****Unofficial**** Ponting's Legacy Thread

[HeathDavisSpeed]

As the Securitate have handed down an edict that criticism cannot be levelled or a debate had in a retirement thread, I thought it about time to have an open debate on Ponting's career.

Namely - how will his legacy be seen.

Ponting as captain presided over some pretty ugly moments in Australian cricket history - *that* Sydney test, the swearing at the balcony following being run out by Gary Pratt, demanding that opposition teams take the Australian word on whether a catch was taken cleanly despite solid evidence that they'd claimed some pretty dodgy catches in the preceding years.

Somewhere in the middle, we have his record of success as captain - loads of series victories, world cups galore. But despite this, the man himself has expressed disappointment that he didn't win more Ashes series as captain.

And of course, Ricky the batsman. As many have said, after 100 tests, his average was 60+, but really he's finished with a merely superb record just shy of 52 - as opposed to a 60+ average which would have put him at the very, very top in the Pantheon of Batsmen.

How will history remember Ricky Ponting the cricketer?

Personally, I think the one overwhelming memory that I will have of Ricky Ponting is his majestic pull shot. Something unique and very watchable about the way he executed a pull shot. Glad to see he got one away in his last innings.

The Gary Pratt moment has almost faded in obscurity, but I suspect his image will be tarnished in the eyes of the Indian contingent for many years over the events of the 07/08 series whether fairly or unfairly.

Also, in the long run, will a final batting average of below that *magical* 52 barrier mean that his batting achievements will be devalued by later generations?

In short, will history view Ricky Ponting as the player he actually was?

 

[Burgey]

India would have had far stronger grounds to whinge about Sydney if they weren't led by a monstrous hypocrite at the time.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

India would have had far stronger grounds to whinge about Sydney if they weren't led by a monstrous hypocrite at the time.

That's as maybe, but given the number of cricket fans in India, their perception of how the events of that tour played out may drive the overall opinion on those events in the future - potentially detracting from how history will judge Ponting.

 

[mugshot]

How many different threads! He deserves it though given his career, great player whether you liked him or not.

 

[Burgey]

I doubt it.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Reckon he'll be remembered for a number of things that pull shot of his is for me the best shot of the past 20 years or so. He didn't just hit the ball he banished it from his presence then looked as it went.

 

[mugshot]

Reckon he'll be remembered for a number of things that pull shot of his is for me the best shot of the past 20 years or so. He didn't just hit the ball he banished it from his presence then looked as it went.

Love that last line...classic.

 

[centurymaker]

I just had a look at the cumulative averages of sachin, lara, ponting
fascinating peaks and troughs in their respective careers..

test avg: tendulkar, lara, ponting

10 tests: 41.21-- 47.76-- 41.87

20 tests: 37.41-- 55.39-- 39.43

30 tests: 51.65-- 58.55-- 38.62

40 tests: 52.15-- 55.86-- 45.83

50 tests: 49.82-- 51.82-- 44.65


60 tests: 53.62-- 49.25-- 47.86

70 tests: 55.46-- 49.67-- 50.96

80 tests: 57.51-- 47.68-- 53.58

90 tests: 58.87-- 49.49-- 55.60

100 tests: 57.96-- 52.14-- 57.71


110 tests: 55.33-- 53.43-- 59.29

120 tests: 57.43-- 53.20-- 58.50

131 tests: 55.79-- 52.88-- 56.20

140 tests: 54.92-- ........-- 55.26

150 tests: 54.23-- ........-- 54.27


160 tests: 54.79-- ........-- 52.70

168 tests: 56.08-- ........-- 51.85

180 tests: 56.25

190 tests: 55.08

 

[Cruxdude]

I think Ponting will be remembered as one of the greats of this generation. I do not think his boorish behavior at times will detract from how he is remembered by the later generations. The monstrous run scoring in the 2000s, 100 test victories and the 2 unbeaten WCs as captain will be what he would be remembered for.

 

[Trichromatic]

Behavior will just be side story for Ponting as it has been for other players. No one (except for the whiners) cares about the behavior as long as player has good performances on the ground. Good that he mellowed down when he was not in form for many years.

 

[ankitj]

I think the fact that he was so godly for a period will be forgotten over time and his batting average that now seems pretty humane will in future not earn him a place in shortlist of players second to Bradman.

 

[Trichromatic]

I think the fact that he was so godly for a period will be forgotten over time and his batting average that now seems pretty humane will in future not earn him a place in shortlist of players second to Bradman.

Those who have seen him, will remember only his golden period and not the years when he struggled. But those who haven't seen him, they will use stats to judge him.

 

[silentstriker]

As I said before, Viv has a similar problem.

 

[cnerd123]

To me...Ponting will always be an example of ruthless perfectionism in Cricket. When it came to batting, at his peak he felt like a machine. Just scoring all over the place, all around the wicket, until he was dislodged by a brilliant delivery, or had no more runs left to score. His peak coincided with my early days of following cricket, and so that's how I've always seen him. It just felt like he always had the perfect shot to every ball, and he knew how to time each of them wonderfully, and he kept on doing it over and over. Occasionally he would make a mistake, but it would be rare.

And I never liked that. While I appreciate perfection, Ponting's batting always felt devoid of joy and artistry.

Now I know what you will think, Ponting was so easy on the eye, such a marvellous technique, and that pull shot...how can I feel he was devoid of artistry? But then again, I feel the same way of Sachin. I appreciate text-book perfection, but that to me isn't art. To me, the greatest batsmen to watch were the unorthodox ones. The flawed ones. The ones who played cricket in their own way, and not the way the textbook had taught them to. The ones who didn't have the answer to every ball bowled to them, but who were spectacular when they got deliveries they could hit. Those who forged their own style, a style that you could never teach to someone. Laxman, Lara, Chanderpaul, Mark Waugh, the brief glimpses I saw of Vinod Kambli and David Gower, Amla, Mohammed Yousuf...these guys made batting beautiful. They made it art. They made it joyful.

When Ponting stepped onto the cricket field, he was ruthless. He was a machine. He scored runs in the quickest and most brutal way possible. It was simple, it was efficient, it was perfect, it was not fun.

And that all was the epitome of what Australia as a team stood for at that time. Ruthless, brutal efficient. Lots of practice, lots of hard work, lots of skill and determination. Not making mistakes. Executing your shots and your deliveries perfect every time. No wasting time on frills or being pretty. Just doing what you have to do, and not giving an inch to the opponent. Hayden, McGrath, Langer, Symonds. They weren't pretty cricketers, by any means, but they were ruthless, determined, brutal, efficient, did everything perfectly. Even Brett Lee as a bowler - he didn't have the sort of nice, poetic beautiful runup...he had the straight, orthodox one. A walk, a jog, sprint in, leap and bowl without anymore fuss or frills. No unnecessary flailing of the arms, no long dramatic windup, no curving runup or excessively long sprint it. It was simple, it was efficient, it was fast and it was killer. You had to be very strong to pull that off again and again. And he did it. You were in awe of its perfection, like you would be of an Olympic athlete, but you weren't in awe of its beauty and uniqueness. Or atleast, I wasn't.

The same for Gilchrist really. All I remember of his batting is his big hitting and destructive style, but I don't remember ever seeing him unfurl a cover drive and thinking, 'Gosh, that was beautiful'. Even as a keeper, there were a few moments of brilliance and genius, but not as much as so many other keepers going around. For the most part he was just very good, very reliable at what he did, and he made no mistakes. I would watch him, and was in awe of his power, precision, skill and consistency...but it wasn't creative or pretty, if you get what I'm saying.

These guys, this team, lead by this man felt like a ruthless, industrialised Cricket machine. They did everything perfectly and dominated the world as a result. And I didn't like that. I never like that. Cricket was a game meant to be fun. These guys weren't fun. They didn't try to play in a fun style. They played to win. They bashed minnows instead of having a laugh and joking about, letting the part-timers bowl and reducing their intensity. They sledged their opponents. They were always angry on the field. They wanted to win. They were determined to win. And they always won.

And it was impressive...but they weren't fun to watch. Sure, Waugh, Martyn, and Warne were...but as a whole the team was not.

And that to me stuck with Ricky Ponting. He was this leader of this industrialised, dominating, perfect, burtal, efficient team. He was the leader who never smiled on the field unless his team took a wicket, the captain who always did the obvious, not one who had creative plans or field placements or bowling changes. He was the guy who spit in his hands, who appealed for everything, who bullied around bowling attacks, who didn't play cricket to make friends or mess about and have fun, but who played cricket to win.

Why play cricket to win? I thought this was a game to be enjoyed?

Sure you could say there was enjoyment to be derived through winning...but I personally never felt that way. And as such, I never liked that Australia team. And I never really liked Ricky Ponting.

I admired him, sure, but I just couldn't relate to that team in spirit. It all felt wrong to me. That was never what cricket was to me. And that's Ponting's legacy in my eyes.

 

[silentstriker]

FTR, I had problems with a lot of people in Sydney (the biggest being Harbhajan's racism), but Ponting wasn't one of them. There is/was certainly a perception, in India at least, that Australian teams liked to dish it out but couldn't take it - that they were the ones who decided where the line was and that was that - best exemplified by when the Indian team reported Haddin(?) for calling someone a bastard. I don't even want to think about that tour. That was annoying as **** - almost quit watching cricket.

Whatever you think of that perception (and I don't really agree with it), I don't think Ponting was really the main person responsible for that image. But he was the captain, so maybe he gets blamed (IMO unfairly) anyway. Yea he did have his annoying moments, but he was one of the most honest captains I think. He always took responsibility when the team lost.

For me, I'll remember his pull shot. Great player - best batsman of the past decade for sure. I would put him about equal with Waugh, and behind Bradman and Chappell in Australian history. I don't put him up there with the Tendulkar/Chappells but I was saying that even when he was averaging 60 - I don't really think history will judge him all that differently just because he went through a rough phase like most people do. He did average 60 over 100 Tests but that leaves out more than a third of his career, which defines him just as much as the first or the middle third did. As far as I'm concerned, as long as your runs count for your team during a Test match, they should count in judging you as a player. Dravid's average also reached 58 at one point, and so did Sachin's I think. But hey, you kept playing, your scored runs (or didn't) and that helped your team (or didn't), so it counts.

That's why most people don't consider Ian Botham the greatest player in the history of the game. I mean if you're only talking about players at their peak - I might seriously consider picking Ian Botham over Bradman as the first player on my team.

Overall though, most people who have seen Viv talk about his golden days, not his decline. The same will be true of Ponting. The rest is just statistical masturbation.

 

[smash84]

To me...Ponting will always be an example of ruthless perfectionism in Cricket. When it came to batting, at his peak he felt like a machine. Just scoring all over the place, all around the wicket, until he was dislodged by a brilliant delivery, or had no more runs left to score. His peak coincided with my early days of following cricket, and so that's how I've always seen him. It just felt like he always had the perfect shot to every ball, and he knew how to time each of them wonderfully, and he kept on doing it over and over. Occasionally he would make a mistake, but it would be rare.

And I never liked that. While I appreciate perfection, Ponting's batting always felt devoid of joy and artistry.

Now I know what you will think, Ponting was so easy on the eye, such a marvellous technique, and that pull shot...how can I feel he was devoid of artistry? But then again, I feel the same way of Sachin. I appreciate text-book perfection, but that to me isn't art. To me, the greatest batsmen to watch were the unorthodox ones. The flawed ones. The ones who played cricket in their own way, and not the way the textbook had taught them to. The ones who didn't have the answer to every ball bowled to them, but who were spectacular when they got deliveries they could hit. Those who forged their own style, a style that you could never teach to someone. Laxman, Lara, Chanderpaul, Mark Waugh, the brief glimpses I saw of Vinod Kambli and David Gower, Amla, Mohammed Yousuf...these guys made batting beautiful. They made it art. They made it joyful.

When Ponting stepped onto the cricket field, he was ruthless. He was a machine. He scored runs in the quickest and most brutal way possible. It was simple, it was efficient, it was perfect, it was not fun.

And that all was the epitome of what Australia as a team stood for at that time. Ruthless, brutal efficient. Lots of practice, lots of hard work, lots of skill and determination. Not making mistakes. Executing your shots and your deliveries perfect every time. No wasting time on frills or being pretty. Just doing what you have to do, and not giving an inch to the opponent. Hayden, McGrath, Langer, Symonds. They weren't pretty cricketers, by any means, but they were ruthless, determined, brutal, efficient, did everything perfectly. Even Brett Lee as a bowler - he didn't have the sort of nice, poetic beautiful runup...he had the straight, orthodox one. A walk, a jog, sprint in, leap and bowl without anymore fuss or frills. No unnecessary flailing of the arms, no long dramatic windup, no curving runup or excessively long sprint it. It was simple, it was efficient, it was fast and it was killer. You had to be very strong to pull that off again and again. And he did it. You were in awe of its perfection, like you would be of an Olympic athlete, but you weren't in awe of its beauty and uniqueness. Or atleast, I wasn't.

The same for Gilchrist really. All I remember of his batting is his big hitting and destructive style, but I don't remember ever seeing him unfurl a cover drive and thinking, 'Gosh, that was beautiful'. Even as a keeper, there were a few moments of brilliance and genius, but not as much as so many other keepers going around. For the most part he was just very good, very reliable at what he did, and he made no mistakes. I would watch him, and was in awe of his power, precision, skill and consistency...but it wasn't creative or pretty, if you get what I'm saying.

These guys, this team, lead by this man felt like a ruthless, industrialised Cricket machine. They did everything perfectly and dominated the world as a result. And I didn't like that. I never like that. Cricket was a game meant to be fun. These guys weren't fun. They didn't try to play in a fun style. They played to win. They bashed minnows instead of having a laugh and joking about, letting the part-timers bowl and reducing their intensity. They sledged their opponents. They were always angry on the field. They wanted to win. They were determined to win. And they always won.

And it was impressive...but they weren't fun to watch. Sure, Waugh, Martyn, and Warne were...but as a whole the team was not.

And that to me stuck with Ricky Ponting. He was this leader of this industrialised, dominating, perfect, burtal, efficient team. He was the leader who never smiled on the field unless his team took a wicket, the captain who always did the obvious, not one who had creative plans or field placements or bowling changes. He was the guy who spit in his hands, who appealed for everything, who bullied around bowling attacks, who didn't play cricket to make friends or mess about and have fun, but who played cricket to win.

Why play cricket to win? I thought this was a game to be enjoyed?

Sure you could say there was enjoyment to be derived through winning...but I personally never felt that way. And as such, I never liked that Australia team. And I never really liked Ricky Ponting.

I admired him, sure, but I just couldn't relate to that team in spirit. It all felt wrong to me. That was never what cricket was to me. And that's Ponting's legacy in my eyes.

Except for the part in bold

 

[Burgey]

***** plainly not Australian. It's all about winning ffs.

 

[CricAddict]

***** plainly not Australian. It's all about winning ffs.

Completely agree to that. Winning the match by the rules should always get preference to losing a match for sake of spirit of the game..

Ian Bell should never have been recalled by Dhoni

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, Dhoni completely lost me at that point. But effectiveness and being pretty are two separate things. Ever seen Daren Ganga bat?

 

[cnerd123]

Completely agree to that. Winning the match by the rules should always get preference to losing a match for sake of spirit of the game..

Ian Bell should never have been recalled by Dhoni

I'm not saying you should lose. I believe you should play to your best, but more than that, you should enjoy it. The joy of playing cricket has to be your main reason for playing the sport, not winning.