matches.

One other interesting point though, is that Ponting (52.44) has a much higher 4th innings (run chase) average than Tendulkar (38.77).

 

[Teja.]

Yeah you could look at that, but it is would be looking at seperate points to the one I initially brought up. Both Tendulkar and Ponting have very similiar 1st innings and 2nd innings differences (both average 60+ in the first, and low 40's in the second). However, what was found is the distribution of Ponting's runs over his career is different to Tendulkar's. When Ponting scores over a hundred in the first innings he tends to often follow up with a 40+ score in the second - so basically when Ponting scores well in the first innings, it is quite likely he will really dominate in the entire match. However, when Tendulkar scores over a hundred in the first innings, he more often than not doesn't follow up well in the second innings. So Tendulkar is less likely to dominate an entire match if he has scored well in the first innings. However, to compensate, Tendulkar also has more matches than Ponting where he scores moderately in both innings. Ponting will often fail in both innings.

So overall, I don't really think its makes much difference to winning matches - on one hand Ponting will help win more matches when he has scored well in the first innings,but will also probably contribute to losses when he fails in both innings. On the other hand, Tendulkar will be less likely to help win matches when he has scored well in the first innings, but will also contribute to wins by consistently scoring some runs in other matches.

One other interesting point though, is that Ponting (52.44) has a much higher 4th innings (run chase) average than Tendulkar (38.77).

The low 4th Innings average might have something to do with him playing half his tests in India.

 

[Ruckus]

The low 4th Innings average might have something to do with him playing half his tests in India.

Na, that's not true at all. Because his 4th innings average in India is 54.35, whilst excluding India it is 28.38 (19.71 in Australia!). So he has actually done terribly in the 4th innings outside of India, and very well in India.

 

[honestbharani]

Not sure which is the best place to put this:


Gary Kirsten on Sachin:


Let's talk about Tendulkar. With his experience, is he the easiest person to coach or the most difficult?
I think he is a professor in his batting. He has got incredible knowledge about his own batting and basically uses me as a sounding board. After 21 years of playing the game he still wants to learn about his batting and still feels he needs someone to bounce ideas off. It has been a real privilege to have had that opportunity. I absolutely love it.

Again, less is more. You don't need to say too much. But every now and again we have had lengthy conversations about his batting, and other times we have had very little. It does vary according to how he is feeling about his batting. One great example for young batsmen around the world I use is: Tendulkar studies the whole book for the exam. He does not leave anything to chance. He will never finish a net session till he has made sure he has done everything that he feels is required to get him ready for the next match. Sometimes it is 300 balls, other times it is 1500 balls, in the week leading up to the match. He has to leave the net feeling comfortable.

 

[honestbharani]

Awesome = that man Sachin.. Seriously awesome.

 

[centurymaker]

300 balls = 50 overs. wow
He works his guts out in the nets

 

[Ikki]

The match situations count for nothing? Batting first vs chasing a score that had never been chased before? And the number of shots they get at playing finals?

Sachin's WC03 final failure is the last innings I will cite as an example of capitulation under pressure, because there really was no pressure by the time he came to bat. The match was settled in the first half. There couldn't have been any coherent strategy for chasing that score down.

It was the WC final and he failed...clear and simple. The match wasn't settled at all - in fact, that's the kind of mentality that's likely to never get you a WC. Sehwag took the bull by the horns and tried to make it happen. Does that make Sehwag a better player than Tendulkar? No. But let's stop underrating the kind of performances needed in these pressure situations. You fail, you have to come back in 4 years and try all over again. In the same match Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist stepped up. No matter how much you wanna down-rate the Indian bowling...those were very impressive innings - especially Ponting's 140* at more than a run a ball.

 

[vcs]

It was the WC final and he failed...clear and simple. The match wasn't settled at all - in fact, that's the kind of mentality that's likely to never get you a WC. Sehwag took the bull by the horns and tried to make it happen. Does that make Sehwag a better player than Tendulkar? No. But let's stop underrating the kind of performances needed in these pressure situations. You fail, you have to come back in 4 years and try all over again. In the same match Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist stepped up. No matter how much you wanna down-rate the Indian bowling...those were very impressive innings - especially Ponting's 140* at more than a run a ball.

All true... I guess you could say the same about Warne in the '96 final.

 

[Ikki]

Lol

Tendulkar played 2 semi-finals and 1 final.

In both semi-finals, He scored essential Innings(65 and 83), In the first one, his team collapsed with highest after him being 25, In the second one, His team capitalized on his 83 and won it.

He averages 74 in semi finals and has one failure in the finals. When we're bashing him for failing to score in a one-off Innings against the greatest ODI bowler and using it as him being fail in pressure situations, Let's not forget how he has performed in semi-finals.

His 65 against SL in 96 was good...but in 2003 he played Kenya. Let's be honest there.

 

[Ikki]

All true... I guess you could say the same about Warne in the '96 final.

No, different. Warne in 96 was hindered by the dew which had affected the ball. To quote Burgey; Warne was bowling with "a cake of soap". Nevertheless, he did return 4 years later and obliterated S.Africa in the semis and Pakistan in the final.

 

[Shri]

 

[vcs]

No, different. Warne in 96 was hindered by the dew which had affected the ball. To quote Burgey; Warne was bowling with "a cake of soap". Nevertheless, he did return 4 years later and obliterated S.Africa in the semis and Pakistan in the final.

Tendulkar was hindered by a small matter of chasing 3343335050 runs against McGrath, Lee and company. Credit to Warne for his performances in '99, though. We'll see if Tendulkar gets a chance to redeem himself.

 

[Migara]

All true... I guess you could say the same about Warne in the '96 final.

That's what I call taking the bull by the horns

 

[ankitj]

It was the WC final and he failed...clear and simple. The match wasn't settled at all - in fact, that's the kind of mentality that's likely to never get you a WC. Sehwag took the bull by the horns and tried to make it happen. Does that make Sehwag a better player than Tendulkar? No. But let's stop underrating the kind of performances needed in these pressure situations. You fail, you have to come back in 4 years and try all over again. In the same match Ponting, Martyn and Gilchrist stepped up. No matter how much you wanna down-rate the Indian bowling...those were very impressive innings - especially Ponting's 140* at more than a run a ball.

Another LOL post.