Player of the Decade - Ponting

[sasnoz]

I would compare him to the George Bush of the cricket world

 

[BoyBrumby]

Can't really argue too much, I suppose, but I'm a bit surprised at the margin of his win. McGrath, Murali, Kallis & Gilchrsit all had solid cases, although Murali too divisive a figure to carry it off, perhaps. Gilly would make as many people's all-time XIs as not and I don't think one could quite say the same for Punter.

Batsman's game tho, innit?

 

[MrIncredible]

Its not just test cricket but ODI's also.

Ponting was a clear and deserving winner, nobody came close.

Kallis (love him or hate him)

Daylight

Everyone else

 

[JBH001]

Not overly in a "doo dah" about the decision. Well done and congratulations to Ponting.

Personally I would have had Kallis as the player of the decade, with McGrath and Murali tied behind him (or McGrath a nose ahead), and Gilly after that. Still, Ponting has been the greatest batsman of the last decade, and an under-rated captain. Figure his true stature will become more apparent after his retirement.

 

[stephen]

McGrath is one of five players from the decade who would be in contention for an all time World XI.

McGrath, Murali, Warne, Gilchrist and Tendulkar.

Tendulkar peaked in the 90s, as did Warne. Murali, Gilly and McGrath peaked in the 00s.

What makes McGrath so special was that he completely outclassed every other fast bowler in the decade by a significant margin. He simply was unparallelled in his awesomeness. In fact, given that Warne and Murali would be competing for the same (probably) spot in an AT XI and there was absolutely nobody who got within daylight of McGrath as a quick bowler in the decade the case is pretty clear.

Who else would target the opposition's best batsmen and win? Who else would take nearly 70% of their near 300 wickets against top order batsmen? Who else, in an era where world batting averages increased by around 3 runs per wicket would have their bowling average go down?

If McGrath's career had have started on 1 Jan 2000, he would be talked about with the same air of reverence people talk about Marshall. His statistics are that good. He performed everywhere and had an away average for the decade of under 20.

I'm sorry, but a batsman who isn't even arguably the best batsman of the last decade should not be the "player of the decade". I could see why people would give Murali player of the decade, but IMO McGrath deserves it far more than anyone else. How outstanding he was in an era of flat pitches, better bat technology and roped in fields is simply a class above.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Laughable decision. Ponting is a horrible captain so you can't really include that as a factor. The bowlers mentioned are worldwide all-time greats. Ponting is not in the same bracket. There are numerous batsmen in this era with a record like his. He might be considered an all-time great in Australia, but in a couple of decades cricket fans in general will remember Murali, McGrath and Warne far more than Ponting. McGrath and Murali had awesome records for the decade so it should have been between those two.

Shocked not to see you come out in support of Ponting to be honest. I was counting on you stepping up!

 

[Son Of Coco]

Nah, not logical. Murali in a batsmen dominated era, one of the two best bowlers arguably at 5 is far too low.

I'd say because flat tracks aren't as much of a problem for guys who turn it a mile as they are for seamers. If you fall in the latter category then you have to be very, very good to take wickets consistently at the rate and average McGrath did.

I'd probably have Murali higher myself, but would have no problem whatsoever with McGrath at no.1.

 

[Pratters]

I'd say because flat tracks aren't as much of a problem for guys who turn it a mile as they are for seamers. If you fall in the latter category then you have to be very, very good to take wickets consistently at the rate and average McGrath did.

I'd probably have Murali higher myself, but would have no problem whatsoever with McGrath at no.1.

Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with McGrath at one either. As I said, it would be any one between McGrath, Murali and Kallis for me.

 

[Johnners]

McGrath is one of five players from the decade who would be in contention for an all time World XI.

McGrath, Murali, Warne, Gilchrist and Tendulkar.

Tendulkar peaked in the 90s, as did Warne. Murali, Gilly and McGrath peaked in the 00s.

What makes McGrath so special was that he completely outclassed every other fast bowler in the decade by a significant margin. He simply was unparallelled in his awesomeness. In fact, given that Warne and Murali would be competing for the same (probably) spot in an AT XI and there was absolutely nobody who got within daylight of McGrath as a quick bowler in the decade the case is pretty clear.

Who else would target the opposition's best batsmen and win? Who else would take nearly 70% of their near 300 wickets against top order batsmen? Who else, in an era where world batting averages increased by around 3 runs per wicket would have their bowling average go down?

If McGrath's career had have started on 1 Jan 2000, he would be talked about with the same air of reverence people talk about Marshall. His statistics are that good. He performed everywhere and had an away average for the decade of under 20.

I'm sorry, but a batsman who isn't even arguably the best batsman of the last decade should not be the "player of the decade". I could see why people would give Murali player of the decade, but IMO McGrath deserves it far more than anyone else. How outstanding he was in an era of flat pitches, better bat technology and roped in fields is simply a class above.

Nah don't buy that. There were other excellent batsmen throughout the decade, but there really can be no argument who the best of them was. He not only scored the most runs in both formats (2000 more), but he also scored 13! more centuries than any other batsmen. On numbers alone it's not as convincing as McGraths superiority, but there should be absolutely no doubt as to who the best batsmen was.

 

[Pratters]

I still haven't seen Prince EWS' argument that Kallis>Ponting because of his bowling being refuted.

 

[Jono]

The only way it could be is if someone argued that Ponting's captaincy > Kallis' bowling.

I'd disagree of course.

 

[Johnners]

No-one likes a South African

 

[marc71178]

Well 173 wickets @ 35 in 90 games is hardly a major achievement.

 

[Pratters]

Well 173 wickets @ 35 in 90 games is hardly a major achievement.

That's 2 wickets per test @ 35. A good contribution. Sobers took 2.5 wickets per test @ 34 over his career. As a 5th bowler, that is a good enough contribution by Kallis. 173 wickets is not nothing after all. Then there are ODIs as well.

 

[aussie]

I still haven't seen Prince EWS' argument that Kallis>Ponting because of his bowling being refuted.

Well for one when looking at test matches, what made Kallis a top player in the last decade was MAINLY because of his batting. Kallis for much of the last decade was a world-class batsman who contributed with the ball, he wasn't a true all-rounder (capable of scoring hundreds & taking 5 wicket hauls consistently). This is proven by the fact that Kallis's last 5 wicket haul in the 2000s era againts quality opposition was vs ENG in 2003 @ Trent Bridge.

So basically Kallis should be gauged based on his batting mainly. Ponting was clearly the superior batsman, thus Ponting>Kallis.

Ponting real challenges IMO are only McGrath & Murali. I think it should be devided into batsman of the decade & bowler of the decade, since McGrath & Murali's form with the ball are certainly comparable to what Ponting accomplished with the bat in both forms of the game.

 

[Johnners]

I still haven't seen Prince EWS' argument that Kallis>Ponting because of his bowling being refuted.

aussie probs will by reminding us all that Kallis just plain forgot how to bowl at Midnight on 31/12/2002

EDIT: Well how 'bout that

 

[Streetwise]

That's 2 wickets per test @ 35. A good contribution. Sobers took 2.5 wickets per test @ 34 over his career. As a 5th bowler, that is a good enough contribution by Kallis. 173 wickets is not nothing after all.

Nobody has as captain has won as many tests as Ponting, dosent matter what you say, nobody has won as many.

No Captain can even dream of Pontings captaincy record in WC's, what is it something like 24 matches for 24 wins including 2 unbeaten trophys.

Ponting is the very best ODI captain ever to play, argue all you like but he is the very best.

No batsman walks out and takes it up to the other team like Ponting, everything Ponting does is a defining moment in cricket, he has a sense of occasion as witnessed by his 137 not out on the day he is named player of the decade, or his WC final innings.

 

[Pratters]

Ashes 2005 - Great captaincy.

If win % defines captaincy, Clive Lloyd was one of the 2-5 greatest captains.

 

[aussie]

That's 2 wickets per test @ 35. A good contribution. Sobers took 2.5 wickets per test @ 34 over his career. As a 5th bowler, that is a good enough contribution by Kallis. 173 wickets is not nothing after all.

No no, you can't judge Sober's output as an all-rounders based on overall career performances & comapre it to Kallis in the last decade.

Sobers had a peak period as an all-rounder between AUS 60/61 to ENG 1969 where he took 153 wickets in 44 tests @ 31. This included his superb all-round series in ENG 1966 which is comparable to Bradman's 1930 Ashes performance as the greatest series otuput in test history. Kallis never had such a series as an all-rounder in the 2000s era.

Plus their was Sobers performances in the unofficial ROW vs ENG series in 1970 which would make these stats even better if it was granted official status.

 

[Streetwise]

Ashes 2005 - Great captaincy.

If win % defines captaincy, Clive Lloyd was one of the 2-5 greatest captains.

Thats your problem to deal with, I didnt really take your opinion into consideration when looking at the facts.