Player of the Decade - Ponting

[stephen]

McGrath was better than them both in the 00s anyway.

 

[Streetwise]

McGrath was better than them both in the 00s anyway.

Fail, when they counted the votes Ponting won,,,easily.

Why is it so hard to accept that a group of prominent cricket players and journo's think Ponting was the player of the decade. Its not like these people were just couch cricketers or supporters, they are people that know the players and the game better than anyone on this board. Its amazing how you have posters who cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[Pratters]

Fail, when they counted the votes Ponting won,,,easily.

Why is it so hard to accept that a group of prominent cricket players and journo's think Ponting was the player of the decade. Its not like these people were just couch cricketers or supporters, they are people that know the players and the game better than anyone on this board. Its amazing how you have posters who cant see the forest for the trees.

a) There is a bias prevalent against Murali among a lot of people which makes any cumulative voting system unfair. One thing which is a given in such votes is that Murali won't win.

b) Bowlers should deserve far more credit in a batsmen dominated decade in which Ponting's contribution, though a lot, was not that much compared to bowlers like Murali and McGrath.

c) Kallis>Ponting

These factors makes Ponting at 1 pretty ridiculous where I am concerned.

 

[stephen]

Fail, when they counted the votes Ponting won,,,easily.

Why is it so hard to accept that a group of prominent cricket players and journo's think Ponting was the player of the decade. Its not like these people were just couch cricketers or supporters, they are people that know the players and the game better than anyone on this board. Its amazing how you have posters who cant see the forest for the trees.

Just because a bunch of journalists think something doesn't automatically make me think it.

Fact is that McGrath's statistical dominance of this decade is unmatched. Fact is that he was more valuable to the Australian team than Ponting. A large part of the reason we lost the 05 ashes was because he was injured.

I expect journos to pander to the masses, and the masses are fans of batsmen for the large part. I expect people on this board to be more objective and appreciate the battle between bat and ball more than the general Joe sixpack.

Fact is that in this decade, the bat has dominated the ball and the only fast bowler to really shine has been McGrath and his statistics this decade have been of a standard unmatched by virtually every bowler in history.

 

[Streetwise]

a) There is a bias prevalent against Murali among a lot of people which makes any cumulative voting system unfair. One thing which is a given in such votes is that Murali won't win.

b) Bowlers should deserve far more credit in a batsmen dominated decade in which Ponting's contribution, though a lot, was not that much compared to bowlers like Murali and McGrath.

c) Kallis>Ponting

These factors makes Ponting at 1 pretty ridiculous where I am concerned.

Which people on the panel were biased against Murali, of course if you dont know who they are then the first point is completely made up.

 

[Streetwise]

Just because a bunch of journalists think something doesn't automatically make me think it.

Fact is that McGrath's statistical dominance of this decade is unmatched. Fact is that he was more valuable to the Australian team than Ponting. A large part of the reason we lost the 05 ashes was because he was injured.

I expect journos to pander to the masses, and the masses are fans of batsmen for the large part. I expect people on this board to be more objective and appreciate the battle between bat and ball more than the general Joe sixpack.

Fact is that in this decade, the bat has dominated the ball and the only fast bowler to really shine has been McGrath and his statistics this decade have been of a standard unmatched by virtually every bowler in history.

Fail

Each and everyone on the panel knows far more about cricket and its players than you ever will. That is the only relevent fact.

 

[Pratters]

Which people on the panel were biased against Murali, of course if you dont know who they are then the first point is completely made up.

It is true generally. Just like it is true that Tendulkar is overrated a lot of times by a lot of people. Tendulkar had no business being so highly rated in the decade though he performed admirably well.

 

[DaRick]

Fail

Each and everyone on the panel knows far more about cricket and its players than you ever will. That is the only relevent fact.

No, that's an opinion. A good cricketer doesn't always make for a good analyst. That's why Ian Healy blows in the commentary box.

Most of the judges are fairly reputable, but some, like David Lloyd, Peter English, Ramiz Raja and John Stern have written or said some pretty dodgy stuff. Even Peter Roebuck has from time to time (i.e - post Sydney 2008).

 

[Streetwise]

It is true generally. Just like it is true that Tendulkar is overrated a lot of times by a lot of people. Tendulkar had no business being so highly rated in the decade though he performed admirably well.

Nothing to do with Tendulkar, you are saying that some people on the panel are biased against Murali, I'm calling you on it.......who on the panel is biased against Murali?.

 

[Pratters]

Most panels have people having an anti Murali bias which is why he never wins in World XI polls etc by so called esteemed panelists.

 

[stephen]

Fail

Each and everyone on the panel knows far more about cricket and its players than you ever will. That is the only relevent fact.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, including you. That doesn't make you worth listening to though.

If you wish to appeal to authority then there can be no effective debate and discussion on these topics. The fact of the matter is that most "experts" in cricket are not the best cricket analysts. The other fact is that the majority of cricketers are batsmen. That means that the majority of retired cricketers are batsmen. The other fact is that the public generally likes batsmen more than bowlers and so journalists will pander to their audience by favouring batsmen.

Just because a few people agree with you doesn't make you right.

 

[Uppercut]

In the end these cross discipline "best of" debates come down largely to what an individual values. It's pretty easy see the variance in how different people value different disciplines.

There are clear standouts in the disciplines, and the amount of discussion that would have raged if Murali, McGrath or Kallis had won it would be no different to it is now. Really, there is no objective way to split Murali/McGrath/Kallis/Ponting as there are valid arguments for all four.

I'm of the opinion that Ponting got the nod because of the significant amount of added pressure he's had to deal with, and the leadership he's provided to the best team of the decade, not to mention successfully leading his country through a difficult transition phase. He's not the most tactically astute captain, but he's very much an inspirational one, and generally fires for his team when they need him most. It's no coincidence that Australia's recent batting collapses that have been losing us test matches have occurred with Punter low on form.

He's had to deal with significant amounts of pressure over his tactical decisions, the behaviour of his players, the performance of his team and at times himself, and he's continued scoring runs throughout. His as mentally resilient a sportsman as you'll find, and in a game where so much of the action takes place in between the ears that counts for something surely.

And as we speak the guy is closing in on a 200. imo.

Successfully? Didn't Australia lose the Ashes and drop to fourth in the world rankings?

 

[stephen]

Nothing to do with Tendulkar, you are saying that some people on the panel are biased against Murali, I'm calling you on it.......who on the panel is biased against Murali?.

A lot of former cricketers think he chucks and/or don't like his action.

Similarly, a lot of analysts are from countries that aren't Sri Lanka and favour the countries that they are writing for.

 

[R_D]

Well deserved... been the outstanding batsman of the decade.
Like been said there's a case for Mcgrath and Murali and Kallis and agree with that.

Pretty sure they would've taken both ODI and test matches into consideration when doing this and Sachin still has a great record in ODI's and very comparable record to Sangakarra, Jayawardne etc this decade in tests. So he's certainly deserving of being there.

 

[Redbacks]

Successfully? Didn't Australia lose the Ashes and drop to fourth in the world rankings?

Relative to our bowling being ****...?

 

[JBH001]

Fail

Each and everyone on the panel knows far more about cricket and its players than you ever will. That is the only relevent fact.

Pathetic.

 

[Son Of Coco]

That doesn't really refute the argument for Murali tbh. All you're saying is that he spun the ball on ice and therefore flat tracks weren't a problem for him. It's no different from saying McGrath was superhumanly awesome and therefore flat tracks weren't a problem for him.

I'm not trying to refute the argument for Murali though.

Ref: See what Clapo said.

 

[DaRick]

Successfully? Didn't Australia lose the Ashes and drop to fourth in the world rankings?

They're now third and not that far from the first two. Plus they're still first in ODI's.

So no, I wouldn't say that he's exactly failed in leading them through this difficult period.

SA had a similar period a few years back (with even fewer retirements) and they crashed to fifth or sixth in both formats. Based on that, Ponting's done quite well.

 

[Uppercut]

He hasn't conclusively failed, but what exactly has he done to label his leadership a "success"? As far as I can see Australia are still in the middle of a transitional period and Ponting's record so far is par.

Fair point on the ODIs though, I instinctively don't think of them at all. It's weird because I rather like LO cricket, but it just feels quite.. unimportant.

 

[sasnoz]

Mcgrath would not have been half as successful if it wasnt for warne
How could ponting be described as 'BY FAR THE BEST BATSMEN OF THE DECADE' yousuf youhana and kallis both averaged the same over the decade and had to face a rampant aussie attack