Is Ricky Ponting a better batsman than Brian Lara?

[Pratters]

Yeah, Sean and I are not saying Ponting is a weak player of spin bowling. As I have said repeatedly, Ponting's failures in India have been taken largely out of context by a lot of Ponting detractors IMO.

 

[aussie]

Tendy = Ponting vs quality fast bowling at their best IMO. Ponting just plays a ***ier pull or hook shot.

 

[aussie]

This is one of the primary reasons i rate Lara so highly and over the 'others' (not Ponting but Tendy). I dont think ne of the 3 has ever dominated a very good/great bowling attack (for an entire series) except for Lara. Of course this could all be balanced by his dismal series vs the great/very good attacks but Tendy and Ponting have also had their own share of failings vs very good attacks but none have reached Lara's heights. Neither have dominated a great attack to the extent Lara did to Warne/Mcgrath/Gillespie in 99 or a very good attack like: Murali/Vaas in '01 or Pollock/Ntini away in '03.

Dont agree that this was very good attack then as we have debated before. But otherwise i agree with you.

 

[Top_Cat]

Tendy = Ponting vs quality fast bowling at their best IMO. Ponting just plays a ***ier pull or hook shot.

Hot. Back in 5....

 

[aussie]

It doesn't matter an iota that he wasn't the finished article.

A batsman can score runs here or there againts quality pace attacks, showing glimpses of his potential but not yet be the finished article.

Look at the examples Hayden. Scored a hundred vs Ambrose/Walsh in 97 but was still dropped. He clearly wasn't the same batsman he was from IND 01 onwards. (

VVS Laxman scored that brilliant 167 vs AUS in SCG 99. But he clearly was the finished article in the 90s, until after his fantastic performances vs AUS in 2001 onwards.

Langer. Clearly wasn't as good as he was in 90s although he scored hundreds againt some good attakcs, that he was when he began opening in the Oval 01 to SCG 07.

Tom Graveney. In an 18 year test career, was in & out of the ENG team. Scored hundreds againts good teams. But he he peaked at END of his career.

Plus im sure they are many more in the games history.

Fact is you cant use the runs Ponting scored againts the Donald/Pollock etc in the 90s although he was technically did better than Lara. Since he wasn't at his peak & he clearly wasn't better than Lara.

That's not even the contention. The point was Ponting of the 90s fared better against the best attacks compared to Lara of the 90s. Pretty easy to grasp.

The PAK attack Lara faced in 92/93 is way better than PAK attack Ponting faced in 99/00 for sure. Although Lara was exposed techically in PAK 97.

Yes statistically. Ponting fared better than Lara vs Donald & Pollock. But Lara although he was exposed technically in SA 98, was touring. Ponting was at home 97/98.

Lara was batting @ 3/4 againts the new ball. Ponting way down @ 6.

Ponting had only JUST come back into the AUS team during the 97 Ashes. He was just building himself. As i said no way was Ponting better than Lara in this period. Saying Ponting was better againts better attacks in the 90s than Lara is blindly looking at stats & reading the circumstances of their careers.

Did Lou Vincent also score tons against Ambrose/Walsh, Wasim/Waqar, Donald/Pollock and end up with 130+ tests averaging 50+? I didn't think so.

Ha thats was my aim of this comparison to show that not because a player may have a fantastic start againts a qaulity pace attack, that it means he will build on it. So again you cant use that argument for Ponting from 95 to 2001 at all...

It really doesn't matter because Lara was inconsistent vs the rest of the attacks compared to Ponting with regards to the best attacks in the 90s. That's the discussion. Overall, who did better against all those attacks? Ponting. Goodnight.

Whether that makes him the better batsman is still a question. But the question of "who did better against the best attacks of the 90s" has already been answered and Ponting being an all-time great at the time has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch to do with it.

Reading it all wrong yo. See above..

 

[age_master]

Pretty much equal for mine overall, Ponting is possibly a little more consistent but at his best Lara was the best i have ever seen.

 

[Ikki]

A batsman can score runs here or there againts quality pace attacks, showing glimpses of his potential but not yet be the finished article.

Look at the examples Hayden. Scored a hundred vs Ambrose/Walsh in 97 but was still dropped. He clearly wasn't the same batsman he was from IND 01 onwards. (

VVS Laxman scored that brilliant 167 vs AUS in SCG 99. But he clearly was the finished article in the 90s, until after his fantastic performances vs AUS in 2001 onwards.

Langer. Clearly wasn't as good as he was in 90s although he scored hundreds againt some good attakcs, that he was when he began opening in the Oval 01 to SCG 07.

Tom Graveney. In an 18 year test career, was in & out of the ENG team. Scored hundreds againts good teams. But he he peaked at END of his career.

Plus im sure they are many more in the games history.

It doesn't really matter what Laxman, Langer or Graveney did because none of them compare with Ponting.

Ponting scores runs more "here" than "there" hence his healthy average across all the best attacks of the 90s. Saying a batsman scored runs "here and there" isn't distinguishing him from anyone since all of them do that. The point, again, is that their average shows they scored them more often than not; which is the case.

Langer only did well against Pakistan, not all the others like Ponting. Laxman, and even someone like Hayden, even if they scored runs, did not do it enough. Graveney didn't stay on to build a career like Ponting's so his innings alone against the best (and I haven't checked them) are not enough to even buy a ticket to get into this debate.

Again, if you are averaging 40-65 against the best attacks of the time over 10+ tests then "glimpses" matter.

Fact is you cant use the runs Ponting scored againts the Donald/Pollock etc in the 90s although he was technically did better than Lara. Since he wasn't at his peak & he clearly wasn't better than Lara.

FACT is, he scored more runs against an attack, regardless if it was his peak or not. Do you understand this? A batsman or bowler doesn't have to be at their peak for their good innings to count. If they were then crap, then it counts. But they weren't; they were still strong.

No one said he was clearly better than Lara in the 90s; but he was better against the best attacks.

The PAK attack Lara faced in 92/93 is way better than PAK attack Ponting faced in 99/00 for sure. Although Lara was exposed techically in PAK 97.

Yes statistically. Ponting fared better than Lara vs Donald & Pollock. But Lara although he was exposed technically in SA 98, was touring. Ponting was at home 97/98.

Lara was batting @ 3/4 againts the new ball. Ponting way down @ 6.

And? Lara failed, even if the same attack was more inform during his time. Ponting didn't, full stop. It's not like Wasim and co were on their last legs; they were still force.

Ponting had only JUST come back into the AUS team during the 97 Ashes. He was just building himself. As i said no way was Ponting better than Lara in this period. Saying Ponting was better againts better attacks in the 90s than Lara is blindly looking at stats & reading the circumstances of their careers.

Lara scored runs against Australia and that's it. He averages in the 30s against the others. How can this be interpreted any other way? Ponting's lowest average against these attacks is 40. It's not a few points we're arguing over here.

You makin no sense G; you is trippin' son. Who da eff cares if Ponting was inconsistent dawg; he sucked ass against the worst teams homie; not the best bro.

[/me trying to speak your tongue]

Ha thats was my aim of this comparison to show that not because a player may have a fantastic start againts a qaulity pace attack, that it means he will build on it. So again you cant use that argument for Ponting from 95 to 2001 at all...

See, this is your problem; WE KNOW HE BUILT ON IT. It is a matter of history. Therefore, they count. If he HADN'T then you'd have a point. Saying he COULD have not built on it is a non-point...because he did. Case closed.

 

[honestbharani]

Whatever it was, it wasn't more runs.

And Ponting > all mentioned in this thread with the exception of Waugh in playing pace.

And definitely not facing similar quality of bowling either...


Ikki, you are simply going around in circles.. Yes, Ponting scored more and more consistently but his peak and their peaks were simply at different times, against different quality attacks on different sort of wickets... For instance, if we do see someone like a SEhwag go on and average more (well much more) than a Hayden will you accept SEhwag is better?

 

[honestbharani]

Whatever it was, it wasn't more runs.

And Ponting > all mentioned in this thread with the exception of Waugh in playing pace.

And Ikki, that thing about being better in playing pace... It is highly subjective... In fact, it is even worse than trying to argue who is better overall... I don't think Ponting is that poor against spin as you guys are making out, and I don't think he is that good against pace as you are making out...

 

[Ikki]

And definitely not facing similar quality of bowling either...


Ikki, you are simply going around in circles.. Yes, Ponting scored more and more consistently but his peak and their peaks were simply at different times, against different quality attacks on different sort of wickets... For instance, if we do see someone like a SEhwag go on and average more (well much more) than a Hayden will you accept SEhwag is better?

Comparing Sehwag's flat-track history and Ponting's innings against the best in the 90s...is an insult to Ponting. The qualities were similar and the wickets were more than competitive.

Against the best attacks of the 90s: Waugh S > Ponting > Tendulkar > Lara.

And Ikki, that thing about being better in playing pace... It is highly subjective... In fact, it is even worse than trying to argue who is better overall... I don't think Ponting is that poor against spin as you guys are making out, and I don't think he is that good against pace as you are making out...

It's not really that subjective. No one names Mark Waugh (who actually was pretty decent and consistent) or Yuvraj Singh as great players of pace.

Ask yourself, who were the best pace attacks and among them who did the best? I think we've established that already. And unless there is a serious argument against what has already been brought up, I'll consider this one done and dusted.

 

[Sir Alex]

How is it inherently better to get out a lot to Harbhajan than it is to get out a lot to Murali?

Ponting is pretty underrated against spin though. It's mainly in India where they think he can't play the stuff for **** because Kumble and Harbhajan have got the better of him at home. Against any other spinner, and even against those two in Australia, he's as good as they come. Ponting's not weak against spin, he's just weak against Harbhajan.

I am not sure about this. But Ponting struggled in India in 1998 series also right? I don't think there was Harbhijan then.

 

[Sir Alex]

Tendy = Ponting vs quality fast bowling at their best IMO. Ponting just plays a ***ier pull or hook shot.

I agree with this

 

[Sir Alex]

Ponting has struggled against such unfancied guys like Raju etc also. He had a nice outing in Sri Lanka against Murali but it is difficult to assume he is a good player of spin just by looking how he has faced spinners in Australia. Still I rate him above Lara because of the sheer consistency of his game and his superior ability against pace bowling. Considering he hardly plays 20% of cricket in spinning conditions, and rest 80% on pace bowling friendly/flat conditions, it always is good for him to be a great player of pace than great player of spin.

 

[honestbharani]

Comparing Sehwag's flat-track history and Ponting's innings against the best in the 90s...is an insult to Ponting. The qualities were similar and the wickets were more than competitive.

Against the best attacks of the 90s: Waugh S > Ponting > Tendulkar > Lara.



It's not really that subjective. No one names Mark Waugh (who actually was pretty decent and consistent) or Yuvraj Singh as great players of pace.

Ask yourself, who were the best pace attacks and among them who did the best? I think we've established that already. And unless there is a serious argument against what has already been brought up, I'll consider this one done and dusted.

I don't think it is conclusively proven coz the best attack of the 90s would mean the Ws together (and Ponting NEVER faced them in the 90s together), Ambrose and Walsh with two knocks of 50+ over 8 or 9, and the Indian attack in India where he was raped.. The only real success here is against Donald and Pollock.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't think it is conclusively proven coz the best attack of the 90s would mean the Ws together (and Ponting NEVER faced them in the 90s together), Ambrose and Walsh with two knocks of 50+ over 8 or 9, and the Indian attack in India where he was raped.. The only real success here is against Donald and Pollock.

I think IKKI meant "pace attack" by attack.

 

[honestbharani]

I think IKKI meant "pace attack" by attack.

not really.. He is simply telling Punter was better against the best attacks and EASILY better against the best pace attacks...

 

[Sir Alex]

not really.. He is simply telling Punter was better against the best attacks and EASILY better against the best pace attacks...

Then I think he is not right.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think it is conclusively proven coz the best attack of the 90s would mean the Ws together (and Ponting NEVER faced them in the 90s together), Ambrose and Walsh with two knocks of 50+ over 8 or 9, and the Indian attack in India where he was raped.. The only real success here is against Donald and Pollock.

Nothing is ever conclusively proven. Just as I can argue that despite the fact that Ponting did poorly against average bowlers in India; everywhere else and against every spinner he did as good if not better than Lara. Whilst Lara had trouble against the likes of Kumble and Vettori. It's all arguable.

Ponting scored 104 in Bridgetown against Ambrose and Walsh; all his tests against the WIndies they were together and he averages 40 against them.

And 197 against Wasim, Saqlain and a young Akhtar, averages 50 against Pakistan. And clearly played S.Africa well. Still a far cry from averaging 30s, even if you were to add Waqar to that list - who Ponting did actually face later in the 00s in those harsh neutral tests.

Also, how did Lara do against India in India? So even if you want to argue that India in India should count, Lara still only has a solitary success against Australia. Failure against the 3 others. Ponting failed in India, but succeeded against the 3 others. It's all arguable, but IMO that's pretty conclusive amongst greats.

 

[bagapath]

Against the best attacks of the 90s: Waugh S > Ponting > Tendulkar > Lara.

ikki's top eleven cricketers of all time....

bradman
warne
miller
gilchrist
lillee
mcgrath
lindwall
g.chappell
ponting
border
s.waugh

(in any order)

 

[Ikki]

ikki's top eleven cricketers of all time....

bradman
warne
miller
gilchrist
lillee
mcgrath
lindwall
g.chappell
ponting
border
s.waugh

(in any order)

Nice try, but anyone denying that Waugh wasn't the best against the best attacks in the 90s either didn't watch cricket or doesn't know how to look up scorecards/stats. He not only played many more tests against the best compared to the other 3 mentioned here, he succeeded against them, and was better in the homes of said attacks.