Ponting vs. Steve Waugh, Who Was the Better Batsman?

[slippyslip]

Ok Waugh in his prime was a rock against bowlers like Ambrose,Walsh and Waqar.Does any innings of Ponting's come close to Waugh's 200 and 199.Maybe only that old trafford ton in Ashes 05 comes close.What I hold is against Ponting is that - and let me mention that he is an all time great - whenever the team really needed him he failed to step up - India 2001, Ashes 2005,SA 2008.His stats after Mc/W retirements are revealing : 2560 runs @ 44.13...not bad but not great either.

For that matter Border>Waugh

Waqar never had much sucess against Australia. And in 1990 Akram dominated Waugh.

Waugh did ok in 88/89 against West Indies but nothing spectacular. He failed in 92/93 at home. In his first tour of West Indies he could only get 2 tests batting at number 7 and doing nothing.

Hadlee had the wood on Waugh.

Waugh never troubled Kapil Dev.

Waugh never troubled Pakistan pre Ponting days.

Give me an example of Waugh dominating a top class bowler or attack pre his tests against South Africa in 1994, less than 2 years before Ponting started.

I can guarantee you you can't. Yet people keep insisting Waugh is a better batsman because he faced a few more top class bowlers pre Ponting's debut. If you're going to argue that Waugh is better than Ponting because he faced some top class bowlers in the 80's and early 90's then you could say Graeme Wood is a better batsman than Ponting.

Then again, some people still believe the world is flat.

 

[zaremba]

Give me an example of Waugh dominating a top class bowler or attack pre his tests against South Africa in 1994, less than 2 years before Ponting started.

I can guarantee you you can't.

Interesting point - and I'm also one who thinks Ponting the better player of the two.

But to be fair you have sliced the statistics in a slightly misleading way. Because in that period from the South Africa series in 93/94 until Ponting's debut, Waugh had outstanding success against great bowlers, notably Donald, de Villiers, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose and Walsh, most of whom were at or near their peak.

 

[slippyslip]

Interesting point - and I'm also one who thinks Ponting the better player of the two.

But to be fair you have sliced the statistics in a slightly misleading way. Because in that period from the South Africa series in 93/94 until Ponting's debut, Waugh had outstanding success against great bowlers, notably Donald, de Villiers, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose and Walsh, most of whom were at or near their peak.

Very true. But Ponting also faced those bowlers and had success. Any top class bowler Waugh had a lot of success against Ponting also would have played against too, often doing as well or better than Waugh.

The point people are making is that Waugh faced guys like Marshal, Imran, Kapil Dev, Hadlee and Ponting didn't therefore Waugh is better. But of course they are overlooking that Waugh failed against them all. They also conveniently overlook that it took Waugh over 11 years to get his average over 50, which subsequently was the era Ponting had started playing.

 

[zaremba]

Very true. But Ponting also faced those bowlers and had success. Any top class bowler Waugh had a lot of success against Ponting also would have played against too, often doing as well or better than Waugh.

The point people are making is that Waugh faced guys like Marshal, Imran, Kapil Dev, Hadlee and Ponting didn't therefore Waugh is better. But of course they are overlooking that Waugh failed against them all. They also conveniently overlook that it took Waugh over 11 years to get his average over 50, which subsequently was the era Ponting had started playing.

Yes, and your point is extremely well made.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

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