Standout player of 2003??

[marc71178]

Well which sides do you know have done it then?
david reliably informs us Australia did it in the Second and Third Tests of the 2001\02 series (even then they must have made some pretty extensive studies) but apart from that?

England last summer used it to restrict his scoring.

I believe Liam said the Windies are wise to him as well now.

Or is it just fluke that by bowling to his flaw they stop him piling on runs?

 

[Tom Halsey]

Anyway, as per usual most of the England batsmen threw their innings away.

And the NZ batsmen don't?

*Points to 93/3 to 103/10 batting collapse*

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

England last summer used it to restrict his scoring.

I believe Liam said the Windies are wise to him as well now.

Or is it just fluke that by bowling to his flaw they stop him piling on runs?

Herschelle Gibbs talked about it too.

 

[Bazza]

Arguably he's had the second best year in history (behind Richards) in terms of test batting, plus captaining the side to the world cup (without losing a game and didn't he score some runs in the final?). Not a bad year!

 

[Eclipse]

Ponting:

1503 Test runs at 100.02 in just 18 innings.

Only Richard's has scored more run's in a callender year but he had more innings.

He is also the only player other than Bradman to score 3 double hundred's in a year.

 

[Craig]

And the NZ batsmen don't?

*Points to 93/3 to 103/10 batting collapse*

Did I ever deny that?

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Ricky Ponting has been in teriffic form in Tests and ODI's in 2003. So he gets my vote.

Mathew Hayden has been in teriffic from in Tests and he has been good in ODI's but not as good as his Test form in 2003.

Brian Lara deserves credit for his performances this year.

 

[marc71178]

1503 Test runs at 100.02 in just 18 innings.

Only Richard's has scored more run's in a callender year but he had more innings.

Pontings opposition:

England - 7 & 11
WI - 117 & 42*
WI - 206 & 45
WI - 113
Bangladesh - 10
Bangladesh - 59
Zimbabwe - 37
Zimbabwe - 169
India - 54 & 50
India - 242 & 0
India - 257 & 31*

Viv's opposition:

Australia - 44 & 2
Australia - 30 & 101
Australia - 50 & 98
India - 142
India - 130 & 20
India - 177 & 23
India - 64
England - 232 & 63
England - 4 & 135
England - 66 & 38
England - 291


I'm not trying to put down Punters achievments, but lets face it, he didn't face one decent attack throughout the year did he?

Viv's achievment is far greater (200odd more runs in 1 more knock!)

 

[Richard]

Only Richard's has scored more run's in a callender year but he had more innings.

My what?:P
It certainly wasn't my bat in my hands.

 

[Richard]

England last summer used it to restrict his scoring.

I believe Liam said the Windies are wise to him as well now.

Or is it just fluke that by bowling to his flaw they stop him piling on runs?

Look, I'm not denying that by bowling outside off he'll score less than by bowling at his pads, but that's just like Neil Johnson the other way around.
He doesn't often get out to the delivery outside off (he did in this Test and he would have done at Lord's had Hussain held the catch) and as long as he doesn't it's not a flaw.
If he constantly starts getting out to deliveries outside off, driving faultily, then I'll naturally concede it's a flaw. Until then, his average speaks for itself!

 

[marc71178]

He doesn't often get out to the delivery outside off (he did in this Test and he would have done at Lord's had Hussain held the catch) and as long as he doesn't it's not a flaw.

An considerably diminished ability to score runs on the off side is a flaw, it doesn't matter if he doesn't get out very often there.

 

[Bazza]

I'm not sure what this argument is all about but it sounds like Marc is aying you can restrict his scoring outside off - surely you can restrict anyone's scoring by having like a 8-1 field and bowling wide of the stumps?

Technically Gavaskar scored more runs in 1979 but yes, take nothing away from Ponting, every other aggreagte over 1350 took up to 26 innings. Of course most of the most prolific calendar years have come since 2001 (7 of the top 12 actually) so generally it is because of more innings and as Marc points out the opposition could have been a bit more challenging.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not sure what this argument is all about but it sounds like Marc is aying you can restrict his scoring outside off - surely you can restrict anyone's scoring by having like a 8-1 field and bowling wide of the stumps?

Of course you can, but certain players are weak on the off side, which if they don't address will lead to a problem.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Nobody can win here one way or the other. For example, Trescothick is weak outside off, btu he also scores most of his runs on the off side. Therefore, his strength is also his weakness. It is the same with Smith, apart from for Smith, it is the legside.

 

[marc71178]

Nobody can win here one way or the other. For example, Trescothick is weak outside off, btu he also scores most of his runs on the off side. Therefore, his strength is also his weakness. It is the same with Smith, apart from for Smith, it is the legside.

So how is it the same then?

Tres is weak outside off but scores through the off.
Smith is weak outside off, and doesn't score many out that way.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No, Smith has hardly ever got out outside off. I can only remember him getting out there twice. He gets out more on the leg side, he just scores all his runs there. But I personally don't think he is as good as people think. He is good, but not that good.

 

[KishanTeli]

IMO, it has to be Ricky Ponting. Being an Indian fan he just seems to be unstoppable (even though our bowling is useless). Another feature of his batting is the pace at which he scores his runs, before you know it he had added another 20-30 runs.

The pure fact is, he averages over 100 in the 2003 calender year which is a wonderful achievement regardless of the opposition bowling attack. You can only score against what is put in front of you!

 

[PY]

You can only score against what is put in front of you!

Welcome to CW.

You make an excellent point which I sometimes feel people forget. Liam (mr M) said that those bowling attacks were useless but that's half the world's teams in that list and he's scored against all of them (except for England ). The bowling attacks of all the teams I feel are weak at the moment bar Australia. South Africa's is the next best option and that is only because of Pollock. Ntini may be world-class in the future but definitely isn't at the moment. NZ - weak, Eng - weak, India - weak, W.I. - weak, SL - Murali out = weak......the only other one is Pakistan due to Akhtar's speed and IMO Sami looks like a good prospect (just watched Eng v Pak in summer when Tresco went mad and Sami bowled some absolute rippers.)

I think Ricky Ponting did enough in both forms of the game in this calendar year to warrant the award.

 

[KishanTeli]

You make an excellent point which I sometimes feel people forget. Liam (mr M) said that those bowling attacks were useless but that's half the world's teams in that list and he's scored against all of them (except for England ). The bowling attacks of all the teams I feel are weak at the moment bar Australia. South Africa's is the next best option and that is only because of Pollock. Ntini may be world-class in the future but definitely isn't at the moment. NZ - weak, Eng - weak, India - weak, W.I. - weak, SL - Murali out = weak......the only other one is Pakistan due to Akhtar's speed and IMO Sami looks like a good prospect (just watched Eng v Pak in summer when Tresco went mad and Sami bowled some absolute rippers.)

Nice to see you agree with my views, i find it unbelievable that people dismiss Hayden's 380 simply because it was against Zimbabwe, it is still a superb achievement.

Same thing with Ponting, regardless of the attacks he faced, he still averaged over 100 which is an incredible display of consistency.

Hopefully Tendulkar will average over 100 next year, he is due for a good run of form. :P

 

[Richard]

PY and KT, you make a valid point, but what I feel is often missed in these discussions is that Liam, myself and others who point-out the strength of opposition aren't dismissing runs scored against weak opposition, we're just saying "take them in context".
Hayden's 380 was scored against Blignaut, Ervine, Price and Gripper, plus a hopelessly below-par Streak. Not an attack that's likely to make scoring runs especially difficult. Plus, rumour has it he should have been lbw 1st ball.
Lara's 375 was scored against an attack including Fraser and Caddick. Neither of these were quite on top of their game, but both certainly bowled better than Streak did at The WACA. Hence, Lara's runs were harder to score, because the deliveries he could score off came around less frequently.
Ponting in 2003 faced bowlers of the like of which would have been mincemeat to Gavaskar as well. Therefore it should not be assumed that because Ponting scored more runs than Gavaskar did in 1979 he played better.
Runs should never be dismissed - Ponting's was a good achievement, so was Hayden's, there is no denying that. Any chanceless Test century is a good achievement. But achievements must always be taken in context, and when comparisons are made the context should always be remembered.