Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I always get confused beacuse he scored 6996 Test runs, needed 4 more runs to keep his average to at least 100. Apologies, will correct.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Is Ricky Ponting the best batsman test cricket has seen since Bradman ?
- Thread starter Salamuddin
- Start date
Fiery
Banned
Don't let it happen again Perm
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Its already once in 130 years and it doesnt look like we are going to get another in a hurry.
As far as not outs are concerned its inbteresting to see how they affect averages of top batsmen in the history of the game.
Of all the batsmen who have averaged over 50 in tests (criteria being minumum 50 test innings) and their averages with and without the not outs. As can be seen the weighted average of how much the batting average is boosted is 11.1 (Bradman 12.5).
If you declared Bradman as being OUT for all his not out innings, he still manages a batting average of 87.5 !!
The others are nowhere near him even if there stats are not treated in the same way
One cant say whether or not we will see another Bradman. I would pray we see one in the next twenty years (before I die) but it seems too long a shot - with or without not outs.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
It could be argued that that might have a lot to do with the weakening of opposition by the war - not something I've looked into a great deal, but I'd have thought the immediate post-war attacks weren't as good as the pre-war ones.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Oh. I would like to see him just as I would like to see all the wonders of the world.
Perm
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
While I can understand where you are coming from I would very much like to see another Bradman, if only for the selfish reasons of being able to watch his brilliance. But Sir Donald Bradman is a sacred cricketer and I doubt any batsman will ever overtake him, that is a measure of how special he is. Even in today's game of flat pitches and small grounds, how many batsman can average almost 100 over a period of 52 Test matches?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Quoting Perm from page 1 of thread:
"Whilst Ponting isn't as "special" as Lara or Tendulkar, and doesn't have the genius of either, he is an absolute run machine and it would be hard to look past him."
Yeah. I recall an interview where Bradman said that he'd seen a lot of players who were better batsmen than he was, but they just kept getting out!!!!
It's not how, it's how many.
"Whilst Ponting isn't as "special" as Lara or Tendulkar, and doesn't have the genius of either, he is an absolute run machine and it would be hard to look past him."
Yeah. I recall an interview where Bradman said that he'd seen a lot of players who were better batsmen than he was, but they just kept getting out!!!!
It's not how, it's how many.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, the 3rd Ashes test in 05 was a nothing match, likewise the WC final in 03.
Please - the bloke bats 3 - his position in the line up means that whenever just one early wicket falls, he's under pressure. 1 for isn't such a big deal, 2 for always is.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
Once again, at their peaks pretty sure Lara and Sachin got a fair few runs on the board too.
Whilst I agree that how many runs you make is the final judgment of how good a player is, its far from foreign for attractive players to actually make runs consistently as well. Mid-90s you couldn't go two-three innings without seeing Sachin score over 60-70.
Whilst I agree that how many runs you make is the final judgment of how good a player is, its far from foreign for attractive players to actually make runs consistently as well. Mid-90s you couldn't go two-three innings without seeing Sachin score over 60-70.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Quite right - and I'm not decrying those guys' performances one whit. I'd rather watch Lara for explosiveness and Sachin for technical prowess, even Dravid, than Ponting.
Bradman was hardly a great stylist either, though. When he came along, Archie Jackson was considered a better player to watch, likewise Kippax and even the manner in which McCabe played was easier on the eye than the Don. But Bradman was the ultimate winner, and that, along with his freakish run scoring, explains his popularity.
Bill Brown tells of opneing the batting in tests in Australia and getting wonderful support - until lunch. If you went on past lunch, you were eating into Bradman's time and the crowd got very antsy, apparently. Likewise, when he got out, thousands would stand up and leave - incredible!!! Colin McCool nearly got knocked over at the SCG one day trying to walk out to bat (may have been when Bradman got his 234 there - not sure), he had to fight his way past the members leaving. His quote was along ht elines of "I could have been wearing glasses and a fake moustache - no one would have noticed".
What a hold on an entire country Bradman must have had.
R_D
International Debutant
By pressure i think what some mean is that Sachin and Lara haven't had the luxury of knowing they still have likes of Clarke, Martin, Gilchrist to still come behind him. AS been said many times before both Sachin and Lara had to carry their team for much of the 90's. Opposition knew soon as you get one of them the match was theirs for taking.
Not Ponting's fault but thats just how it is.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
But that's just not so - Tendulkar has had Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag (when good), Ganguly at different times, and many of them together for lengthy periods, and in the 90s, Lara had players like Richardson (early doors), J Adams (when good), Sarwan, Chanderpaul. Not the depth that India and Australia both had, to be sure, but Ponting's performances have been the cornerstone of Australia's batting success for the past 3-4 years. It's he who takes the pressure off others.
They're all very fine players and have their strengths, but I still think Ponting has dmeonstrated an ability to play under pressure as much as the other two, when one factors in his spot in the batting order, albet a very strong order.
R_D
International Debutant
Dravid wasn't the player he's today and sehwag only came into the team 4 or 5 years ago. Laxman wasn't part of the team in the 90's either. Might've come in the team in 98 or 99.
Sarwan, Chanderpaul and Adams hardly are in same category as Martyn, Clarke, Gilchrist. Chanderpaul perhaps the most inconsitent player ever and jimmy Adams.. only good against india and Sarwan lots of promise but hardly ever delivers. I can see how they would lead someone with alot of confidence.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I agree that to an extent, Sachin did have a bit of support but post 96 or so, Lara has never had any real quality batting support. To include blokes like Adams (he had 2 or 3 very good series and that's it) etc. there is just not fair to Lara.
Salamuddin
International Debutant
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
This post made me recall an earlier debate we had on how good was Bradman and went looking for it instead of writing on him again.
Here is what I said then.
The thread Good to see that most of those who participated in the discussion then are still aroundExcellent debate.
My two bit worth
On how good was Bradman
Its wrong to run down Bradman's record on the basis of the changes in the game. Firstly since changes have been in both directions (favourable and unfavourable to the batsmen) and secondly since we started with the premise that we are comparing him with reference to his record versus those of his contemporaries this arguement is invalid.
Statistics are not a perfect criteria but there is no more appropriate one available.. Secondly, if there is one instance where statistics reveal much more than they hide, it is Bradman's overwhelming career record. In any event there is enough written matter available from those who played and studied the game in addition to his stats. Benaud is still around and he has seen him play. I have had the pleasure of talking at length to two Indian cricketers who played against him and the opinion is totally unconditional on his being a phenomenon.
Fallibility against fast short pitched bowling being a weakness is unadulterated b/s.. The whole case is built around the bodyline series. No one in those times could counter it. McCabe's brilliant innings notwithstanding. To say that modern batsmen would have fared better is to display utter ignorance of what bodyline was. Modern batsmen are protected by laws (let alone helmets) which outlaw the bowling as well as render bodyline tactics totally untenable with fielding restriction behind square. So forget it.
Since he played mainly against England, his record is somehow devalued. . Unadulterated b/s. England had been playing Test cricket for 50 years. The Golden age of cricket has just passed when he made his debut. The game and its techniques were fully evolved and are not greatly changed to this day. So much so, Bradman's art of cricket is still the best cricket coaching book ever (slight unorthocoxy in grip and off side driving notwithstanding). His record against England as someone just pointed out is great. This was an England where almost the entire young male population was available and enthusiastic for a cricketing career. England was a much more difficult opposition than the aggregate of today's ten test sides.
He was the greatest batsman, the greatest cricketer and perhaps (the qualification for want of knowledge of all sports in the world) the greatest sportsman the world has seen.
His critics have always existed. Their case is built around his slightly unorthodox technique (very orthodox by today's standards), his preference AND ability to pull and cut deliveries that did not appear to be short pitched enough (thereby making him appear to be not a classical batsman like say Hobbs), his apparent selfishness (almost all ruthlessly focused sportsmen have suffered from this accusation) and the freak coincidences which are bound to be there in a twenty year long career. Like his being Bedser's Bunny.
Will see another like him
Highly improbable. Why ?
He clearly had exceptional physical attributes of eyesight and a hand eye coordination that allowed him to spot the ball earlier than everyone else and move into position to make a mockery of the intended length of the delivery.
PLUS he had a phenomenal intellect which allowed him to dissect the game and adapt to his own modified version of the classical technique of the day and hone it to perfection. A great example is his extremely dominant right hand while cover driving and his terrific ability to keep these drives, always on the carpet which is extremely difficult unless onje always plays the ball that fraction of a bit later.
PLUS he was the first to really understand the term 'percentage' cricket. To him it did not mean cutting out risky shots. He redefined what was risky according to his own extraordinary abilities. He pulled at slightly short of a length deliveries since he felt he had a much better probability of pulling it off than getting out to it. The fact that others couldnt do the same made them proclaim that he would be a disaster in England. One tour and 974 test runs by the 22 year old made it clear this was one disaster never going to happen. He changed his game again when he toured in 1948 to adjust to his age but still managed a very healthy performance.
PLUS he devised totally unique and physically extraordinarily demanding methods of practice for himself from an early age and mastered them. Imagine hitting a golf ball against a round stake and hitting it at a point so that it came back to you and did not have to run to fetch it. Then imagine trying it with a stump. The mind boggles.
Add these physical attributes, the intellect to study the game and dissect it like a surgeon, the years of mind boggling training regimens and to this concoction add the amazing mental strength, unwavering focus and ambition to be the best in the world from a very early age and its clear to see that such a combination would truly make for very long odds indeed of a repeat.
pup11
International Coach
Yup Bradman is easily the best batsmen ever and his talent and skill is something which we might never see again in any modern batsmen.
But it won't be wrong either to say Ponting is fast moving towards becoming the best batsmen of his era, but still whatever greatness Ponting achieves in his remaining career, Bradman still would be way ahead of the rest of the pack because he was and he would always remain the best the world has seen.
But it won't be wrong either to say Ponting is fast moving towards becoming the best batsmen of his era, but still whatever greatness Ponting achieves in his remaining career, Bradman still would be way ahead of the rest of the pack because he was and he would always remain the best the world has seen.