Where Next For Kevin Pietersen?

[Spark]

Tests

KP has 5074 runs and 16 centuries in 108 innings.

Clarke has 4375 runs and 14 centuries in 109 innings.

Not-outs are the only thing that put Clarke's average above KP's.

KP has about 15% more runs in the same matches and less innings, despite playing for a weaker side. His ODI and first class records are also superior.

I don't know where you got the number of innings from, but they don't seem right... cricinfo is telling me KP has 108 innings, 5 NO's, Clarke has 97 innings and 12 NO's.

In any case the reason I think Clarke might be better is because he has better technique. And (hopefully) the captaincy will improve his batting as it did for Waugh and Ponting.

 

[Streetwise]

Yes, he probably is. But with KP the more destructive.

And also the most self destructive.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I think Uppercut made a good post once about how averages go up by scoring runs and only go down by getting out, which means that players shouldn't be discreditted for finishing on not out, because not outs come when the batsman can't help the circumstance or the team is declaring. However, he was referring only to limited overs games, not Tests so I don't know.

I don't know where Clarke would be if he was representing another country. His career was on the brink acouple of years ago before he got an reprieve (due to a Watson injury) and was lucky enough to came back into the side when Australia was probably as strong as it ever was/has been. He got a few scores on some pretty flat tracks when Australia were in good positions in the game and that pretty much set him up. Had Watson not got injured then Clarke would probably only coming back into the setup in the past year or so.

 

[GIMH]

Allow me to clarify as I think some poeple have taken my comments the wrong way. When I said it was revisionist thinking, what I mean was that I took an implication from some posts that KP had always been Clarke's inferior, even prior to their contrasting form in recent times. If I have misread stuff, fair enough, I don't think it's a horrific thing to say that Clarke is better or has achieved more (even though I disagree, personally) but I do think it's ludicrous to suggest that this was the case anytime before last year. That's all.

 

[Spark]

I think Uppercut made a good post once about how averages go up by scoring runs and only go down by getting out, which means that players shouldn't be discreditted for finishing on not out, because not outs come when the batsman can't help the circumstance or the team is declaring. However, he was referring only to limited overs games, not Tests so I don't know.

I don't know where Clarke would be if he was representing another country. His career was on the brink acouple of years ago before he got an reprieve (due to a Watson injury) and was lucky enough to came back into the side when Australia was probably as strong as it ever was/has been. He got a few scores on some pretty flat tracks when Australia were in good positions in the game and that pretty much set him up. Had Watson not got injured then Clarke would probably only coming back into the setup in the past year or so.

Definitely disagree with this.

Clarke would have waited an extra two tests for the call-up, until Martyn retired. That he was chosen above Symonds in the first place indicates that, well, he was above Symonds.

And whilst I don't disagree that his first two hundreds back were on flat decks, his job was to seize the opportunity given to him, which he did admirably. Can't ask for more than that.

EDIT: And I don't see why the not-out logic shouldn't apply to tests. After all, you only increase your average by scoring runs, a 2* or 10* won't make the slightest difference to that. Scoring 120* might.

EDIT2: Also, I'll think you find the difference in strike rates is not so much due to the attacking abilities of the batsmen (both of whom are very good attacking batsman, Pietersen probably the more openly destructive while Clarke tends to play with the bowlers more with his footwork), but more due to the fact that at the start of his innings Clarke is very, very circumspect (he was something like 2 off 30... then 100 off 140 in the 1st test against NZ) and Pietersen not so much.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Definitely disagree with this.

Clarke would have waited an extra two tests for the call-up, until Martyn retired. That he was chosen above Symonds in the first place indicates that, well, he was above Symonds.

And whilst I don't disagree that his first two hundreds back were on flat decks, his job was to seize the opportunity given to him, which he did admirably. Can't ask for more than that.

Had Clarke come in for the 3rd Test, things might've gone a bit differently. His first game back at the GABBA, he come in where Australia were in complete control and scored 60, which probably helped him gain confidence to score a 100 at Adelaide. Australia weren't as comprehensive in the first innings of the Perth Test, so he might've found things a bit more difficult if things started for him then.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

My point about averages was that stats can be used to cloud issues. Clarke's average is currently higher than KP's but KP has scored more runs per innings played.

 

[Streetwise]

My point about averages was that stats can be used to cloud issues. Clarke's average is currently higher than KP's but KP has scored more runs per innings played.

Which means that Clarke has had seven of his innings cut short which if he had been able to complete them he may have scored more runs per innings than Pietersen.

 

[Spark]

Had Clarke come in for the 3rd Test, things might've gone a bit differently. His first game back at the GABBA, he come in where Australia were in complete control and scored 60, which probably helped him gain confidence to score a 100 at Adelaide. Australia weren't as comprehensive in the first innings of the Perth Test, so he might've found things a bit more difficult if things started for him then.

He was in good form by then and he would have been extremely determined to do well (when he really really really really wants a 100 there is a good chance of him getting one), so there is a good chance he would've done well. Yes, he could've failed completely but predicting the past can be tricky. In the end all that matters - he got his shot, within six tests he had three centuries and a fifty.

 

[Spark]

Which means that Clarke has had seven of his innings cut short which if he had been able to complete them he may have scored more runs per innings than Pietersen.

Given that three of his not outs were above 100, and another two were above 50 (and another 48*) this could well have happened - but again, predicting a past that never occured is difficult. Best just to take the average as-is.

 

[GIMH]

Which means that Clarke has had seven of his innings cut short which if he had been able to complete them he may have scored more runs per innings than Pietersen.

On the flipside, how many times has Pietersen got out because he was running out of partners?

I agree with the general principle that a not out doesn't inflate your average, but nothing is black and white. Pietersen could never be accused of playing for red ink - not necessarily saying Clarke can, but he has gone balls out when the situation required it. It would have been easy for KP to finish not out a few times in the 06-07 Ashes for example, but when he was batting with the Mahmoods and Panesars of this world he invariably hit out, and as such sometimes got out. Now that I think on, I'm pretty sure this happened in his debut innings as well.

My point isn't to prove anything WRT who is better but more why stats aren't the be-all end-all. Stats of course can tell you a lot, but not everything because there's so much in the way of external factors that needs to be considered. When two players have similar figures like KP and Clarke, I don't really care for arguing over averages and strike rates, because it just becomes swings and roundabouts.

 

[Spark]

On the flipside, how many times has Pietersen got out because he was running out of partners?

I agree with the general principle that a not out doesn't inflate your average, but nothing is black and white. Pietersen could never be accused of playing for red ink - not necessarily saying Clarke can, but he has gone balls out when the situation required it. It would have been easy for KP to finish not out a few times in the 06-07 Ashes for example, but when he was batting with the Mahmoods and Panesars of this world he invariably hit out, and as such sometimes got out. Now that I think on, I'm pretty sure this happened in his debut innings as well.

My point isn't to prove anything WRT who is better but more why stats aren't the be-all end-all. Stats of course can tell you a lot, but not everything because there's so much in the way of external factors that needs to be considered. When two players have similar figures like KP and Clarke, I don't really care for arguing over averages and strike rates, because it just becomes swings and roundabouts.

Good post. Would point out that Clarke definitely has a "next gear" as well though, and can easily turn a 100 ball 30 into a 160 ball 100... Pietersen just forgoes the 100 ball 30 bit. But I definitely agree, Clarke has more NO's largely in part due to the stronger batting line up - more declarations, more little stars.

And KP has only been run-out 4 times.

 

[Streetwise]

Clarke has only been not out in a match that Aus lost once, 8 have come in matches won and 2 in matches drawn.

Pietesen has only 2 not outs in lost matches.

 

[GIMH]

Losing doesn't really have anything to do with it, though, it's about what you do when you run out of partners.

That aside from the fact it was just an example of why I find dissecting records in that way to be a little trivial.

 

[Streetwise]

Losing doesn't really have anything to do with it, though, it's about what you do when you run out of partners.

That aside from the fact it was just an example of why I find dissecting records in that way to be a little trivial.

What I think that it shows is that most of Clarkes not outs were due to Australia passing a score to win the game, if either player had lots of not outs in lost matches then you could infer that they were running out of partners. I think it clearly shows that both batsmen had thier innings cut short because their teams won the match and not because they ran out of partners.

 

[GIMH]

You can still run out of partners when posting winning scores though, especially in the first innings. I know what you're saying, but I don't think you can make hard fast rules around these things.

 

[pasag]

When you start arguing about not outs you know there's no clear winner.

 

[Top_Cat]

When you start arguing about not outs you know there's no clear winner.

But we haven't even gotten to 4th innings' averages yet!

For the record, I'd pick KP every time. Y'know, when he remembers which end to hold his bat again....

 

[Jarquis]

Considering I dre the Pietersen/Taylor record comparison and mentioned their averages sinces Taylor's debut, I suppose I should show Clarke's in the same period.
So since the 8th November 2007 :

Player   Inns NO Runs  Ave  100 50
Clarke    56   7 2863 58.42 10  13
Pietersen 51   3 2176 45.33  6  8
Taylor    46   1 1941 43.13  5  9

Think that covers all the different stats have people tried to use at one time or another.

 

[Athlai]

Considering I dre the Pietersen/Taylor record comparison and mentioned their averages sinces Taylor's debut, I suppose I should show Clarke's in the same period.
So since the 8th November 2007 :

Player   Inns NO Runs  Ave  100 50
Clarke    56   7 2863 58.42 10  13
Pietersen 51   3 2176 45.33  6  8
Taylor    46   1 1941 43.13  5  9

Think that covers all the different stats have people tried to use at one time or another.

Taylor also drags a bit from a terrrrrrrrrible South African tour to begin his career.

From the start of 08:

Clarke 2554 @ 55.52
Pietersen 2050 @ 47.67
Taylor 1897 @ 46.26

Pietersen is a better batsman than Taylor, I can concede this but over the last few years he hasn't really shown it.