Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[Richard]

Yes, thank you. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and one that many people here have tried to get through to Richard. There is nothing to be taken about Hayden from the 90s other than he wasn't ready and didn't start well. It's ironic since Richard is usually one who will point out when a player was picked too early, etc, yet he gives absolutely 0 leeway to Hayden.

Hayden wasn't picked too early in any of 1993/94, 1996/97 nor 1999/2000. In each case he'd earned his go with excellent performances in domestic cricket, he just wasn't good enough to score against the excellent Test seam attacks that abounded until 2001. He remained not good enough to do so throughout his career, but he was excellent at bashing crap attacks and was given many chances to demonstrate this from 2001/02 onwards.

 

[Ikki]

Richard, you're full of it. 7 tests is reasonable now to gauge a player in whether they'd be all-time or ****house depending on era? No it isn't. The reality is, Hayden came in early, and left way too early. But that was the Aussie XI for you. It had nothing to do with his playing high quality seam attacks; if you check his domestic record it dismisses any such notion that he had a problem.

As for bowlers in the eras; I'd argue the "attacks" were still very strong but no one has ever said that the 2000s was better than the 90s.

As far as I am concerned, Hayden must have done something to you because your arguments against him are simply trolling. Anyway, I am done arguing Hayden with you.

 

[aussie]

Hayden wasn't picked too early in any of 1993/94, 1996/97 nor 1999/2000. In each case he'd earned his go with excellent performances in domestic cricket, he just wasn't good enough to score against the excellent Test seam attacks that abounded until 2001. He remained not good enough to do so throughout his career, but he was excellent at bashing crap attacks and was given many chances to demonstrate this from 2001/02 onwards.

Christ this is total crap, But like Ikki not going to get it another Hayden argument with you, cause unfortunately you just recycling the same nonsense over & over when many have proven you wrong.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah, that's why I found it interesting. It's often said- you could call it conventional wisdom- that Ponting is vulnerable early on to the full ball on his pads as his exaggerated front-foot movement causes him to overbalance. It seemed that the international cricketing community had agreed, that was the place to bowl at Ponting. But as far as I'm concerned, the figures show it was just an illusion. Maybe that's a reason why he was so successful- bowlers repeatedly bowling to his strengths, mistaking them for weaknesses.

During the Ashes, Michael Holding told an anecdote about how Ponting had hit a big one against the West Indies and he'd gone into their dressing room afterwards to tell them they had Ponting all wrong- the place to bowl to him was outside off stump at all times. Forcing him to play isn't a concern- Ponting will generally play of his own accord- and he gets out caught behind the wicket on the off-side much more often than he gets out lbw. Ever since, he'd had a somewhat mediocre run of scores against the West Indies. England seemed to be listening, as Stuart Broad successfully executed the plan in the second innings of the next match at Lord's.

Yup. But I can just imagine some poor unfortunate bowler trundling away to a plan of bowling full-ish and outside off to Ponting, and, even if he's not bowling all that full or all that wide, Ponting nonchalantly creaming him through the covers time and time again. Cue fans and commentators saying "what is this idiot doing, everyone knows you don't bowl full outside off to one of the great cover-drivers of all time!", and the bowler gets dragged.

At the end of the day though, I think even the best off-side players are more likely to "randomly" edge a cover drive, than to "randomly" miss a straight one.

On a vaguely related note, in Stephen Fleming's book he talks about how for something like 5 years he basically banned himself from playing the cover drive to anything other than the rankest half-volley. Fleming started his career as one of the most elegant cover-drivers around, but by the end of his career was more notable for his swivel-pull shot and strength off his hip. He said that, even though it looked nice when it came off and he felt comfortable playing the shot, by definition it was risky. I think the simple fact is that, in the game of cricket, you're almost always best to bowl full-ish outside off.

 

[Richard]

Richard, you're full of it. 7 tests is reasonable now to gauge a player in whether they'd be all-time or ****house depending on era? No it isn't.

Indeed it isn't, and however many times you try to turn my words into "the 1990s and 2000s" you won't stop it being "2001/02-onwards and 2001-and-before". Until you actually reply to what has been said rather than what you'd like to have been said, there's precious little point engaging you.

 

[Richard]

Christ this is total crap, But like Ikki not going to get it another Hayden argument with you, cause unfortunately you just recycling the same nonsense over & over when many have proven you wrong.

They haven't. Every single thing I wrote there is as much factual as the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.

 

[Perm]

They haven't. Every single thing I wrote there is as much factual as the fact that the Moon orbits the Earth.

It's your opinion Richard, it's not fact.

 

[Richard]

On a vaguely related note, in Stephen Fleming's book he talks about how for something like 5 years he basically banned himself from playing the cover drive to anything other than the rankest half-volley. Fleming started his career as one of the most elegant cover-drivers around, but by the end of his career was more notable for his swivel-pull shot and strength off his hip. He said that, even though it looked nice when it came off and he felt comfortable playing the shot, by definition it was risky.

That's interesting. Throughout the time I watched Fleming (which was basically from the England tour of 1999 onwards, though not incessantly) he was someone I always considered a very strong on-side player, off front-foot and back-, in fact up with the best through the leg-side (without it being a strength-that-can-also-be-weakness as in Ponting's case). But he never struck me as anything especially strong on the off. I'd always presumed this was a lifelong thing, a la Graeme Smith. Never knew it was something that came into his game.

I think the simple fact is that, in the game of cricket, you're almost always best to bowl full-ish outside off.

Yup, there are a few exceptions, but the overwhelming majority of batsmen are most likely to be troubled by such lines and lengths.

 

[Richard]

It's your opinion Richard, it's not fact.

There is some stuff about Hayden that I've said countless times down the years that is indeed my opinion. That he would not have been Test-standard had his entire career come before 2001/02 is such a thing. It's even, just about, an opinion that he never really improved his game throughout his career, though I'd say it takes quite some inperception to think that some huge sea-change happened which, to me, pretty obviously did not.

That he was not picked prematurely (ie, having not pressed his case in domestic cricket before any Test call-up) is not an opinion, however. Nor is that he was found-out by the good-to-excellent seam attacks that he faced in 1993/94, 1996/97, 1999/2000, 2000/01 and 2001. The only time he enjoyed any success in this period was in India, where seam was taken out of the equation by the nature of the pitches. That Hayden was excellent at bashing crap attacks, I don't imagine, is something many would dispute, because even his admirers should be proud of that.

That I have never once said "Hayden was crap in the 1990s and good in the 2000s" is also fact, even though KaZo seems to be of the incorrect opinion that I have said it.

 

[Uppercut]

That he was not picked prematurely (ie, having not pressed his case in domestic cricket before any Test call-up) is not an opinion

It's an opinion, mate.

 

[aussie]

There is some stuff about Hayden that I've said countless times down the years that is indeed my opinion. That he would not have been Test-standard had his entire career come before 2001/02 is such a thing. It's even, just about, an opinion that he never really improved his game throughout his career, though I'd say it takes quite some inperception to think that some huge sea-change happened which, to me, pretty obviously did not..

This is where you have always been wrong. It is very clear that after Hayden was exposed in the 05 Ashes after being a FTB from IND 01 to NZ 05. If no improvement was made in his game he COULD NOT have scored that Oval hundred nor did what he did vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. Where he either faced very good attacks or had bowler friendly conditions to deal with.

 

[Richard]

It's an opinion, mate.

One could argue that, yes. I doubt, however, that very many would argue that Hayden did not have a fairly compelling case for selection each time he was selected, however, same way I doubt many would argue that the Moon orbits the Earth.

Naturally, of course, it is possible that had things gone differently he may indeed never have been selected. His calls in 1993/94 and 1996/97 were both as injury replacements, and when called-up in 1999/2000 he replaced Greg Blewett who had replaced Matthew Elliott who had he gotten a fair crack of the whip could easily have been one half of the opening combo for long enough to rule Hayden out completely. I've often wished this had indeed happened. And if you think it's inconceivable, just remember the cases of Dene Hills, Jamie Siddons, Stuart Law and Jamie Cox, who played 1 Test between them despite thousands upon thousands of Sheffield Shield runs.

 

[Richard]

This is where you have always been wrong. It is very clear that after Hayden was exposed in the 05 Ashes after being a FTB from IND 01 to NZ 05. If no improvement was made in his game he COULD NOT have scored that Oval hundred nor did what he did vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. Where he either faced very good attacks or had bowler friendly conditions to deal with.

He didn't. Yes, indeed at The Oval in 2005 he played better than I've seen him play at almost any other time - after being exposed, let's emphasise, throughout 2004/05 as well as 2005. But the fare of SA '05/06 and Ind '07/08 was no more challenging than the rubbish he repelled on all other occasions 2001/02-2004 and 2005/06-2007/08. Scoring against those attacks was an example of scoring when runs were easy to come by, same way almost every big Hayden Test innings was.

 

[aussie]

No, but then I probably wouldn't say that Richards faced Australia and Chappell hadn't he was not good either. But you simply cannot ignore it. Regardless, I'd still contend Ponting has the better record against the best attacks in the 90s and at the worst no statements should be made that Ponting is separate from Lara or Tendulkar simply because most of their careers occurred in the 90s whereas his was in the 00s.

I think that would be a stats argument even if you could prove it TBH. Since Ponting in the 90s under no circumstances was better than Tendy or Lara - he was a totally different bat to what he was after he transformed to the batsmen he has been currently, when he began to bat @ 3 in the Trent Bridge test of 2001.

And based on that I think there is little to split them other than Ponting probably being more consistent throughout his career than Tendulkar. I think Ponting is much better facing pace and Tendulkar better at spin, but overall I think Ponting has had more success.

Unfortunately i cant agree my friend. I trust what i've seen on Tendy/Lara/Punter that would always put them ahead of Punter - even if they are some stats where Punter could be better.

I'd say in full flow Tendy & Punter againts quality pace where probably equal though & better than Lara. But overall Tendy would be superior to them both vs pace overall because Tendy never had a serious technical flaw early in his innings like how Lara & Punter where shown to have.

I agree with you on the other point you are making in this thread re Ponting and Ashes.

Well back me up then, ha

 

[Richard]

Ponting was a totally different bat to what he was after he transformed to the batsmen he has been currently, when he began to bat @ 3 in the Trent Bridge test of 2001.

Ponting was pushed up to three at the start of that series and has been the batsman he has come to be known as not since that point but since Ramprakash just failed to get his hands underneath that edge off Caddick at Headingley.

Ponting being elevated to three and becoming the batsman he became did not coincide. In fact he had batted three before and had failed dismally, and had a much, much better record at five, six and seven.

 

[Uppercut]

One could argue that, yes. I doubt, however, that very many would argue that Hayden did not have a fairly compelling case for selection each time he was selected, however, same way I doubt many would argue that the Moon orbits the Earth.

That's a really obnoxious comment, Rich.

Hayden's one of the greatest openers of all time, and it's to the selectors' credit that they spotted this early. It didn't work out especially well for him in the first place but the experience was invaluable and when a player ends up average 50 opening, the ends justifies the means.

You might not agree with those thoughts. But you don't have to treat anyone who holds such opinions like dirt.

 

[aussie]

He didn't. Yes, indeed at The Oval in 2005 he played better than I've seen him play at almost any other time - after being exposed, let's emphasise, throughout 2004/05 as well as 2005. But the fare of SA '05/06 and Ind '07/08 was no more challenging than the rubbish he repelled on all other occasions 2001/02-2004 and 2005/06-2007/08. Scoring against those attacks was an example of scoring when runs were easy to come by, same way almost every big Hayden Test innings was.

Get the phuk outta here mayn. What crap, how the hell can you tell me that SA attack in those 6 test of 2005/06 was not challenging & it was comparable to the poor pace attacks he smashed between IND 01 to NZ 05. Its either you didn't watch that series or i dunno maynnn geez..

IND 07/08 although generally the pitches where flat & the likes of Khan, RP & young Sharma got the ball to swing ALOT in a few sessions for the first time in AUS probably since PAK/IND toured in 99/2000 IMO. Sharma had Ponting jumping for example & Hayden was like a ROCK all series - if didn't improve technically he would have failed.

 

[Richard]

You think those attacks were challening; I don't. Simple as that. I watched a great deal of both series and no-one ever looked like bowling the sort of stuff that throughout his career troubled Hayden.

 

[Richard]

That's a really obnoxious comment, Rich.

Hayden's one of the greatest openers of all time, and it's to the selectors' credit that they spotted this early. It didn't work out especially well for him in the first place but the experience was invaluable and when a player ends up average 50 opening, the ends justifies the means.

You might not agree with those thoughts. But you don't have to treat anyone who holds such opinions like dirt.

Hayden may be one of the most successful openers of all-time; whether he is one of the best is a matter of conjecture. Anyway you seem to think I'm criticising selectors in my previous posts - I'm not, KaZoH0lic is. He claims Hayden was picked too early; I claim he was not. The selectors of the time saw a batsman who'd made mountains of runs at domestic level and picked him based on that.

Regardless of whether Hayden went on to be successful 8 years later or not, the selection of him in 1993/94 and at any point onwards was justified. Thus, his failures are meaningful, unlike those of someone who was picked before he'd become particularly good because some selector thought he'd try to make himself look clever and pitch someone in before they were ready.

 

[Uppercut]

Oh, okay. I was confusing the issue with the one of Warne (or the other players who were picked before they'd played much FC cricket).