Is Ricky Ponting a better batsman than Brian Lara?

[honestbharani]

Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka were not a great attack - Zimbabwe was even better. England were worse. The 3 worst bowling sides at home were Sri Lanka, England and New Zealand.

You're pointing out what I've been saying: Ponting wasn't good against the average test sides; not the best ones. Inconsistent, indisciplined, young, etc, it happens. If his legacy had stayed like that he'd not be fit for comparison. But he changed it around and made the most of his freakish talent and decimated all comers everywhere, bar in India.

Very very very few batsmen come close to that kind of consistency across the board. Look at how he scores, country to country, 1st inning to last, etc. He is a machine. People splurge over McGrath and his ability to be so consistent everywhere; Ponting is arguably even more consistent.

yes but McGrath is a bowler in a batsman dominated era and Ponting is a batsman.


And about Sri Lanka, I am sorry but Murali and Vaas in Sri Lanka with big totals backing them up in those conditions is about as tough as it can get for batters. Even India could not face him off that easily and lost the series... And no I am not talking about the 90s coz I am not sure if Lara toured Sri Lanka in the 90s.



And again, about his turnaround.. You know there was a time when I rated Dravid better than him.. But now, I do think he is a class above. Dravid I guess tapered off more than Ponting taking off but I still think Ponting belongs with Lara and SAchin than with Dravid and Kallis. But the fact that he is really from a different era to Sachin and Lara (I am talking about when their genius flowered, not debuts and careers overlapping) means he never got the opportunity to face up to and do it against the sort of guys those two did. It is not his fault and it is not anyone's fault either but most would still rate the one who did it than the one who didn't because he did not have the opportunity.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not just those two. His whole list is wonky. He has two players who never even played Test cricket IIRC. Donald was at the far end of the top 50 and Ambrose was in the top 5 IIRC. It's not a very serious ranking.

yes but Donald never really showed up against Australia like he did against other teams. There is reason enough to NOT rate him as I think a number of the Aussies of the mid 90s who played against them thought Donald was a bit soft and wasn't really up for it against the best... Seemed to hear it often on commentary but I am juz talking off the top of my head. May well be wrong.

 

[Ikki]

yes but Donald never really showed up against Australia like he did against other teams. There is reason enough to NOT rate him as I think a number of the Aussies of the mid 90s who played against them thought Donald was a bit soft and wasn't really up for it against the best... Seemed to hear it often on commentary but I am juz talking off the top of my head. May well be wrong.

Did Murali show up? He's in the top 10. Boon and Fleming are rated higher than Kallis!

 

[Ikki]

yes but McGrath is a bowler in a batsman dominated era and Ponting is a batsman.

So is Steyn, but he doesn't share the consistency. People talk about McGrath as if he is always good against every opponent. Hardly the case.

And about Sri Lanka, I am sorry but Murali and Vaas in Sri Lanka with big totals backing them up in those conditions is about as tough as it can get for batters. Even India could not face him off that easily and lost the series... And no I am not talking about the 90s coz I am not sure if Lara toured Sri Lanka in the 90s.

You mentioned "and Sri Lanka" as if Ponting didn't do well against them. He averages 50 at home and away against them.

And again, about his turnaround.. You know there was a time when I rated Dravid better than him.. But now, I do think he is a class above. Dravid I guess tapered off more than Ponting taking off but I still think Ponting belongs with Lara and SAchin than with Dravid and Kallis. But the fact that he is really from a different era to Sachin and Lara (I am talking about when their genius flowered, not debuts and careers overlapping) means he never got the opportunity to face up to and do it against the sort of guys those two did. It is not his fault and it is not anyone's fault either but most would still rate the one who did it than the one who didn't because he did not have the opportunity.

But they didn't "do it" that's the point. Ponting "did it" as much if not more.

And this theory doesn't hold proper if we look at Waugh who did play with these guys throughout their careers and through the 90s and was much better against the best attacks. Seriously, Tendulkar and Lara are overrated. Not that they aren't fantastic but they were not that much better, if at all, than many playing during their careers.

 

[aussie]

Just wondering. Why are people talking about the runs Ponting made in 90s when he batted for the majority @ # 6?. Then compare those runs he made then againts those quality attacks to what Lara did?.

Ponting record in 90s is very much irrelevant to talking about his record as great batsman, since Ponting's Ponting's peak as the "great batsman" he is today, began exactly @ Headingley 2001 & not a match sooner.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Did you read your own post?



You are trying to argue that we shouldn't look at the stats because Ponting averages 119 in Pakistan. And those stats somehow lie, even though Ponting is great against them everywhere? The point was you don't have a point. Ok, it was not 10 tests worth, but that's because Ponting also played them on neutral grounds.

The ORIGINAL point was about AWAY averages so whether Lara averages 100 at home doesn't hide the fact that was being pointed out: he averages <50 everywhere bar West Indies and Sri Lanka.

BTW Ponting's overall average against Pakistan is 82, Lara's is 53.



If the post to which I responded was going to be taken seriously as a "proper argument" then mine had more merit .

It does matter what logic is used behind each vote. I hope people can put away their fanboy hats and just admit who did what without having to embellish myths to save face or to reason out their bias.

Ikki,
This is the last attempt I will make to explain my point, and I will try to be as straight and simple as I can to make you understand. However, I have a feeling that you will still not understand because you seem to display an attitude that "the guy disagreeing with me simply does not have a point by default..because he disagrees with me"

Ponting and Lara's statistical averages against all teams were being compared and Ponting's average of 119 IN Pakistan as opposed to Lara's 48 in Pakistan stood out and caught my eye. If it was complete, there would be no comparison, you cant compare someone who averages 119 with someone who averages 48. Its like comparing Donald Bradman with Geoffrey Boycott.
But I wanted to put that in perspective, that he played only 1 test match in Pakistan thats why his average seems to be 119 and it included an unbeaten knock of 70 odd.
I remember his performance against Pakistan in 02, on neutral grounds, and it was fantastic, and so was Lara against Pakistan in 06. Not really much of a difference there.
At home, both have been great against them.
So Ponting and Lara have both been great against Pakistan overall (both home and away), contrary to what a difference in batting averages of 119 and 48 would suggest.

 

[MrIncredible]

People seem to miss out the point that when it was difficult and against the best (i.e. the best attacks in the 90s) Ponting actually did do better than Lara.

and for that matter Tendy as well. So strange then that this person who started this thread would have ponting over LARA but not tendy as well.

fact is Ponting outperformed both Lara/Tendy vs WW and Donald and did well vs Amby/ Walsh

Tendy was poor vs WW, Donald, Mc Warne and did well vs Amby/Walsh
Lara was poor vs WW, Donald and very good vs McWarne

IMO Lara > or = Ponting (= or < Tendy) if that makes ne sense

 

[MrIncredible]

Puh-lease...

Every time someone scores runs against anyone notable on this forum the track is ****ing flat. What a coincidence.



Not really. Especially when you look at how he did against them all across the board. The top bowlers were all comparable for the decade. They all played the same attacks about the same amount of times, and it just so happened that Ponting was better overall. What a coincidence, since he is the best player of pace out of the 3.



I know, I can't wait for Santa either.



Same amount as what Tendulkar and Lara had.

You are welcome to your opinion and I am glad you're at least of the sane crowd to acknowledge how little there is in it. But the line about greatness is out of place with the rest of your comments.

And if people want to talk about playing well when at it's most difficult/against the best...then it's Steve Waugh comfortably. He makes these 3 look like flat-track bullies. But of course, it's only about the best when Lara is shown up to be so inconsistent.

Good point Ikki and i was waiting patiently for some one to point this out. The very reason y, in the best batsman of the 90s thread i rated Steve Waugh quite comfortably only for this ave person to somehow argue that tendy was better even though he (tendy) failed vs the best attacks of the 90s.

 

[Ikki]

Ikki

Yes, but Ponting has still been better than Lara against Pakistan; home, away or neutral. Your original point is not really a reason to shun the statistics as you claimed originally it was. As I mentioned pages ago; it doesn't matter that Ponting's average over Pakistan away is 119, what matters is the point that was being made: Ponting averages over 50 everywhere bar India and England, and Lara averages under 50 everywhere bar Sri Lanka and West Indies. The suggestion of those figures may not be exactly accurate, but it certainly is not contrary to those figures, even if you want to combine the neutral & away averages.

Against Pakistan:

[B]          Home  Away Neutral  [U]Overall[/U][/B]
[B]Ponting[/B]    75   119    86       [U]82[/U]
[B]Lara[/B]       61   48              [U]53[/U]

What's so misleading about that, that we have to discount the stats?

 

[Ikki]

Just wondering. Why are people talking about the runs Ponting made in 90s when he batted for the majority @ # 6?. Then compare those runs he made then againts those quality attacks to what Lara did?.

Ponting record in 90s is very much irrelevant to talking about his record as great batsman, since Ponting's Ponting's peak as the "great batsman" he is today, began exactly @ Headingley 2001 & not a match sooner.

Because whether he was a "great batsman" is irrelevant when he faced the same strong attacks as a "not great batsman" and did better than the "great batsmen". People constantly use the 90s and the bowlers in that era to constantly demean batsmen who made their name post 2000 but that argument just doesn't run with Ponting.

 

[MrIncredible]

i'm not sure it gets any clearer to be honest. Lara only succeeded against 1 top attack in the 90s and ponting didn't fail against any (unless you count india in india).



The reality is, no one is ever going to face all the bowlers in testing conditions when all the bowlers are at their peak, etc, so it's just nonsensical to completely demean worthy innings against great bowlers.

If i wanna do the same, i can say, for sachin, that he succeeded only against the windies and played an australian side which didn't have warne/mcgrath most of the time, and that he failed against pakistan and s.africa too.

So the only person that it really leaves is steve waugh. So clearly, just performing against the best, at their best, is not such great criteria on it's own.

If you want my true opinion; lara did the best against the absolute best mostly when they were at their best - you know who i am referring to. But that fact alone does not mean one is greater than another player.



[b]my god is a weird one[/b]. He thinks aravinda da silva is greater than gilchrist and that boof is better than steve waugh.

lmao

 

[aussie]

Because whether he was a "great batsman" is irrelevant when he faced the same strong attacks as a "not great batsman" and did better than the "great batsmen". People constantly use the 90s and the bowlers in that era to constantly demean batsmen who made their name post 2000 but that argument just doesn't run with Ponting.

Yea, but i dont think him doing better then really means much tbf, since he clearly wasn't the complete batsmen he is now, that he became after that Leeds test. He wasn't even better than Dravid in the late 90s.

After all Ponting concievably could have been dropped after IND 2001 for either Lehmann in 01 Ashes & another twist could have happened there. But thank god it didn't..

Punters good scores in the 90s againts those good/great attacks was just him shwoing glimpses of his talent, nothing more IMO.

 

[Ikki]

Yea, but i dont think him doing better then really means much tbf, since he clearly wasn't the complete batsmen he is now, that he became after that Leeds test. He wasn't even better than Dravid in the late 90s.

After all Ponting concievably could have been dropped after IND 2001 for either Lehmann in 01 Ashes & another twist could have happened there. But thank god it didn't..

Punters good scores in the 90s againts those good/great attacks was just him shwoing glimpses of his talent, nothing more IMO.

It matters not an iota whether he was great or not at that time. In fact, that would be an argument to enhance his case; since he had those successes when he was younger and only showed "glimpses"; compared to now that he is a complete batsman.

The fact that he could have been dropped is also absolutely irrelevant. Because he wasn't and turned himself into a star. If he had been dropped to never get going like he has then this comparison would never take place at all.

This line of reasoning is about as silly as Richard's take on batsmen not being greats because they weren't originally what they then came to be (i.e. Sehwag/Langer weren't originally openers so they can't be all-time great openers).

 

[MrIncredible]

IMO Ponting is every bit as good as Lara (and Tendy) and arguably better for the reasons already elaborated on by Ikki ie his record vs the great attacks by Ponting which is superior to both Lara's and Tendy's. I pick Lara over Ponting because:

A. Lara is West Indian
B. Lara is West Indian

 

[aussie]

It matters not an iota whether he was great or not at that time. In fact, that would be an argument to enhance his case; since he had those successes when he was younger and only showed "glimpses"; compared to now that he is a complete batsman.

The fact that he could have been dropped is also absolutely irrelevant. Because he wasn't and turned himself into a star. If he had been dropped to never get going like he has then this comparison would never take place at all.

This line of reasoning is about as silly as Richard's take on batsmen not being greats because they weren't originally what they then came to be (i.e. Sehwag/Langer weren't originally openers so they can't be all-time great openers).

Putting the hypoteticals about what could have happened in the 2001 Ashes. He was dropped in the mid 90s. Ponting defiantely didn't have the ability to play an innings like he did @ Old Trafford 05 in the 90s & well we all know what his game was like vs the spinners.

Overall though my position on Ponting is him as his peak between 2001 - 2009 could definately have scored runs like Tendy & Lara in the 90s. But i still & always will have him below both of them based on just watching them bat, since the stats wont tell the whole truth here.

 

[Ikki]

So what if he was dropped? He played those bowlers across many tests and succeeded against them, he wasn't watching them on TV. The runs count all the same. End of story. The fact that at the time he scored those runs he wasn't an all-time great is not relevant at all. Imagine a batsman debuting against Warne and McGrath, scoring a double-century and not having it count because said batsman wasn't a great yet. LOL

And just watching won't tell you the truth either. I've watched the careers of all pretty much in their entirety. I like Lara's style the most and Tendulkar's the least TBH - flamboyance catches my eye more than textbook correctness - and seemed impossible to get out when going. But one thing I know is neither keep up with Ponting's consistency to score runs and both didn't fare as well against the best attacks.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

I didn't want this to become a Tendulkar vs Ponting/Lara debate because- wait for it- the thread was for Ponting vs Lara. Is that hard to understand? And it's obvious that you didn't read the thread because I clearly mentioned that -

If I had one spot remaining in a World 11 side, I would choose Ponting over Lara and Tendulkar,

If I wanted someone to bat for my life, I would choose Tendulkar over Ponting and Lara.

If I just wanted to watch someone bat, I would choose Lara over Ponting and Tendulkar.

 

[MrIncredible]

U cant start a thread (Lara vs Ponting) without Tendy coming up somewhere in the argument, otherwise u shouldnt have started the thread in the first place. Just common sense. Same way Shane Warne vs ne other bowler will eventually, include some mention of Murali somewhere.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Maybe but that doesn't stop me from saying what I want to say.

 

[aussie]

So what if he was dropped? He played those bowlers across many tests and succeeded against them, he wasn't watching them on TV. The runs count all the same. End of story.

No. The fact that he was dropped pretty much proves that he showed glimpses of his potential by scoring runs here of there againts those great bowlers, but was clearly not the finihsed article. At no point since Headingley 2001 has Ponting ever hit a run that his place was questioned.

You cant seriously say that Ponting from 95-99 was better than Lara now?.

The fact that at the time he scored those runs he wasn't an all-time great is not relevant at all. Imagine a batsman debuting against Warne and McGrath, scoring a double-century and not having it count because said batsman wasn't a great yet. LOL.

Wel Lou Vincent scored a hundred on debut vs McGrath/Warne, Ganga scored back to centuries on his first appearance againts them & Nayan Mongia. Plus you have the example of Mahmood having a superb debut series vs SA in 97/98. We both know where they are now..

And just watching won't tell you the truth either. I've watched the careers of all pretty much in their entirety. I like Lara's style the most and Tendulkar's the least TBH - flamboyance catches my eye more than textbook correctness - and seemed impossible to get out when going. But one thing I know is neither keep up with Ponting's consistency to score runs and both didn't fare as well against the best attacks.

Na man. You placing too much emphasis on those runs he scored in the 90s as i said above.

I'd give you that both Tendy/Ponting where better at pace (of the great bowlers) than Lara. But neither where as good againts him vs spin at their peaks or where as destructive as Lara.

Ponting has never had a series comparable to what Lara did to AUS 99 or SRI 2001. That alone makes Punter come out second best to Prince of Port-of-Spain..