Chanderpaul, is he great ?

[stephen]

Are you serious?

Well the only real weakness in Ponting's game is his tendency to fall across his stumps early in his innings. And even though this is a known weakness, nobody has been good enough to exploit it.

Lara and Tendulkar are all time great batsmen, but it is perfectly reasonable to see all three batsmen and decide that Ponting is the best of the three. It's not something I agree with, but it's not a clear cut call.

 

[Evermind]

Are you serious?

Without minnows:

Ponting 1995-2009 123 209 24 10298 257 55.66 35 42

Sachin 1989-2009 143 237 23 11115 241* 51.93 36 48

Massive difference.

 

[Goughy]

umm, it's NOT wishful thinking. if you reckon WI's had been able to draw the games Uppercut linked earlier without Chanders massive contribution then it's you who's being wishful. Saving matches with your bowlers not firing on all cylinders in face of a huge total is, if anything, tougher than scoring a ton in a game where you bowlers got a bagful of wickets. you absolutely cannot judge someone's average in draws as a measure of their (in)ability.

Average in draws does not illustrate their ability, what it does is inflate their career average. If people judge by career average then they have to be aware that certain players have played on more friendly tracks. We use the term result tracks, and we should be aware when batsmen play a disproportional amount of cricket on non-result tracks.

Average in draws doesnt mean anything apart from take it into account when looking at career averages.

Anyway, I wouldnt worry about the examples cited. Firstly they were 2 examples out of 36 draws. Hardly significant. Secondly, they were not backs to the wall gamesavers and thirdly in both examples only one team (in four innings) was bowled out. Hardly tough batting. They were both just games of cricket on pretty placid batting tracks.

 

[Goughy]

Well the only real weakness in Ponting's game is his tendency to fall across his stumps early in his innings. And even though this is a known weakness, nobody has been good enough to exploit it.

Yeah, Ponting has a technical flaw but that doesnt matter as it is rarely exploited. The best players are those that can minimise thier flaws and work around them. Same as Tendulkar playing off the backfoot with an angled bat.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I used to think that Ponting was better then Tendulkar until I started watching Tendulkar bat more often. Absolute champion. He has the perfect technique. Tendulkar lowest average in a country is 40 aswell, which is incredible for the amount of matches his played. The best batsman that I've ever seen.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

There isn't much difference between Ponting and Tendulkar though.

I've found that Ponting gets allot of unfair criticism, such as he doesn't perform in bowler-friendly conditions, which is just not true. His innings' against South Africa in Melbourne and in the 1st Test when Australia were 3/38 in bowler-friendly conditions were to be admired. Ponting not only made runs but made batting look easy in really difficult conditions.

 

[Uppercut]

I used to think that Ponting was better then Tendulkar until I started watching Tendulkar bat more often. Absolute champion. He has the perfect technique. Tendulkar lowest average in a country is 40 aswell, which is incredible for the amount of matches his played. The best batsman that I've ever seen.

I think Tendulkar is very easy to be enchanted by. I was watching him bat last night, and he played two incredible shots off, i think, Jimmy Franklin. One was his trademark "defensive push that somehow goes for four" and another was a beautifully placed cut behind backward point. I was in awe. It felt like he would never, ever get out.

And the very next ball, he played a cover drive and completely missed the ball.

Tendulkar's much on the same level as Lara and Ponting, but I'd personally pick Ponting out of the three. Watching him, I'd believe that Tendulkar's the greatest player who ever lived, but I've concluded that my eyes are deceiving me. At the end of the day, it's all about scoring runs, and I suppose I have to say that IMO Ponting is better at scoring runs than Tendulkar. Not by much though.

 

[Uppercut]

There isn't much difference between Ponting and Tendulkar though.

I've found that Ponting gets allot of unfair criticism, such as he doesn't perform in bowler-friendly conditions, which is just not true. His innings' against South Africa in Melbourne and in the 1st Test when Australia were 3/38 in bowler-friendly conditions were to be admired. Ponting not only made runs but made batting look easy in really difficult conditions.

Aye, when he wasn't edging straight to first slip.

 

[Athlai]

Being a Kiwi I always feel like we are about to get Ponting out. Lara and Tendulkar every run they score feels like another run on top of the hundred.

 

[Precambrian]

Being a Kiwi I always feel like we are about to get Ponting out. Lara and Tendulkar every run they score feels like another run on top of the hundred.

Haha played mate.

 

[Precambrian]

I think Tendulkar is very easy to be enchanted by. I was watching him bat last night, and he played two incredible shots off, i think, Jimmy Franklin. One was his trademark "defensive push that somehow goes for four" and another was a beautifully placed cut behind backward point. I was in awe. It felt like he would never, ever get out.

And the very next ball, he played a cover drive and completely missed the ball.

Tendulkar's much on the same level as Lara and Ponting, but I'd personally pick Ponting out of the three. Watching him, I'd believe that Tendulkar's the greatest player who ever lived, but I've concluded that my eyes are deceiving me. At the end of the day, it's all about scoring runs, and I suppose I have to say that IMO Ponting is better at scoring runs than Tendulkar. Not by much though.

Exactly how is that argument true? Australia needed Ponting to fire now, when they lost their big guns, and has he?

 

[Dissector]

A near great for me. If he continues to fire for a couple of years I would be prepared to call him a great,

 

[roseboy64]

As someone who's been watching the WI for oh quite a while now I can state that Chanderpaul's averages in draws is a good thing. Much better than losing. Without him those draws would have been losses.

 

[Evermind]

I used to think that Ponting was better then Tendulkar until I started watching Tendulkar bat more often. Absolute champion. He has the perfect technique. Tendulkar lowest average in a country is 40 aswell, which is incredible for the amount of matches his played. The best batsman that I've ever seen.

Not bad, not bad. Took you for a bit of a jingoist, but that may not be the case. Too bad you're wrong on this issue.

Three main factors one may look at in separating the bestest from the very best:

In terms of effectiveness - Ponting > Tendulkar > Lara.
In terms of aesthetics, personally - Lara > Tendulkar > Ponting.
In terms of timing/"how the **** did that go for 4?" - Tendulkar > Lara > Ponting.

Giving each factor equal importance, and points according to rankings:

Tendulkar: 5 points
Lara: 6 points
Ponting: 7 points

Lower points is better, so Tendulkar wins. Personally, I rank scoring runs/effectiveness the highest, and so for me the first outweighs the second and third factor. But really, when it comes to these three, it's the viewer's priorities that come into play, so it's so hard to have an "objective" measure. I mean I'd rather watch Steyn bowl than McGrath, even though the latter may average lower - just personal preference.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not sure how much is timing and how much is the effect of Sachin's lead bat.

 

[Goughy]

Is it just me, or has Lara's legacy seemed to have diminished pretty quickly?

Obviously a great player but the shine seemed to go off his career pretty quickly. More so than will happen with Tendulkar.

I could be wrong though; I freely admit that I am not close to the pulse of cricket public opinion.

 

[Evermind]

Is it just me, or has Lara's legacy seemed to have diminished pretty quickly?

Obviously a great player but the shine seemed to go off his career pretty quickly. More so than will happen with Tendulkar.

I could be wrong though; I freely admit that I am not close to the pulse of cricket public opinion.

May also be because he wasn't as good at the very end like he was at the beginning and towards the middle. I think that tends to diminish his status. His reputation will rise again after his state passes from "recent brilliant retiree" to "legend of the game" - nobody seems to care all that much in rating Botham and Imran in spite of their severe drop-off in the later years. I think the most objective reckonings of a player's true status are the day after he retires and again 2 decades after. The period in the middle is muddled with selective memories and histories and unkind comparisons with contemporary in-form batsmen.

People rate McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist because they went out at the very top, instead of Lara who went out on bitter terms with his board and a host of inconsistent scores.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I think by the time their careers end that Tendulkar will be the leading runscorer in the history of Test Cricket.

Also, Gilchrist didn't go out at the very top. He retired about 2-3 years after he was past his best.

 

[Sanz]

Also, Gilchrist didn't go out at the very top. He retired about 2-3 years after he was past his best.

Useless Argument. I dont understand why anyone would want a player to go out when he is at his best ?

 

[shivfan]

As someone who's been watching the WI for oh quite a while now I can state that Chanderpaul's averages in draws is a good thing. Much better than losing. Without him those draws would have been losses.

Well said....

Good to see that most voters feel Shiv is a great.