Is Ricky Ponting a better batsman than Brian Lara?

[Avada Kedavra]

yeah and a 100 at Barbados on the first day.. Nothing much of note else where.. I think he averages 39 point something.. so I agree it is 40. It is not still not all that impressive is it?

It's exactly 40.

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

 

[Ikki]

yeah and a 100 at Barbados on the first day.. Nothing much of note else where.. I think he averages 39 point something.. so I agree it is 40. It is not still not all that impressive is it?

Considering that is his worst average of the bowling elite in the 90s, and at such an early part of his career; I think that is very impressive.

 

[honestbharani]

If Ponting scored ducks and then scored 197 every time I'd say he'd be doing his team a great favour. Much better than half centuries every once in a while. But I have more faith he'd score more than 0 in 3 innings out of 4. Don't you? So IMO his average has even more potential.

When Matthew Sinclair and Vinod Kambli have such a great record across the board, then I'd accept them as Ponting's equal within the confines of this discussion. If they average 56 against those bowlers, even if it is 3 test matches against each top country, then they've proved enough for me.

Let me put it this way: if Ponting had only scored runs in 1 series against only 1 of these teams, I'd be on your side. The very fact that he did well, even as a newb (not established batsman), across all 3 I think says more than enough.

I agree that I would back him to score more than the 3 ducks, esp. given the attack he faced in the second test didnt' even have Wasim... But I would also back him to score MUCH less than 197 every fourth innings.. So there is as much a chance that his average would go down as it would go up... I mean, we all thought his stuff in India were an aberration but inspite of 4 series and 12 tests he is still averaging 20 over here...

 

[honestbharani]

It's exactly 40.

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

I am talking about the 90s alone.. I am pretty sure Ambrose wasn't involved in the series in 2000-2001...

 

[Ikki]

I agree that I would back him to score more than the 3 ducks, esp. given the attack he faced in the second test didnt' even have Wasim... But I would also back him to score MUCH less than 197 every fourth innings.. So there is as much a chance that his average would go down as it would go up... I mean, we all thought his stuff in India were an aberration but inspite of 4 series and 12 tests he is still averaging 20 over here...

His record in India is merely an aberration because he is so good everywhere else; not because he hadn't played there enough.

And while you're right, and that it's unlikely he'd score almost a double century every 4 innings, it's also just as unlikely he'd get 3 ducks. So that's why the average is important here. And it is certainly more healthy than Lara's and I have no problem with saying he did better than Lara because he quite clearly did.

As I said, if it were only 1 series against 1 of these attacks, I am right by your side. But considering he averages from 40-63 against the top 3 sides of the era...in 10 tests, it's no longer a question. He plays quality bowlers very well and is more consistent than Lara at doing so.

 

[honestbharani]

Considering that is his worst average of the bowling elite in the 90s, and at such an early part of his career; I think that is very impressive.

I am not saying it isn't... But to take a similar case, Lara made his debut against a really good Pak attack and faced them in a home series in 93.. He averages something like 38 @ 64 which is something I would again consider to be very impressive for a youngster...

 

[Ikki]

I am talking about the 90s alone.. I am pretty sure Ambrose wasn't involved in the series in 2000-2001...

All his tests in the 90s against the WIndies were with Walsh and Ambrose, he averages the same as his overall average which is like 39.8 or something. So 40 is still the right answer.

 

[Ikki]

I am not saying it isn't... But to take a similar case, Lara made his debut against a really good Pak attack and faced them in a home series in 93.. He averages something like 38 @ 64 which is something I would again consider to be very impressive for a youngster...

Yes, but that would be one of Lara's BEST averages against the top bowlers, even if it were to stay at 38. Averaging 40 against Walsh and Ambrose is Ponting's WORST.

 

[honestbharani]

His record in India is merely an aberration because he is so good everywhere else; not because he hadn't played there enough.

And while you're right, and that it's unlikely he'd score almost a double century every 4 innings, it's also just as unlikely he'd get 3 ducks. So that's why the average is important here. And it is certainly more healthy than Lara's and I have no problem with saying he did better than Lara because he quite clearly did.

As I said, if it were only 1 series against 1 of these attacks, I am right by your side. But considering he averages from 40-63 against the top 3 sides of the era...in 10 tests, it's no matter a question. He plays quality bowlers very well and is more consistent than Lara at doing so.

I agree he plays quality players very well.. I am never arguing that point here... But I am juz taking exception to your second point. AFAIC, even after looking at all these stats, their performances against the best of the time is roughly equal and there is no real crystal clear argument that one has been much better than the other.


The main problem when discussing Ponting vis-a-vis Lara or Sachin is the fact that his debut happened at a time after which the Ws were never the force they were or at least not by the time he got around to facing them... He played Ambrose and Walsh 4 times at their best and was only doing ok, compared to SAchin who had done very well against them. And Lara, since he cannot play his own bowling and since POnting has the same problem, considering his record against Australia as something to compare to Punters' against WI, Lara wins hands down...


The main problem is Ponting never really faced the gerat bowlers at the best like Lara or Sachin did, excepting for perhaps Donald in 98 and again the sample size is pretty small.. We have no real reason to say with certainity that he would have done better or worse.. But most guys prefer to rate a guy who has faced them and done ok than a guy who has never faced them and may or may not have done great.... I am perhaps putting him a close 3rd for the same reason. It is unfortunate but that is how things have panned out.


Even Warne (your God, Ikki ) rated him well below Sachin and Lara, didn't he?

 

[honestbharani]

All his tests in the 90s against the WIndies were with Walsh and Ambrose, he averages the same as his overall average which is like 39.8 or something. So 40 is still the right answer.

yeah.. I am juz replying to AKD saying it was EXACTLY 40.. Well, no, it was not.

 

[honestbharani]

Yes, but that would be one of Lara's BEST averages against the top bowlers, even if it were to stay at 38. Averaging 40 against Walsh and Ambrose is Ponting's WORST.

Not really.. If you include Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and of course Australia and the mid 90s England who had a decentish bowling attack at least for their home conditions....

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The main problem is Ponting never really faced the gerat bowlers at the best

But they also never bowled to a Ponting at his best now, did they?

 

[honestbharani]

But they also never bowled to a Ponting at his best now, did they?

It is the same, my friend.. As I said, it is very difficult to rate him coz he never really faced them.. I am sure we will have this line come up one day with regard to Sehwag as well... It is not exactly their fault but then again you can't blame the guys rating him below either..

 

[Ikki]

I agree he plays quality players very well.. I am never arguing that point here... But I am juz taking exception to your second point. AFAIC, even after looking at all these stats, their performances against the best of the time is roughly equal and there is no real crystal clear argument that one has been much better than the other.

I'm not sure it gets any clearer to be honest. Lara only succeeded against 1 top attack in the 90s and Ponting didn't fail against any (unless you count India in India).

The main problem when discussing Ponting vis-a-vis Lara or Sachin is the fact that his debut happened at a time after which the Ws were never the force they were or at least not by the time he got around to facing them... He played Ambrose and Walsh 4 times at their best and was only doing ok, compared to SAchin who had done very well against them. And Lara, since he cannot play his own bowling and since POnting has the same problem, considering his record against Australia as something to compare to Punters' against WI, Lara wins hands down...

The main problem is Ponting never really faced the gerat bowlers at the best like Lara or Sachin did, excepting for perhaps Donald in 98 and again the sample size is pretty small.. We have no real reason to say with certainity that he would have done better or worse.. But most guys prefer to rate a guy who has faced them and done ok than a guy who has never faced them and may or may not have done great.... I am perhaps putting him a close 3rd for the same reason. It is unfortunate but that is how things have panned out.

The reality is, no one is ever going to face all the bowlers in testing conditions when all the bowlers are at their peak, etc, so it's just nonsensical to completely demean worthy innings against great bowlers.

If I wanna do the same, I can say, for Sachin, that he succeeded only against the WIndies and played an Australian side which didn't have Warne/McGrath most of the time, and that he failed against Pakistan and S.Africa too.

So the only person that it really leaves is Steve Waugh. So clearly, just performing against the best, at their best, is not such great criteria on it's own.

If you want my true opinion; Lara did the best against the absolute best mostly when they were at their best - you know who I am referring to. But that fact alone does not mean one is greater than another player.

Even Warne (your God, Ikki ) rated him well below Sachin and Lara, didn't he?

My God is a weird one. He thinks Aravinda Da Silva is greater than Gilchrist and that Boof is better than Steve Waugh.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not sure it gets any clearer to be honest. Lara only succeeded against 1 top attack in the 90s and Ponting didn't fail against any (unless you count India in India).



The reality is, no one is ever going to face all the bowlers in testing conditions when all the bowlers are at their peak, etc, so it's just nonsensical to completely demean worthy innings against great bowlers.

If I wanna do the same, I can say, for Sachin, that he succeeded only against the WIndies and played an Australian side which didn't have Warne/McGrath most of the time, and that he failed against Pakistan and S.Africa too.

So the only person that it really leaves is Steve Waugh. So clearly, just performing against the best, at their best, is not such great criteria on it's own.

If you want my true opinion; Lara did the best against the absolute best mostly when they were at their best - you know who I am referring to. But that fact alone does not mean one is greater than another player.



My God is a weird one. He thinks Aravinda Da Silva is greater than Gilchrist and that Boof is better than Steve Waugh.

lol.. then I think we will juz agree to disagree on this one as the stats are not exactly showing conclusive stuff either. And what I consider conclusive, you don't and what you consider conclusive, I don't.. I am sure the folks have had enough of our stats war.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

It is the same, my friend.. As I said, it is very difficult to rate him coz he never really faced them.. I am sure we will have this line come up one day with regard to Sehwag as well... It is not exactly their fault but then again you can't blame the guys rating him below either..

I understand that. I would say he did do well against Donald at his best, but anyway for the sake of the argument, lets say Ponting hadn't peaked in the 1990s and the great bowlers were all past their respective bests when he faced them. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Ponting's best would more or less compensate for the bowlers' best?

 

[honestbharani]

I understand that. I would say he did do well against Donald at his best, but anyway for the sake of the argument, lets say Ponting hadn't peaked in the 1990s and the great bowlers were all past their respective bests when he faced them. Would it be unreasonable to assume that Ponting's best would more or less compensate for the bowlers' best?

It could work either way.. That is the point.. We do not know and there is no way to say anything for sure. So basically, it juz comes down to opinions.. Who is better than pace, who is better than spin, who is better against quality attacks... All the stats do is show up that neither is exactly well above the other and in such instances, we juz have to let it be and leave it to opinions...

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not sure it gets any clearer to be honest. Lara only succeeded against 1 top attack in the 90s and Ponting didn't fail against any (unless you count India in India).



The reality is, no one is ever going to face all the bowlers in testing conditions when all the bowlers are at their peak, etc, so it's just nonsensical to completely demean worthy innings against great bowlers.

If I wanna do the same, I can say, for Sachin, that he succeeded only against the WIndies and played an Australian side which didn't have Warne/McGrath most of the time, and that he failed against Pakistan and S.Africa too.

So the only person that it really leaves is Steve Waugh. So clearly, just performing against the best, at their best, is not such great criteria on it's own.

If you want my true opinion; Lara did the best against the absolute best mostly when they were at their best - you know who I am referring to. But that fact alone does not mean one is greater than another player.



My God is a weird one. He thinks Aravinda Da Silva is greater than Gilchrist and that Boof is better than Steve Waugh.

yeah... But I think while there have been reported personal animosities between Warne and S Waugh and Gilchrist, I don't think any such story was around regarding Ponting.. There is every reason to believe that Ponting was well liked by Warne and hence his rating may not have been impacted by that as with the other two, right? He may honestly think Sachin and Lara are well ahead...

 

[Ikki]

Not really.. If you include Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and of course Australia and the mid 90s England who had a decentish bowling attack at least for their home conditions....

Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka were not a great attack - Zimbabwe was even better. England were worse. The 3 worst bowling sides at home were Sri Lanka, England and New Zealand.

You're pointing out what I've been saying: Ponting wasn't good against the average test sides; not the best ones. Inconsistent, indisciplined, young, etc, it happens. If his legacy had stayed like that he'd not be fit for comparison. But he changed it around and made the most of his freakish talent and decimated all comers everywhere, bar in India.

Very very very few batsmen come close to that kind of consistency across the board. Look at how he scores, country to country, 1st inning to last, etc. He is a machine. People splurge over McGrath and his ability to be so consistent everywhere; Ponting is arguably even more consistent.

 

[Ikki]

yeah... But I think while there have been reported personal animosities between Warne and S Waugh and Gilchrist, I don't think any such story was around regarding Ponting.. There is every reason to believe that Ponting was well liked by Warne and hence his rating may not have been impacted by that as with the other two, right? He may honestly think Sachin and Lara are well ahead...

It's not just those two. His whole list is wonky. He has two players who never even played Test cricket IIRC. Donald was at the far end of the top 50 and Ambrose was in the top 5 IIRC. It's not a very serious ranking.