Ponting is better than Lara

[sideshowtim]

Originally Posted by ShinySanjeev

Here's why.... **************

Ban.

[Unattainableguy]

I agree. I don't like all his whinging and stuff, but have to say Ponting > Lara and Tendulkar. Overrated as a captain, but underrated when people think he is not comparable to Tendulkar or Lara despite him having an average that is a lot higher.

[Matt79]

The whole 'batting after 2001 doesn't count' malarky is an interesting one here. I'd have to say that they are very comparable - Lara is probably just ahead, but Ponting can change that if he keeps going in his current vein for another season or two. But in equating Ponting's improvement in the 00s compared to the 90s to it becoming easier to bat in that period is an error in my view. Much like MoYo, Ponting is a player who didn't fulfil his clear potential for a large chunk of his early career, but then reached a point where off-field issues settled down into a pattern that worked for them, and from that time neither has looked back. Ponting is a case where its easy to lose sight of that because it occurred at roughly the same time as batting apparently became so easy that anyone could do it. Its a bit like the way Hayden's improvement in his years in the wilderness gets ignored because 'all the good bowlers' retired in that period.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Unattainableguy

I don't like all his whinging and stuff, but have to say Ponting > Lara and Tendulkar.

So you give Lara a pass on the times when his personality has interfered with his career and the team's well-being but slate Ponting. The hard-core of Ponting haters out there are having a bit of a laugh if they really think Ponting is the only captain who gives occasionally unwisely frank responses to questions or complains about things - witness Vettori's recent escapade in questioning Tait's action. If Tait had been a Kiwi and Ponting had made those comments, there would have been a lynch mob with pitchforks and torches...

Ponting is gracious and decent in his comments much more often than he is objectionable, but the bloke could take a vow of silence and there'd still be people who hate him because he whinges...

[Lillian Thomson]

Originally Posted by NUFAN

How many players can you suggest would have an average higher then 59.42 after 112 Test Matches?

Only Bradman is certain.. so there is a case..

I think Kallis is about to play his 112th Test and currently averages and 58.40 so if he makes a few more runs against the current pitiful West Indies attack he won't be far short .........so maybe there's "plenty of evidence" that Kallis is the second greatest batsman of all time as well.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by roseboy64

Something about first chance averages. Also think something to do with players playing on way past their best or played Tests before they were ready.

Those are three of the things that need to be taken into consideration.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Matt79

The whole 'batting after 2001 doesn't count' malarky is an interesting one here.

That just isn't what ANYONE says. No-one has said it doesn't count. It's simply too much of a coincidence that so many players' scoring increased so rapidly at the exact same point for it to have been anything to do with batting improvement. Sure, Ponting was a better batsman in 2003 than 1999, but there's no way he was good enough to go from averaging 40 to averaging 70 (as he did). Nor is virtually anyone.

[nightprowler10]

Nah, Lara at his peak was greater than Ponting IMO, though the latter's career isn't over yet.

[social]

Originally Posted by Richard

That just isn't what ANYONE says. No-one has said it doesn't count. It's simply too much of a coincidence that so many players' scoring increased so rapidly at the exact same point for it to have been anything to do with batting improvement. Sure, Ponting was a better batsman in 2003 than 1999, but there's no way he was good enough to go from averaging 40 to averaging 70 (as he did). Nor is virtually anyone.

Reeeaaaallly?

So why was he predicted to be the "next great player" at 15 by Rod Marsh?

Ponting is an incredibly gifted player who would've been great in any era

He's gone from a "kid" earning 500k to a married man earning 1 mill plus and captaining his country - that changes anyone bar a hack like John Terry

As it stands, he's possibly the second best ever but anyone that places him outside the top 10 is living in dream land

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by social

As it stands, he's possibly the second best ever but anyone that places him outside the top 10 is living in dream land

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Tendulkar, Lara, Hammond, Hutton, Sutcliffe, Headley, Chappell, and Richards in no particular order. But I'd have all of them before Ponting. That's eleven right there.

Obviously, this is just my personal opinion.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by social

Reeeaaaallly?

So why was he predicted to be the "next great player" at 15 by Rod Marsh?

Pretty much everyone who amounted to anything (plus hundreds who didn't) has been predicted that sort of thing by someone. Rod Marsh is worse than most at it, too (Chris Read one of the best wicketkeeper-batsmen in The World anyone?).

Ponting is an incredibly gifted player who would've been great in any era

No, he'd have been good in any time, certainly - that he'd have been good enough to average 70 (as virtually no-one has ever done before the 2001-onwards period) is highly dubious.

He's gone from a "kid" earning 500k to a married man earning 1 mill plus and captaining his country - that changes anyone bar a hack like John Terry

Err, no, it doesn't. If anything the changes result from improved performance, not the other way around.

[Unattainableguy]

Originally Posted by Matt79

So you give Lara a pass on the times when his personality has interfered with his career and the team's well-being but slate Ponting. The hard-core of Ponting haters out there are having a bit of a laugh if they really think Ponting is the only captain who gives occasionally unwisely frank responses to questions or complains about things - witness Vettori's recent escapade in questioning Tait's action. If Tait had been a Kiwi and Ponting had made those comments, there would have been a lynch mob with pitchforks and torches...

Ponting is gracious and decent in his comments much more often than he is objectionable, but the bloke could take a vow of silence and there'd still be people who hate him because he whinges...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=

Maybe you're right, but if you click on this click, you'll see what I meant.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Unattainableguy

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...G=Search&meta=

Maybe you're right, but if you click on this click, you'll see what I meant.

What? Wankers labelling him a whinger in their blogs proves something? How about a google of "Lara" and "trouble" for comparison, or any other captain and whinge? All that proves in my opinion is what I originally said - there's a perception in a relatively small group of people that Ponting whinges, which I think is rubbish.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Richard

That just isn't what ANYONE says. No-one has said it doesn't count. It's simply too much of a coincidence that so many players' scoring increased so rapidly at the exact same point for it to have been anything to do with batting improvement. Sure, Ponting was a better batsman in 2003 than 1999, but there's no way he was good enough to go from averaging 40 to averaging 70 (as he did). Nor is virtually anyone.

yourself. Toss a in there for not reading my post properly as well.

Did I say it wasn't present, or didn't have an impact (even if I think you in particular are fond of dramatically overstating this impact)? No, what I said was that this change coincided with his improvement, which was essentially that he grew up and became comfortable with his game at test level - which is why he improved so dramatically. I'd say roughly, maybe 5 of the 30 points his average improved came from conditions, the other 25-odd runs improvement came from himself. But this can easily be lost if one takes a dogmatic approach to discounting players from this period because you've got rose-tinted glasses about cricket in the 90s.

[Flem274*]

What interests me is the batsmen get telling offs for scoring on flat wickets but the bowlers get no credit for averaging as low as some are for bowling on these flat wickets...