Sachin Or Ponting?

[krkode]

I am going to recieve a lot of critism for this and a lot of quoting posts by people telling me I dont know anything but I will say it:

I think SRT is slightly over-rated because he hasnt played enough match winning innings for India. He doess profit a lot in India. And at times I rate Dravid higher then Tendulkar.

Still a great player though and the pressure on him is enourmous, but I can count on my right hand on how many match winning innings has he played in Tests and when it has been in difficult conditions.

40+ Man of the match awards speak for themselves, don't you think? Even if many of them are against a weak teams.

Still, i see where you're coming from, and you're right, he hasn't played as many genuine match winners as Waugh has. But Tendulkar, you must admit, certainly has it harder than Waugh. Most of his career he's had a mediocre bowling attack, and much of the time the whole team's "fate" rested on his shoulders. Asking a match winner from a man like that, more often than he has delivered already in his life, is unreasonable.

 

[Rik]

Sachin Tendulkar has been in a tremendous form slup in the past 12 months or so with an average of about 15

Which only involves this Test Series...

He is a better stroke player, by a small margin over Ponting, and he can also bowl a little bit. But Ponting is a natural leader in the game so therefore my decision goes towards Ponting as being the better player

What has being a leader got to do with it? Tendulkar is a better batsman (sorry no one can argue with 31 100s and 36 50s) and can bowl, Ponting is a very very part time bowler. So shouldn't that make Tendulkar the better all-round player?

 

[MZ_RPFC]

I think we are talking who the better batter is and without a doubt on recent form that is clearly ponting, And recent form im talking 2 or more years.

 

[krkode]

And I don't know where the judgement comes that Ponting is a better leader than Tendulkar. You can never judge one leader better than another.

I wonder how Ponting would react to captaining a side like India.

That said, Tendulkar is an excellent leader. You don't need to be captain to be a leader. Tendulkar has, more often than not, (in Indian victories, especially) led the team to victory (that's right, he led them) . Many times even single-handedly.

 

[Hero_Don]

What has being a leader got to do with it? Tendulkar is a better batsman (sorry no one can argue with 31 100s and 36 50s) and can bowl, Ponting is a very very part time bowler. So shouldn't that make Tendulkar the better all-round player?

Well, I know everybody has there own opinions but all im saying is that because Ponting has leader ship qualities that makes him the better of the two

 

[Richard]

I am going to recieve a lot of critism for this and a lot of quoting posts by people telling me I dont know anything but I will say it:

I think SRT is slightly over-rated because he hasnt played enough match winning innings for India. He doess profit a lot in India. And at times I rate Dravid higher then Tendulkar.

Still a great player though and the pressure on him is enourmous, but I can count on my right hand on how many match winning innings has he played in Tests and when it has been in difficult conditions.

I reckon Tendulkar has played a huge number of innings that have played a bigger part in winning matches than anyone else in his team. The thing Tendulkar hasn't done really any of is significant innings' in third and fourth-innings'.
As I've always said I hate the term "match-winning", but I think Tendulkar is often unfairly criticsed for not playing big parts in victories.

 

[Richard]

If these supposed 'flat-tracks' are so easy to score off, how do you reason it is possible that so many batsmen have struggled on them? Only Hayden, Ponting, Dravid, and to a lesser extent Smith have scored heavily on them. You can't put down batsmen because of the pitches they play on, particularly if other batsmen have trouble on these pitches.

If SRT is so great, which I dont deny he is, why has he had problems this year where the wickets he has played on have all been fairly flat?

Because anyone can have 5 bad Tests. He hasn't had any good luck and he's been unlucky twice. It's bound to happen occasionally.
Hayden, Dravid, Ponting and Smith are by no means the only ones to benefit from the flat tracks and good luck. Other examples, some over a shorter periods, are Vaughan, Gilchrist, Martyn, Sarwan, Gibbs, Kallis, Pollock, Chanderpaul, Inzamam-Ul-Haq, Yousuf Youhana, VVS Laxman. These are a few examples. Some have benefited more in terms of their overall averages than others.

 

[Bazza]

Richard says Tendulkar hasn't made enough runs in 2nd innings - check this out:

Team 2nd innings:

Tendulkar 77 70 13 2657 176 46.61 10 9
Ponting 53 43 11 1083 100* 33.84 5 1
Lara 83 77 5 2993 153* 41.56 14 7
Dravid 58 54 10 2180 180 49.54 13 4
Waugh 128 93 21 2289 134* 31.79 11 2
Hayden 34 34 8 1394 177 53.61 5 5

To me this says Hayden, Dravid and Tendulkar are the best of this group at making significant contributions in the second innings when it is maybe more telling. Lara's record is also very respectable but Ponting and Waugh have disappointing records.

 

[PY]

SRT will hit back hard.

At Sydney.

Making 250.

Only 9 short :O

Ladies and gentlemen, we have someone who can see the future if not slightly distorted.....

 

[krkode]

Well, I know everybody has there own opinions but all im saying is that because Ponting has leader ship qualities that makes him the better of the two

Tell me, what is a leadership quality?

Captaining your demon side to a World Cup victory isn't the only kind of "leadership" there is. I'm just curious what you base Ponting's superior leadership abilities on. How is he any more able than Tendulkar, the man who bore India through the 90s and continues to do so today? Leadership by example, I call it.

You needn't answer if you don't want to, as I respect the fact that you have what opinion you express.

 

[age_master]

Ponting as ODI skipper: averages 44

Ponting not ODI skipper: averages 41

Tendulkar ODI skipper: averages 37

Tendulkar not ODI skipper: averages 47




also people are missing Punters awsome fielding

 

[V Reddy]

Ponting as ODI skipper: averages 44

Ponting not ODI skipper: averages 41

Tendulkar ODI skipper: averages 37

Tendulkar not ODI skipper: averages 47




also people are missing Punters awsome fielding

Tendulkar would have done much if he captained Australia. Tendulkar had a poor side like the Sri Lankan team without Murali. He had much much more off-field things to think about as the team rarely won and include in that match-fixing problem. Cricket is nowhere as popular and demanding in Aus as it is in India. I don't think Ponting would have done any better with the paucity of resources India had. And also add to that the death threats he receives from the militants.

 

[Jono]

uhh lets see how long it takes for me to figure this out.*1 sec later* sachin

LOL!

If the question was between Lara or Tendulkar I'd have a long hard think about it, but Ponting does not come close overall to Tendulkar. Ponting is one hell of a player, but he cannot compare to Sachin's brilliant record. On top of that Ponting is always vulnerable early, ALWAYS. If a pure quality bowling line up can get to Ponting early he's in all sorts of trouble.

 

[Richard]

Only 9 short :O

Ladies and gentlemen, we have someone who can see the future if not slightly distorted.....

Lucky guesswork...:O :wow:
300 without a dismissal. What a match.

 

[Richard]

Richard says Tendulkar hasn't made enough runs in 2nd innings - check this out:

Team 2nd innings:

Tendulkar 77 70 13 2657 176 46.61 10 9
Ponting 53 43 11 1083 100* 33.84 5 1
Lara 83 77 5 2993 153* 41.56 14 7
Dravid 58 54 10 2180 180 49.54 13 4
Waugh 128 93 21 2289 134* 31.79 11 2
Hayden 34 34 8 1394 177 53.61 5 5

To me this says Hayden, Dravid and Tendulkar are the best of this group at making significant contributions in the second innings when it is maybe more telling. Lara's record is also very respectable but Ponting and Waugh have disappointing records.

I didn't know that, but by no stretch of the imagination was I saying I concurred with the view that Tendulkar was lesser because of less runs in the second-innings. However, there is no denying the fact that, while Tendulkar's second-innings average is still far more impressive than most of his peers (Waugh's is especially surprising), he hasn't played many innings that have shone from the gloom of the rest. Personally I don't think this makes him a lesser player at all, but it is what those who seek to downtalk him cling to.
No offence or anything, Craig.
I certainly think Dravid has played more of these type innings - though Headingley 2002 is a strange example often quoted (150-odd out of 600) but I still think Tendulkar's run-machine status makes him a class above anyone else going around today, though Dravid is starting to ask serious questions.
And in a probably-fairly-vain attempt to stop the Hayden\Ponting championers jumping yet again, Dravid has averaged over 50 for most of his career. Hayden and Ponting have simply had purple-patches, Ponting's starting a couple of Tests earlier than Hayden's, that have massively increased their averages. Popgun attacks and flat wickets, with not-inconsiderable at times help from dropped catches and Umpiring let-offs, have coincided with that.
Dravid has certainly benefited from all of these at times (as any batsman will do) but his first-chance average since 2001 is still way over 50, and he has had tough batting conditions on a few more occasions than Hayden and Ponting have.

 

[age_master]

Tendulkar would have done much if he captained Australia. Tendulkar had a poor side like the Sri Lankan team without Murali.

yeah except Tendulkar has the likes of Dravid and Ganguly when hes out of form, Murali has only Vaas.

 

[masterblaster]

Its not really to do with the batting, Tendulkar always had a very mediocre bowling/fielding lineup at his disposal when he was captain of India.

India could hardly take 20 wickets anywhere, and it was always Tendulkar or Dravid who had to bail India out of trouble, because the other guys couldn't bat very well.

 

[KishanTeli]

Overall, it would have to be Tendulkar. As mentioned by various other people Tendulkar's career record is fantastic bearing in mind he is still only 30 I think he has it in him to become the leading run-scorer in both forms of the game.

Being an indian supporter I will openly admit to being bias but if i was being a neutral supporter i would still say Tendulkar.

IMO what would be interesting to see is for Ponting to suffer a loss of form and to see whether the same comparisons are still made, instincts tell me no. Tendulkar and Lara at the very top of their games (like Ponting is now) are surely un-rivaled as the best batsmen in the world.

If the SCG test match is anything to judge by, Tendulkar may be the leading run scorer this year (without checking fixtures) a timely return to form for the little master. Hopefully his form continues :P

 

[Jono]

Why are people bringing leadership qualities into this? I'm sure the question was who was the better batsman. If we're talking overral then what about Sachin's bowling? 2 wickets in Adelaide come to mind against two top order batsman.

Batting alone Sachin has had a better career with much more pressure on him and a team of less quality.

 

[krkode]

Ponting as ODI skipper: averages 44

Ponting not ODI skipper: averages 41

Tendulkar ODI skipper: averages 37

Tendulkar not ODI skipper: averages 47




also people are missing Punters awsome fielding

Just because he has a good average as skipper doesn't mean he has leadership qualities. :rolleyes:

And there was a long time when Ponting was somewhat mediocre compared to now. Averaging in the low 30s if I'm not mistaken. That obviously dragged his non-Captain average down.

But still, having the captaincy and leading your team is not the only "leadership" there is to cricket or life in general.

Look at all those times Tendulkar single-handedly saved India/won for India/inspired his peers to improve. All leaders are not elected, or appointed. Some just lead.