Ricky Ponting overtakes Allan Border

[Streetwise]

Ponting never thrashed ne RSA attack where Donald was playing.

Pontings very first innings against Donald in 1997 he scored 105 runs.

Now you may know a whole lot more than the people that were actually at the ground but this is what the almanack report on the match stated.

The pitch, at least on the first three days, was low and slow, and inhibited most of the strokemakers, apart from Ponting, whose second Test century included 14 fours to all parts of the ground.

You have to give credit where it is due.

 

[Streetwise]

Ponting never thrashed ne RSA attack where Donald was playing I dont know what u been smoking. Also thrashing Ahktar is nothing special he is not remotely in the class of Ambrose, Donald et al. Its just common sense Street. Ponting is not unique either. b4 2001 Lara averaged 30 odd vs WW and Donald but post 2001 his av vs Pak/Rsa shot up. Same goes for Tendy vs the said teams (also see Kallis and Yousuff pre and post 2001 +). Y? Because the great bowlers were no longer around to contain them, boundaries were brought in and pitches (over time) flattened out.

I think it you who is smoking,

Pre 2001 Ponting played SA in 5 tests with Donald and Donald never got his wicket, Ambrose also only got Pontings wicket once in 4 tests. Tendulkar played Ambrose in 4 tests without Ambrose getting him once and Donald played Tendulkar in 4 tests to get him twice.

So in 17 tests Donald and Amrose combined to dismiss Ponting once and Tendulkar twice which puts a big hole in your theory.

 

[Burgey]

FMD, why can't we ever just congratulate these people on their achievements?

These blokes score thousands of runs/ take hundreds of wickets and all we ever do is try to bring them down.

I have decided to call this phenomenon the "tall poppy syndrome". It's holding the world back imo.

 

[0RI0N]

^^^
agreed x 11175 (see what I did there).
I mean he scored 38 hundreds and over 11000 runs.
Joint 2nd best batsman of the modern era with SRT (Lara king ofcourse)
Well done Punter Ponting
You've come a long way since the King's Cross bar brawl.

 

[0RI0N]

Ponting matured a lot the more he played so it is quite reasonable to assume he would have played better against Walsh/Ambrose the second time around considering he was older and more experienced. But all that aside you are talking in "IFS". "if" he did this, "if" he did that which is all a heap of bollocks because you can only judge a player on what he "HAS" done. Its a pretty small mind that looks to "Ifs" for its arguement.

ownage of mr incredible.
Facts not ifs n buts.
What if Bradman was born in April 1908 in Kyneton(Victoria) instead of Cootamundra (NSW)?would he have been a bowler instead?
What if Dilley dallied and didnt stick around with Botham at H'dingley 81 ,would Mark Waugh have made his debut earlier?
What If the Gangsterguly BATTED when he won the toss in Johannesburg(WC final 2003)

 

[MrIncredible]

What ownage?? Its obvious to even cricket analysts that Ponting et al cashed in when bowling fell off around 2001. The point about Ambrose, Donald etc is not that they got his wicket or not its that they were good/great enough to keep the pressure on him, to rough him up for others to dismiss. That kinda pressure didnot exist in WI attacks post 2001 where u had fidel edwards from one end and jerome Taylor from another. Anyway I think the Aussie analysts at cricinfo put it best when they left Ponting out of their Aust all time XI for Chappell and Border. Both have inferior records to Ponting but they for most of their careers had to battle against the four prong etc.

 

[MrIncredible]

FMD, why can't we ever just congratulate these people on their achievements?

These blokes score thousands of runs/ take hundreds of wickets and all we ever do is try to bring them down.

I have decided to call this phenomenon the "tall poppy syndrome". It's holding the world back imo.

I do recognise his achievements and i congratulate him for them. But the point Richard makes is a valid point but it not only applies to Ponting but to the likes of : Kallis, Lara, Tendy, Chanderpaul etc. Dont think for a sec that im picking on Ponting he is an all time great fit to rank along side Tendy and Lara (yes i think he is that good)

 

[0RI0N]

What ownage?? Its obvious to even cricket analysts that Ponting et al cashed in when bowling fell off around 2001. The point about Ambrose, Donald etc is not that they got his wicket or not its that they were good/great enough to keep the pressure on him, to rough him up for others to dismiss. That kinda pressure didnot exist in WI attacks post 2001 where u had fidel edwards from one end and jerome Taylor from another. Anyway I think the Aussie analysts at cricinfo put it best when they left Ponting out of their Aust all time XI for Chappell and Border. Both have inferior records to Ponting but they for most of their careers had to battle against the four prong etc.

lol u mad u got owned?
U bitter that no Pom Captain has ever score 30 Test hundreds.
Stop trolling n give credit where it is due.
u raging at your PC?
Intrawebz serious business for some ppl(meaning you).

 

[GIMH]

 

[MrIncredible]

Um im not English. I dont begrudge Pontings achievements. If u had taken the time to read my posts u would realise that i hold Ponting in the highest of esteems (on the same level as tendy and Lara). If im a troll for pointing out the obvious then so be it. I rather be a troll than bury my head in the sand. Ive been watching cricket from the mid 80s til now to know enough about quality attacks vs dire ones.

 

[Ikki]

What ownage?? Its obvious to even cricket analysts that Ponting et al cashed in when bowling fell off around 2001. The point about Ambrose, Donald etc is not that they got his wicket or not its that they were good/great enough to keep the pressure on him, to rough him up for others to dismiss. That kinda pressure didnot exist in WI attacks post 2001 where u had fidel edwards from one end and jerome Taylor from another. Anyway I think the Aussie analysts at cricinfo put it best when they left Ponting out of their Aust all time XI for Chappell and Border. Both have inferior records to Ponting but they for most of their careers had to battle against the four prong etc.

Ponting's record against the best bowlers of the 90s is very very good. Cashing in? Maybe averaging more than he would be otherwise, but it's really no easier scoring 100s. Ponting matured and became more consistent, and thus has an awesome record overall against all comers apart from in India.

 

[Pigeon]

Ponting's record against the best bowlers of the 90s is very very good. Cashing in? Maybe averaging more than he would be otherwise, but it's really no easier scoring 100s. Ponting matured and became more consistent, and thus has an awesome record overall against all comers apart from in India.

& eng

 

[Ikki]

& eng

Huh? He averages 43 against England.

 

[0RI0N]

Most batsmen have countries that they don't do too well in.
You do realize that players before have cashed in when conditions are favourable.
It has always happend,always will.
You always hear "the post 2001 batsmen have been plundering runs cuz of flat pitches and weak bowlers" line.
You never hear that bowlers in the 70,80,90's are overated cuz pitches were difficult/suited them and rightly so.
Cricket ,or sport goes in cycles.

You make as if Punter is the only batsmen in the history of cricket to have benefitted from road type pitches and not so brilliant bowlers.There was road type pitches before and weak bowlers in the past.
If you gonna critisize Punter's record,you gotta critize many bowlers and batsmen,past n present.
11000@56 is not luck or cashing in.
Rod Marsh,when seeing the young Ricky at the 0Z Academy in the early 90's said he would be 0Z's best batsman since Bradman.He was right all those years ago.
This from a man that has played with Greg Chappell.

 

[GIMH]

Huh? He averages 43 against England.

I wouldn't call 43 "awesome" personally - though I would say that at times Ponting has been bloody awesome against us

 

[Richard]

It was just funny to see you post that Pietersen would average the same but Ponting would drop 15-25 runs and you reasoning behind it. I'm sorry but I just thought it just about sums up the effect Ponting has on the poms.

In less vague terms that post can be read as "you're biased because of what team someone plays for". Well, I'm afraid you're wrong. I could show why that is, but experience has taught me that that's pointless, because once someone has got that into their head (and many, many have down the years) it generally takes a lot of time for it to get out.

 

[Richard]

According to Richard Pietersen would have maintained his average of around 60 against the West Indies, well actually thats not quite true he thinks because the bowling would be better Pietersen would have done even better.

In reality I said nothing of the sort, but attempting to read things which have never come remotely close to being there into my posts is another common trait that I've long since gotten used to.

 

[Richard]

But all that aside you are talking in "IFS". "if" he did this, "if" he did that which is all a heap of bollocks because you can only judge a player on what he "HAS" done. Its a pretty small mind that looks to "Ifs" for its arguement.

Yes, and what Ponting HAS done - like quite a few others - is cashed-in to one remarkable degree on one hell of a lot of extremely pedestrian bowling since the 2001/02 season. Having previously been no more than a decent middle-of-the-road batsman before that. Now then, yes, it's very unlikely he'd have maintained an average of 41-42 for his entire career had pitches not flattened-out and bowling quality declined in 2001/02. As I say, I reckon he'd have had a very strong chance of averaging 49-50 by the end of 2006/07 which is about when he begun to curve downwards again as his powers weakened slightly.

Given that the circumstances we've seen since 2001/02 - ie, the ease of scoring runs - is unprecedented in Test history I myself think it's rather reasonable to chuck a few "if"s around.

 

[Richard]

You always hear "the post 2001 batsmen have been plundering runs cuz of flat pitches and weak bowlers" line.
You never hear that bowlers in the 70,80,90's are overated cuz pitches were difficult/suited them and rightly so.

That's because they weren't difficult, nor was it an overwhelmingly bowler-friendly game. Said circumstances were what would be aptly termed "normality" - ie, cricket as it has been for the vast majority of the 20th-century. Where good bowlers would have the wood on most batsmen and outstanding bowlers would have the wood on all batsmen bar the very, very best. Where ball slightly dominated bat.

Since 2001/02, on the other hand, we've seen mostly moderate-quality bowling which has very, very often been unable to make significant impact on mostly very flat pitches.

 

[zaremba]

I wouldn't call 43 "awesome" personally

No, particularly against us.