Ricky Ponting overtakes Allan Border

[Sanz]

Just to but in. I would say definately no, 3rd is the highest you could put him. Since people can based on opinion argue with solid points whether he was better than S Waugh, Border or Harvey.

G Chappell would always be second to Bradman without a doubt. His performances vs WI in WI during world series cricket proves why.

So People can't argue that Ponting is better than GC ?

 

[MrIncredible]

Ironically, Ponting (and I'll refer to him as this is his thread) had problems with the weaker sides in the 90s. His records against the best sides in the 90s is very good. He averaged 63 against S.Africa, 50 against Pakistan and 40 against the WIndies - indeed, the best record IIRC against these sides out of all the batsmen you named.

Even more ironic is how you rate Waugh, yet seem to give him a free pass on how dire he was earlier yet suddenly became class in the 90s. IIRC Gooch also stepped it up in the 90s.It happens, players grow, change and get better. Players like Dravid, Ponting and Kallis are more or less the same age and peaked more or less at the same age, and at an age you would expect them too. Sure it has become a little easier but the change is exaggerated to an unfair level. IIRC the difference between batting averages is a matter of 2-3 runs between the 90s and the 00s (which is comparable to earlier decades as the 90s is probably the hardest era, yet again not by a great deal). You make it sound like a coincidence that can only be explained by bad bowling and/or easy pitches when it's really quite explainable in other ways - i.e. players play naturally more aggressively.

Not to mention that when an attack, say WIndies, got weak, an attack like Sri Lanka's got very strong and the men in the above did well against such an attack. Gotta have a much wider view of all this IMO and simple generalisations like "2000+ flat decks" make everybody none the wiser.

S Waugh debuted in the 80s facing the following bowlers from the following countries:

WI: Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson, Bishop, Marshall
Pak: Qasim, Qadir, Wasim, Waqar, Imran
NzL: Hadlee, Chatfield
India: Dev, Kumble
RSA: Donald, DeVilliers

When he found his 'footing' in the 90s he still faced most of the above (very good/great bowlers and owned them or atleast did well vs them.)

BTW Im very much aware of how well Ponting did vs Pak, Wi and RSA during his early years. I think u and the rest of the posters missed my point completely (not the 1st time either). The point im making is that bowling fell off after 2001 and batsmen of the time took advantage as a result.

Case in point. Prior to 2001 Lara (my fav batsman btw) averaged low 30s vs RSA and Pak. Post 01 up to his retirement his averaged ballooned to around 50 vs both teams. Care to guess y?? And it has nothing to do with maturity.

Ponting went from averagin 39 vs wi with Walsh/Amby to averaging 84 vs wi post their retirement and went from averagin 45 vs RSA wit Donald to 58 post 01 til now.


I

 

[MrIncredible]

So People can't argue that Ponting is better than GC ?

They can but to say he is "easily" better is doing a serious disservice to Chappell IMO and im not even Australian

 

[Ikki]

S Waugh debuted in the 80s facing the following bowlers from the following countries:

WI: Ambrose, Walsh, Patterson, Bishop, Marshall
Pak: Qasim, Qadir, Wasim, Waqar, Imran
NzL: Hadlee, Chatfield
India: Dev, Kumble
RSA: Donald, DeVilliers

When he found his 'footing' in the 90s he still faced most of the above (very good/great bowlers and owned them or atleast did well vs them.)

BTW Im very much aware of how well Ponting did vs Pak, Wi and RSA during his early years. I think u and the rest of the posters missed my point completely (not the 1st time either). The point im making is that bowling fell off after 2001 and batsmen of the time took advantage as a result.

Case in point. Prior to 2001 Lara (my fav batsman btw) averaged low 30s vs RSA and Pak. Post 01 up to his retirement his averaged ballooned to around 50 vs both teams. Care to guess y?? And it has nothing to do with maturity.

Ponting went from averagin 39 vs wi with Walsh/Amby to averaging 84 vs wi post their retirement and went from averagin 45 vs RSA wit Donald to 58 post 01 til now.
I

You missed the point. Your argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy or a circular argument. One may conclude that McGrath, Donald and co. are crap bowlers simply because Waugh and Gooch failed against the Marshalls of the world, only a few years earlier - using that same standard. We don't say, for example, that the batsmen were just not that good enough in the 90s and were being outdone by the bowlers in the 90s, we are just assuming they were good but faced tougher opposition.

Likewise, how do we know that we in fact simply have a generation where we are maybe blessed to have a few more great batsmen than normal and that in itself is not definitive of a qualitative factor with regards to bowling or pitches.

You just never really know. So we largely go by with testimony and many see the likes of Ponting, Lara and Sachin as the greatest of all time. These praises from past cricketers, so surely this gap in standard you are suggesting is exaggerated.

It's not a matter of great attack or nothing. The S.African attack, for example, may not be considered great, but it is still very very good. It's not something to hold against batsmen of this era by batting against these kinds of attacks. It's practically as good if not better than every attack in the 80s bar Pakistan of the late 80s and the WIndies.

 

[Ikki]

Just to but in. I would say definately no, 3rd is the highest you could put him. Since people can based on opinion argue with solid points whether he was better than S Waugh, Border or Harvey.

G Chappell would always be second to Bradman without a doubt. His performances vs WI in WI during world series cricket proves why.

You could put him as high as 2nd, to be frank. Although it's debatable either way.

 

[MrIncredible]

You missed the point. Your argument is a self-fulfilling prophecy or a circular argument. One may conclude that McGrath, Donald and co. are crap bowlers simply because Waugh and Gooch failed against the Marshalls of the world, only a few years earlier - using that same standard. We don't say, for example, that the batsmen were just not that good enough in the 90s and were being outdone by the bowlers in the 90s, we are just assuming they were good but faced tougher opposition.

Likewise, how do we know that we in fact simply have a generation where we are maybe blessed to have a few more great batsmen than normal and that in itself is not definitive of a qualitative factor with regards to bowling or pitches.

You just never really know. So we largely go by with testimony and many see the likes of Ponting, Lara and Sachin as the greatest of all time. These praises from past cricketers, so surely this gap in standard you are suggesting is exaggerated.

It's not a matter of great attack or nothing. The S.African attack, for example, may not be considered great, but it is still very very good. It's not something to hold against batsmen of this era by batting against these kinds of attacks. It's practically as good if not better than every attack in the 80s bar Pakistan of the late 80s and the WIndies.

My argument is very simple. Bowling fell off around 01 and batsmen capitalised simple.

 

[Ikki]

My argument is very simple. Bowling fell off around 01 and batsmen capitalised simple.

Yes, but what do you base that on? Bowlers changed and batsmen improved? There can be other reasons and there are. So to suggest that these batsmen are simply inferior because of such a reason is debatable.

As I exemplified, one can make that example for someone like Waugh. Does the fact that he succeeded against the likes of Donald and Ambrose make Donald and Ambrose poorer bowlers simply because Waugh failed against many bowlers in the 80s? It doesn't, so you can't hold such an opinion there IMO.

Overall, yes, everyone will accept that the standard in batting dropped in the 2000s, but there is a scale. It doesn't go from 100 to 0. As I suggested earlier, the difference in batting averages is about 3 points.

 

[MrIncredible]

It certainly didnt go from 100 to 0. My scale: Great>Very good>good>Ok>Mediocre>awful

WI from Great to awful
RSA from Great to very good
Pakistan from great to good
NZL ok to mediocre
Eng ok to good
Aust great to great (very good now)
India good to good

 

[Ikki]

I reckon the India attack is better now TBH, pretty close. Sri Lanka from ok to very good IMO - esp. at home.

I just find the whole thing hard to gauge. If Ponting in his early 20s did so well against the best 3 attacks he could face, then what of his prime? I dislike the whole dismissive argument that starts with "2000+" TBF. People like Richard use it to say Nasser Hussain > Matthew Hayden.

 

[MrIncredible]

Im not picking on Ponting i hope u realise that. My rating of him is along side Lara and Tendulkar for just the same reasons u pointed out. All i was trying to say is that bowling did fall off somewhat around 2001 and many batsmen the world over capitalised (as they should). My most recent rant was because someone had the temerity to state that Ponting was easily Oz's 2nd best batsmen as if he was on some level above the likes of Waugh, Chappell and Border. He may be but its not as clear cut as some would make it seem.

 

[Ikki]

Im not picking on Ponting i hope u realise that. My rating of him is along side Lara and Tendulkar for just the same reasons u pointed out. All i was trying to say is that bowling did fall off somewhat around 2001 and many batsmen the world over capitalised (as they should). My most recent rant was because someone had the temerity to state that Ponting was easily Oz's 2nd best batsmen as if he was on some level above the likes of Waugh, Chappell and Border. He may be but its not as clear cut as some would make it seem.

Yeah I know you're not. The reason I bring Ponting is because a) it's his thread and b) he probably has a better record than the others and probably stands up better. Yet I think he is simply in the same class so whatever I say of him I would consider of Tendulkar and Lara too.

I actually agreed with you in that Ponting is not the 2nd best easily by any means. In fact, after Bradman, it's pretty close between Ponting, Harvey, Chappell, Waugh and Border. I disagree in saying any one of those players is easily better than the other.

I'm happy to see you're not simply disparaging records that are garnered from 2000 onwards because it seems to be a trend nowadays.

 

[aussie]

You could put him as high as 2nd, to be frank. Although it's debatable either way.

Yes. But as i said, Chappell's performance vs WI in WI, during WSC really is the ice-breaker - when comparisons with him Punter, Waugh, Border, Harvey are done. It doesn't get better than that as a batting performance.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yeah I know you're not. The reason I bring Ponting is because a) it's his thread and b) he probably has a better record than the others and probably stands up better. Yet I think he is simply in the same class so whatever I say of him I would consider of Tendulkar and Lara too.

I actually agreed with you in that Ponting is not the 2nd best easily by any means. In fact, after Bradman, it's pretty close between Ponting, Harvey, Chappell, Waugh and Border. I disagree in saying any one of those players is easily better than the other.

I'm happy to see you're not simply disparaging records that are garnered from 2000 onwards because it seems to be a trend nowadays.

O no i never would do that. Ponting has as solid a record as ne great batsman and his record vs the greats was also very good. ive done my home work on him. I might even go as far as to rate him the best batsman of his time but i sense i'd get shouted down by the U know who groupies, who think their man to be a god rather than a simple cricketer.

 

[MrIncredible]

Yes. But as i said, Chappell's performance vs WI in WI, during WSC really is the ice-breaker - when comparisons with him Punter, Waugh, Border, Harvey are done. It doesn't get better than that as a batting performance.

That would be the ice breaker for me as well but one has to wonder how Ponting would have fared batting against those titans. My gut feeling says he would have averaged atleast 45+ which is very good either way.

 

[Ikki]

Yes. But as i said, Chappell's performance vs WI in WI, during WSC really is the ice-breaker - when comparisons with him Punter, Waugh, Border, Harvey are done. It doesn't get better than that as a batting performance.

The same way I don't hold it against Sir Viv for not facing them I won't hold it against Ponting because you simply never know. Ponting has all the tools IMO to savage even that attack on his day - he is simply one of the best players of fast bowling of all-time. Having said that, one can't deny how impressive Chappell's record is. IMO he is the best batsman with Sir Viv after Bradman. I slightly lean to Sir Viv because of my love of flair but I'd be lying if I said Chappell wasn't on the same level. I think Ponting is a touch behind, but could share such status by the end of his career. Regardless, it isn't "easily" one way or the other for me.

Also, I'd like to look at the line-up of that WSC line-up. IIRC, the WIndies didn't have their best bowler: Malcolm Marshall.

Edit: just read it, amazing attack: Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and Joel Garner. That has to be THE best attack of all-time.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The same way I don't hold it against Sir Viv for not facing them I won't hold it against Ponting because you simply never know. Ponting has all the tools IMO to savage even that attack on his day - he is simply one of the best players of fast bowling of all-time. Having said that, one can't deny how impressive Chappell's record is. IMO he is the best batsman with Sir Viv after Bradman. I slightly lean to Sir Viv because of my love of flair but I'd be lying if I said Chappell wasn't on the same level. I think Ponting is a touch behind, but could share such status by the end of his career. Regardless, it isn't "easily" one way or the other for me.

Also, I'd like to look at the line-up of that WSC line-up. IIRC, the WIndies didn't have their best bowler: Malcolm Marshall.

Edit: just read it, amazing attack: Andy Roberts, Michael Holding, Colin Croft and Joel Garner. That has to be THE best attack of all-time.

Malcolm Marshall was still very young when WSC was played and he wasn't all that quick or accurate.

 

[MrIncredible]

yes that Chappell was sumthing special and if u look at his record, he doesnt average under 40 vs ne team ne where, thats similar (IMO) to Ricky's record of today. Plus his exploits in WSC I would rate him above Ponting. but i want all the Ponting fanatics to know that it is jus a personal choice. I have no clue how Ponting would have done against the apocalypse (aka the WI 4 prong) but my gut says he would have done no worse than to average 45+. I do believe he is a better player of pace than many of his contemporaries (lara, SRT, maybe waugh).

 

[MrIncredible]

Malcolm Marshall was still very young when WSC was played and he wasn't all that quick or accurate.

Yes he was and at the time of WSC he was debuting for the WI 2nd XI in an away series in India (if im not mistaken). Suffice to say the rest is history.

 

[Ikki]

Malcolm Marshall was still very young when WSC was played and he wasn't all that quick or accurate.

Ah yes, you're right.

 

[pasag]

And the Ponting comes in waves....