R_D said:
Nice work and another example of Stats never tell the full story.
Once you further dissect the stats what you'll find is that Ponting's averages has been Phenomnal in last 3 or 4 years and before that it was probaly average if not worse.... they were once thinking of dropping him. DO i need to say how many good bowlers have we had in last few years and further only once did we see Ponting come against a good attack and we all know what happend in England right ?
I don't mean to undermine Ponting he's a wonderful batsman and has always been one of my favourites from Aus even before he was pilling up the runs plus he's a Kangroos supporter
But putting him ahead of Lara just isn't on in my opinion.
I think you're selling Ponting short re. last year's Ashes, and generally. His average that series was not as good as it had been, but his innings in the 3rd test on the last day to save that game for Australia, imo turned him from an exceptional player to a great one in one day. 5th day wicket, under the pump from a good attack, wickets falling around him yet he held it together and saved the game. It got to the point where, until Warne got out, the television began showing not how many wickets England needed but how many runs Australia needed. You can say what you like about his captaincy and sometimes his behaviour, but his batsmanship is wonderful.
Lara too is a great player. They can both be destructive, but Lara seems to defy physics with some of the things he can do with a bat in his hand. Nevertheless, you cannot say that the bowlers whom he faced in the mid-late 90s were all better than those Ponting has faced this decade. Australia were strong in the mid-late 90s, Pakistan were good, but England were ordinary, India other than at home had a woeful record, South Africa were just making their way back (though they did have Donald), NZ had lost Hadlee and Murali had only just come along for Sri Lanka.
So often we decry modern players, especially batsmen, and say that their records are good because bowlers aren't as strong now as, say 20-30 years ago. Is that true? Pitches have become more homogenised, but there are more results now than ever. Someone's taking 20 wickets! The West Indies in the 80s had wonderful bowlers, but they bowled only about 70 overs a day. Further, were batsmen as innovative and aggressive then as now? Did they play off the back foot like Ponting, Lara, Gilchrist, Sehwag, Sachin, Pietersen, Freddie, Inzy, Yousef, Hayden and others do now? Had the impact of one-day cricket on techniques and run-rates really come into play as early as the 80s and early-mid 90s? Players take on short balls now as never before. They always look to score. I'd love to see a contest between those great WI sides of the 80s and a line-up of of today' batsmen who hook, pull and cut like there's no tomorrow.
There are still some decent bowlers around now. Obviouly Ponting does not have to face McGrath & Warne, but Murali's a champion, Vaas is a good bowler, Shoahib is as quick as anyone there's been, he had Ambrose & Walsh in his early years, Akram & Waqar as well. Donald was there too. Bond when fit as an imposing figure and he also has Flintoff and Harmison to contend with as well as Ntini, Harbajan and Kumble. They are no mugs.
They are both great players. My view is that if I wanted someone to bank on to score runs consistently, I'd go with Ponting, but if I wanted to be entertained with the possibility of a massive score, BC Lara would get the nod.
If I had to choose between the two of them for this side, I'd go with Lara, because given the players around him, he could afford to be as entertaining as he liked, and I'd like to see that!
