Do you think Ponting would have been as "match-winning" if he played for India? I think not. Coming into bat when the opposition bowled out for just about 200 is a luxury that most batsmen in the world would kill for and Ponting has had that luxury throughout his career.
Seriously, this argument about coming in at certain stages and not being under pressure etc. etc. is getting as old as my current pair of business shoes which are down at heel and have holes in their soles.
Can the same posters who say Ponting's greatness (if he's to be considered great) is qualified by the fact that he has had Warne & McGrath in the team or batted behind Langer & Hayden please apply the same reasoning to the following:
1. Viv Richards, who played with the best pace attack of all time and batted behind Greenidge & Haynes with Richardson, Gomes, Lloyd & Dujon in the team as well.
2. Wally Hammond who batted in his early years behind Hobbs & Sutcliffe.
3. Bradman, who batted behind Woodfull & Ponsford, and who had O'Reilly & Grimmett in the early years, with Lindwall, Miller & Johnston in the later years.
4. Dravid himself, who has had Tendulkar and Ganguly with him as well as Sehwag when he's been playing well.
Furthermore, Dravid has failed as many times as Ponting. If he hadn't his average would be miles ahead. Of course Ponting has failed in innings where Australia has been knocked over cheaply, as has Dravid with India. It's going to happen from time to time.
We always hear about Ponting not playing well against good bowling, but he fair dinkum owns Murali, who's the best bowler around at the moment. I also refer to his second innings of the third test in the 05 Ashes series (again).
Dravid and Ponting are both superb players. Their skills were displayed so well the last time India toured here - they were masterful.
In recent years, I've marvelled at Ponting's ability in the first, say, three tests of a 5 test series or the first two tests of a three test series. The exception being the Ashes in 05 where he was not as dominant as usual. He is the key to Australia's batting, more than any other player. Fact is, when he performs, Australia score massive runs and generally win, because he scores quickly and sets up the tome of the match with a big innings. When he doesn't the other players in the middle order have from time to time failed to step up.
So when people say that he's failed when Australia have scored low totals, perhaps they've failed because he's not scored as heavily, rather than him failing when they're in trouble. In other words, it's his dismissal which places Australia in trouble rather than them being in trouble, and him not responding.
