• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

Ruckus

International Captain
Haha nah, if this was true then Ponting would score more runs on average, and he doesn't.

.
No, "And it also occured to me, if Ponting and Tendulkar have roughly the same average and amount of runs etc., then if Ponting is following up a big first innings score with a substantial second innings one much more often - something must compensate. He would have to average less when these peformances are excluded."
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Typical scores:

Tendulkar
1. 150 & 20
2. 20 & 100
Total = 290

Ponting
1. 150 & 80
2. 30 & 30
Total = 290
200 runs or more in a match:

Ponting: 8.11%
Tendulkar: 5.92%

In other words.. indeed. Now we're getting into stuff that might mean something. :p
 

Ruckus

International Captain
200 runs or more in a match:

Ponting: 8.11%
Tendulkar: 5.92%

In other words.. indeed. Now we're getting into stuff that might mean something. :p
There ya go, I new there was something going on :p

So does that mean the lower limit you used (or rather I used, I guess) of 140 runs per match was perhaps too low?
 
Last edited:

Ruckus

International Captain
Tendulkar averages 84.56 runs per match excluding matches he didn't bat in at all, and scores 140 runs or more in a match 21.30% of the time.

Ponting averages 82.77 runs per match and scores 140 runs or more in a match 20.27% of the time.
This is starting to get pretty confusing, but isn't there a problem with the above? You have to see how much of the time Tendulkar/Ponting score 140 runs or more only in games where they play two innings. I assume the above analysis is taking into account games where only 1 innings was played as well?
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
This is starting to get pretty confusing, but isn't there a problem with the above? You have to see how much of the time Tendulkar/Ponting score 140 runs or more only in games where they play two innings. I assume the above analysis is taking into account games where only 1 innings was played as well?
There'd be just as big a problem with that as it'd ignore matches where they scored more than 140 in the first innings and would've only needed a duck to have it count but didn't bat (this happened to both batsmen several times). This is why we generally use innings averages, tbh. :p
I'll give it to you anyway though:

Ponting: 21.35 %
Tendulkar: 21.23 %

Nothing in it.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
There'd be just as big a problem with that as it'd ignore matches where they scored more than 140 in the first innings and would've only needed a duck to have it count but didn't bat (this happened to both batsmen several times). This is why we generally use innings averages, tbh. :p
I'll give it to you anyway though:

Ponting: 21.35 %
Tendulkar: 21.23 %

Nothing in it.
Hmm, but nevertheless, it makes it compatible with the results I showed before. So Ponting follows up first innings 100's with 40+ second innings scores much more of the time, yet Tendulkar still has roughly the same percentage of 'two innings' games where he scores above 140 runs (21.23%). That must confirm, then, that Tendulkar plays many matches where both his scores are moderate like 70 and 70 or 50 and 90 . As you said before though, if the match total is the same (i.e. 140) it is rather irrelevant how the scores are distributed over the innings. The '200 runs or more' result though seems to be significant.
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
But my point is in relation to first innings hundreds. A first innings hundred (unless it is really massive) often doesn't give your team that much of an advantage. However, if you can consolidate that first innings score with another substantial score in the second innings, you are much more likely to win the match. I.e. by bombing out in the second innings, you often lose any advantage the first innings hundred gave the team in the first place.
When Ponting scores a 100 for his THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN team, he doesn't need to back it up.
Plus, i have seen aussies not enforce the follow on so many times so runs scored then are pretty meaningless.
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Ponting was about to make another one early this year when he made 200 and 80 at Hobart, just after failing at both digs in Sydney.
That was pretty meaningless coz teh team was on top as they decided against enforcing teh follow on. Adds to what i was saying.
 

angad

U19 12th Man
Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas

Nov 7, 2010

KARACHI: Pakistan's famous Test batsman Zaheer Abbas rates Sachin Tendulkar higher than Don Bradman and believes that the Indian master is the greatest batsman of all time.

"People keep calling him the greatest," said Zaheer referring to Bradman, the Aussie legend. "I never saw him (Bradman) bat but I know, somehow, that he couldn't have been better than Tendulkar. This boy has certainly gone a step ahead of the Don," Zaheer said.

Read full article - Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas

Nov 7, 2010

KARACHI: Pakistan's famous Test batsman Zaheer Abbas rates Sachin Tendulkar higher than Don Bradman and believes that the Indian master is the greatest batsman of all time.

"People keep calling him the greatest," said Zaheer referring to Bradman, the Aussie legend. "I never saw him (Bradman) bat but I know, somehow, that he couldn't have been better than Tendulkar. This boy has certainly gone a step ahead of the Don," Zaheer said.

Read full article - Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas
How ridiculous
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas

Nov 7, 2010

KARACHI: Pakistan's famous Test batsman Zaheer Abbas rates Sachin Tendulkar higher than Don Bradman and believes that the Indian master is the greatest batsman of all time.

"People keep calling him the greatest," said Zaheer referring to Bradman, the Aussie legend. "I never saw him (Bradman) bat but I know, somehow, that he couldn't have been better than Tendulkar. This boy has certainly gone a step ahead of the Don," Zaheer said.

Read full article - Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas
:laugh:
 

Flem274*

123/5
Actually on TV before the start of play today Williamson said it was awesome to have Sachin applaud him because he was the greatest cricketer ever.

But I suspect that's just Williamson on a buzz about his idol.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Williamson asks himself what Sachin would do before facing every ball tbh.

Anyway, If Williamson clearly becomes a greater bat than Tendulkar and has wild success everywhere including averaging over 60 in SA, I'd keep quoting Williamson and talk about how one must appreciate the intangibles of cricket and rate Sachin as better. :ph34r:
 

Slifer

International Captain
Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas

Nov 7, 2010

KARACHI: Pakistan's famous Test batsman Zaheer Abbas rates Sachin Tendulkar higher than Don Bradman and believes that the Indian master is the greatest batsman of all time.

"People keep calling him the greatest," said Zaheer referring to Bradman, the Aussie legend. "I never saw him (Bradman) bat but I know, somehow, that he couldn't have been better than Tendulkar. This boy has certainly gone a step ahead of the Don," Zaheer said.

Read full article - Tendulkar greatest batsman of all time: Zaheer Abbas
Will add him to the list of daft cricketers making daft statements: HAdell, Abbas, Hussain, Sunil
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
What's the difference between 100 and 40, and 140 and 0?
Maybe nothing numerically between those two, but it does signal that if one of those players doesn't make runs in the first innings, he is far less capable in the second to put something up.

In terms of team importance, many other players may make merry in the first innings but few will do well in the second. You'd certainly want the former batsman if you were chasing.
 
Last edited:

Top