***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[Sir Alex]

You seem to be lost on the point I am making. I am not saying a decade's worth of superiority means total superiority.

You mentioned the fact that a large part of Tendulkar's run-making came in a tougher era. Frankly, that's true. However, is overturned by some very important points:

1) Ponting also played in that tougher era.
2) In that period against the best opponents he scored well - the ones he failed at were the worst, which hardly distinguishes making runs against them in the 90s or 00s anyway.
3) They BOTH played in the 00s (the decade I used) yet Ponting is a mile in front.

1. Ponting played for 2-3 years in that tough era??
2. Never really had to perform outside his comfort zones (Australia and South Africa) for a long period. His home and away averages bear testimony in this case.
3. He scored against Donald when he was near the end of his career, and never dominated Walsh/Ambrose. Played the Ws when they too were near their career ends (and well past their peak) while Tendulkar faced them and Imran when Ws were at their peak. Also as I said, Ponting never faced McGrath/Warne/Gillespie/ etc at their peaks in test match conditions. Tendulkar has had the better of Steyn at Steyn's peak than Ponting.

Had we compared players who played in different eras, you'd have a point. But Tendulkar also played in the 00s. He also had the chance, and he didn't do it. Hence, pointing out the fact that he did superbly in the 90s should go hand in hand with pointing out that he did worse in the 00s when it was "easier".

Ponting was better for 5 odd years in the 2000s than Tendulkar. And Ponting's best almost exactly coincided with Tendulkar's worst period. So in these 5 years, Ponting was miles better than Tendulkar agreed. But to say that based on those 5 years, Ponting has dominated Tendulkar in the 2000s fully is ridiculous. Check out their records pre 2002 and post 2007.

P.S. Zimbabwe is a true minnow. For almost all bar a very small period of time during the turn of the century were they not.

They;ve been competitive and better than Bangladesh and todays West Indies/Pakistan then. Also important to note Tendulkar played them during the turn of the century more.

 

[satyam]

Forget era. Check the strike rate of sehwag against Steyn

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[vcs]

I remember when Sachin made 248* against Bangladesh, no one else crossed 100 in the match, and the recent 100 out of 240 odd was also a very crucial innings. So yes, he has "cashed in" a couple of innings when everybody was getting stuck in, but he has also saved India embarrassment on a few occasions. I remember Australia struggled against Bangladesh in one Test in 2006 and Gilchrist and Ponting played important roles. I don't think minnows should be removed from the records in these kinds of debates when a batsman has comprehensively proved himself under all conditions.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ponting and Sachin played in the same era. Hence the easiness of batting was more or less experienced by both. So arguing that one had it easier in a certain period is irrelevant when the other batsmen also played in that era and did worse.

Sehwag and Viv are from two entirely different eras.

It is not the same logic.

Deception of the highest order.

Ponting made his dough in the mid 2000s while Tendulkar did it in mid 90s to late 90s. And he made his debut in the 80s and played for 7-8 years of test cricket before Ponting even debuted.

Ponting happened to be there for about 60-70% of Tendulkar's era.Doesnt mean they belonged to the same era.

 

[Sir Alex]

Forget era. Check the strike rate of sehwag against Steyn

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

What's Sehwag's relevance in this thread?

 

[satyam]

Strike rate of sehwag against Muralitharan

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Sir Alex]

I remember when Sachin made 248* against Bangladesh, no one else crossed 100 in the match, and the recent 100 out of 240 odd was also a very crucial innings. So yes, he has "cashed in" a couple of innings when everybody was getting stuck in, but he has also saved India embarrassment on a few occasions. I remember Australia struggled against Bangladesh in one Test in 2006 and Gilchrist and Ponting played important roles. I don't think minnows should be removed from the records in these kinds of debates when a batsman has comprehensively proved himself under all conditions.

Exactly.

Would also love to see how many "solitary" 100s did Tendulkar and Ponting make in their respective careers as well.

 

[satyam]

What's Sehwag's relevance in this thread?

I was just saying if by having larger averager punter>sachin

then sehwag>viv richards

 

[Ikki]

1. Ponting played for 2-3 years in that tough era??

No, he played for 5.

2. Never really had to perform outside his comfort zones (Australia and South Africa) for a long period. His home and away averages bear testimony in this case.

S.Africa is a comfort zone? Stop making things up. His record against the 3 other (not including his own) great pace attacks of the time is very fine; and even more impressive done in his youth.

3. He scored against Donald when he was near the end of his career, and never dominated Walsh/Ambrose. Played the Ws when they too were near their career ends (and well past their peak) while Tendulkar faced them and Imran when Ws were at their peak. Also as I said, Ponting never faced McGrath/Warne/Gillespie/ etc at their peaks in test match conditions. Tendulkar has had the better of Steyn at Steyn's peak than Ponting.

97 is at the end of Donald's career? Stop making things up. He played the WWs when they were still a force. He scored 88 in his first inning against Ambrose/Walsh.

Ponting IIRC was beating on McGrath in domestic cricket in his teens. Never had a problem with Warne and Gillespie was never going to be a bowler who troubled him.

Ponting is one of the best players of pace of all time; probably in the top handful and had a mass of success against most of the aforementioned bowlers.

Ponting was better for 5 odd years in the 2000s than Tendulkar. And Ponting's best almost exactly coincided with Tendulkar's worst period. So in these 5 years, Ponting was miles better than Tendulkar agreed. But to say that based on those 5 years, Ponting has dominated Tendulkar in the 2000s fully is ridiculous. Check out their records pre 2002 and post 2007.

It frankly doesn't matter much. You can slice it however you like. Tendulkar in the 00s was a pretty average batsman. In fact, removing minnows, of ALL batsman he is somewhere near the 24th or 25th highest average of the era. Your point about easiness is moot.

They;ve been competitive and better than Bangladesh and todays West Indies/Pakistan then. Also important to note Tendulkar played them during the turn of the century more.

No, they haven't. Who knows where WIndies cricket will end up, but Zimbabwe were not much better, if at all, and that is only during the very small period near the turn of the century. They were a poor test team throughout, and were so when Tendulkar faced them.

 

[Sir Alex]

I was just saying if by having larger averager punter>sachin

then sehwag>viv richards

Does nothing other than to derail this wonderful thread.

 

[Johnners]

Satyam, Virendar Sehwag's batting records against certain bowlers has no relevance to this thread whatsoever. If you want to discuss Sehwag, please find the relevant thread to do so in.

 

[Ikki]

Deception of the highest order.

Ponting made his dough in the mid 2000s while Tendulkar did it in mid 90s to late 90s. And he made his debut in the 80s and played for 7-8 years of test cricket before Ponting even debuted.

Ponting happened to be there for about 60-70% of Tendulkar's era.Doesnt mean they belonged to the same era.

No, They both played in the 00s. It doesn't really matter.

When Tendulkar did it in the 90s and Ponting didn't (well he did, he just wasn't playing for half of it) Ponting actually MADE his runs against the HARDEST teams. So that's the whole point. You can't conclude that Tendulkar did in a period where it was harder because the main difference between Ponting and Tendulkar in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed on the weak teams too...whereas Ponting did well against the BEST teams and didn't make runs against the WORST teams. That's the irony.

 

[Ikki]

I remember when Sachin made 248* against Bangladesh, no one else crossed 100 in the match, and the recent 100 out of 240 odd was also a very crucial innings. So yes, he has "cashed in" a couple of innings when everybody was getting stuck in, but he has also saved India embarrassment on a few occasions. I remember Australia struggled against Bangladesh in one Test in 2006 and Gilchrist and Ponting played important roles. I don't think minnows should be removed from the records in these kinds of debates when a batsman has comprehensively proved himself under all conditions.

I'll make it easy for you, tell me this:

1) How many wins does Bangladesh have in Test cricket?
2) How many runs do visiting batsmen make per inning against Bangladesh?

I am sure after then you'll put aside this argument.

 

[vcs]

OT alert : TBH, some of the statements about batting being easier in this decade remind me of similar arguments in tennis when Sampras and Federer are compared. Many look at Federer's blanket dominance in the '00s and say it was a "weak era" compared to Sampras who faced down more rivals. I don't buy it. I know statistically this decade has been better for run-scoring than the last, but the degree of ease often gets exaggerated. You cannot fault Ponting for the era he was born in.

Personally, I consider Sachin to be superior to Ponting, purely because he has saved his best against Australia, dominated an all-time great bowler in Warne, whereas Ponting's record in India is a blemish in his resume.

 

[bagapath]

Except for when he regularly faced McGrath. Who regularly didn't play a full series due to injuries. He averages 36.77 in matches against him. I wouldn't start claiming that as good.

I bring up McGrath due to the fact that Sir Alex points out that we had the best attack of the era, EVER. When that couldn't have been so without McGrath in the line-up.

sachin agaist mcgrath...

3 tests in 2001, 50 avg
3 tests in 99-00, 46 avg
2 tests in 04-04, 17.5 avg
1 test in 96, 5 avg

in the one off test in 96, sachin made 10 runs in two innings; and in the 04-05 series in which he played only two games he averaged 17.5 in four innings. in these six innings, he was dismissed twice by gillespie, twice by mcgrath and once each by hauritz and mcintyre. his failures were not because of mcgrath, alone.

in the two full series they played against each other, sachin averaged 50 and 46. in the 2001 series he was instrumental in winning the third test. even in the first test, his 70+ knocks in both innings had his stamp of authority. in the 99-00 series he was the only one fighting against the aussie juggernaut. his batting was so sublime that he ended up with the MOS award even after a 3-0 series defeat. Mediocre against McGrath? No way.

 

[satyam]

No, They both played in the 00s. It doesn't really matter.

When Tendulkar did it in the 90s and Ponting didn't (well he did, he just wasn't playing for half of it) Ponting actually MADE his runs against the HARDEST teams. So that's the whole point. You can't conclude that Tendulkar did in a period where it was harder because the main difference between Ponting and Tendulkar in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed on the weak teams too...whereas Ponting did well against the BEST teams and didn't make runs against the WORST teams. That's the irony.

Yeah same punter which struggled against England in 2005 and cashed on big time against them in 2006 and struggled again in 2009. Punter is a home town hero at best.

 

[satyam]

I'll make it easy for you, tell me this:

1) How many wins does Bangladesh have in Test cricket?
2) How many runs do visiting batsmen make per inning in Bangladesh?

I am sure after then you'll put aside this argument.

What is the average of your best Batsman Miachel clarke against Bangladesh?

 

[Sir Alex]

No, he played for 5.



S.Africa is a comfort zone? Stop making things up. His record against the 3 other (not including his own) great pace attacks of the time is very fine; and even more impressive done in his youth.

SA was clearly Ponting's comfort zone. And Australia no doubts about it. Check hsi away/homeaverages.

97 is at the end of Donald's career? Stop making things up. He played the WWs when they were still a force. He scored 88 in his first inning against Ambrose/Walsh.

Now we are talking one innings! Tendulkar made centuries against every great bowler he's faced.

Ponting IIRC was beating on McGrath in domestic cricket in his teens. Never had a problem with Warne and Gillespie was never going to be a bowler who troubled him.

We are talking about test cricket at McG's and Warne's peak dude not schoolcricket

Ponting is one of the best players of pace of all time; probably in the top handful and had a mass of success against most of the aforementioned bowlers.

Yet can't seem to score anything against the fastest bowler he had to face since Shoiab Akhtar (Steyn)

It frankly doesn't matter much. You can slice it however you like. Tendulkar in the 00s was a pretty average batsman. In fact, removing minnows, of ALL batsman he is somewhere near the 24th or 25th highest average of the era. Your point about easiness is moot.

You are creating goalposts. REPEAT, Tendulkar had his worst years in the 2000s, so automatically his average also got affected in the 2000s. It says nothing conclusive other than that.

No, they haven't. Who knows where WIndies cricket will end up, but Zimbabwe were not much better, if at all, and that is only during the very small period near the turn of the century. They were a poor test team throughout, and were so when Tendulkar faced them.

They easily are. I infact supported that with their career averages in another thread. CBA to find it now.

 

[Sir Alex]

No, They both played in the 00s. It doesn't really matter.

So 7-8 years of International cricket doesn't matter. Ultimate.

When Tendulkar did it in the 90s and Ponting didn't (well he did, he just wasn't playing for half of it) Ponting actually MADE his runs against the HARDEST teams. So that's the whole point. You can't conclude that Tendulkar did in a period where it was harder because the main difference between Ponting and Tendulkar in the 90s is that Tendulkar smashed on the weak teams too...whereas Ponting did well against the BEST teams and didn't make runs against the WORST teams. That's the irony.

Tendulkar did well against the best of his times as well as the worst of his times. I'd take that over a home bully.

 

[shankar]

No, they haven't. Who knows where WIndies cricket will end up, but Zimbabwe were not much better, if at all, and that is only during the very small period near the turn of the century. They were a poor test team throughout, and were so when Tendulkar faced them.

Averages of top order batsmen in the period 90-02 against all sides. Average against Zimbabwe is 44.15.

Averages of top order batsmen in the period since 2003 against all sides. Average against WI:49.88, Pak:45.94, NZ:45.15, IND:43.15.

If scores against Zim in the first period have to be removed we'd have remove scores against the above teams in the latter period as well.