Is Ricky Ponting a better batsman than Brian Lara?

[aussie]

TEC you do know that Ponting didn't peak as a batsman until the Headingley test of Ashes 2001 right?. So basically all performances before then, cant be considered when judging Ponting as a "Great batsman"..

 

[tooextracool]

How was Murali not in his prime when Ponting faced him in SRI 99 & 04?. Before the 99 series, Murali a year earlier had just produced this spell @ the Oval 98.

Yes it was 'one good spell'. Perhaps you could explain to me how one good spell against the dodgiest players of spin proves that Murali was in his prime. Look at his record from 2001 onwards, its far superior to anything he produced before that.

While in 2004 Ponting was out of form.



Clearly you didn't watch the tour to IND 08 then.

I did, the question is did you? Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ponting scored runs in this series on first day pitches of 2 drawn test matches. His team was certainly not helped by his failures during the games that actually mattered.

 

[Streetwise]

McGrath took Laras wicket for less than ten runs something like 10 times.

 

[Prince EWS]

McGrath took Laras wicket for less than ten runs something like 10 times.

That's nothing. Despite playing 85 Tests in which McGrath featured, Ponting never scored a single run against him!

 

[Avada Kedavra]

And Ponting scored an astoudingly low 0 runs against McGrath in his entire Test career.

And Lara couldn't score a single run against Walsh and Ambrose

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The bowlers were of a much higher standard in the 90s. Ponting has not faced that stiff opposition.

Ponting didn't make his debut in the 90s. His record against the great bowlers of the 90s is better than Lara's.

 

[tooextracool]

McGrath took Laras wicket for less than ten runs something like 10 times.

Yeah and in between that, Lara was busy scoring 132, 213, 153*, 100, 182, 110,122 and 226 against McGrath and co. Would say that he made up for it, wouldn't you?

 

[Avada Kedavra]

These are largely irrelevant considering that the 2 of them played in somewhat different eras, with Lara having played most of his career in the 90s on more seasoned bowler friendly pitches, not to mention different bowlers in the 90s than Ponting has in this decade. For example, Lara playing against the likes of Wasim, Waqar Mushtaq Ahmed ,Pollock (in his prime) and Donald is hardly comparable to Ponting's record in the 2000s against what was far inferior bowling.



My apologies, you did not actually say that. But the point is, that Ponting's record against Donald and Wasim is ordinary, I am not sure how it backs your claim that Ponting was far superior to Lara.

And scoring 197 was great, but he failed miserably in 3 other innings and this is against Akram who was having a nightmare down under and was far from his prime. Again it doesnt prove anything. Maybe if Ponting was in his prime back then he may have scored more than he did, but there is simply no evidence of this.

They are irrelevant to you because they are in Ponting's favour.Anyway Ponting did not make his debut after 2000. In fact, against the good/great attacks in the 1990s, Ponting has done better than Lara. I do understand that the 1990s had better bowlers and more bowling friendly pitches but it isn't like Ponting hasn't played in the 1990s or that Lara hasn't cashed in on the 2000s tracks.

Ponting nearly got a 200 against Akram, Lara failed to get a 100 even, whichever way you look at it. Same with Donald.

 

[aussie]

Yes it was 'one good spell'. Perhaps you could explain to me how one good spell against the dodgiest players of spin proves that Murali was in his prime.

Excuse me what?. Thats like saying because Warne spun throw ENG in Ashes 93, he wasn't at the peak of powers.

Look at his record from 2001 onwards, its far superior to anything he produced before that.

I am not expert of the high & lows of Murali's career. But to say Murali wasn't a great bowler during the 98 Oval test & during AUS tour to SR 99 is madness.

I did, the question is did you?

Yes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ponting scored runs in this series on first day pitches of 2 drawn test matches. His team was certainly not helped by his failures during the games that actually mattered.

Haaaaaaaaa. Explain to what is the difference between scoring runs on day one of a test match in IND rather than day day 2. The Bangalore pitch was nothing different to surfaces on his nightmare tour in 2001 & in that hundred he clealry proves he had vanquished his demons of the past.

Secondly. Ponting nor the AUS batsmen was exposed by the spinners in that series. Khan & Sharma with their reverse swing where th most threatening bowlers. So come again son..

 

[Pratters]

Ponting didn't make his debut in the 90s. His record against the great bowlers of the 90s is better than Lara's.

a) He did make his debut in the 90s.

b) Not really.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

He did make his debut in the 90s.

It's not.

Apologies, I meant 2000s (Should have been obvious anyway). And yes, it is.

 

[Pratters]

Against stronger bowling attacks, not specific bowlers. And I believe in strength of attacks.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Against stronger bowling attacks, not specific bowlers. And I believe in strength of attacks.

I am talking about teams, not specific bowlers.

 

[Ikki]

Lara in his sleep IMO. Ponting, as has been pointed out some 10000000 times on this forum, was a very ordinary player of spin, whilst Lara is arguably one of the best ever. I dont think the difference in their ability against pace is enough to make up for it.

Except Ponting is not an ordinary player of spin by any measure. Not as good as Lara, but very very good. His, inexplicably, bad record against a spinner comes against Harbhajan or mainly in India. Everywhere else he pretty much has the wood on spinners.

But conversely, I'd say Ponting is the better player of pace bowling. Ponting did better in the 90s against the better bowlers; has been more consistent throughout his career and Lara's away form is not upto the likes of Tendulkar and Ponting IMO. For example, Lara only averages 50+ away against one opponent: Sri Lanka.

Either way, it's not a big margin so statements like Ponting by a mile or Lara in his sleep are just plain wrong.

 

[Ikki]

The greatest are more talented, more skilled, to put it simply.

I never thought I'd hear such crappy reasoning from you mate.

The bowlers were of a much higher standard in the 90s. Ponting has not faced that stiff opposition.

Ponting did much better against the best bowlers in the 90s compared to Lara. In fact, it is against the lesser-likes that he failed in the 90s. So this point can't be used against Ponting, and anyone who does use it clearly has not followed his career properly. From 2000 onwards, he shellacked all those same lesser-likes and everybody else. He has arguably one of the most complete records of all time and the only blight on his record is against India in India.

Sobers, for example, who you do rate as a great has an even less complete record as he fails both home and away against New Zealand and his record against them is much poorer than Ponting's against India.

I don't care who you rate as better, but Ponting IS an all-time great and deserves to be mentioned with the best batsmen to have ever graced a cricket pitch. Just like Tendulkar and just like Lara.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I don't care who you rate as better, but Ponting IS an all-time great and deserves mentioned with the best batsmen to have ever grace a cricket pitch. Just like Tendulkar and just like Lara.

 

[Streetwise]

I don't care who you rate as better, but Ponting IS an all-time great and deserves mentioned with the best batsmen to have ever grace a cricket pitch. Just like Tendulkar and just like Lara.

The other thing is Ponting could perform under pressure much better, as captain both Lara and Tendulkar crumbled and Ponting has lead from the front.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

The other thing is Ponting could perform under pressure much better, as captain both Lara and Tendulkar crumbled and Ponting has lead from the front.

A valid point. But just out of interest, what was the duration of their respective captaincy stints? And also, IMO the team makes a huge difference to captaincy. It's easier to lead a champion side than a crap side. I believe that Ponting > Lara but this argument doesn't quite cut it. Since McGrath and Warne retired, I think he's been averaging in the low 40s. There are advantages of captaining a crap side - like scoring huge runs on the pretext of drawing games - something Lara took full advantage of.

 

[Streetwise]

A valid point. But just out of interest, what was the duration of their respective captaincy stints? And also, IMO the team makes a huge difference to captaincy. It's easier to lead a champion side than a crap side. I believe that Ponting > Lara but this argument doesn't quite cut it. Since McGrath and Warne retired, I think he's been averaging in the low 40s. There are advantages of captaining a crap side - like scoring huge runs on the pretext of drawing games - something Lara took full advantage of.

I think you touched on the thing that Lara is well known for in playing for himself and not the team. Even his profile on cricinfo mentions how he could not inspire his team and was at odds with many of his team-mates and was at odds with team management.

 

[Ikki]

The other thing is Ponting could perform under pressure much better, as captain both Lara and Tendulkar crumbled and Ponting has lead from the front.

Personally, I don't care for such a comparison because I wouldn't know where to start to gauge pressure. Each faced different kinds of pressure and their teammates helped/didn't help to varying extents. I think it's a Pandora's box. I just trust that they're superb batsmen and will come through more times than not.