Lara tips Ponting as next record-holder

[bharat297]

Maybe the word, 'consistent' is the problem here. It certainly doesn't describe SRT's batting career. He has had 242 innings and scored or passed 50 on 89 occasions. He turned 39 of them into centuries or better. At the other end of the scale, he has 159 scores of under 50 - 58 between 21 & 49 and 101 of 20 or less. That hardly fits the word.

You have got to be kidding me ... :hysterical: Ricky Ponting: * 203 innings : 36 centuries, 40 fifties. Thats 127 scores of under 50. Thats 63% of the time that Ponting doesnt reach 50. Sachin Tendulkar * 242 innings: 39 centuries, 50 fifties. Thats 63% of the time that Sachin didnt reach 50. OMG ... WHATS THATS? 63 = 63? ... :omg: Face the facts!!! ... Whether you like him or not ... Sachin Tendulkar has been a consistent run scorer for 2 decades. Ive never questioned Ponting's consistency. He is one of the best of all time. Now its an absolute joke (no really you're digging yourself into a hole here) that you have labelled Tendulkar as someone who has not been consistent. Yea of course , he may have had a bad patch here and there (probably more recently due to injury and old age) but in general over his 2 decade long career he has been one of the most consistent batsman of all time. Donny, I challenge you to find me 1 cricket expert. I'll take a commentator (former or current), a current player, a former player, a current or former coach, a journalist, a media personality ... anyone remotely associated with International cricket that believes Sachin Tendulkar has not been a consistent run scorer for India.

[Donny]

I didn't mention RP to do with consistency. Your last two sentences clearly indicate you simply don't understand the meaning of the word. Incidentally, this has nothing to do with whether I like Sach or not. I happen to think he's an ornament to the game and a wonderful cricketer. :regular_smile:

[bharat297]

No ... dont try to back track. You clearly mentioned the number of times he scored less than 50 as a measure of a lack of consistency or as you said ... "that hardly fits the word". Im saying that thats a pretty crappy measure of someones consistency because by that same token Ponting would be deemed to be inconsistent, which I am saying is definitely not true. Therefore Sachin is a consistent run scorer and other than a few bad patches here and there you havent been able to prove otherwise. I dont see anyone else supporting that statement either.

[cochise]

Actually, the answer you are both looking for is probably in this article that vroomfondel put up earlier, even though it doesn't give the full list. The standard deviation is the measure you are looking for...have a read of the article...it explains the method and it also gives a token analysis of Sachin earlier in his career and now...I just wish they had the full list so we could see all the batsmen in the list and how they shape up: http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/245575.html p.s. Try the link again if you clicked it and it didn't work...I messed up the first time posting it. Note, Tendulkars career batting index is 1.03 of which from 2002 it is 0.87...meaning it would be significantly higher than 1.03 in the period prior to 2002 i.e. he was significantly more consistent leading up to 2002. So I would make the following claims on his consistency: i) He was very consistent prior to 2002 ii) Over his full career to date, he has been consistent but not amongst the top ten. iii) Since 2002, he has been rather inconsistent. (caveat: within this period, the inconsistency could be weighted towards the later period as well i.e. more inconsistent in the period 2004 till present than 2002 to 2004 where he actually scored quite well...but then again, the measure is one of spread about the average...it would need to be analysed)

[Donny]

Cochise, I'm not looking for any answer/s or deviations. Bharat, you still don't understand the word. :regular_smile:

[cochise]

Cochise, I'm not looking for any answer/s or deviations.

But you must look or you won't be able to play the ball and you must deviate if you want to take a wicket. :winky:

[Donny]

I retired from playing cricket after the Grand Final of 2002. I was 56 and a very inconsistent cricketer. As ALL cricketers are. :regular_smile:

[cochise]

What Grand Final was this? Care to expand?

[Donny]

I'd be happy to - but it'd be off topic. I'll PM you.

[cochise]

Righto...thanks.

[bharat297]

Cochise, I'm not looking for any answer/s or deviations. Bharat, you still don't understand the word. :regular_smile:

OK DONNY ... Please explain to me what 'Consistency' means? Also explain why Sachin is not consistent, and say Ponting on the other hand is. And if you feel neither of them are consistent, then who is?

[Predator_05]

OK DONNY ... Please explain to me what 'Consistency' means? Also explain why Sachin is not consistent, and say Ponting on the other hand is. And if you feel neither of them are consistent, then who is?

He said that ALL cricketers are inconsistent, and being a cricketer, Tendulkar also happens to fall into that category

[bharat297]

OK Fair Enough ... I dont count being consistent as simply making the same score or similar scores all the time, even though thats the technical definition. By that token, Courntney Walsh was a consistent batsman.!!!:giggle: My definition of a player being consistent in the cricket sense is that they can consistently make BIG SCORES. Sachin and Ponting both fall into this category. If you take a big score as being 50+: > Ponting: Averages a 50+ score every 2.7 innings. > Sachin: Averages a 50+ score every 2.7 innings. If you take a big score as being 100+: > Ponting: Averages a 100+ score every 5.6 innings > Sachin: Averages a 100+ score 6.2 innings. This means, on average every 3-4 matches these guys score centuries. Now I dont believe a patch of 9-10 innings here and there is a proper measure of a player's consistency. You dont become a consistent batsman in 9 innings, and you dont become inconsistent in 9 innings. Another measure is that in Tendulkar's 20 year career, in only 5 years has he averaged less than 40 for that calender year. That suggests remarkable consistency. Consistency, in the cricket sense, is measured by a batsman's ability to score big scores regularly over the course of his career. By that definition, both men are very consistent batsman for their countries.

[bharat297]

Another point to my argument ... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/Sachin_Tendulkar_graph.png If you look at that graph. Besides one dry patch in 2006 (where he was injured) the spread of his centuries annd fifties has been quite even, suggesting consistency. Its not like there is one patch where he scored a whole bunch of centuries and then did nothing for a long time.

[Donny]

OK DONNY ... Please explain to me what 'Consistency' means? Also explain why Sachin is not consistent, and say Ponting on the other hand is. And if you feel neither of them are consistent, then who is?

1. I did. Post #100 2. I've said nothing about Ponting being consistent. 2a. As Preds noted, I said all cricketers are inconsistent. After he drew that to your attention, you replied:

OK Fair Enough ... I dont count being consistent as simply making the same score or similar scores all the time' date=' [b']even though thats the technical definition. By that token, Courntney Walsh was a consistent batsman.!!! :giggle:

First, you say "OK. Fair enough" but go on to contradict yourself. IF batsmen made the same or similar scores all the time, THAT would be consistent scoring. SRT has made scores of 200+ and many times has been out for under 10. That's INconsistent. Not necessarily bad or good - just inconsistent. Actually, Courtney Walsh was consistent with the bat in his last year of Test cricket - a consistently low scorer. His last 27 innings produced 26 scores of 5 or under and included 8 ducks. :regular_smile:

[Mr. Wicket]

I retired from playing cricket after the Grand Final of 2002. I was 56 and a very inconsistent cricketer. As ALL cricketers are. :regular_smile:

Statistically speaking, the best way to measure consistency is to consider the standard deviation between cricketers' scores. Chris Martin has a far lower standard deviation among his career scores than any of those batsmen. Thus, we can derive that Martin is far more consistent with the bat than eithe RP or SRT. :--D

[bharat297]

Donny, when I said OK Fair enough it was in reference to your statement that consistency is defined as producing the same or similar scores throughout ones career. In this case, Chris Martin , Courtney Walsh, etc were very consistent batsman. However, in the cricket sense, when a batsman is defined to be consistent, its in reference to the frequency of big scores they produce throughout their career. If all their big scores are bunched up, then that suggests inconsistency with the bat. However, if a batsman is periodically producing big scores (as was shown by Sachin's batting chart), then, in the cricket world, they are deemed to be consistent batsman. By this definition, Ponting and Sachin ARE consistent batsman. Surely you cant disagree with that.

[Donny]

I do. :regular_smile: What you're extrapolating is this: The word 'consistent' has one meaning for the rest of the world and an entirely different one for batsmen - "However, in the cricket sense,".

[bharat297]

Yes it does ... When we're talking about cricket ... whenever a cricket commentator mentions someones consistency in a batsman, they mean the frequency of the batsman scoring big. Thats common knowledge in the game of cricket. In the game of cricket, a string of consistently low scores is not what a commentator or journalist is referring to when they say a batsman has been consistent over the past few years (unless they explicitly say, he has been consistently failing). You know as well as I do that is not what you meant when we started this argument otherwise you wouldnt have shown me a string of "consistently low" scores by Tendulkar. Refer to post 82 ... by the technical definition ... that seems pretty consistent. But I know thats not what you meant.

[Donny]

Yes it does ... When we're talking about cricket ...

Thank you. I rest my case. :regular_smile: