Ricky Ponting vs. Brian Lara

[Lillian Thomson]

I don't get what's being suggested here. Is that all the runs Lara scored against other Countries were scored against substandard bowling? Or is it that he failed to score runs against other Countries? Or is it being suggested that the puppeteer who made Basil Brush should be arrested because he put the eyes too close together?

 

[sideshowtim]

I don't get what's being suggested here. Is that all the runs Lara scored against other Countries were scored against substandard bowling? Or is it that he failed to score runs against other Countries? Or is it being suggested that the puppeteer who made Basil Brush should be arrested because he put the eyes too close together?

More pointing out that the idea that Lara clobbered the great bowlers of all time while Ponting has scored his runs against rabble is a complete and utter myth. It's a frequently used argument when comparing the two.

If you ask people here, Lara scored thousands of runs on seaming greentops against an Alan Donald swinging the ball at 180km/h while Ponting has bludgeoned Syed Rasel on the flattest tracks ever seen.

 

[Sanz]

More pointing out that the idea that Lara clobbered the great bowlers of all time while Ponting has scored his runs against rabble is a complete and utter myth. It's a frequently used argument when comparing the two.

The likes of you create the myth in order to make people believe that Lara isn't that great and then accuse others of creating the myth and then try to denigrate the great batsman.

If you ask people here, Lara scored thousands of runs on seaming greentops against an Alan Donald swinging the ball at 180km/h while Ponting has bludgeoned Syed Rasel on the flattest tracks ever seen.

No they dont. It is an insult to the forum members actually. Why dont you come out in the open and actually Name all those 'People here' ?

 

[honestbharani]

This could well apply to the Ricky Ponting of 2005. It could also apply, I feel, to Steve Waugh, who, IMO, only got away with his ultra-aggressive captaincy because he had a world-class side who he could always rely on to bowl a side out quickly (i.e - West Indies succumbing for 173 in 2000 after Waugh declared whilst only 200 runs ahead). When a side (often India) took the attack to him, or when he lacked a world-class bowling lineup, he often appeared a touch bereft of ideas. This is, I feel, part of the reason why India were able to generate that Kolkata partnership and also score a truckload of runs in 2003/04. Some of the bowling plans to Laxman over the course of that Kolkata innings were..well...erroneous (bowling short and around the wicket to a guy who can pull and who is strong through the legside? Please!).

I don't think Ponting would have let any of the above scenarios happen - at least, not to the point where it became terminal (in case you're thinking of Pietersen/Collingwood's 300+ run partnership). For instance, he (at his best, anyway) imparts a multitude of plans in order to get rid of batsmen. Dismissing Laxman at short cover by having him driving at a wide Brad Hogg delivery, for instance, was superb captaincy and good bowling, too. It was interesting to note that Mark Taylor (a highly-regarded captain) had a list of ideas which Ponting (at least in Sydney) often imparted.

Also, Ponting didn't have the luxuries that you listed as nearly as often as Steve Waugh did (with the exception of maybe Shane Warne, who was in a form slump for much of Waugh's captaincy career). In particular, he rarely got to unleash an in-form Jason Gillespie. He also had to cope with the disapperance of McGrath for much of 2006, Gilchrist's oft-terminal form slump (with the bat, but eventually with the gloves) and also Langer's injuries and inconsistency throughout 2005 and 2006. Waugh also had to cope with these things, but not to the extent that ol' Ricky did. Ponting also had the responsibility of handling a brand-new bowling line-up. He could've done this better (giving Mitchell Johnson the new ball was inspired initially, but became misguided later), but he could've been worse, too.

As for the original question, calling Brian Lara better than Ponting, in general, is a point of contention for mine. Certainly, Brian Lara was capable of scoring anywhere and at his best, was unrivalled by anybody else in the world (that includes Tendulkar and Ponting). However, despite Ponting's inexplicably poor record against India, I feel that his purple patches are more consistent and possibly more prolonged than Lara's (hard to tell with StatsGuru). It is indeed true that Lara's feasted a bit less against minnows in general...but his record against all countries isn't as consistent as Ponting's. Also, Ponting can still score some runs when out of form (i.e - vs India in 2007/08), whereas, often, Lara is barely capable of scoring any (his first four innings on the AUS/WI tour of 2000 provide a good example).

Ponting>Lara as a fielder and often as a captain, too.

to be completely honest, Lara has made more than his fair share of runs when out of form... A hundred at Old Trafford against England, a 50 earlier in that series, the 100 to save the game on a last day track against quality spinners in 2006 against India..... All of these were when he was out of form...... Even a 180 odd at Adelaide against Australia......



And Ponting did look like getting out every ball (and he perhaps actually did) in that 2001 series against Harbhajan Singh........ India were a one man bowling attack all series and he couldn't even last to face a delivery or two from the other end most of the time in that series........ Much much worse than anything I have ever seen from Lara... And Lara has had his share of bad ones when out of touch... I remember how clueless McGrath made him look when he got him in the first two tests of the 2000 test series... IN one of the games he got Lara as his 300th and then got Adams next ball to complete a hat-trick, IIRC......


But watching both games, I felt it was much more likely that Lara would score against McGrath in that form than Ponting against Harbhajan in THAT form......


Anyways, Lara quite easily for me.........

 

[DaRick]

to be completely honest, Lara has made more than his fair share of runs when out of form... A hundred at Old Trafford against England, a 50 earlier in that series, the 100 to save the game on a last day track against quality spinners in 2006 against India..... All of these were when he was out of form...... Even a 180 odd at Adelaide against Australia......

You're right...but notice how I said 'often'. It's all-or-nothing (generally nothing, IMO) when Lara's out of form, whereas, the modern-day Ponting (2001/02-), when out of form, generally (if not always) makes a start and may score the odd 50 or 100 during a slump.

In that England series (2000?) and in the 2000/01 Australia series, Lara averaged 26 and 32 respectively (the latter was propped up by the aforementioned 182). In this recent series against India, Ponting managed an average of 38, although he had some luck.

Looking back at Ponting's record, it seemed that he had some Lara-like (in a bad way)series pre-2001/02, but hardly any since...on the other hand, Lara still showed that all-or-nothing tendency in old age (he made 90 runs against NZ in 2005/06, with a highest score of 83 in five innings).

And Ponting did look like getting out every ball (and he perhaps actually did) in that 2001 series against Harbhajan Singh........ India were a one man bowling attack all series and he couldn't even last to face a delivery or two from the other end most of the time in that series........ Much much worse than anything I have ever seen from Lara... And Lara has had his share of bad ones when out of touch... I remember how clueless McGrath made him look when he got him in the first two tests of the 2000 test series... IN one of the games he got Lara as his 300th and then got Adams next ball to complete a hat-trick, IIRC......

You're definitely right about the last bit and probably about the first bit, as well (I didn't have cable at the time, nor was I into cricket). However, that disaster of a series (for Ponting) was before the 2001/02 season.

But watching both games, I felt it was much more likely that Lara would score against McGrath in that form than Ponting against Harbhajan in THAT form......

Both looked like amateurs, from what I did see...so it's really difficult to say.

 

[honestbharani]

You're right...but notice how I said 'often'. It's all-or-nothing (generally nothing, IMO) when Lara's out of form, whereas, the modern-day Ponting (2001/02-), when out of form, generally (if not always) makes a start and may score the odd 50 or 100 during a slump.

In that England series (2000?) and in the 2000/01 Australia series, Lara averaged 26 and 32 respectively (the latter was propped up by the aforementioned 182). In this recent series against India, Ponting managed an average of 38, although he had some luck.

Looking back at Ponting's record, it seemed that he had some Lara-like (in a bad way)series pre-2001/02, but hardly any since...on the other hand, Lara still showed that all-or-nothing tendency in old age (he made 90 runs against NZ in 2005/06, with a highest score of 83 in five innings).



You're definitely right about the last bit and probably about the first bit, as well (I didn't have cable at the time, nor was I into cricket). However, that disaster of a series (for Ponting) was before the 2001/02 season.



Both looked like amateurs, from what I did see...so it's really difficult to say.

yeah... to be completely honest, neither would make my "good even when out of form XI".... They were both sometimes almost pathetic when out of form.



And you are right, at the end of the day, it comes down to preference... Though it seems a tad harsh to both of them to be judged on how bad they were when they were in bad form than being judged on how good they were when in good form..


Sachin definitely trumps them both in terms of producing some runs even when out of form. The guy made 241* and 194* when he was still struggling. Obviously, Laxman and Sehwag at the other end making bowlers look silly helped, still the man must have some amazing mental powers to persuade himself to bat like a pauper and get some runs instead of getting out batting in his usual emperor style, something which happened rather frequently with Lara and Ponting.

 

[sideshowtim]

The likes of you create the myth in order to make people believe that Lara isn't that great and then accuse others of creating the myth and then try to denigrate the great batsman.



No they dont. It is an insult to the forum members actually. Why dont you come out in the open and actually Name all those 'People here' ?

It is not to denigrate Lara who is undoubtedly a great, merely to point out fact. It is indeed a generalisation that gets thrown around a lot here, and at other forums too. It is not correct as I proved.

 

[Sanz]

You have proved nothing.

 

[R_D]

It means Ponting is a better cricketer overall when you factor in his captaincy, slips catching, ground fielding and part-time allsorts bowling.

The pole was who's a better batsman.

 

[Sanz]

The pole was who's a better batsman.

For a moment I was trying to figure out who the hell is this 'The Pole' ?

 

[R_D]

For a moment I was trying to figure out who the hell is this 'The Pole' ?

lol..

 

[Burgey]

what does that mean?

anyway, brian charles much, much better than ricky...

Captaincy, fielding.

I should also add another thing which I've had problems trying to post appropriately.

There seemed to me a period, not long after Lara made his 1st raft of massive Test and FC scores where, if he didn't quite go off the rails, his own achievements seemed (from the outside of course) to have a primacy over where his team was heading. I don't say that to denigrate the man - he was a young fellow who had broken all the records and was feted all over. I get the impression that went to his head for a while (understandably) and his productivity suffered for a time as well. Of course, his longevity attests to his having gotten well and truly over that, and he did so quickly as well.

 

[Burgey]

clutching at straws...

You're right mate. so, so right.

Expressing an opinion like that is nothing more than straw clutching on my part. Grow up.

 

[Burgey]

The pole was who's a better batsman.

Actually, the thread title doesn't say that at all, but anyway, your point is the reason why I differentiated between the two aspects in the first place.

 

[Prince EWS]

The pole was who's a better batsman.

Yeah, but people are allowed to discuss things other than the poll. He didn't just come in and say "Ponting" - he qualified that he thought Lara was the better batsman but Ponting was the better overall package as a cricketer. He'd therefore vote for Lara on the poll, but the poll isn't always the sole point of discussion in a thread.

 

[arsalan660]

I like Brian Lara. So voted for him.

 

[Eclipse]

Ponting and suprised he has so few votes.

He has been by far a more consistant player over his career and handled more of the top quality bowlers better. Yes he does not have that same genious that lara did but as for productivity you can not go past Ponting

 

[Beleg]

Ponting is awesome. But Lara was Lara.

 

[GIMH]

who is he now?

 

[DaRick]

yeah... to be completely honest, neither would make my "good even when out of form XI".... They were both sometimes almost pathetic when out of form.

Same, but Lara was more so post-2001/02, IMO.

And you are right, at the end of the day, it comes down to preference... Though it seems a tad harsh to both of them to be judged on how bad they were when they were in bad form than being judged on how good they were when in good form.

Perhaps. Wihout examining both sides of the ledger though, I would (in all honesty) have no choice but to come to the conclusion that Lara was the second best batsmen ever (because let's face it, at his best, he's quite a bit better than anybody else).

Sachin definitely trumps them both in terms of producing some runs even when out of form. The guy made 241* and 194* when he was still struggling. Obviously, Laxman and Sehwag at the other end making bowlers look silly helped, still the man must have some amazing mental powers to persuade himself to bat like a pauper and get some runs instead of getting out batting in his usual emperor style, something which happened rather frequently with Lara and Ponting.

I'll give you the 241* (I edited my lazy Tendulkar>Ponting post because of this, so thanks), but not the 194*. Why? Well, the 194* came after hiis 241*, so we cannot assume that he was struggling anymore.