Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 135

Thread: The Latest Comparison - Ponting or Chappell?

  1. #31
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Not necessarily.
    I dont think players like Hayden,Ponting, Kallis, etc. would be averaging 50+ if they played in the 70s/80s or even much of the 90s.
    maybe not the 70s but if they were in top form as they are in now i'd back Ponting & Kallis at least to average 50 during the 90's.

  2. #32
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    maybe not the 70s but if they were in top form as they are in now i'd back Ponting & Kallis at least to average 50 during the 90's.
    90s ? the 90s was arguably the best decade for bowlers barring perhaps the 75-85 period.
    Ponting and Kallis both were averaging below 45 well into their 25th birthday and 4-5 years after their debut. Thats the kind of stage(age and experience) where batsmen of the highest callibre (such Viv, Tendulkar, Lara, G.Chappell, Gavaskar, etc.) have already established themselves as the next big kahuna ( ie- averaging over 50 or very close to it). Steve Waugh was one notable exception but then again, Waugh earnt his stripes against some of the best attacks in cricketing history. Ponting,Kallis, etc. ( basically batsmen who've made hay in the last 5 years, particularly aussie batsmen of that period) have faced some of the worst bowling standards on some of the flattest pitches on this planet. As such, they neither have the prodigal talent nor the early establishment of their names/earnt their stripes against extremely high quality stuff to be considered in the same bracket as the greatest of batsmen- not yet anyways.
    Given the difference in pitches and bowling stocks we see currently, players like Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, etc. would have to average 60 or very close to it (at the end of their careers) to be considered on par with the Laras and Tendulkars of the world.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    I'm simply indicating that the attacks aren't crap. Bowling strength in the world today isn't what it was in the 90s, but people vastly overestimate the drop in class all the time, and use all sorts of insane hyperbole to back it up. Every attack in the world is garbage except for England? Give me a break. Every period in test history has poor bowlers, great bowlers, average bowlers and everything else, and every batsman makes more runs against the crappy ones than the good ones. People automatically assume that because a player played in an era of more difficult bowlers means they proved themselves more, but it's not necessarily true. It's like assuming that because Gavaskar and Ian Chappell made lots of runs against the West Indies means they had the best of the great West Indies bowlers from around the same time, which isn't entirely accurate.

    I'll give a crude example using Chappell to add some substance to the debate. Arrow used the "30 average" barrier to seperate "good" bowlers from poor ones. Seems fair enough, right? So how many times did Chappell make big runs against attacks including several bowlers averaging under 30? I'll use career averages and at least 100 wickets to make it simpler.


    Centuries against attacks including 4 "good" bowlers
    West Indies, Brisbane 1979 - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Colin Croft (23.30), Joel Garner (20.98)

    Centuries against attacks including 3 "good" bowlers
    England, MCG 1975 - Chris Old (28.11), Geoff Arnold (28.30), Derek Underwood (25.84)
    West Indies, Brisbane 1975 (both innings) - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Lance Gibbs (29.09)
    West Indies, SCG 1976 - Andy Roberts (25.61), Michael Holding (23.69), Lance Gibbs (29.09)
    England, Old Trafford 1977 - Bob Willis (25.20), Chris Old (28.11), Derek Underwood (25.84)
    England, MCG 1980 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20), Derek Underwood (25.84)

    Centuries against attacks including 2 "good" bowlers
    England, The Oval 1972 - Geoff Arnold (28.30) and John Snow (26.67)
    England, SCG 1974 - Bob Willis (25.20) and Geoff Arnold (28.30)
    Pakistan, MCG 1977 - Imran Khan (22.81), Iqbal Qasim (28.11)
    England, WACA 1982 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20)
    England, Adelaide 1982 - Ian Botham (28.40), Bob Willis (25.20)



    Now, Chappell scored 24 centuries in his career. If you rate all the attacks with 3 or more bowlers averaging under 30 as good ones, 7 of them came against good attacks, while a full 12 came against attacks that were simply crap by the standard given. By that same criteria, right now Australia, England, South Africa and Pakistan would probably have good attacks, while India and Sri Lanka would fall in the middle with 2 good bowlers.

    If you look at the names as well, the likes of Geoff Arnold and Derek Underwood (on a normal wicket) don't exactly inspire massive fear. Greg Chappell obviously played some brilliant innings against great bowlers. He scored a century against one of the best attacks of all time in 1979, one in each innings against Holding and Roberts in 75, and also faced Botham and Willis at their best in the early 80s with success, and made runs against Hadlee and Imran with their weak support too. However, the assumption that because he played in the same era as Imran, Hadlee, Holding, Roberts, Garner, Croft, Botham etc and still had a good average means that he scored heaps against all of them and faced awesome attacks every time he made runs is false. Like Ponting, his career crossed with some great bowlers, and sometimes he faced them and did well, but a lot of the time he made runs against the weaker bowlers around, because they were easier to make runs off. If you did a similar study on Ponting you'd probably get about the same result.
    Great Post!
    Quote Originally Posted by Irfan
    We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team
    GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010

    Is Cam White, Is Good.

  4. #34
    Global Moderator Matt79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Colll----ingggg---woooooodddd!!!!
    Posts
    17,424
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    90s ? the 90s was arguably the best decade for bowlers barring perhaps the 75-85 period.
    Ponting and Kallis both were averaging below 45 well into their 25th birthday and 4-5 years after their debut. Thats the kind of stage(age and experience) where batsmen of the highest callibre (such Viv, Tendulkar, Lara, G.Chappell, Gavaskar, etc.) have already established themselves as the next big kahuna ( ie- averaging over 50 or very close to it). Steve Waugh was one notable exception but then again, Waugh earnt his stripes against some of the best attacks in cricketing history. Ponting,Kallis, etc. ( basically batsmen who've made hay in the last 5 years, particularly aussie batsmen of that period) have faced some of the worst bowling standards on some of the flattest pitches on this planet. As such, they neither have the prodigal talent nor the early establishment of their names/earnt their stripes against extremely high quality stuff to be considered in the same bracket as the greatest of batsmen- not yet anyways.
    Given the difference in pitches and bowling stocks we see currently, players like Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, etc. would have to average 60 or very close to it (at the end of their careers) to be considered on par with the Laras and Tendulkars of the world.
    Not being a world beater before you're 25 doesn't mean you can't be an all time great. There are a few different discussions going on on different threads re the different natures of cricketing systems in different countries etc. Plus, such a distinction discounts the greatness of players like Waugh, and to an extent Ponting, who go away, analyse what isn't working for them and then fix it. It has been commented previously in a variety of media that as much as anything else, for Ponting getting married and achieving a settled and happy personal life coincided with his transition from good player to great player. Does the fact that it took him a few years to get his head right diminish him as a cricketeer, given its now manifest that he succeeded in doing so?


  5. #35
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by C_C
    Not necessarily.
    I dont think players like Hayden,Ponting, Kallis, etc. would be averaging 50+ if they played in the 70s/80s or even much of the 90s.
    Out of curiosity, do you actually have a reason for that opinion, besides that they didn't average as high in the early part of their careers as they do now? Given that Ponting was only 26 in 2001 after which his career really kicked off (same with Kallis), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that he simply wasn't as good then as he is now, and that explains the difference in performance. Indeed, if you've watched Ponting over the course of his career, it's quite obvious that he's a much better player than he was 5 years ago. Beyond that, Ponting has a superb record against pace bowling on wickets of all kinds, and in the last few years he's done extremely well against spinners in all conditions as well.

    I can understand the argument with Hayden, because he was percieved to have a weakness against good swing bowling for a long time. I think that weakness was significantly overblown, but nevertheless it was there to some degree, and it's reasonable to suggest that if he'd faced quality swing bowling more often he'd be less likely to be successful, particularly as an opener. Ponting on the other hand has proven himself in all conditions, and the only real question mark you could place over his career is his ability against spin... and given that we live in one of the strongest periods of spin bowling ever, that weakness has certainly been tested over and over again in a way it wouldn't have been if Ponting had played in the 80s or 90s. So what's the weakness in his game that makes you think he would average at least 10 runs per innings less than he does now if he played in the 90s?
    It's cold on the outside they say
    But the cold leaves you clear while the heat leaves a haze

  6. #36
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    It may have been overblown, and I think the criticism Hayden receives on here is sometimes too harsh, but you must find it very striking that a few people on this board (TEC and Richard for two, whose opinions I often disagree with) did pick Hayden to have a bad Ashes series in England due to the quality of England's attack and swinging conditions. He didn't do much to prove them wrong. They were spot on.

    It does look like he's certainly sorted himself out, but all those comments in regards to Hayden's problems with swing came about prior to the Ashes, and the Ashes did a lot in justifying that.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It may have been overblown, and I think the criticism Hayden receives on here is sometimes too harsh, but you must find it very striking that a few people on this board (TEC and Richard for two, whose opinions I often disagree with) did pick Hayden to have a bad Ashes series in England due to the quality of England's attack and swinging conditions. He didn't do much to prove them wrong. They were spot on.

    It does look like he's certainly sorted himself out, but all those comments in regards to Hayden's problems with swing came about prior to the Ashes, and the Ashes did a lot in justifying that.
    Yeah. There was something to it, but I think Hayden developed a technique which left him vulnerable against swing because it suited the attacks he actually faced in test cricket between 2000 and 2005. Most of his problems were caused by the same things which he used to dominate bowlers who weren't swinging the ball, like batting miles out of his crease and putting in a huge stride to anything that was pitched up and looking to drive it. If you're facing conventional swing as a left-hander you'll get yourself in a lot of trouble playing like that, but if you aren't you'll make a lot of easy runs.

    He could obviously play swing early in his career, otherwise he would never have averaged mid 50s for Queensland given the way the Gabba played then. He has plenty of good traits for that anyway, like being an excellent leaver of the ball, and having superb concentration. He has been playing it a lot better recently as well, so I'd argue he simply went back to what he was doing right in the first place.

    Nevertheless, it's fair to argue that Hayden wouldn't have been as successful as he has been if he'd played the way he has in a different era, even if I don't believe he would have been an outright failure. I don't think it's really fair to say that about Ponting.

  8. #38
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by JBH001
    What about Trueman, Statham, Tyson, Laker, Lock, Loader etc.
    Even Alec Bedser went alright until the 1954-55 series (damn shingles).
    Yeah, Sean said apart from that attack - no-one could possibly deny it's potency.
    Though the less said about those foot dragging Australian chuckers the better.
    Most of them weren't even that good, though.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006

  9. #39
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by JBH001
    Morris is perhaps the finest of Australian opening batsman.
    The all-too-forgotten Bill Woodfull was probably better IMO.
    Weekes would have a lot going for him to step into an All Time WI XI.
    IMO in the top 10 of all-time at worst.
    Only Bradman and Headley certainly ahead for mine.

  10. #40
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    One of the reason they probably weren't many good bowlers around in the 1930s is because only Aus & Eng were strong and both sides had some top bowlers then, so this argument is a bit flawed..
    Err, South Africa, India and West Indies mightn't have been as strong as Eng and Aus but they certainly weren't poor, at least nowhere near as poor as some of the nonsense we see today.

  11. #41
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt79
    Not being a world beater before you're 25 doesn't mean you can't be an all time great. There are a few different discussions going on on different threads re the different natures of cricketing systems in different countries etc. Plus, such a distinction discounts the greatness of players like Waugh, and to an extent Ponting, who go away, analyse what isn't working for them and then fix it. It has been commented previously in a variety of media that as much as anything else, for Ponting getting married and achieving a settled and happy personal life coincided with his transition from good player to great player. Does the fact that it took him a few years to get his head right diminish him as a cricketeer, given its now manifest that he succeeded in doing so?
    Age and domestics isn't the big thing - the point is, to do so well as people like Laxman, Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, etc. have on such flat pitches is not a particularly extraordinary achievement.
    All these batsmen played in the 1990s and very early 2000s - and all were good players without being anything extraordinary. Coincidentally, a great number of players had something of a boom in high scoring around that period.
    Dravid, for me, though, does not fit into the same category as he averaged in the high 40s and early 50s between 1996 and 2000, too.
    I think the deterioration in standard of bowling and vast increase in bat-friendly pitches have had far more to do with anything than any developments in the careers of said players.

  12. #42
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    Out of curiosity, do you actually have a reason for that opinion, besides that they didn't average as high in the early part of their careers as they do now? Given that Ponting was only 26 in 2001 after which his career really kicked off (same with Kallis), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that he simply wasn't as good then as he is now, and that explains the difference in performance. Indeed, if you've watched Ponting over the course of his career, it's quite obvious that he's a much better player than he was 5 years ago. Beyond that, Ponting has a superb record against pace bowling on wickets of all kinds, and in the last few years he's done extremely well against spinners in all conditions as well.

    I can understand the argument with Hayden, because he was percieved to have a weakness against good swing bowling for a long time. I think that weakness was significantly overblown, but nevertheless it was there to some degree, and it's reasonable to suggest that if he'd faced quality swing bowling more often he'd be less likely to be successful, particularly as an opener. Ponting on the other hand has proven himself in all conditions, and the only real question mark you could place over his career is his ability against spin... and given that we live in one of the strongest periods of spin bowling ever, that weakness has certainly been tested over and over again in a way it wouldn't have been if Ponting had played in the 80s or 90s. So what's the weakness in his game that makes you think he would average at least 10 runs per innings less than he does now if he played in the 90s?
    Ponting has undoubtedly proven himself a very fine player of seam and swing. That's not something anyone would possibly dispute.
    Nonetheless, he didn't face much of the stuff between 2001 and 2003\04 - the time of his most prolific run-scoring.
    It's reasonable to suggest that had he done so, he'd probably have averaged more like 50 than 80.
    I don't really think ANYONE would be able to go for 30 Tests or so averaging 60, 70, 80 whatever the way batsmen like Ponting, Kallis, Laxman and the like had they been playing in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Unless, of course, they were a Tendulkar, Lara, Stephen Waugh, Richards, Border, Gavaskar, Greg Chappell type player. No, Javed Miandad doesn't qualify - who knows how much lower his average would've been if it were possible to dismiss him lbw at home.

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    It was quite possible to maintain a high average throughout the 90s if you were good enough. Take Steve Waugh... a guy who had a very poor test career up until 1989, and even into the early 90s, and a significant decline from around 2001 or so, still managed a career average of 51. He did it by averaging 60+ for the best part of the 1990s.

  14. #44
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Yes, he did...
    And Waugh was a top-drawer player.
    The same cannot be said about Ponting, because Waugh pretty much always outperformed him 1996-2001.
    You can blame Ponting's inexperience\naivity if you want but IMO that's simplistic.
    It's just not possible that the rapid proliferation of flat pitches and poor attacks didn't contribute largely to Ponting's run-scoring orgy from where I'm standing.

  15. #45
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,957
    I'm sure they contributed to it somewhat, obviously, but then when pitches have been less flat Ponting has still made plenty of runs, which is the key point. Nobody would suggest that Australia have generally played on flat tracks against poor bowlers in the last 12-18 months for example, and Ponting still averages 73 since the start of 2005. They did play generally on flat tracks and against poor bowlers in 2002/2003, and Ponting made even more runs then.

    Saying "Waugh outplayed Ponting during X period when their careers coincided, therefore he is better" is pretty ridiculous, given that Waugh was at the peak of his powers when Ponting came into the side, and only began his decline about the same time that Ponting matured as a test batsman. Yes, a 32 year old Waugh was better than 23 year old Ponting, go figure.

    And of course, when he was one of the best batsmen in the world in the mid to late 90s, Waugh feasted on plenty of poor bowling too. He might have faced better bowling all round, but Ponting has also faced some challenging attacks and came out on top, and there's also the fact that his career average is a good 7 runs higher than Waugh's, which does something to make up for the gap in bowling class.

    Personally, I'd say Chappell still holds the crown as Australia's second best, at least until we've seen a bit more of Ponting's career (the guy still has 5 good years in him, after all), but Ponting's done enough already to ensure that he'll be remembered alongside the likes of Waugh and Border.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 51
    Last Post: 28-10-2011, 12:59 PM
  2. Sim a match
    By Pratters in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 342
    Last Post: 31-12-2006, 03:03 PM
  3. Get rid of cricket's minnows - Ponting
    By sirjeremy11 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 181
    Last Post: 24-02-2006, 03:34 PM
  4. Chappell Wants Ganguly Out - Emails BCCI.
    By Sanz in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 128
    Last Post: 27-09-2005, 10:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •