u know, Kazo. I would agree with you most of the time. And for me, I do think Ponting is an all time great, given that he doesn't have a pretty big slump from now... But to keep saying he is better than Sachin and Lara simply because he has better records against Pak and RSA is clutching at straws... The Windies had a great attack at least till 96... AFAIC, Walsh and Ambrose only started to fade consistently from around early 97. Absolutely unfortunate that Ponting only came on the scene by then because we don't have much clue of how good/bad he would have been against them at his best. But we have seen what Sachin can do on tough tracks against these guys and that is good enough to rate him high.
Well, we're not on the same page because I am not arguing that because Ponting did well against S.Africa and Pakistan he is better than Sachin.
Here we go:
Sachin is considered untouchable because of his form in the 90s. Yet Ponting is trounced on because of his in the 2000s. Really, the bowling differences are too small to suggest Ponting would still be mediocre, being the only one averaging 60+ (taking out Bang/Zim) he stands alone his record is very comparable with Sachin's.
But here's the thing, Sachin is considered great, because he somehow played tougher attacks and was great whereas Ponting failed. Which I've proved isn't true. Sachin was great against 2/4 great attacks of his time and was more than great against the rest. Whereas with Ponting, where it's apt to compare, with regards to the touted differences, ALSO does well against 2/4 (one of them is his own team which he cannot play - so it's 2/3 really). So what does that mean? That in the 90s, when bowling and pitch conditions were tough, Ponting has a similar record to Sachin.
Now, fast forward to post-2000 and there is absolutely no comparison. Tables have turned immensely if not even more in favour of Ponting. Ponting still has the record of doing well against great attacks in the 90s, but he dominates even the 'mediocre/weaker' ones of the post 2000 (that aren't much different to the ones in 90s that Sachin was belting).
So, on that equal footing, we look at their overall records and it's plain to see. Ponting has the better all-round record and anything that justifies denigration is debatable at best.
Now, despite the fact that their records are so close, and where it mattered in the 90s Ponting also had success, Ponting
still cannot compare for some people. And then you have to ask yourself, what did Tendulkar do to get this unabashed support by some people? Couldn't be his performances post-2000, has to be pre-2000. And here we are, looking at them and seeing that Ponting's overall record makes a mockery of Tendulkar's 90s one. But STILL, cannot compare.
Sachin only played against Pak in ONE series at home in the 90s, hardly something to draw conclusions from, and even in that he played perhaps his best innings... He got out in the most unfortunate way at Kolkata in the second innings when it looked as though he was warming up to another great knock. Anyone who had seen that knock would know Sachin almost NEVER looked like getting out in the second innings there....
Sachin played an away series a month before the 90s as well, let's factor that in because apart from date, it's relevant. But even disregarding that, it's still not upto standard here.
Ponting looked like a man possessed in his 197, what does that matter if for the rest of his scores he was poor? But Ponting's obviously not a fluke. A couple years later against Pakistan with Akhtar, Waqar and Saqlain he scored another 141.
Cricket is more than playing one innings great or two innings great, it is about consistency. And you simply cannot argue that 30 runs per dismissal is a great record. You may argue that Tendulkar is/was capable of more? I can't dispute that, that's conjecture anyway. I am talking about what
did happen.
And to be frank, Tendulkar against S.Africa is still rather poor. Not just home or away but overall. There are no ifs or buts there.
And about RSA, he played against them well enough in the 96 away series.. That 169 was a masterful knock and he followed it up with a 50 in the second innings as well, IIRC.. And he had an awesome knock of 150+ at Bloemfontein on a track which was doing quite a bit on the first day... From scorecard, you would think even RSA made a lot in their first dig, so wats so special about this knock but trust me, you HAD to have watched it to understand how good it was... He has had trouble against RSA and even Pak to an extent, but it is not as bad as you make it seem.... And we all know he has been the shadow of a batsman since 2000... He simply has not been that good, except very recently when in England and in Australia he has shown signs of the old...
HB mate, have you seen me dispute him batting very well? Looking great? Being on top? I have not. I dispute his record because consistency is what I am after in this instance.
Still, my reply to that is much the same as the one above.
And with Lara, he only played RSA and Pak once away before the turn of the century, and IIRC, there were major issues about captaincy in 97 with some guys openly accusing Lara of not concentrating fully because he didn't get the captaincy. And we have seen and read enough about his doomed tour to RSA as captain in 99.... That is 8 tests in his career that you are using to prove that he is bad... And he even managed a really good 70 odd in that hellish tour to RSA (hellish from his PoV, btw)...
I'm sure there are side-issues and I would love to hear more of them. As much as I can remember, I don't remember everything. Lara aside, Tendulkar is different. He faced them both (Pakistan/S.Africa) when he was pretty much on top-form.
Look, Kazo, I can see why you believe Ponting is better going by stats and that is fine. But for me, and I guess quite a few others here, cricket is about watching and judging players. I know Ponting is an all time great but I also know, having watched Lara and Sachin enough, that they were just that slight cut above Ponting... When so many experts around the world concur, including your favourite Mr.Warne himself, don't you think there MUST be some reason and that surely, so many ppl can't ALL be wrong???????
Here's the thing, I am not going just by stats. I've been around for a while, I've seen both play many many times. Tendulkar looking a cut above is just funny for me because that is exactly what I think of Ponting, but it doesn't matter...because it is all subjective. Ponting in the last few years has looked so good it's beyond belief. You're literally disappointed, he is in himself, if he doesn't at least hit a century. How ridiculous is that? And if we're getting that subjective? What about Viv? What about Lara? For me, without some justification, simply saying one player looked better than another is not a valuable point.
And with regards to Warne, well my friend, Warne didn't have to face much of ol' Ricky did he? Warne's player ranking (as we saw from his top 50 list) is also quite objectionable - see Steve Waugh. But I leave that aside, because I can respect that opinion and it's fine. I can respect anyone that says Tendulkar is slightly better, it's fine. Frankly, I think Lara is better than Tendulkar too. But it's just my opinion and it's too close to deny that there is logic saying Tendulkar can also claim to be better.
I know this is opinon based but honestly, given how good these guys are and the fact that their peaks haven't coincided means this will always be a subjective debate, no matter how much stats get thrown around....
Well, I think you just hit the right note there. It is subjective, especially because it is so close. But what isn't subjective is how Ricky fared in the 90s against quality bowling. What isn't subjective, is even regarding the drop in bowling standard/pitches, Ponting's peak is mammoth. What isn't subjective is that they're close and there is no clear choice either way. But to call someone biased if they pick Ponting is a joke. To say they're not close is a joke. Some of the points raised against Ponting are, frankly, a joke.
There seems to be something in the forum that has just eaten up the ideas that batsmen/bowlers of today aren't comparable and use hyperbole towards anything anyone else has done in the past. We've had a long debate here and I hope I've opened some people's eyes. Wouldn't be much of a voluntary thing as I'm sure it's more akin to prying some people's eyes open.
.
And you are preaching about Honesty.