Player of the Decade - Ponting

[Streetwise]

Much of a muchness, but its hardly clear cut whereby anyone who disagrees is a Ponting hater.

In reference to Ponting the captain, it couldent be anything else.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah because Uppercut and Prince are diehard Ponting haters

Haha, indeed. I actually think I probably rate Ponting as a batsman higher than the majority of people on this forum. Knowing Uppercut has similar ideas to me regarding how to rate batsmen of the 21st century (and batsmen in general tbf), he probably does too.

It has more to do with the fact that we rate Kallis much, much higher than most than anything else.

 

[GIMH]

In reference to Ponting the captain, it couldent be anything else.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not. I'm a pretty huge fan of Ponting ftr, he's right up there with Tendulkar and Lara for me. While I'm pushing the case for Kallis, I'm really pushing the case for any all-rounder. Someone who can both bat and bowl to a good standard is seriously, seriously valuable. I don't think there's been a player since Bradman who can match that contribution with batting alone.

That said, contribution might not be foremost in the minds of those picking the team. Ponting was such a dominant figure in international cricket for pretty much all of the decade. When I saw him bat against Sri Lanka last summer the opposition fans on the boundary properly heckled him, pretty much ignoring all the other Aussies. I asked them why they hated Ponting so much and they said they didn't, but they directed the abuse at him because "he's the main man, isn't he?"

It's the best tribute to Ponting I've ever heard.

 

[Ikki]

The idea that Australian pitches were more favourable to quicks than spinners is a bit of a myth. Only Perth is really favourable to fast bowlers these days, Sydney and Adelaide are certainly spinners tracks. Others are pretty much a wash.

So it's just a coincidence that pacers do so much better than spinners in Australia? Whatever you want to say about pitches in Australia, it was certainly better for pacemen than spinners.

It's just an example of a series where his bowling was massive. What about his 20 wickets @ 19 in this series or his 10 in this series? Would South Africa have won this decisive test without his first innings 4/42, and how would this match have panned out without his 9/92? What about his 4/24 here?

Then there are the little intangibles. What if he hadn't nabbed VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar in the first innings of this particularly close encounter? This was a massive run chase already, but would it even have been possible without his 3/24 in the second innings? And these are only cases where South Africa ended up winning the match. How big could the wickets of Dravid and Tendulkar on the first morning of this match have been? Or Ponting, Gilchrist and Martyn in this match?

In his career he's dismissed:
-Adam Gilchrist six times
-Shiv Chanderpaul, Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting five times each
-Alec Stewart, Graeme Thorpe and Younis Khan four times
-Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Mahela Jayawardene and Sachin Tendulkar three times.

How many runs and centuries weren't scored against South Africa by those batsmen because of Kallis? We've no way of knowing, but they generally score more than a few runs. How can that be anything other than a ****ing huge contribution?

It just didn't happen near enough nor against the better teams for it to really weigh that heavily. Of course it is better to be a batsman who can be a handy bowler, but the strength of this claim as a bowler is just that bit exaggerated. Your question has a counter, how many of those batsmen may have been taken earlier or by another bowler without Kallis bowling? You'd never know. I am sure Kallis has taken wickets of important batsmen, often done a job with the ball and I am not disputing that. But we both know overall his bowling was merely pretty handy rather than a difference maker.

In the end, if I make a column of the two player's traits, I'd say:

Ponting wins out for batting, fielding and leadership in both forms of the game, whereas Kallis only beats Ponting in bowling in both forms of the game. That's why I believe as a package Ponting outdid Kallis this decade to overcome the bowling Kallis brought forth. It's hard to compare, and I think they're close, but noway do I think Kallis was as far ahead as some people here have claimed. In the end, I think it was the right choice.

 

[Streetwise]

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not. I'm a pretty huge fan of Ponting ftr, he's right up there with Tendulkar and Lara for me. While I'm pushing the case for Kallis, I'm really pushing the case for any all-rounder. Someone who can both bat and bowl to a good standard is seriously, seriously valuable. I don't think there's been a player since Bradman who can match that contribution with batting alone.

That said, contribution might not be foremost in the minds of those picking the team. Ponting was such a dominant figure in international cricket for pretty much all of the decade. When I saw him bat against Sri Lanka last summer the opposition fans on the boundary properly heckled him, pretty much ignoring all the other Aussies. I asked them why they hated Ponting so much and they said they didn't, but they directed the abuse at him because "he's the main man, isn't he?"

It's the best tribute to Ponting I've ever heard.

You are chasing a Jono red herring, my reference to Ponting haters was in regards to his captaincy, well if you read the post properly.

Ponting has been recognised for his captaincy and his leadership qualities which have been invaluable to Australia. Well thats what the judges of the award have stated.

Pontings contribution to Australias wins in the WC and CT have been given more weight than Kallis's bowling contribution. I dont see much wrong with that as this is regarded more important to the team.

 

[stephen]

So it's just a coincidence that pacers do so much better than spinners in Australia? Whatever you want to say about pitches in Australia, it was certainly better for pacemen than spinners.

Better for pacemen - only marginally.

Sydney has always been better for spinners. Brisbane and the WACA for pacemen (though the WACA has been the biggest road in recent times), the MCG is either a road or breaks up a bit at the end and the Adelaide oval has always been a road.

The fact is that McGrath has averaged more in Australia than any every country other than the West Indies in the 00s. McGrath averaged under 20 away and nearly 22 at home for the decade.

The only reason that Australia could be said to be more conducive to pace is because there are more pace bowlers to share the wickets, but really the country has been ridiculously good for batting in over the last decade. The only reason that there have been so many results has been down to the McWarne combination.

 

[Uppercut]

The results are still coming tbf, five in six tests. You can put it down to poor quality of opposition, but when India toured there was no McWarne either and once again the only draw was at Adelaide.

I like Australian pitches, Adelaide an exception. You don't need massive seam movement or turn to get results. As long as the edges aren't dropping short of the slip cordon and the batting isn't of significantly better standard than the bowling, reasonable pace and bounce in the pitch is enough for good cricket. I wouldn't say the pitches have been massively fast bowler-friendly, just that unlike much of the rest of the world, they haven't been unduly harsh on the quicks.

 

[Ikki]

Better for pacemen - only marginally.

Sydney has always been better for spinners. Brisbane and the WACA for pacemen (though the WACA has been the biggest road in recent times), the MCG is either a road or breaks up a bit at the end and the Adelaide oval has always been a road.

The fact is that McGrath has averaged more in Australia than any every country other than the West Indies in the 00s. McGrath averaged under 20 away and nearly 22 at home for the decade.

The only reason that Australia could be said to be more conducive to pace is because there are more pace bowlers to share the wickets, but really the country has been ridiculously good for batting in over the last decade. The only reason that there have been so many results has been down to the McWarne combination.

Look at Warne's home and away record, it says it all. The fact that Warne has been striking faster overall, better than McGrath even, is testimony to how much better it has been for him away because he strikes at 61-62 balls per wicket at home.

Overall, when you look at pitches across the world, apart from S.Africa, Australia has been probably the best place for fast bowlers.

 

[Debris]

So it's just a coincidence that pacers do so much better than spinners in Australia? Whatever you want to say about pitches in Australia, it was certainly better for pacemen than spinners.

{/QUOTE]

Not a coincidence. A good quick bowler is better than a good spinner, that is just how cricket is. India and Sri Lanka are probably the only countries where spinners have more wickets than fast bowlers and pitches there are hugely favourable to spinners.

And I would point out that the most wickets taken in the latest series in Australia was by a spinner so pacemen can't be doing that well.

 

[Prince EWS]

A good quick bowler is better than a good spinner

I don't really agree with this, but that's probably just based on my definition of "a good spinner". For mine, a good bowler is a good bowler. Good quick bowlers are merely more common than good spinners.

 

[Ikki]

Not a coincidence. A good quick bowler is better than a good spinner, that is just how cricket is. India and Sri Lanka are probably the only countries where spinners have more wickets than fast bowlers and pitches there are hugely favourable to spinners.

And I would point out that the most wickets taken in the latest series in Australia was by a spinner so pacemen can't be doing that well.

That has to do with the definition of "good" in the respective practices. They're different and have different measurements. Also, pacers have natural advantages like getting the new-ball or facing unset batsmen.

As for aggregate wickets, then yes spinners will have more wickets because they tend to bowl more. We are talking about averages and strike-rates which are ratios that don't really rely on that aggregate total of who got more. Pacers have easily had the better time in Australia; that's not much of a coincidence. I did an analysis before and IIRC only S.Africa was a better place to bowl pace.

 

[Debris]

That has to do with the definition of "good" in the respective practices. They're different and have different measurements. Also, pacers have natural advantages like getting the new-ball or facing unset batsmen.

As for aggregate wickets, then yes spinners will have more wickets because they tend to bowl more. We are talking about averages and strike-rates which are ratios that don't really rely on that aggregate total of who got more. Pacers have easily had the better time in Australia; that's not much of a coincidence. I did an analysis before and IIRC only S.Africa was a better place to bowl pace.

If Australia is so great for pace, why are spinners getting so many overs? Surely you only use spinners as a last resort if pace is a much better option. That argument seems self-defeating to me.

Pacemen has easily had the better time pretty much everywhere because they are harder to face. I think if you compare strikerates and averages of pace bowlers versus spinners that fast bowlers will come out will ahead and it will not even be close.

 

[Ikki]

If Australia is so great for pace, why are spinners getting so many overs? Surely you only use spinners as a last resort if pace is a much better option. That argument seems self-defeating to me.

Because spinners can generally bowl many more overs while the pacers recover, go for little and work the older ball. It happens everywhere, not just in Australia, and has happened throughout cricketing history. It's probably why there are so few great pace attacks like the WIndies. Because it's hard to get so many good pace bowlers who can bowl all the overs and in different conditions.

Pacemen has easily had the better time pretty much everywhere because they are harder to face. I think if you compare strikerates and averages of pace bowlers versus spinners that fast bowlers will come out will ahead and it will not even be close.

That's partly due to the fact that teams all over the world have had better pacers, hence the pitches were prepared to suit them more. This happened everywhere bar India and Sri Lanka where they had better spinners. No surprise that the spinners do better than pacers there.

 

[aussie]

So it's just a coincidence that pacers do so much better than spinners in Australia? Whatever you want to say about pitches in Australia, it was certainly better for pacemen than spinners.



It just didn't happen near enough nor against the better teams for it to really weigh that heavily. Of course it is better to be a batsman who can be a handy bowler, but the strength of this claim as a bowler is just that bit exaggerated. Your question has a counter, how many of those batsmen may have been taken earlier or by another bowler without Kallis bowling? You'd never know. I am sure Kallis has taken wickets of important batsmen, often done a job with the ball and I am not disputing that. But we both know overall his bowling was merely pretty handy rather than a difference maker.

In the end, if I make a column of the two player's traits, I'd say:

Ponting wins out for batting, fielding and leadership in both forms of the game, whereas Kallis only beats Ponting in bowling in both forms of the game. That's why I believe as a package Ponting outdid Kallis this decade to overcome the bowling Kallis brought forth. It's hard to compare, and I think they're close, but noway do I think Kallis was as far ahead as some people here have claimed. In the end, I think it was the right choice.

On point.

But I think this Ponting vs Kallis - who was the "Player of the decade". Basically comes to ideology with some IMO who overate Kallis as an all-rounder especially when statements like this is made:

"Someone who can both bat and bowl to a good standard is seriously, seriously valuable. I don't think there's been a player since Bradman who can match that contribution with batting alone."

So based on that i could see why some would rate or put Kallis ahead of Ponting as the "Player of the "decade". I'm on the oppositie side of the idelogical spectrum with this one.

 

[sasnoz]

mcgrath got his wickets through reputation post 05,pieterson was all over him when the ashes were still on the line 06/07 then lost interest once they were 3-0 down,before 02 mcgrath benefited from the home town umpire between 02 and 05 he wasnt much either opposition batsmen just lacked general urgency
he was such an arrogant **** mcgrath but the aussie media built him up as a nice guy because of his situation with jane

 

[JBH001]

Christ, you really are a gibbering idiot.

 

[aussie]

HAAAAAA...go sasnoz

 

[sasnoz]

Christ, you really are a gibbering idiot.

why thank you kind sir

 

[sasnoz]

He also was accused of calling jayasuria a black monkey, hardly the behaviour of champions