Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[bagapath]

I am sure Ikki meant never facing Indian Test bowlers in Tests in India.If that's what he meant then great job misinterperating his post.
Ikki is that what you meant?

i thought jono meant it in a funny way. at least that is how i would interpret the smiley!

 

[Ikki]

I am sure Ikki meant never facing Indian Test bowlers in Tests in India.If that's what he meant then great job misinterperating his post.
Ikki is that what you meant?

Yes, I thought that would have been fairly obvious.

 

[0RI0N]

Just winding Pratters up.

Lulz no harm no foul.

 

[Richard]

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.

For use in a "Ponting vs. Tendulkar vs. Lara" debate, it's a useless statistic. Contrary to what those more interested in the technical side of batting than myself will say, getting out repeatedly in the same way is no worse than getting out in a thrilling variety of different ways. But it's still very interesting to know.

Like several this post is moreorless exactly my thoughts.

"Maybe that's a reason why he was so successful- bowlers repeatedly bowling to his strengths, mistaking them for weaknesses." can be applied to a huge number of batsmen. In the case of this particular weakness-which-is-actually-a-strength, it applies massively to Ponting and did likewise to Inzamam-ul-Haq all career.

There've been all sorts of batsmen who the short delivery has been the applicable delivery. Stephen Waugh being possibly the best example. It took England 8 years to work it out (and even when they did it didn't always do the trick), but Michael Atherton tells a similar story of how in the 1997 Ashes he finally told the bowlers in no uncertain terms that they had to attack him full and straight early on, not bowl short.

 

[aussie]

the australia that had to face lance gibbs was not the one that faced harbhajan singh. this is a much more successful team;.

Yea, but you can carry it back to Jim Laker too, strong AUS team being troubled by quality off-spin, Patel in 59/60. Its a historical weakness that AUS have only countered in 69/70 & 2004 with wins in SRI & IND.

the best in the world that beat everyone everywhere except on the said occasions in discussion. also this team went on to win in sri lanka against murali 3-0. so the "traditional weakness against spin" argument doesnt hold good for me.

it was a traditional weakness, that during the dominant period of WI 95 to Ashes 06/07 - AUS only weakness was againts spin in helpul conditions. AUS won in 2004 in SRI & IND thanks to methodical planning from past mistakes in IND 98 & 01 & SRI 99.

i do beleive australia could have won the 2001 series if ponting had earned his match fees by scoring decent runs. the thrid test was so close that all aus needed was probably 20 odd runs.

Ha come on man. In 2001 the only AUS batsman who was comfortable againts the spin was Hayden - everyone else was foxed (maybe Steve Waugh also stood up to a level as well). AUS didn't deserve to win since they had not eradicated their weakness againts spin in 01, lets not forget also that AUS lost in SRI 99 as well.

similarly he should have contibuted in the 2004 mumbai test to avoid defeat; he couldn't.

On a EXTREMELY bowler friendly deck. The only time the batsmen where on top in the game was when VVS/Tendy where batting for a period in INDs second innings. AUS lost that game due to poor batting in the second innings along with a touch of the old dead-rubber syndrome. Ponting had nothing to do with that loss.

ricky's repeated letdowns with the bat and australia's failed indian campaigns are very much connected.

Clearly not.

you will see that his record in england is also not as solid as his record elsewhere. that explains two back to back ashes losses as well. any batsman who averages 5+ points more at home than away, whether it is ricky or javed, despite being the mainstay of the team, should be held responsible for letting the team down in overseas defeats.

Haa you gone too far now, trying to hard to find faults. AUS losing back to back Ashes clearly had nothing to do with Ponting's batting (his captaincy maybe).

In 2005 it was because the entire batting was exposed to quality swing bowler.

In 2009 it was due to inconsistent performances & poor selections by the selectors.

 

[aussie]

I am not forgetting it; Sachin never faced Indian bowlers in India.

This really shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Richard]

Yea, but you can carry it back to Jim Laker too, strong AUS team being troubled by quality off-spin, Patel in 59/60. Its a historical weakness that AUS have only countered in 69/70 & 2004 with wins in SRI & IND.

Any team will be troubled by quality bowling whether it be off-spin, leg-spin, fingerspin on the right deck, wristspin or seam. It's such a fallacy to say that any one team has always been troubled by a certain type of quality bowling. Every team, ever has always been troubled by quality bowling regardless of the type.

The only times when a recurring problem is of note is when teams\players are troubled by less-than-outstanding bowlers of a certain type without having any more difficulty than normal against outstanding bowlers of another type. EG, Robin Smith routinely had trouble with bowling at ~50mph regardless of whether or not the ball was turning and\or the loop and dip was there, despite the fact he was one of the best in the business against quick, seaming and swinging bowling.

 

[Ikki]

This really shouldn't be an issue.

Er, what?

 

[aussie]

Er, what?

Batsmen by default obviously wont face their own bowlers. So no reason to bring it up when comparing them with batsmen with other nations - especially if the batsman's team bowling attack is a strong one.

 

[Ikki]

Batsmen by default obviously wont face their own bowlers. So no reason to bring it up when comparing them with batsmen with other nations - especially if the batsman's team bowling attack is a strong one.

And why isn't there a reason? I count Australia for Tendulkar because he did well, even if Ponting didn't face his own team, and yet again count India where Ponting didn't do well against them in India, when Tendulkar didn't face them either?

 

[Migara]

But Lara faced both, and there is room for comparison there.

 

[Ikki]

But Lara faced both, and there is room for comparison there.

Lara didn't face his own team either. In fact, Lara only succeeded against Australia. Poor against SA and PAK, and India at home. He probably has the worst record of the 3.

 

[0RI0N]

Lara didn't face his own team either. In fact, Lara only succeeded against Australia. Poor against SA and PAK, and India at home. He probably has the worst record of the 3.

lol wat?
notsureifserious.jpg

 

[Ikki]

lol wat?
notsureifserious.jpg

Yes, believe it or not. BTW, I am referring to the 90s here.

 

[0RI0N]

Yes, believe it or not. BTW, I am referring to the 90s here.

fair enough,though Lara finished very strongly vs Pak and SA(last 4 test series vs those 2 teams).
One more thing:
How the hell can people argue that batsman X isn't great because he didn't face his own team's bowling.
This is usually from the anti Ponting mob.
How the &%=+ is a Test batsmen supposed to face his own teams bowling in Tests.
Fail logic.
By that logic ANY batsmen or bowler can be deemed not great because they didn't face their teams bowlers or didn't face great bowlers or batsmen from the past...or future.
Fail logic is fail.
*...annnddd breeeaaattthhhe*

 

[Richard]

Lara didn't face his own team either. In fact, Lara only succeeded against Australia. Poor against SA and PAK, and India at home. He probably has the worst record of the 3.

Between 1992 and 2001 however he played just a single series in India (1994/95), a single series in Pakistan (1997/98), and a couple against South Africa (1998/99 and 2001). He also played Sri Lanka just once and did nothing, and did not face New Zealand many times either (though no-one should forget that their attack of 1999/2000 that he did face was a damn good one). It was his misfortune that the overwhelming number of matches between his entrance to the side in 1992 and the flattening out of pitches in 2001/02 (after which he like so many became a superman) came against Australia and England, simply because that was who the WICB scheduled most of their Tests against. It meant he had no chance to build-up the sort of well-rounded record that he should have. A single series in each of India and Pakistan, as well as just a single Test against Sri Lanka and two very short series' in New Zealand, in the space of 9 years is simply deplorable.

Also it's well-known that Lara - regardless of opposition - was of the top tree only 1992-1996, and was merely an average Test batsman 1996/97-2001. So really it's just the India 1994/95 series and the home one against Pakistan in 1993 that has any relevance to the case.

 

[Ikki]

Well, he played more or less the same amount as the others. And, simply put, you have a ****load of excuses for Lara and afford little to a famous opener - let's not mention his name. One just had the misfortune of failing in many more tests earlier, whereas for the other it didn't matter...he was just ****.

 

[Richard]

Well, he played more or less the same amount as the others.

Eh? Which "others"?

And, simply put, you have a ****load of excuses for Lara and afford little to a famous opener - let's not mention his name. One just had the misfortune of failing in many more tests earlier, whereas for the other it didn't matter...he was just ****.

There's no excuse for anything. What I said is the way it is - Lara did not play much against the teams who his record is poor against. As has been said many times, such small sample sizes prove little to nothing. Equally, if you're going to dispute that Lara would be considered a great player had he batted all career as he did 1996/97 to 2001 then I suggest you go and watch some cricket. Almost all assessments of Lara's greatness are based on the 1992-1996 period when he was streets ahead of anyone else around, or indeed anyone since Sobers except Tendulkar. Had he not been such a phenomenal batsman in that time period, he'd be remembered as nothing more than a pretty good Test batsman, or else an outstanding-player-who-is-wrongly-hailed-as-one-of-the-best-ever like Ricky Ponting or Jacques Kallis.

 

[Ikki]

Eh? Which "others"?

Ponting and Tendulkar.

There's no excuse for anything. What I said is the way it is - Lara did not play much against the teams who his record is poor against. As has been said many times, such small sample sizes prove little to nothing. Equally, if you're going to dispute that Lara would be considered a great player had he batted all career as he did 1996/97 to 2001 then I suggest you go and watch some cricket. Almost all assessments of Lara's greatness are based on the 1992-1996 period when he was streets ahead of anyone else around, or indeed anyone since Sobers except Tendulkar. Had he not been such a phenomenal batsman in that time period, he'd be remembered as nothing more than a pretty good Test batsman, or else an outstanding-player-who-is-wrongly-hailed-as-one-of-the-best-ever like Ricky Ponting or Jacques Kallis.

I am not stupid enough to make that claim. Which is why I always have a problem with your rating of Hayden which is arbitrary and flawed at best. What popped out for me here is you giving so much leeway here to Lara yet damn Hayden for a handful of tests. It seems you're saying one was "obviously" shown up in the 90s and only smashed attacks post 2000, whereas the other, even though he played more, was just unlucky with form and it's a shame that his exploits came post 2000.

 

[Richard]

The considerable difference between Hayden and Lara is that Hayden was exposed completely before the flattening-out of decks and decline in bowling from 2001/02 onwards, while Lara had already proven his greatness long before it. Hayden actually continued to be exposed on odd occasions post-2001/02 (because it wasn't the case that every delivery of every Test had nothing in it for bowlers), whereas Lara showed how the only difference 1992-1996, 1996/97-2001 and 2001/02-2006/07 was with himself. Some people like to think Hayden himself was the reason behind the change in his scoring, as Lara was; I don't believe this and never will.

BTW as you of course know I've never said anyone was anything relating to the 1990s and 2000s, even though you for whatever reason seem to think it's clever to continue to make-out that I have.