Tendulkar vs Ponting - who will win the battle of 100's?

[Richard]

The thing is, it's not too much of a coincidence. Because better batsmen, like the one in question, have actually gone the other way. It's fine, what you say is your opinion. But a lot of people don't denigrate so much that from a 2001 a stiff breeze came and knocked all the good bowlers off their porch or that suddenly Ponting needs to average in the high 60s to compare to the batsmen of his OWN era.

It's just silly to suggest that a stiff breeze... etc. It's very obvious that a lot of bowlers disappeared from the game between 2001 and 2002 (Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim Akram, Gough, Srinath, Doull, Nash) while several others who went on a bit (or occasionally a lot) declined (Saqlain Mushtaq, Caddick, Pollock). I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that the quality of bowling didn't deteriorate very rapidly around that time - unless they were trying to believe a batsman was better than he is.

Ponting in the same 'great' era, whilst batting in his most consistent position averaged 50 for 33 test matches. It's clear he was more than good. So this big thing about comparing Ricky's and Sachin's peak is irrelevant as altogether they're very close.

He didn't, though, as I showed he averaged 45. Good, but not in the Tendulkar range (who was averaging 60 at the same time).

If you take that Sachin's peak came in a more difficult batting era, you also have to take into account that his trough comes from an, allegedly, weaker batting era. So, the good with the bad.

Which, as I say, is explained by the fact that he's not anywhere near as good as he had been previously. This, to me, doesn't really matter when someone's been superlative for 12 years.

And I reiterate, the way Ponting is going it'll be hard to argue he isn't at least as good as Tendulkar, and if he does go breaking all those records in the same manner as he has been doing then it'll be even fair game to say he was better.

It won't be hard to argue IMO, whatever happens in the future my opinion of the last 6 years won't alter.

 

[Richard]

No but importaint things like better shot selection and softer hands have made a very big diference.

Plus he is not the nervous starter he once was.

I honestly don't believe any of those three. As I say, we've still seen evidence of all three being a problem for him in the last 6 years, it's just the bowling quality isn't anywhere near what it was previously in his career, which has meant it hasn't been exploited all that often.

 

[Pup Clarke]

I've always thought that Ponting had an obvious weakness with the swinging ball when I first watched him bat in Ashes 2001. The way he goes hard at the ball would surely have been exploited pre 2001 and he would have been a good batsmen but not great.

 

[Salamuddin]

I've always thought that Ponting had an obvious weakness with the swinging ball when I first watched him bat in Ashes 2001. The way he goes hard at the ball would surely have been exploited pre 2001 and he would have been a good batsmen but not great.

Yeah I'd agree with that....Ponting only averaged 39 that summer which was basically down due to that Old Trafford score.....

Ponting's a good player but I've never been convinced he's as great as a lot of Aussies make him out to be.

 

[asdfg]

In Tests possibly Ponting, especially if he continues in his current form, in ODIs no way (Tendulkar has 41 ODI 100s while Ponting has 23)

 

[Laurrz]

it was swinging in South Africa a lot and he scored two hundreds in one test match (Durban)

 

[Ikki]

It's just silly to suggest that a stiff breeze... etc. It's very obvious that a lot of bowlers disappeared from the game between 2001 and 2002 (Donald, Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim Akram, Gough, Srinath, Doull, Nash) while several others who went on a bit (or occasionally a lot) declined (Saqlain Mushtaq, Caddick, Pollock). I can't believe anyone would seriously argue that the quality of bowling didn't deteriorate very rapidly around that time - unless they were trying to believe a batsman was better than he is.

My point is that those bowlers who were nearing the end of their career obviously weren't at the top of their game either. Why are you using their rep to make SUCH a distinction. I am not arguing whether the 90s had better bowlers or not, I am arguing the exact difference in that. I don't care that it is weaker, but how much weaker. 5 runs per wicket weaker? What?

He didn't, though, as I showed he averaged 45. Good, but not in the Tendulkar range (who was averaging 60 at the same time).

Actually, I showed that, and I showed you why - when you asked - his average of 50 fell. Tendulkar was on an obvious peak. Ponting was still a great batsmen who hadn't hit such purple patches. Now that he has and you're dismissing it simply because it came a few years later. That's the funny part. And as I said, whilst his peak in that era is held in such a regard then his trough should impact his record as well. To bat worse, in a possible better era for batting isn't such a negligible thing.

Which, as I say, is explained by the fact that he's not anywhere near as good as he had been previously. This, to me, doesn't really matter when someone's been superlative for 12 years.

It doesn't matter if he wasn't as good. Every player has a period where they're better in one than the other. The fact is that you're being so simplistic about it, as were with Hayden, that you credit the era rather than the man.

It won't be hard to argue IMO, whatever happens in the future my opinion of the last 6 years won't alter.

It's not about the past mate, it's about the future. Maybe that should be the outlook.

 

[Ikki]

To be more clear:

Someone who was averaging 50, until he was reshuffled, in this harder era of bowling was WELL-equipped and isn't someone who was just benefiting off weaker bowling. I mean, for heaven's sake, people retire with that kind of average and are seen as great batsmen. Ponting peaked later in his career as he improved, the fact that no one touches him should show how in front he is.

 

[silentstriker]

If I had to bet, it would be Ponting no doubt with more centuries (in Tests of course).

 

[sohummisra]

I do empathize with the fact that he has played so much cricket, but as can be seen in articles and forum discussion alike, it isn't going to be pardoned just because he isn't as fit as he used to be.

And no, by saying Indians aren't fit and reasoning that Tendulkar must be fitter than the average Indian doesn't make him any better than anyone else, just better than his own teammates who share the same regiment. If he was fitter he might have overcome his injuries better, that is what I am saying. He is still fit to play the game of cricket - as was Inzamum.

The simple fact is that if injuries were barring him to be on form or that he had just played too much cricket then it would be upto him to retire. He is towards the end of his career and naturally, like all cricketers, they do slow down.

It seems you don't understand my argument here. By your statement that Ponting's fitness allows him to use his talent better, and the fact that Tendulkar is not as fit as Ponting, one can conclude that had Tendulkar been as fit as Ponting, he would still be performing fantastically. And given that Ponting hasn't been eons ahead of Tendulkar ever in their careers, this basically shows that if Tendulkar had still been performing fantastically, his statistics would have been far superior to Ponting's.

My final point is that I don't believe in the garbage I produced above, but that I am trying to show that you yourself agreed that fitness has a lot to do with the statistics, which is why if you don't give enough weight to the fact that Tendulkar had been battling injuries on and off, you will not be able to measure the better batsman as accurately.

 

[Ikki]

It seems you don't understand my argument here. By your statement that Ponting's fitness allows him to use his talent better, and the fact that Tendulkar is not as fit as Ponting, one can conclude that had Tendulkar been as fit as Ponting, he would still be performing fantastically. And given that Ponting hasn't been eons ahead of Tendulkar ever in their careers, this basically shows that if Tendulkar had still been performing fantastically, his statistics would have been far superior to Ponting's.

LOL, IF Tendulkar took care of himself, yeah maybe. Considering he didn't, there is no IF about it.

My final point is that I don't believe in the garbage I produced above, but that I am trying to show that you yourself agreed that fitness has a lot to do with the statistics, which is why if you don't give enough weight to the fact that Tendulkar had been battling injuries on and off, you will not be able to measure the better batsman as accurately.

Well, it's certainly a reason towards bad form, it just isn't a mitigating factor as far as Tendulkar is considered. Other players, like Warne who had career threatening injuries came back strong and ended their careers on top. Someone like McGrath, although quite old, ended his career on top - just look at the WC. So, as long as Tendulkar plays, and is ABLE to play - which he is - then he should be judged by it and I, personally, don't give him that much leeway over injuries he himself has proclaimed to overcome.

 

[sohummisra]

LOL, IF Tendulkar took care of himself, yeah maybe. Considering he didn't, there is no IF about it.

So then, it's settled. Tendulkar is the better batsman because he has more talent. I'm glad we agree.

Well, it's certainly a reason towards bad form, it just isn't a mitigating factor as far as Tendulkar is considered. Other players, like Warne who had career threatening injuries came back strong and ended their careers on top. Someone like McGrath, although quite old, ended his career on top - just look at the WC. So, as long as Tendulkar plays, and is ABLE to play - which he is - then he should be judged by it and I, personally, don't give him that much leeway over injuries he himself has proclaimed to overcome.

Comparing a bowler recovering from an injury to a batsman recovering from an injury is dangerous business, in my opinion. And besides that, there is no way we can agree, because I think Tendulkar's injury and relapse prevented him from continuing on his way.

 

[Ikki]

So then, it's settled. Tendulkar is the better batsman because he has more talent. I'm glad we agree.

Unfortunately, I agree with a bit more talent. Why is that unfortunate? Because it takes more than just talent to be great.

Comparing a bowler recovering from an injury to a batsman recovering from an injury is dangerous business, in my opinion. And besides that, there is no way we can agree, because I think Tendulkar's injury and relapse prevented him from continuing on his way.

Compare the severity of the injuries. Shane had two of the worst injuries a bowler could get. In fact, he had to learn to bowl all over again. As I said, whilst you can empathise and acknowledge he is not going to be as good as he was. I think this is a different issue and he just hasn't been in form. His batting in the past few years has shown this, and more recently his batting against Bangladesh - you're not hearing people talk about his injury, it is his form that is worrying. If you disagree, then let's just agree to disagree.

 

[sohummisra]

Unfortunately, I agree with a bit more talent. Why is that unfortunate? Because it takes more than just talent to be great.

Surely you are not arguing that Tendulkar is not a great? I can accept that you think that he is not the greatest of his contemporaries (though I disagree), but to say he is not great is to call a spade a pencil.

 

[Richard]

My point is that those bowlers who were nearing the end of their career obviously weren't at the top of their game either. Why are you using their rep to make SUCH a distinction. I am not arguing whether the 90s had better bowlers or not, I am arguing the exact difference in that. I don't care that it is weaker, but how much weaker. 5 runs per wicket weaker? What?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand much of that. There were bowlers who were nearing the end of their career in 2001-2002 sort of time - are you agreeing or disagreeing with that? I'm saying precisely that their rep doesn't matter - "Donald & Pollock" instantly conjures a fearsome image, but the reality was nothing like that in 2001\02, in fact they were no real amount better than most that we've seen the last 6 years.

Actually, I showed that, and I showed you why - when you asked - his average of 50 fell. Tendulkar was on an obvious peak. Ponting was still a great batsmen who hadn't hit such purple patches. Now that he has and you're dismissing it simply because it came a few years later. That's the funny part. And as I said, whilst his peak in that era is held in such a regard then his trough should impact his record as well. To bat worse, in a possible better era for batting isn't such a negligible thing.

To bat worse is regardless of the era. I don't, as I say, myself hold much against Tendulkar for not being the force he once was. It doesn't impact on my judgement of him in the 1990-2002 time.

Ponting, however, is different - the 1996-2001 time does impact on my judgement of him in the 2001-2007 time, because as I say with one it's a change in the calibre of the player himself, with the other it's a change in the calibre of what he was facing.

It doesn't matter if he wasn't as good. Every player has a period where they're better in one than the other. The fact is that you're being so simplistic about it, as were with Hayden, that you credit the era rather than the man.

I don't here, though, that's the point. In the Tendulkar case, I credit (or discredit, more accurately) the man - Tendulkar is clearly not the player he was previously. If it's more appropriate to make a distinction (whether crediting or discrediting) on the era, I do that.

It's not about the past mate, it's about the future. Maybe that should be the outlook.

I don't see why one matters any more than the other.

To be more clear:

Someone who was averaging 50, until he was reshuffled, in this harder era of bowling was WELL-equipped and isn't someone who was just benefiting off weaker bowling. I mean, for heaven's sake, people retire with that kind of average and are seen as great batsmen. Ponting peaked later in his career as he improved, the fact that no one touches him should show how in front he is.

As I say, for me he averaged 45 - that was his average at the combined five-six-seven in that time. Then he did a hell of a lot more when the quality of the bowling deteriorated, rapidly.

That's not simplistic, at all, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly plausible.

 

[adharcric]

Richard, here's the weak link in your argument.

as I say with one it's a change in the calibre of the player himself, with the other it's a change in the calibre of what he was facing.

How can you conclude that with such confidence? I think that's what Kazo's saying ...

 

[Richard]

With Tendulkar there's no other possible conclusion. With Ponting I've said why I can conclude said with reasonable conviction. Search back through the thread if you really want to see it.

 

[Eclipse]

I honestly don't believe any of those three. As I say, we've still seen evidence of all three being a problem for him in the last 6 years, it's just the bowling quality isn't anywhere near what it was previously in his career, which has meant it hasn't been exploited all that often.

Well I believe i'm more qualified to judge that.. I've seen alot more of his batting both before and after that period.

You are entitled to your opinion though of course.

 

[adharcric]

With Tendulkar there's no other possible conclusion. With Ponting I've said why I can conclude said with reasonable conviction. Search back through the thread if you really want to see it.

Fair enough.

 

[straightbat]

the difference between the two is

3 world cups