Is Ricky Ponting a better batsman than Brian Lara?

[Ikki]

Has to be pairs, Warne and Mcgrath (doing each analysis separately) other wise just saying Warne or Mcgrath with Lara for example will include Lara's runs scored in Oz in 92-93 where Warne was present but Mcgrath wasnt. For tendy Walsh or Ambrose would include the 94 series in India where Ambrose was absent etc etc etc

LOL, if you can be bothered doing that for each pair for each batsman then manually adding them up be my guest.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Is the second link working, Ikki ?

 

[Ikki]

Thanks mate, yes it is. Whilst I have a problem with the ratings and weightings of certain criteria, still a pretty good one.

 

[MrIncredible]

LOL, if you can be bothered doing that for each pair for each batsman then manually adding them up be my guest.

But i hope u understand the jist of doing it that way rather than the either or criteria

 

[Ikki]

But i hope u understand the jist of doing it that way rather than the either or criteria

Yes, but that's why I say it's not near perfect. It should only really give an idea and nothing more. I put it out there merely to show that Ponting was no dummy.

Of course, even if we did that, it's still debatable. For example, Ponting averages I think in the 60s against both Pollock AND Donald but less overall against S.Africa for the decade, so he actually did worse when one wasn't there. Same kinda thing goes for Tendulkar; in the 90s he actually averages in the low 40s against Waqar and Wasim but overall he averages in the 30s so the attack minus one of them got the better of him more. And yet HB brought the point that Ponting didn't score against Waqar and Wasim together (1 match, 2 ducks) whereas when Waqar was absent he scored more; and yet this is the same attack Tendulkar struggled against. Tendulkar actually scored less when it was just McGrath, rather than Warne and McGrath. And of course, there'll be matches where both bowlers may be in the team and yet someone else was troubling one of these batsmen.

And also, very good/great attacks aren't limited to the 90s. For all the flat-track talk, Sri Lanka, Australia and S.Africa have been consistently good for most of this decade. Even NZ for a time with Bond looked dangerous, same with Pakistan, and of course England had an awesome swing quartet.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Even the averages are debatable. For example if a batsman averages 40 in matches that both Walsh and Ambrose played, he need not necessarily have scored any of those 40 runs off Walsh and/or Ambrose. He could have scored those runs off Carl Hooper and then got out to Walsh. I understand that this is a rather extreme case but I'm just illustrating my point.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Of course the reverse is true also. The batsman might have scored all his runs off Ambrose and Walsh and then got out to a spinner. I think ultimately, none of us will change our respective opinions irrespective of what the stats etc say.

 

[Ikki]

I think to contend that one is better than the other is wholly acceptable but the difference is slight no matter how you cut it. However, Ponting is not afforded this respect for reasons that are pretty sorry to say the least, and from members I expect much more from.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Probably a better question would be who is the best batsman of the last 2 decades after those 3. I'd say Steve Waugh, Dravid and Kallis in that order.

 

[oitoitoi]

Probably a better question would be who is the best batsman of the last 2 decades after those 3. I'd say Steve Waugh, Dravid and Kallis in that order.

That's a good question, Waugh vs Dravid vs Kallis is a very hard one, I'd be inclined to rank Kallis last when you consider no double ton and something of a decline in recent times.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

That's a good question, Waugh vs Dravid vs Kallis is a very hard one, I'd be inclined to rank Kallis last when you consider no double ton and something of a decline in recent times.

I don't really care about Kallis' lack of a doubt ton, tbh. It's just that the other two are better. I rank Waugh the best among the 3 simply because of his ability to bat under pressure, and the fact the he has a 50+ average after 160 matches. Dravid is a close second to Waugh because he was almost impossible to get out at his peak, and like Waugh, he was supreme under pressure.

 

[SJS]

Probably a better question would be who is the best batsman of the last 2 decades after those 3. I'd say Steve Waugh, Dravid and Kallis in that order.

Thats interesting. I am clear about who is last amongst those three but between Dravid and Waugh its a tough one. I go for Dravid because Waugh never had to play against Australia which was always a much tougher prospect than facing India (the side that Waugh faced but Dravid didn't)

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Thats interesting. I am clear about who is last amongst those three but between Dravid and Waugh its a tough one. I go for Dravid because Waugh never had to play against Australia which was always a much tougher prospect than facing India (the side that Waugh faced but Dravid didn't)

Yeah it's touch and go between Waugh and Dravid at this point. By the time Dravid hangs his boots, I reckon he'll nudge ahead of Waugh. Incidentally, I was also startled to find out that he is the fourth highest run getter of all time behind SRT, Lara and Ponting. He will probably surpass Lara's aggregate by the time he retires.

 

[Furball]

I'd rank Kallis a rung below Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara, his record in England with the bat is pretty poor, and he hasn't convinced against Australia IMO.

 

[thierry henry]

Poll result is silly

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Poll result is silly

You mean the fact that Ricky Ponting has votes?

 

[slugger]

they both have lent their names to ps games.

 

[Streetwise]

you mean the fact that ricky ponting has votes?

dont feed the troll!!

 

[aussie]

See, this is your problem; WE KNOW HE BUILT ON IT. It is a matter of history. Therefore, they count. If he HADN'T then you'd have a point. Saying he COULD have not built on it is a non-point...because he did. Case closed.

I will just quote this part since this is general thug-a-war of this argument.

Yes Ponting statistically between 95-2001 averaged better than Lara againts the great attacks.

Yes after his failures in IND 01, his battin reached the next level when he began batting @ 3 & the Ponting from Headingely 01 to now (until he starts looking passed his best) is the period in which Ponting will be remembered as a great batsman.

But using the runs Ponting scored as raw youngster againts those attacks as you have argued as the underlying reason why Ponting he is better than Lara is very wrong. All that proves basically as i found out in Lara vs Tendy debate thread i did, is that Lara isn't that good away from home as Tendy & probably Ponting as well, given his technical woes which where exposes vs those great bowlers in their backyards. Lara did do well vs all those cats at home see PAK 92/93, AUS 99/00 & 94/95, 03/04, SA 2000/01 (although Donald was slighlty passed his peak here).

But unlike Tendy who i put ahead of Lara due to consistenty as his best between 1990-2002. Ponting at his best lacks the special ability & spark that the stats would never highlight. So Lara>Ponting at his peaks & thats all i have to say here shotta...BULLET!!!

 

[thierry henry]

You mean the fact that Ricky Ponting has votes?

No. What a silly thing to say.