Andrew Strauss - Not a bad start, chap.

[tooextracool]

Pity he only played in the 4th Test of the most recent series then..

and of course all those other tests that hes played in india dont count then?

Chances are, that had he played on a decent wicket following some match practice, we would not even be having this debate.

and thats because of his sustained brilliance in india isnt it?

 

[social]

and of course all those other tests that hes played in india dont count then?



and thats because of his sustained brilliance in india isnt it?

No, it's because he's one of the best 3 or 4 batsmen in the world today, pummelled the Indians last time out, and the law of averages would indicate that he's overdue for a massive score there.

 

[marc71178]

Actually, the law of averages would suggest he wouldn't have scored many there, his average in India being low as it is.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's because he's one of the best 3 or 4 batsmen in the world today, pummelled the Indians last time out, and the law of averages would indicate that he's overdue for a massive score there.

except that the law of averages would suggest that he would continue to fail in india, which he has been for god knows how long.

 

[social]

So you're saying that a batsman who will, in all likelihood, be considered an all-time great and has dominated every major spinner in all conditions except in India, cant score runs there.

Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot that these assertions are being made in a forum where:

a. Lillee's not a great because he failed on the subcontinent;

b. Botham's not a great because he failed against the West Indies; and

c. Kallis hasnt proven himself because his record vs Australia is ordinary.

 

[tooextracool]

So you're saying that a batsman who will, in all likelihood, be considered an all-time great and has dominated every major spinner in all conditions except in India, cant score runs there.

im not saying he cant, im saying that he hasnt and its highly unlikely that he ever will. he had 8 tests there, so he certainly had enough chances too.personally had he had 1 bad series and 1 good one, and averaged 30 odd it would be perfectly acceptable. but for someone to average 12 after 8 tests is quite clearly disgraceful. and hes really only had 1 good series in spinner friendly conditions where by some miracle he managed to score runs against murali. you can go on and keep calling him an all time great, i cant believe that someone who cant buy a run in india can be an all time great.

 

[social]

Frankly, I'd have a bigger problem with Ponting if he'd scraped together a series of ordinary 20s and 30s in India before getting out.

Unfortunately, he hasnt spent enough time at the crease to even look ordinary

There was no luck about his runs against Murali - he batted alost perfectly. Just as he did against Kumble, Harbijhan and Kaneria in Australia.

At the end of the day, if Ponting is not an all-time great in batting terms then that club would be the world's most exclusive as Bradman would be its' only member.

 

[tooextracool]

and how many other greats average 12 after a considerable number of tests in another country?
and scoring against kumble in non turning conditions isnt really an achievement, kumble barely even turns the ball. no surprise that he failed in the turner at sydney though.

 

[tooextracool]

Frankly, I'd have a bigger problem with Ponting if he'd scraped together a series of ordinary 20s and 30s in India before getting out.

which if you read carefully is not what i said. id much rather have ponting have played 3 series, averaged 45 in one and 17 and 23 in the other. at least it would show that hes had one good series there. ATM hes failed miserably in every series there.

 

[marc71178]

At the end of the day, if Ponting is not an all-time great in batting terms then that club would be the world's most exclusive as Bradman would be its' only member.

So you're saying that he's second to Bradman then?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

which if you read carefully is not what i said. id much rather have ponting have played 3 series, averaged 45 in one and 17 and 23 in the other. at least it would show that hes had one good series there. ATM hes failed miserably in every series there.

He's had two good series in Sri Lanka against Murali however, which indicates that he is capable of playing quality spin bowling in spin-friendly subcontinent conditions. Based on that, I would have expected him to get it together some time in the recent tour of India, had he not been injured. Unfortunately, we won't ever know unless he gets another shot down the track.

 

[marc71178]

Thing about playing in India though is that you've got 2 spinners coming at you, in SL there's always 1 loose end.

 

[SJS]

Thing about playing in India though is that you've got 2 spinners coming at you, in SL there's always 1 loose end.

Yes and also he prefers the ball coming to him. Indian tracks are too slow for his style. Although a player of his caliber should be able to make adjustments.

 

[tooextracool]

He's had two good series in Sri Lanka against Murali however, which indicates that he is capable of playing quality spin bowling in spin-friendly subcontinent conditions

err what? hes had one, he failed in the most recent series.

Based on that, I would have expected him to get it together some time in the recent tour of India, had he not been injured. Unfortunately, we won't ever know unless he gets another shot down the track.

why? the only good tour that hes had in SL was in 99, and then not long after that he averaged 3.33 in india. so hes had enough shots, the improvement simply hasnt come.

 

[Jono]

Frankly, I'd have a bigger problem with Ponting if he'd scraped together a series of ordinary 20s and 30s in India before getting out.

Unfortunately, he hasnt spent enough time at the crease to even look ordinary

I beg to differ. That innings when he was caught behind and not given, then dropped by the bowler, and then finally caught at bat pad was one of the ugliest innings you'll see.

 

[social]

err what? hes had one, he failed in the most recent series.




why? the only good tour that hes had in SL was in 99, and then not long after that he averaged 3.33 in india. so hes had enough shots, the improvement simply hasnt come.

No single figure scores in most recent series v SL - simply didnt convert the starts into centuries as he had done for the previous 3 years. It happens.

To say that he failed in the context of the series is incorrect and another example of why you should spend more time watching cricket rather than analysing stats.

 

[social]

So you're saying that he's second to Bradman then?

No, what I am saying is that if a player that has scored 6500 + runs at over 55 with 21 centuries AND is regarded as one of the best fieldsmen of his era AND is captain of the world's best team in test and ODI cannot be regarded as an all-time great, then who can?

Even Bradman's record has its anomalies.

1. Only played one team on a consistent basis.

2. Amateur sport.

3. Relatively low standard of fitness and fielding.

4. Lack of fast bowling stock.

Look hard enough and you can criticise anybody.

Ponting's record in India is deplorable and the chances are that he wont get an opportunity to improve upon it, even if he is capable of doing so.

But in the meantime, he will likely retire with over 10000 runs at over 50 with 30 + centuries.

Name one team in the history of the sport that would not walk over hot coals to have him in their side.

 

[marc71178]

No, what I am saying is that if a player that has scored 6500 + runs at over 55 with 21 centuries AND is regarded as one of the best fieldsmen of his era AND is captain of the world's best team in test and ODI cannot be regarded as an all-time great, then who can?

But your initial post was about all time great batsmen, rendering the fielding and captaincy irrelevant.

Therefore it appears that you are saying that if Ponting isn't considered an all time great batsman (which I'm not certain he will be regarded as depending on what people call greats) then only Bradman can be regarded as one.

 

[indie2]

No, what I am saying is that if a player that has scored 6500 + runs at over 55 with 21 centuries AND is regarded as one of the best fieldsmen of his era AND is captain of the world's best team in test and ODI cannot be regarded as an all-time great, then who can?

Even Bradman's record has its anomalies.

1. Only played one team on a consistent basis.

2. Amateur sport.

3. Relatively low standard of fitness and fielding.

4. Lack of fast bowling stock.

Look hard enough and you can criticise anybody.

Ponting's record in India is deplorable and the chances are that he wont get an opportunity to improve upon it, even if he is capable of doing so.

But in the meantime, he will likely retire with over 10000 runs at over 50 with 30 + centuries.

Name one team in the history of the sport that would not walk over hot coals to have him in their side.

The point you might (?should?) have made is about Bradman's performance on sticky wickets.

Seems to me the accepted verdict on Bradman is that he never managed to adjust to sticky wickets, but nevertheless he is universally recognized as the greatest of the greats. Based on that, weakness in one area should not be taken as disproving greatness.

Indeed, the word is that Bradman consciously decided not to try to adjust to sticky wickets, fearing that changing his technique would have an adverse impact on his batting on the wickets that were more the norm in his era.

I'm not suggesting Ponting has decided not to bother when it comes to playing spin in the subcontinent. What I mean is that relative failure in one area does not deny him a claim to great-hood, and that there may be other factors involved which may equally be proof of great-hood, as in Bradman's supposedly calculated decision not to make the effort regarding stickies.

(I'm not suggesting Ponting is an all-time great, of course -- let's see his whole career first. But people who deny a possibility based on figures and numbers are forgetting the importance of the person -- the person decides how he will play, and that is what makes him great or otherwise.)

 

[social]

The point you might (?should?) have made is about Bradman's performance on sticky wickets.

Seems to me the accepted verdict on Bradman is that he never managed to adjust to sticky wickets, but nevertheless he is universally recognized as the greatest of the greats. Based on that, weakness in one area should not be taken as disproving greatness.

Indeed, the word is that Bradman consciously decided not to try to adjust to sticky wickets, fearing that changing his technique would have an adverse impact on his batting on the wickets that were more the norm in his era.

I'm not suggesting Ponting has decided not to bother when it comes to playing spin in the subcontinent. What I mean is that relative failure in one area does not deny him a claim to great-hood, and that there may be other factors involved which may equally be proof of great-hood, as in Bradman's supposedly calculated decision not to make the effort regarding stickies.

(I'm not suggesting Ponting is an all-time great, of course -- let's see his whole career first. But people who deny a possibility based on figures and numbers are forgetting the importance of the person -- the person decides how he will play, and that is what makes him great or otherwise.)

IMO, the disparity in conditions (especially pre-war) mean attempts to make meaningful comparisons between Bradman and today's greats at best a futlile exercise.

My point is, based upon statistical measures alone, Ricky Ponting is as good as anyone player to have played the game bar Bradman. Therefore, should you exclude Ponting from consideration to an all-time list then, by implication, so must everyone else be.

We are, however, dealing with the relatively rare situation of a top-class player that has failed miserably in one particular country (IMO, it is not accurate to suggest one set of conditions because that very same player has succeded in Sri Lanka against arguably a better bowler and has also scored 2 double centuries against the Indian bowlers in conditions favourably enough disposed towards spin that Kumble secured 24 wickets in just 3 tests). It is obviously a blot on his career that needs to be rectified.

To say that he cant is nonsense.

Equally, to say that it will have a huge impact on his overall standing in the game come retirement is just as farcical.