Ricky Ponting overtakes Allan Border

[The Sean]

Huh? He averages 43 against England.

I wouldn't call 43 "awesome" personally

No, particularly against us.

He averages 48 against England, 43 IN England.

 

[Burgey]

Just checked his records, and it's probably already been noted, but his test strike rate is 59.25. Bloody hell.

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Still think it's bollocks. Steve Waugh averaged mid-50's for most of the 90's and it's entirely debateable that he was a better player than Ponting (tighter game perhaps but Ponting had more shots/heavier hitter, etc.) but even if he was, he wasn't that much better. It's all hypothetical but a top player like Ponting, if he'd hit his peak in the 90's at the same time as Waugh did, I'd back to adapt to more varied decks in the 90's and still average at least low 50's like Waugh did. Probably wouldn't score as quick, though.

 

[aussie]

Still think it's bollocks. Steve Waugh averaged mid-50's for most of the 90's and it's entirely debateable that he was a better player than Ponting (tighter game perhaps but Ponting had more shots/heavier hitter, etc.) but even if he was, he wasn't that much better. It's all hypothetical but a top player like Ponting, if he'd hit his peak in the 90's at the same time as Waugh did, I'd back to adapt to more varied decks in the 90's and still average at least low 50's like Waugh did. Probably wouldn't score as quick, though.

Definately.

 

[Pigeon]

Huh? He averages 43 against England.

Not awesome, just OK.

Particularly given how dire England's bowlers have been, except for perhaps the 2005 squad.

 

[Top_Cat]

Not awesome, just OK.

Particularly given how dire England's bowlers have been, except for perhaps the 2005 squad.

No 'perhaps' about it, surely?

The attacks he came up against in 1997 were pretty decent in good bowling conditions too. Weirdly enough, when he should have cashed-in (2001), Ponting was easily Aus's worst batsman. Generally, has under-achieved in England though.

 

[Burgey]

He averages 48 against England, 43 IN England.

This.


Edit: @ Pigeon

 

[Ikki]

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

I didn't say every record he has is awesome. I said overall he is awesome. Although, I could have said he is awesome everywhere bar England where he is good and India where he is poor. Because his record is actually awesome everywhere else.

 

[Richard]

Still think it's bollocks. Steve Waugh averaged mid-50's for most of the 90's and it's entirely debateable that he was a better player than Ponting (tighter game perhaps but Ponting had more shots/heavier hitter, etc.) but even if he was, he wasn't that much better. It's all hypothetical but a top player like Ponting, if he'd hit his peak in the 90's at the same time as Waugh did, I'd back to adapt to more varied decks in the 90's and still average at least low 50's like Waugh did. Probably wouldn't score as quick, though.

Waugh averaged 61 from 1992/93 to 2001. There is, in my book, absolutely no chance Ponting would do that against the exact same attacks Waugh faced. 50-ish, yes, that's conceivable. But Ponting is simply too expansive a batsman to manage to do what the more measured Waugh did.

I have absolutely no hesitation in considering Waugh a better batsman than Ponting.

 

[Top_Cat]

Waugh averaged 61 from 1992/93 to 2001. There is, in my book, absolutely no chance Ponting would do that against the exact same attacks Waugh faced.

Haha, you cheated by including Waugh's knocks against 2001 English and 2000/01 WI joke attacks where he totally cashed-in (against which, weirdly, Ponting didn't). For the 90's only, he averaged mid-50's.

50-ish, yes, that's conceivable. But Ponting is simply too expansive a batsman to manage to do what the more measured Waugh did.

Two things;

1) Waugh initially was almost as expansive a stroke-maker as Ponting but toned it right down.
2) You're presuming Ponting wouldn't have done the same. Big presumption.

 

[Streetwise]

Waugh averaged 61 from 1992/93 to 2001. There is, in my book, absolutely no chance Ponting would do that against the exact same attacks Waugh faced. 50-ish, yes, that's conceivable. But Ponting is simply too expansive a batsman to manage to do what the more measured Waugh did.

I have absolutely no hesitation in considering Waugh a better batsman than Ponting.

Richard a little piece from a person who watched Ponting play against Ambrose and Walsh in 1996.

One innings that always stands out in my mind's eye was the first one I saw him play in a Test match. It was a little gem of 88, played at Brisbane in the first test of the 1996-97 series against the West Indies. Matthew Elliott had gone early for a duck and Ponting strode out to face Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop for the first time in a Test (it was the fifth of Ponting's career). Taylor and Ponting added 126 runs for the second wicket; Taylor's contribution was 39. Ponting's innings was full of his flashing pulls, hooks and squaredrives; but he had to work for it.
There were edges through slips aplenty and some evasion as well. It was a classic, hard-fought session of test cricket which continued after lunch.

The West Indian quicks pressed for another breakthrough but to no avail. I watched it utterly spellbound; Ambrose and company could have broken through that morning and wrested the initiative early in the series but a youngster had resisted and counterattacked.

Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes - Ricky don't lose that aggression

 

[aussie]

Yea i dont see how Ponting couldn't have averaged just as well as Waugh in the 90s. Ponting innings @ OT, hundreds vs SA in 05/06 & 07/08, similar 90s style testing attacks. Clearly proves that if Ponting at his peak from Trent Bridge 01 - to now was battting in the 90s, he would be a 50 average batsman.

 

[Ikki]

The whole "2000+ flat decks" thing has been taken to such an inane level that it doesn't even deserve bandwidth for it to be held on.

 

[Beleg]

The whole "2000+ flat decks" thing has been taken to such an inane level that it doesn't even deserve bandwidth for it to be held on.

QFT.

re bagapath's assertion earlier in the thread about ponting's place in the top ten - ponting, lara and tendulkar all belong in that list. so does kallis.

 

[aussie]

The whole "2000+ flat decks" thing has been taken to such an inane level that it doesn't even deserve bandwidth for it to be held on.

Agreed. Its a big hyperbole. But its still a valid basis of judging players in this era.

Saying Ponting at his peak couldn't average 50 in the 90s, is defiantely the insane level.

 

[Pratters]

would it matter? i think their relative positions in cricket history are firmly established by now.

It is a prestigious record to have. What's wrong with wanting the player I like more to have the record.

 

[0RI0N]

The whole "2000+ flat decks" thing has been taken to such an inane level that it doesn't even deserve bandwidth for it to be held on.

They can't stomach the fact that Punter is that good.
So they try and label him a FTB.
Does anyone say that the great bowlers of the 80s and 90s are overated coz of favourible pitches or because of the large number of average Test Batsmen in those times...N0.
Strong haters and double standards ITT.
Rod Marsh was correct when he said Ponting will oneday become 0z's best batsmen since Bradman.
11000@56 says so.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

They can't stomach the fact that Punter is that good.
So they try and label him a FTB.
Does anyone say that the great bowlers of the 80s and 90s are overated coz of favourible pitches or because of the large number of average Test Batsmen in those times...N0.
Strong haters and double standards ITT.
Rod Marsh was correct when he said Ponting will oneday become 0z's best batsmen since Bradman.
11000@56 says so.

I'm not sure when Marsh said that but Ian Chappell (who normally I wouldn't praise under any circumstances) said it in 1997 during the Ashes series. It was a huge call at the time as he didn't even play in the first three tests. He came in at Headingley and made a century and Ian Chappell told the World what was coming. Having said that I still don't think he's as good a batsman as Greg Chappell.

 

[Burgey]

The whole "2000+ flat decks" thing has been taken to such an inane level that it doesn't even deserve bandwidth for it to be held on.

Nah, you can hang onto it, but if you do, you have to accept McGrath's bowling average in the 70s, 80s and 90s would have been about 14.6

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah, you can hang onto it, but if you do, you have to accept McGrath's bowling average in the 70s, 80s and 90s would have been about 14.6

McGrath vs Boycott would have been some battle of wills. I'd back Boycs to be red-inks at the end of day 1 on 20.

More seriously, would love to have seen McGrath vs Viv/Crowe/Greenidge.