Ponting - better ODI or Test player?

[Matt79]

What do people think - is he better in ODIs or Tests?

 

[PhoenixFire]

I'd say he is more effective and dominant in Tests.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Tests. Obviously he's a truly great player in both forms, though.

 

[pasag]

Yeah Tests.

 

[NUFAN]

Yep Tests. He's the best in both forms of the game though IMO.

 

[Matt79]

I think he's actually slightly underrated in ODIs - which given he's widely held to be a great ODI player is saying something.

 

[Richard]

It's almost impossible for a batsman who's good at both to be as good at ODIs as he is at Tests, same way it's impossible for a good fingerspinner to be anywhere near as good as a good seamer.

 

[Matt79]

It's almost impossible for a batsman who's good at both to be as good at ODIs as he is at Tests, same way it's impossible for a good fingerspinner to be anywhere near as good as a good seamer.

And yet Ponting goes closer than anyone in recent memory...

And you mean wrist-spinner, not seamer...

 

[Prince EWS]

It's almost impossible for a batsman who's good at both to be as good at ODIs as he is at Tests.

I don't know about that. I think it'd be almost impossible for him to be perceived that way, but I don't think it'd actually be that hard for him to be so. Ponting is one such example IMO. He averages significantly more in tests than he does in ODIs - but that is to be expected given the nature of the games. He's proven himself in ODIs in all conditions and is, without much dispute other than from diehard Pietersen and Hussey fans, the best ODI batsman in the world at the moment. Despite his test achievements, he still hasn't really proven himself in India or in bowler-friendly conditions in general really, and his number one standing in that form is actually a lot more debatable in my opinion (retirement of Lara making it less so though). There's also his captaincy, which adds to his worth as a player - and that is far better in ODIs than it is in tests as far as I'm concerned. He'll be regarded as a better test player by most because:

a) It's taken more seriously generally.
b) It's easier for a good batsman to rack up big numbers in tests, even if doing so is of less significance than what said batsman does in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

And yet Ponting goes closer than anyone in recent memory...

And you mean wrist-spinner, not seamer...

No, I mean fingerspinner. A top-class wristspinner can be every bit as good as a top-class seamer.

 

[Richard]

I don't know about that. I think it'd be almost impossible for him to be perceived that way, but I don't think it'd actually be that hard for him to be so. Ponting is one such example IMO. He averages significantly more in tests than he does in ODIs - but that is to be expected given the nature of the games. He's proven himself in ODIs in all conditions and is, without much dispute other than from diehard Pietersen and Hussey fans, the best ODI batsman in the world at the moment. Despite his test achievements, he still hasn't really proven himself in India or in bowler-friendly conditions in general really, and his number one standing in that form is actually a lot more debatable in my opinion (retirement of Lara making it less so though). There's also his captaincy, which adds to his worth as a player - and that is far better in ODIs than it is in tests as far as I'm concerned. He'll be regarded as a better test player by most because:

a) It's taken more seriously generally.
b) It's easier for a good batsman to rack up big numbers in tests, even if doing so is of less significance than what said batsman does in ODIs.

What I meant was there's the chance for batsmen to achieve far, far more in Tests than there is in ODIs. Not only can you average far higher, you can score far more runs even in fewer innings.

Therefore, for me, a batsman who's good at both will almost inevitably do more to credit himself in the longer game.

That may not be entirely what Matt79 means, and if so I've done a Australia-2003-2007 again.

Ponting has undoubtedly done superbly for himself by the standards of both games.

 

[silentstriker]

It's almost impossible for a batsman who's good at both to be as good at ODIs as he is at Tests, same way it's impossible for a good fingerspinner to be anywhere near as good as a good seamer.

I would say Tendulkar (in his prime) was as good as, or better in ODI than in Tests.

 

[Richard]

Apart from the "who are you to say sumate like that" bit... no way IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Apart from the "who are you to say sumate like that" bit... no way IMO.

Well, I don't much rate ODIs but I can accept that Tendulkar was great in the format. And his records are quite amazing, with 41 centuries....the next highest is something like 28. I think a case can definitely be made that he was a better ODI player than a Test player IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Tendulkar's a significantly better ODI than test batmsan IMO. Totally agree with SS. I'd also point out Hussey and Pietersen as more "current" examples of players who are successful in both forms but whose achievements in ODIs are far more notable at this point in time.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Tendulkar's a significantly better ODI than test batmsan IMO. Totally agree with SS. I'd also point out Hussey and Pietersen as more "current" examples of players who are successful in both forms but whose achievements in ODIs are far more notable at this point in time.

Bit harsh on Hussey there IMHO. Admittedly he's still really only just beginning his test career, but it's been freakishly successful thus far.

 

[Matt79]

No, I mean fingerspinner. A top-class wristspinner can be every bit as good as a top-class seamer.

 

[open365]

I'm suprised by the pretty conclusive assesment in this thread that he's better at tests, when i saw the title i couldn't make up my mind which he is better at.

And i would agree with SS that Tendulkar is a better ODI player than test player.

 

[Richard]

?

 

[Richard]

Well, I don't much rate ODIs but I can accept that Tendulkar was great in the format. And his records are quite amazing, with 41 centuries....the next highest is something like 28. I think a case can definitely be made that he was a better ODI player than a Test player IMO.

Tendulkar's not even the best ODI player of his generation - there were times in his Test career where he was streets ahead of everyone else, even Lara and Stephen Waugh.

I'm none too concerned about number of centuries, TBH, anyone can score centuries if they bat at the top of the order and play countless hundreds of games. Sure, Tendulkar did it better than almost anyone in the modern ODI era, but I don't think he did it anywhere near as well as he batted in Tests 1990-2002.