smash84
The Tiger King
Are you looking only at averages?
-
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.
Sunil Gavaskar - Where does he sit in the Hall of Fame?
- Thread starter fredfertang
- Start date
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
And yet, none of those spinners got an LBW. In general, it was an incredibly bad series in terms of pitch preparation. Even Imran only took 6 wickets for the series and never more than 2 in an inning. As I've read, even Imran told Lillee that he was disappointed and had asked the Pakistani board not to be so defensive and make flat pitches. Greg Chappell, after scoring 235 runs, came out saying the pitch wasn't fit for Test cricket. Anyway, wasn't intended to side-track the thread.
I personally have him there.
Last edited:
smash84
The Tiger King
Liar
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
I certainly would. And I'd also give a very, very big shout out to the good Doctor.
I'm not saying the comparison is exact or that they are very similar ( never thought of a 'comparision' between them ), but
what you said has more to do with the no of tests Ponting/Aus played with respect to how many tests Waqar/Pak played in the respective best years
In ~10 years , starting from his debut, Waqar played 55 tests, avg ~,21.5, S/R ~ 40
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
In ~11 years, starting from his debut, Ponting played 110 tests, avg ~ 59
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
At the height of their powers ( a period of nearly 5 years )
Waqar played 31 tests, avg 18.5, S/R 35.3
Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Ponting played 58 tests, avg ~72
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
There's a big difference between them, aside from the fact that Ponting in the above played double the number of Tests Waqar did and even longer (time-wise) as a player.
Waqar started brilliantly and had he continued in the same vein he would undoubtedly be the greatest fast bowler of all time. His figures after 10 years considers that, but from the mid-90s onwards he fell some way off that incredible standard he had hit and was getting worse. If he had retired then, even with those stats, he would not have been the best bowler of all time or in consideration of that top echelon - he was a spent force and his career ratios were artefacts of his brilliant start and not his consistent brilliance throughout his career. People could see that, clearly.
Ponting, however, was getting better and better even after his 100th Test. He was averaging 60. Had he retired then his average would have been incredible, but unlike Waqar, it wasn't a testament to just some peak, but a career of consistency and going strength to strength for over 100 tests. At that time he was more than eligible for the class 2nd to Bradman and had played a significant amount of cricket to boot - whereas Waqar's would have been a career cut short by injury and loss of ability.
Bradman aside, I'd consider Waqar with the greatest peak in cricket which has hid how ordinary he became towards the end. When you reverse their cumulative averages it becomes clear. It takes 68 (of 87) Tests for Waqar to get his average under 25 - which means for the majority of his career, he was averaging above that; which shows how good he was in the beginning of his career. For Ponting it takes 60 (of 154) Tests to get his average to 50+; which means for the majority of his career (94 Tests) he was still averaging over 50.
Waqar started brilliantly and had he continued in the same vein he would undoubtedly be the greatest fast bowler of all time. His figures after 10 years considers that, but from the mid-90s onwards he fell some way off that incredible standard he had hit and was getting worse. If he had retired then, even with those stats, he would not have been the best bowler of all time or in consideration of that top echelon - he was a spent force and his career ratios were artefacts of his brilliant start and not his consistent brilliance throughout his career. People could see that, clearly.
Ponting, however, was getting better and better even after his 100th Test. He was averaging 60. Had he retired then his average would have been incredible, but unlike Waqar, it wasn't a testament to just some peak, but a career of consistency and going strength to strength for over 100 tests. At that time he was more than eligible for the class 2nd to Bradman and had played a significant amount of cricket to boot - whereas Waqar's would have been a career cut short by injury and loss of ability.
Bradman aside, I'd consider Waqar with the greatest peak in cricket which has hid how ordinary he became towards the end. When you reverse their cumulative averages it becomes clear. It takes 68 (of 87) Tests for Waqar to get his average under 25 - which means for the majority of his career, he was averaging above that; which shows how good he was in the beginning of his career. For Ponting it takes 60 (of 154) Tests to get his average to 50+; which means for the majority of his career (94 Tests) he was still averaging over 50.
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
No he wasn't. After his 2nd test match, Ponting has never averaged above 60.
59.99 is good enough!
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
, as hang on has touched on; Ponting averaged 59.99 on his 107th Test.again, Ponting from 96-2001 wasn't a model of consistency, he was that only from 2002-2006
Points regarding the no of tests played ( Pak/Aus played ) and injuries stand .....
ditto for Ponting, in the years I listed ( 95-Mar 2007 ), you can split it into 2 ( from debut to end of 2001 and from end of 2001 to Ashes 2007 )
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
Last edited:
That's not a good way to look at it. It isn't even correct. You might want to retract it, heh !
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Ponting from 96-01 was a debutant who was learning his craft against some of the best bowling attacks of all time and was averaging 45-46 - which for the 90s was excellent. I removed that split from my post because I knew you'd try to retort with Ponting's. Regardless, the point is the same: Ponting went from one of the best talents in the world to one of the greatest batsmen of all-time. Waqar went from one of the greatest bowlers of all time to a largely injured and less effective bowler for the rest of his career.
I guess that's why Waqar kind of splits people. If you view him as "if he had kept injury free he was the greatest ever" it's easy to view him in that top echelon. If you think injury is part of the game and bowlers have to prepare for it and learn to live with it then you most likely won't. That problem doesn't occur with Ponting. As aforesaid, he went from strength to strength for more than 100 Tests worth.
It's why I highlight the hypothetical of "what if they retired at this time" (time being after the 10+ year peaks you've picked). Because one would have retired a shadow of his former glory, with years of ordinary bowling and with not many Tests played (~55) whereas the other had already done everything necessary to put himself in that category and would have retired ontop, with over 100 Tests played. Ponting, even before his last few years slump, had already achieved more than other cricketers could hope to achieve in a career. No one would have said he hadn't played/achieved enough.
I guess that's why Waqar kind of splits people. If you view him as "if he had kept injury free he was the greatest ever" it's easy to view him in that top echelon. If you think injury is part of the game and bowlers have to prepare for it and learn to live with it then you most likely won't. That problem doesn't occur with Ponting. As aforesaid, he went from strength to strength for more than 100 Tests worth.
It's why I highlight the hypothetical of "what if they retired at this time" (time being after the 10+ year peaks you've picked). Because one would have retired a shadow of his former glory, with years of ordinary bowling and with not many Tests played (~55) whereas the other had already done everything necessary to put himself in that category and would have retired ontop, with over 100 Tests played. Ponting, even before his last few years slump, had already achieved more than other cricketers could hope to achieve in a career. No one would have said he hadn't played/achieved enough.
No, I think for those two it's apt because for now Ponting has had a disappointing few years, the same as Waqar and as a reversal it shows how different they are. When you work your way back you see how long they've been disappointing/average.
Last edited:
tbh, Waqar was decent from 96 onwards till 98 ... He became worse after that .....
Ponting was averaging 43-44 till he hit his peak in 2002 ....
Again, yeah, the main difference is the no of tests and the way their careers progressed . But similarity is that there is more of a difference b/w their peaks and non-peak periods when compared to the other greats . It isn't just because their peaks were that good, but also because non-peaks were less impressive than that of the others
no, it isn't , because there are two patches for Waqar towards the middle-end of his career, where he was not 'excellent'. For Ponting, those sort of patches are split into the beginning of his career and now ( from Ashes 2007 onwards )
Waqar hit his stride pretty quickly ...
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Ponting was averaging 46 by end of 2000, yeh his 2001 put him down and his 2002 took him back up. You're splitting hairs but you're not really establishing anything.
Whilst Waqar hit the ground running, that is generally not the norm. So people, when ranking cricketers, generally don't penalise players for not being all-time class from the get-go. Ponting's average in his initial period is not his trough - as Waqar's is in his down-period - but an adjustment phase and a very good one.
Ponting had a very good average for that period, especially considering the era of bowlers and the stage of his career. Waqar in his weak period is already established but has lost stature due to injury and form. This contextual fact makes all the difference.
That's kind of the point; Waqar hit his stride and burned out not far into his career. If we consider Ponting burned out, then it started after him already having a 100+ Test career.
To reiterate, if Waqar had retired by his burn out time, where he still had impressive ratios, how many people do you think would have considered him the greatest bowler of all time? His stature had already diminished by then.
Contrast with Ponting, if he had retired at his burn-out, where he still had great figures, he'd still have had a full ATG career and would have retired as the best batsmen of the world at the time.
Not sure it gets any simpler than that, really. To use an example you might not desire to be compared to Waqar, consider Tendulkar. Had he retired at the start of 07 he'd have had great overall ratios, had already had a ATG career, and you wouldn't be comparing him to Waqar because even if he had a trough towards the end of his career his class had already been established.
so, essentially, someone is getting penalised based on perception ie how the cricketing sphere construes success and being great and where it is the norm to reach a peak and suchlike. very simplistic and reductive understanding of your argument, ikki, i know, but this what i seem to be getting from reading it a few times.
otherwise there is no need for any asymmetry between a great start and tailing off and a middling start, a great middle and then tailing off.
otherwise there is no need for any asymmetry between a great start and tailing off and a middling start, a great middle and then tailing off.
Last edited:
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
To be honest, I was thinking of starting a thread based on this question.
The question being: is it better to start off great and finish averagely or the other way round? I guess statistically it makes little difference.
Personally, I think it is the reason why one tails off or starts a certain way that matters. Hence my points re Ponting v Waqar. To call Ponting's start (where in the first phase of his career he was averaging 45-46) a trough is just incorrect for me - as it denotes a disappointing phase. It appears a very good record based on the context of his career.
However, Waqar's record is a real trough; in that it is a show of decline on his part due to his ability fading away. That's where, for me, the context is different and shows why the two are different.
Moreover, I think when one usually talks of Waqar you talk about unfulfilled talent/ability. He is synonymous for a great peak but not consistency. I wouldn't consider Ponting a 'Waqar' in this sense, no more than I would have Tendulkar in 07, for example. Both were already champions and fulfilled cricketers with ATG careers behind them, even before their troughs towards the end of their careers. In reference to my earlier points; they'd be of the same class, regardless how they'd finish, but maybe not as high on that same plane. That's why for me, I've revised my opinion since 07 to put Tendulkar ahead of Ponting; even though, even then, I'd have considered them the same class.
Anyway, I put the question to you: what do you think? Does that context matter, or in the end is it the same?
Last edited:
Sanz
Hall of Fame Member
In the context it is not.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
based on perception "a middling start, a great middle and then tailing off" seems somewhat better than "a great start and tailing off"
However, it still depends on the relative length of those phases.
However, it still depends on the relative length of those phases.
was also thinking of the same question! u should certainly go for it and start a thread on it.
regarding your question to me, context certainly does matter (ie either adds to or trumps stats). in this case (not the waqar or ponting case necessarily), longevity is very important not only because it is hard to be good to great over a period of time but also because it implies the ability to play and adapt to different bowlers/batsmen, conditions (one does tour more and experience a greater slew of conditions over a period of time), changing methods and tactics and even the evolution in the ethos of the game etc. thus a batsman who does superbly over 30 tests in 3 years and averages 65 will not be, in my book, as good as one who does well over 15 years (assuming he does tour etc. and does not only play at home or only in one country...a safe enough assumption these days) and averages 55.