Can Ponting overtake Tendulkar?

[Cruxdude]

The only concrete differences between them are:

A) Tendulkar has played more minnows and stocked up 100s where Ponting hasn't; and
B) Ponting has not played as much Test cricket as Tendulkar yet.

The rest of this is just a Versus-debate we've done time and time before; and nobody is converting anybody. Which brings me to my next point; you've already said Ponting is better in many threads, why are you arguing this?

Without WI, Zim, and Bangladesh. The overseas records are

Ponting averages 45.6
Sachin averages 52.7

Ponting averages better against NZ, SA, Pak
Sachin averages more against Sri Lanka, England

Ponting is abysmal against India, Sachin is good against Australia.

 

[Ikki]

Without WI, Zim, and Bangladesh. The overseas records are

Ponting averages 45.6
Sachin averages 52.7

Ponting averages better against NZ, SA, Pak
Sachin averages more against Sri Lanka, England

Ponting is abysmal against India, Sachin is good against Australia.

Why remove WIndies at all? It's not like Sachin didn't play them - the attack he faced in 00/01 was very poor, and he did worse there. Sachin doesn't get close to that record, even if you consider them from 00s and beyond.

You could also mention that India were the best side in the world at home in the 90s. And while Sachin did well in Australia; he rarely faced the best attack we had.

And a difference you don't mention; where Ponting averages poorer than Tendulkar in places like Sri Lanka and England; his average is still 50.11 and 44.10 respectively. Whereas for Tendlkar his records againt S.Africa and Pakistan are 39.76 and 40.25 respectively. That's why you can't argue against his away record. It truly is superlative even if it is inferior.

It's not really up for dispute...Ponting only has 1 poor record...1 and that is against India and in India.

If you want to embellish Ponting's record - last thing you'd want to say is that batting in India is much easier. Not for him and not for the stalwarts of the Indian lineup.

If you want to denigrate his record, the last thing you should do is say batting in India is tougher. It isn't - well at least for most his career. He just sucks there for whatever reason. He belts the living daylights out of the same bowlers at home. He beats better spinners in their homes. He beats everybody pretty much everywhere bar in India. The record of a few batsmen do not change the statistics of several times as many. A truly sloppy argument. Might as well say batting in NZ was tough because Sobers sucked there.

 

[Cevno]

Sure, but Ponting's is better IMO.

The stats Manan used are slightly misleading in that they include tonnes against minnows and exclude Ponting's innings on neutral soil.

Sachin is far from a home flat track bully but batting in India is generally better than in Australia. If you're looking to discuss why Ponting is behind, simply: he hasn't played minnows as much and as
much in general. This discussion will be more worthwhile when Sachin retires. It comes down to whether Ponting will have a second wind and play long enough. I reckon he will, and hope he does just to help his legacy that much more since he is underappreciated.

That is a incorrect statement.

In the whole of 2000's there were 59 tests played in Australia.
Total runs scored were 67473
That comes to a average of 1143.61 runs per match.

While in india in 2000's there were 47 matches played in India.
Total runs scored were 53236
That is an average of 1132.60

Besides the manan stats are not that misleading .Even if you add the matches you are talking about it does not make a too massive difference.And as for minnows ,you also need to concentrate to score runs against them.
In the recent Bangladesh series Sachin got India out of a massive hole by scoring a century when everyone else fell.If he had not India would have been in Dire straits.

 

[Sir Alex]

The irony is that Tendulkar's better averages came against the weaker teams and results varied with the best ones; whereas Ponting was better against the best and not good against the worst. You can also argue Ponting missed out playing those weaker sides when he was actually a great batsman. Also, the fact that Tendulkar's record in the 00s is pretty average in general makes such assumptions hard to believe as a rule.

The only concrete differences between them are:

A) Tendulkar has played more minnows and stocked up 100s where Ponting hasn't; and
B) Ponting has not played as much Test cricket as Tendulkar yet.

The rest of this is just a Versus-debate we've done time and time before; and nobody is converting anybody. Which brings me to my next point; you've already said Ponting is better in many threads, why are you arguing this?

Yet you quoted :

Or how about the players themselves?

Tendulkar: 52.20

Australia: 58.53
England: 62
New Zealand: 49.52
Pakistan: 40.25
S.Africa: 39.76
Sri Lanka: 63.75
West Indies: 47.69

Ponting: 49.96

England: 44.10
India: 20.85
New Zealand: 97.66
Pakistan: 119
S.Africa: 54.18
Sri Lanka: 50.11
U.A.E.: 97
West Indies: 78

Now look at the rankings since 2002, and tell me who occupy the lowest rungs : They are West Indies, Pakistan, New Zealand against whom all Ponting has a great record. When it comes to the top tier, apart from SA, he has stumbled against England and India, the only teams who have given atleast a fight during the superstar Australians.

Tendulkar played SA and Pakistan very early in his career as well as when he was injured (2003-06) so that was natural that his record would be affected. There was also criticism that Tendulkar failed against SA attack at home which he disproved completely in this series. Coming tour to SA, he will disprove the other record also and it is a pity he didnt get to play Pakistan often in his peak.

A difference of 2.5 especially considering the relative difficulty Tendulkar had to endure in the first half of his career is remarkable. Ponting's failures are much more magnificient than his successes overseas which were limited to toothless WI and Pakistani attacks on flattest pitches possible and NZ.

 

[HMas]

Inshallah, Ponting will overatake Sachin. ALLAH blessing is with him.

 

[Ikki]

Look at the rankings prior to 02; where Pakistan, S.Africa and the WIndies had the best attacks; his record is superlative there, especially for one that is so young. As I said, the irony is that when it was easy in the 90s he didn't cash in. Imagine if he had?

The comparisons are also somewhat put aside since Tendulkar faced the same guys post 02. If their records didn't coincide together I'd give you that. And two can play that game; since S.Africa and Pakistan faltered in the 00s, Tendulkar put on more runs against them making his record look even better than it is against them - and it's not even good as it is.

You don't understand, I am not talking about a difference of 2.5 between their away records; I am talking about the fact that apart from in India Ponting has NO weakness in his record. Across the board it is awesome. Even when less than Tendulkar, still great. As another poster said in another thread; Ponting is like the equivalent to Malcolm Marshall in bowling, in terms of completeness in his record.

Anyway, I think I should stop, because this is getting into a general Ponting V Tendulkar argument rather than reasons as to why one has more 100s than the other.

 

[Sir Alex]

And Ikki, if you are going to discount records against pre 2002 Zimbabwe then you ought to remove post 2002 West Indies figures as well, and post 2008 Pakistan figures too.

 

[Cruxdude]

Why remove WIndies at all? It's not like Sachin didn't play them - the attack he faced in 00/01 was very poor, and he did worse there. Sachin doesn't get close to that record, even if you consider them from 00s and beyond.

The differences are that India are a team that Sachin does not play; and they were the best side in the world at home in the 90s. And while Sachin did well in Australia; he rarely faced the best attack we had.

And a difference you don't mention; where Ponting averages poorer than Tendulkar in places like Sri Lanka and England; his average is still 50.11 and 44.10 respectively. Whereas for Tendlkar his records againt S.Africa and Pakistan are 39.76 and 40.25 respectively.

It's not really up for dispute...Ponting only has 1 poor record...1 and that is against India and in India.

Tendulkar hasn't played them since 2002. Ponting has 6 centuries against them since then. Cashing in on a weak attack post Walsh, Ambrose.

Ponting averages in the 90s against NZ, Pakistan but how many games has he played against them? 3 and 4. That too in Pakistan he has played one game. Tendulkar has 10 against them and this includes 0 tests in Pakistan during the 90s. One tour in 2004 and another in 2006 (when he was bad against everyone). SA is Sachin's India. But still 39 odd is better than 20 odd. Overall too without minnows Sachin averages 7 runs more.

 

[Cruxdude]

I don't say Ponting is not great. Just questioning your logic in removing Zim and Bang while having the 2000's WI in the analysis. Sachin has not played them since 2002 while Ponting did and cashed in. It is as much his fault as it is Sachin's fault that whenever he plays Bangladesh he scores a century. When you remove Bangladesh, remove WI too.

 

[Sir Alex]

Look at the rankings prior to 02; where Pakistan, S.Africa and the WIndies had the best attacks; his record is superlative there, especially for one that is so young. As I said, the irony is that when it was easy in the 90s he didn't cash in. Imagine if he had?

The comparisons are also somewhat put aside since Tendulkar faced the same guys post 02. If their records didn't coincide together I'd give you that. And two can play that game; since S.Africa and Pakistan faltered in the 00s, Tendulkar put on more runs against them making his record look even better than it is against them - and it's not even good as it is.

You don't understand, I am not talking about a difference of 2.5 between their away records; I am talking about the fact that apart from in India Ponting has NO weakness in his record. Across the board it is awesome. Even when less than Tendulkar, still great. As another poster said in another thread; Ponting is like the equivalent to Malcolm Marshall in bowling, in terms of completeness in his record.

Anyway, I think I should stop, because this is getting into a general Ponting V Tendulkar argument rather than reasons as to why one has more 100s than the other.

We can argue this till cows come home, but the difference of 2.5 is indeed stark.
Also WI prior to 2000 was good when it had Ambrose and Walsh after that it was well on the decline.
I agree as to Pakistan but then Australia hardly played Pakistan on surfaces where it could be termed as even contest. 50 degree heat is hardly conducive for fast bowling anywhere is it not?
Ponting's records are poorer considering he played a lot of test matches in India where his averages were poor. He cannot even hide behind the excuse of having had a single bad series or something like that. Also to mention he never really had to face the best of the lot, Australians in their own soil as well.

 

[Cevno]

Tendulkar played SA and Pakistan very early in his career as well as when he was injured (2003-06) so that was natural that his record would be affected. There was also criticism that Tendulkar failed against SA attack at home which he disproved completely in this series. Coming tour to SA, he will disprove the other record also and it is a pity he didnt get to play Pakistan often in his peak.

.

Do not forget against India SA prepare green tracks often deliberately which result in lower than normal scoring games as India has for long not had a good pace attack.
They on the other hand cannot take those liberties against Australia.

The 5 matches India has played in South Africa IN 2000 ,5261 Runs have been scored at a average of 1052 per amtch.

While in the 9 matches Australia have played it has averaged 1182 per match.

 

[Ikki]

We can argue this till cows come home, but the difference of 2.5 is indeed stark.

No it's not. Otherwise Ponting averages 2.62 more than Tendulkar overall, without minnows.

Again, you said you consider Ponting better; so what's all this for? Did you only claim as such to hide behind your sock?

Also WI prior to 2000 was good when it had Ambrose and Walsh after that it was well on the decline.

And yet Tendulkar averaged 41 against a poor WIndies attack in 00/01, without either Ambrose or Walsh.

I agree as to Pakistan but then Australia hardly played Pakistan on surfaces where it could be termed as even contest. 50 degree heat is hardly conducive for fast bowling anywhere is it not?

And yet they had the wood on the batsmen who could barely play in such conditions. The bowlers took wickets, batsmen barely got into double digits. Look at the bowling averages, then at the batting averages, tell me who it affected more .

Ponting's records are poorer considering he played a lot of test matches in India where his averages were poor. He cannot even hide behind the excuse of having had a single bad series or something like that. Also to mention he never really had to face the best of the lot, Australians in their own soil as well.

No it isn't. 1 place in something like 10 is hardly going to define his record. For whatever reason, his record there is poor. But the rest of his record is awesome, so I am not going to pretend that his overall average, affected by his India record, truly represents how good he was away from home. If the numbers weren't so stark, I wouldn't mention it; but they are.

 

[Ikki]

I don't say Ponting is not great. Just questioning your logic in removing Zim and Bang while having the 2000's WI in the analysis. Sachin has not played them since 2002 while Ponting did and cashed in. It is as much his fault as it is Sachin's fault that whenever he plays Bangladesh he scores a century. When you remove Bangladesh, remove WI too.

Because WIndies have not been near that bad. For a time WIndies were poorer than Zimbabwe but not for long, and ironically Sachin scored more against them then than he did against Zimbabwe so removing them actually hurts his record.

Again, why remove a team where Sachin had enough chance himself to cash in but failed? He did worse against a far inferior attack in 01 against then WIndies than he did when they were very good. Yet Ponting averaged 40 against the WI attack in the 90s and obliterated them in the 00s. So he had a chance to cash in, but didn't.

When they've both played them enough, why remove them? If Ponting had played more against B/Z I wouldn't remove them, even if they were minnows because they both had a chance to play them fairly. Ponting's only played 1 more Test than Tendulkar against WIndies at their home (5 vs 6) in the 00s. Just because one murdered them and the other didn't doesn't mean we should remove them.

Tendulkar hasn't played them since 2002. Ponting has 6 centuries against them since then. Cashing in on a weak attack post Walsh, Ambrose.

Tendulkar had his shot in 02 without Ambrose and Walsh and averaged 41 in 5 tests - only 1 less than Ponting.

Ponting averages in the 90s against NZ, Pakistan but how many games has he played against them? 3 and 4. That too in Pakistan he has played one game. Tendulkar has 10 against them and this includes 0 tests in Pakistan during the 90s. One tour in 2004 and another in 2006 (when he was bad against everyone). SA is Sachin's India. But still 39 odd is better than 20 odd. Overall too without minnows Sachin averages 7 runs more.

If he plays less against them, they're going to affect his overall average less; so that's almost irrelevant. And you're talking about NZ FFS. Also, Ponting played Pakistan in Sharjah and Sri Lanka on neutral ground where you were lucky to get into double digits; yet his record is still awesome against them. In many ways it is more impressive since it's more likely he would have scored more against them in easier to bat conditions.

And SA for Sachin is worse than Ponting's India. For Sachin averages poorly away AND at home; whereas Ponting averages poorly only in India; he averages 79! against them at home. That's the worst of it for Ponting. Yet if it wasn't for Pakistan and S.Africa regressing you'd still be talking about Sachin's poor records against them. But you wouldn't be about Ponting because his poor record in the past were against the worst teams! And he has proven himself more than enough there.

 

[Cevno]

Would have been brought up on them and therefore done very well IMO. A cricketer's upbringing, particularly for a batsman really helps define their style and technique. If Tendulkar was an Aussie and Ponting an Indian, I imagine that their relative strengths would probably be reversed as well.

That is why i said unless he improved his ability against spinners.

Perhaps ponting would have been better growing up in India against spin on wearing tracks,but would he then he have been the same against pace bowling?
As for tendulkar,even growing up in India he is a good cmbination of both.

Besides,though generally growing up in conditions improves your ability in playing in thos,sometimes it is unbuilt.I for once myself growing up India and played for my club was always better against pacers than spinners.Had i perhasps grown up in south africa or australia i could have gone on to play my state.(It could be a very very far fetched assumption).
But here in India like Ponting my inability to play spin well ,affected my chances badly.
And i could not consider of having cricket anything more than a hobby ,and i am 19 and still very fond of cricket.

Likewise i guess there were many players in 90's in India who were better player of pacers than those who were in the team,but ability of playing spin on wearing tracks predominant in that phase prevented them from getting into the Indian team. That is why India often struggled in foreign conditions during that period.

 

[Cevno]

No it isn't. 1 place in something like 10 is hardly going to define his record. For whatever reason, his record there is poor. But the rest of his record is awesome, so I am not going to pretend that his overall average, affected by his India record, truly represents how good he was away from home. If the numbers weren't so stark, I wouldn't mention it; but they are.

So India are not away from Home now?

 

[Ikki]

So India are not away from Home now?

You might want to read the post again. The whole thing is about India away from home.

 

[Cruxdude]

Ricky Ponting during the mid 2000 was great and hammered everyone. Just some numbers.

Against all teams bar Bangladesh and Zimbabwe

Ponting before 2005 averaged 51.21
Sachin before 2005 averaged 55.58

Between 2005-06

Ponting 55
Sachin 26

After 2007

Ponting 43
Sachin 47

Ponting owned Sachin in 2005-06. Sachin was better during the remaining period.

Overall Tendulkar has bad results in SA and in India against SA. Ponting in Ind and England. Pakistan is a case of too few matches for Ponting and Tendulkars are skewed because of a series in 1989 and 2006.

I accept Tendulkar's record against SA are inexplicable. He has some brilliant centuries against them but still averages in the 30s.

I will always claim Tendulkar was better for a longer period. A very bad patch for Sachin and a good one for Ponting have combined to even up the score a bit.

 

[Jono]

Lol, I would take a Richard vs. TooExtraCool debate over a Ikki vs. Sir Alex debate anyday.

At least theirs was less bias and more-so just a pure difference of opinion.

 

[duffer]

Heh this thread.

A concise answer would be "I hope not. Close now"

 

[Burgey]

What happened to this thread?