***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[8ankitj]

How is Ponting vs Dravid comparison doing these days?

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Ikki

There's a difference between Ricky and other greats in his era - he didn't plump his average with minnows so his average is still (even with this long trough) great. Remove Tendulkar's matches against B/Z and he averages 53.

You're being inconsistent there. If you remove Zimbabwe, you need to remove WI post 2003 as well.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by Satguru

I dont see your point at all. IIRC Tendulkar's average was on the verge of 60 back in 2001-2 after a decade of playing against great attacks of the 90s (inb4 tendulkar's averages against donald-ambrose-wasim-waqar ). All players have peaks and troughs, but Tendulkar has managed to have to come out of his slump and has had a magnificent second peak in the last 3-4 years. If Ponting comes out of his slump and gets his old form back like SRT did, then the comparisons can start again. Until then, ill consider SRT the greater batsman by a not so tiny distance.
And back in 2007, plenty of people had seriously started considering Ponting to be greater than Sachin, too bad he couldnt continue his amazing run

The point is pretty easy to see: when Tendulkar got to such a low average people even then still held him as the greatest batsman of his era. They did not relegate him to the Miandad class. I don't mean to disrespect Miandad but I wouldn't put him in the class that belongs to Lara, Tendulkar, Richards, Chappell and Ponting. Ponting, even with this trough and his record as it is, has a formidable record matched by only a handful of batsmen.

I remember arguing with bagapath (IIRC) at that time about Ponting overtaking Tendulkar and yet he still held the opposite view. So to see him do this is poor form.

Originally Posted by shankar

You're being inconsistent there. If you remove Zimbabwe, you need to remove WI post 2003 as well.

No, I'm not; nor does it change my point (see the above) if I did.

Originally Posted by weldone

Ponting is a prime example of how much people underrate longevity. When comparing one player averaging 60 for 8 years to a player averaging 52 for 15 years, people don't even blink before suggesting the former has clearly had the better career. In this forum, I got laughed at many a times when during Ponting's prime I opined that he was yet to surpass Steve Waugh. Now, I silently observe that some of the same posters keep him at par with Waugh.

Ponting by 07 had been a Test player for some 12 years and had played 100+ Tests. He already had a long career.

Originally Posted by bagapath

true. he should have retired then. unfortunately people pumped him up unnecessarily - like saying he could overtake tendulkar if he played long enough. poor guy believed the hype, got greedy, played for too long and has lost the race badly in the long run. javed is an all time great too. ponting would happily settle for that status in history. not everyone can be a richards, tendulkar, lara or hutton you see!

At that point he clearly had overtaken Tendulkar. Unfortunately for him, Tendulkar got back to scoring 100s and he stopped.

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Ikki

No, I'm not; nor does it change my point (see the above) if I did.

Remove WI post 2003 in addition to Zim and Bang as consistency would demand and his average goes down to below 50.

[bagapath]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I remember arguing with bagapath (IIRC) at that time about Ponting overtaking Tendulkar and yet he still held the opposite view. So to see him do this is poor form.

I hope you saw my "wink" at the end of my post.

seriously, ponting has done what i think any self respecting sportsman should do; which is, one should ignore form, fame, records, money, critics, legacy and play the game only for the love of it as long as the team continues to benefit from your contribution.

while i do believe that ponting was never the greatest batsman since bradman which is what a lot of people chose to call him when he was on song, he was still doing what very few people had done in the history of cricket so well - which is to bat like a superman and set up winning positions for his team in most conditions. with age, his reflexes have slowed down a bit; more importantly his form has deserted him. now, the same instant-judges are calling him a mere mortal.

i am glad ikki is holding on to his view that ponting belongs in the highest echelons of batsmanship. it shows that he is not one of those people whose opinions change every season. i have also not changed from my earlier view either that he is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and sits just one level below the "best after bradman" league.

[Satguru]

Originally Posted by bagapath

I hope you saw my "wink" at the end of my post.

seriously, ponting has done what i think any self respecting sportsman should do; which is, one should ignore form, fame, records, money, critics, legacy and play the game only for the love of it as long as the team continues to benefit from your contribution.

while i do believe that ponting was never the greatest batsman since bradman which is what a lot of people chose to call him when he was on song, he was still doing what very few people had done in the history of cricket so well - which is to bat like a superman and set up winning positions for his team in most conditions. with age, his reflexes have slowed down a bit; more importantly his form has deserted him. now, the same instant-judges are calling him a mere mortal.

i am glad ikki is holding on to his view that ponting belongs in the highest echelons of batsmanship. it shows that he is not one of those people whose opinions change every season. i have also not changed from my earlier view either that he is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and sits just one level below the "best after bradman" league.

Very well put indeed
Ponting back in 2006 averaged close to 60 over 100 matches, which is a ridiculously amazing record, and the stats showed his greatness. But now, with a slump, his stats have merely become great and with batsmen averaging 50+ left, right and centre, the lustre of his earlier achievements has diminished in the minds of many. Ponting's decline hasnt really cause me to rate him any lower than i did back in 2006, its just that Sachin definitely has grown in stature and overtaken him now, just like Ponting did back then

[Sanz]

That's so much true. That's why it does not matter what Stats Ponting ends up with, it wont stop people from rating him one of the greatest, esp those who are lucky to watch him play. It is the same reason I always laugh when people call Richards over-rated after looking his career batting average.

[smalishah84]

Originally Posted by bagapath

I hope you saw my "wink" at the end of my post.

seriously, ponting has done what i think any self respecting sportsman should do; which is, one should ignore form, fame, records, money, critics, legacy and play the game only for the love of it as long as the team continues to benefit from your contribution.

while i do believe that ponting was never the greatest batsman since bradman which is what a lot of people chose to call him when he was on song, he was still doing what very few people had done in the history of cricket so well - which is to bat like a superman and set up winning positions for his team in most conditions. with age, his reflexes have slowed down a bit; more importantly his form has deserted him. now, the same instant-judges are calling him a mere mortal.

i am glad ikki is holding on to his view that ponting belongs in the highest echelons of batsmanship. it shows that he is not one of those people whose opinions change every season. i have also not changed from my earlier view either that he is one of the greatest batsmen of all time and sits just one level below the "best after bradman" league.

The part in bold is the reason that I don't rate Ricky as highly as I used to.

I find it a bit odd that Ricky Ponting was a very good-great batsman when McWarne were not at their peak and he has really tapered off since their retirement. Is it a mere coincidence? I don't think so. Even Michael Clarke and Hussey looked very very good batsmen when they had the confidence of a super bowling attack at their disposal. Now they don't look that good either.

Tendulkar (other than the 4 year period of injury) has been performing consistently everywhere. Whether India's bowling was decent or **** Tendy has proven himself (same with Lara). With Ponting I can't say the same. Which is why I would say that Ponting definitely being an ATG is not at the Tendy-Lara level IMO

[weldone]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Ponting by 07 had been a Test player for some 12 years and had played 100+ Tests. He already had a long career.

Yes, but still not as nearly as long a career as Waugh and not nearly as good quality of opposition bowlers...

[Spark]

Originally Posted by smalishah84

The part in bold is the reason that I don't rate Ricky as highly as I used to.

I find it a bit odd that Ricky Ponting was a very good-great batsman when McWarne were not at their peak and he has really tapered off since their retirement. Is it a mere coincidence? I don't think so. Even Michael Clarke and Hussey looked very very good batsmen when they had the confidence of a super bowling attack at their disposal. Now they don't look that good either.

Tendulkar (other than the 4 year period of injury) has been performing consistently everywhere. Whether India's bowling was decent or **** Tendy has proven himself (same with Lara). With Ponting I can't say the same. Which is why I would say that Ponting definitely being an ATG is not at the Tendy-Lara level IMO

Clarke got better post-McWarne, much better. Just saying. Hussey did fine for two years post-McWarne.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, frankly.

[smalishah84]

I think the psychological effect of a super bowling attack really gives confidence to the batsmen

[Spark]

At a certain level it makes negligible difference.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Spark

Clarke got better post-McWarne, much better. Just saying. Hussey did fine for two years post-McWarne.

I don't think that has anything to do with it, frankly.

Yeah I think it was a coincidence. If his form was so influenced by psychological factors, then surely dropping the captaincy would have made a huge difference. But it hasn't...if anything he has looked worse after dropping the captaincy. Now that I think about it anyway, I don't think McWarne's retirement did directly coincide with his slump anyway. He was still looking pretty good up to the 2009 Ashes.

[bagapath]

dear ricky

aren't you bored with your achievements yet? why do you want to prove you detractors wrong every time your obituary is written? how do you do this again and again? are you playing on to prove something to yourself? is that why the majority of us are mere journeymen but very few humans achieve as much as you in any field? can i buy you a drink and congratulate you on yet another awesome innings? and can i request you to retire on this high so that you are not a threat to sachin's aggregate records? do you understand that we are a ****-all test team and an average ODI team and sachin's aggregate is the only thing we can hold on to in cricket? you have done enough for your country; now can you do this favor for my country and leave the game as the second best of the era without pushing for the top spot once again, please?

in awe of your awesomeness
bagapath

[silentstriker]

Boy some people are fickle.