• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Can any one tell me what the hell Ponting is talking about ?

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Maybe when Graeme Smith makes his comments.
Do subcontinent pitches get as many results as other places or not? That is all that is relevant. Not who claims it. Never really checked to be sure, I wonder if anyone has?
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
Ponting averages 50+ away from home, you're not counting his neutral games - even discounting them he is 49.77. Anyway, it's clear that Australian batsmen haven't done as well as Indians in India; many of them are renown for their success against us.

But your argument is flawed. The toughest, most liveliest, pitches have usually been in S.Africa. Want to look at the averages there between the two teams?

Exactly.
I don't see what South Africa have to do with my point.

Ponting has criticised subcontinental pitches. My argument is that Australia is just as, if not more, batting friendly than India.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Do subcontinent pitches get as many results as other places or not? That is all that is relevant. Not who claims it. Never really checked to be sure, I wonder if anyone has?
That's not the thrust of the argument here. It's that the Australian captain is criticising the subcontinent for lack of results, when his own country appears to be, at the very least, as inconducive. That alone disproves his argument. South Africa doesn't come into.
Well yeah, that was kinda my point, because it was the batting averages that SJS highlighted.
Fair.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I don't see what South Africa have to do with my point.

Ponting has criticised subcontinental pitches. My argument is that Australia is just as, if not more, batting friendly than India.
But you based this on only 2 teams. Which makes it look like you're pitting two teams together knowing one hasn't done well in one country whereas the other has risen to the occasion even though doing poorly in other countries.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
That's not the thrust of the argument here. It's that the Australian captain is criticising the subcontinent for lack of results, when his own country appears to be, at the very least, as inconducive. That alone disproves his argument. South Africa doesn't come into.
They do. It's only partially relevant how Australia has done in the subcontinent. It's just as relevant how Pakistan or New Zealand have done as well. And of course, the other teams.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But you based this on only 2 teams. Which makes it look like you're pitting two teams together knowing one hasn't done well in one country whereas the other has risen to the occasion even though doing poorly in other countries.
He based it on two of the teams involved! Ponting isn't advocating that South Africa has the best cricket pitches in the world. He's saying that the subcontinent doesn't, implying that other teams do, including his.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
He based it on two of the teams involved! Ponting isn't advocating that South Africa has the best cricket pitches in the world. He's saying that the subcontinent doesn't, implying that other teams do, including his.
No he didn't. He made a statement on 'cricket' in general. Whether subcontinent does or doesn't is only relative to every other place in the world. And it does not only entail two teams and their matches in each other's country. If it only occurred for two teams it would not really be the 'death' of anything.

I really don't know, and I don't know if Ponting is right or wrong. I am currently in the process of checking it out for my own interest.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Anyway, assuming that Ponting has had a look at a few matches not involving his side, here's the figures for India/Pakistan as compared to Australia this decade:

India/Pakistan: 79 matches, 51 results, 35% draw ratio.
Australia: 57 matches, 48 results, 16% draw ratio.

I've left out Sri Lanka simply because pitches there are so completely different from those in India or Pakistan that the blanket term "subcontinental conditions" carries no weight. The record there is:

54 matches, 43 results, 20% draw ratio.

So I think, assuming Ponting isn't referring specifically to matches involving his team and no others, that we can conclusively say that he does have a point. Pitches in India and Pakistan are more than twice as likely to fail to produce a result than those in Australia. His main error is simply the common mistake of using the term "subcontinent" to link the much more bowler-friendly pitches of Sri Lanka with those in Pakistan and India.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No he didn't. He made a statement on 'cricket' in general. Whether subcontinent does or doesn't is only relative to every other place in the world.
He singled out the subcontinent. Fact.

And Ponting - the captain of Australia - is the one making the statement. Not anyone else, from any other nation. It's perfectly acceptable then to compare the records of the country he leads and plays in to the ones he has singled out.

He says the subcontinent doesn't produce enough results. It's been proven that it matches up with Australia in that regard. When Graeme, Chris, Andrew, Tatenda and Daniel chime in with similar sentiments, their countries can come under scrutiny. As things stand, they're not involved.

If Ponting made a general comment about the lack of results in world cricket, you could compare all countries against each other to pick up whatever trends and revelations. He did not. He essentially did his own comparisons and felt the need to note the subcontinent.
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
I don't see what South Africa have to do with my point.

Ponting has criticised subcontinental pitches. My argument is that Australia is just as, if not more, batting friendly than India.
They key difference between the flat decks in Australia & Indian this decade is basically the bounce present in Australian pitches.

Take the Adelaide Oval for example. Thats one of the flattest pitches around generally very comparable to a road in IND, SRI or PAK. But the adelaide oval generally has consistent bounce (at least until day 5). While the sub-continent pitches generally have inconsistent bounce.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
He singled out subcontinent...yes. But there is little inference he is merely talking about his own country. In fact, the context suggests the wider 'cricket' involving everybody. That really is kinda obvious.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I don't see what South Africa have to do with my point.

Ponting has criticised subcontinental pitches. My argument is that Australia is just as, if not more, batting friendly than India.
They have everything to do with the point. The reason the averages are so high in Australia are mainly because of Australia herself. And yet, IIRC, still the averages are higher in India, although not by much. Considering Australia has such a low percentage of draws comparatively, it's been through superiority, rather than flat pitches, that they've made those runs/won games.

S.Africa are relevant because they show that India aren't all that great away from home. It's actually somewhat surprising how they've shown up against Australia in the past decade. But that shouldn't be used simply to give yourself a tick in the argument.
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He singled out subcontinent...yes. But there is little inference he is merely talking about his own country. In fact, the context suggests the wider 'cricket' involving everybody. That really is kinda obvious.
But by singling out the subcontinent and the phrasing of his comments, he is strongly implying Australia is less problematic in the matter. The fact is that its not. Australia is as result-oriented, or not result-oriented as the subcontinent.

Otherwise he wouldn't have singled out anyone, and would perhaps have even started his point on home soil, with criticisms of Australian pitches.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
From 2000 to 2010 - not including minnows:

Australia: 53 test matches, of which 9 were draws - 17%.
England: 64 test matches, of which 16 were draws - 25%
India: 43 test matches, of which 17 were draws - 40%
New Zealand: 37 test matches, of which 11 were draws - 30%
Pakistan: 28 test matches, of which 10 were draws - 36%
South Africa: 46 test matches, of which 7 were draws - 15%.
Sri Lanka: 42 test matches, of which 11 were draws - 26%.
West Indies: 45 test matches, of which 19 were draws - 42%.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
He says the subcontinent doesn't produce enough results. It's been proven that it matches up with Australia in that regard.
No it hasn't- only in matches involving Australia and a subcontinental team is that the case. Unless there's a part of the interview SJS has not mentioned, there's no reason to assume that Ponting was only talking about these games rather than all test matches taking place.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
But by singling out the subcontinent and the phrasing of his comments, he is strongly implying Australia is less problematic in the matter. The fact is that its not. Australia is as result-oriented, or not result-oriented as the subcontinent.

Otherwise he wouldn't have singled out anyone, and would perhaps have even started his point on home soil, with criticisms of Australian pitches.
Australia clearly are less problematic in that area. Where that should entail only the comparison of two countries in this claim is one of your own fiction.

He means subcontinent pitches affect matches played against ALL countries negatively. And infers that Australian pitches affect matches played against ALL countries less.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Would be interested to see a more recent timeframe.
Last five years:
Australia: 28 matches, 3 draws
India/Pakistan: 37 matches, 17 draws.

The disparity becomes even bigger. I think you're going to have to back down on this one mate :p
 

Mr Mxyzptlk

Request Your Custom Title Now!
No it hasn't- only in matches involving Australia and a subcontinental team is that the case. Unless there's a part of the interview SJS has not mentioned, there's no reason to assume that Ponting was only talking about these games rather than all test matches taking place.
But I'm factoring other points that have been brought into discussion:

- why subcontinental batsmen do well on subcontinental pitches
- many foreign batsmen struggle on subcontinental pitches
- why batting averages are so high in Australia and yet results so, apparently, abundant

Which are valid reasons for why two teams, thoroughly accustomed to playing cricket well in particular conditions would naturally produce highscoring matches. As for results in Australia, they did have a pretty decent (best in the world) bowling attack for a long time, which goes a fair way to explaining it perhaps. I don't see subcontinental pitches as any less conducive to results as the majority in the world. And this tends to be proven when non-subcontinental teams play on them.

If you want to talk about dead pitches that kill cricket, look at the West Indies.
 

Top