Ricky Ponting overtakes Allan Border

[Streetwise]

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.

Botcott wouldent have lasted twenty minutes against McWarne.

 

[MrIncredible]

Having watched Ponting during the 90s vs WW, Donald and Ambrose et al he did very well. I have no doubt that he would have been a great in ne era (maybe the 80s excepted). His place among all timers is a personal thing. For me he is maybe no 4 for Aus and top 15 all time:

Aust

Bradman
Daylight
Chappell
Waugh
Ponting
Border

 

[Pigeon]

Having watched Ponting during the 90s vs WW, Donald and Ambrose et al he did very well. I have no doubt that he would have been a great in ne era (maybe the 80s excepted). His place among all timers is a personal thing. For me he is maybe no 4 for Aus and top 15 all time:

Aust

Bradman
Daylight
Chappell
Waugh
Ponting
Border

I cannot agree with that.

Ponting is easily the best batsman since Bradman as far as Australia is concerned. Chappell would come in third followed by Waugh and Border, very closely.

 

[Burgey]

I cannot agree with that.

Ponting is easily the best batsman since Bradman as far as Australia is concerned. Chappell would come in third followed by Waugh and Border, very closely.

I think it's debatable personally as to who places where behind Le Don, but Ponting certainly belongs in the argument, no doubt about it.

 

[Pigeon]

I think it's debatable personally as to who places where behind Le Don, but Ponting certainly belongs in the argument, no doubt about it.

Yes, but not even Waugh's golden run between 93 to 00 should be anyway considered superior to what Ponting has done in his career. I don't understand the logic behind comparing a player's peak with another player's overall career. Waugh was mediocre to dire before 03 conveniently forgotten by them.

 

[Ikki]

I think there is a fair debate between Chappell and Ponting, after Bradman. I wouldn't say it's clearcut either way. Chappell is pretty underrated on these boards IMO. He could be the best after Bradman even in terms of International batsmen.

But yeh, I would place him ahead of Border and Waugh overall. It's close, like between Dravid and Tendulkar, but Sachin's record is better by enough for it not to be a drawn out debate.

 

[Ikki]

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

Or that Brett Lee would be averaging 22

 

[Richard]

They can't stomach the fact that Punter is that good.

Nonsense of the highest order.

So they try and label him a FTB.

No-one has ever done anything of the sort, the assertion that Ponting is completely useless on seaming\turning decks is an absurd one.

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.

Not really, and I've explained why elsewhere, and not surprisingly you ignored it and ploughed-on with the same line whose incorrectness has already been demonstrated.

Rod Marsh was correct when he said Ponting will oneday become 0z's best batsmen since Bradman.
11000@56 says so.

No one stat in itself says anything.

 

[Richard]

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.

Weak though that attack was (Marlon Black\Colin Stuart and Nixon McLean is hardly a recipe for outstanding-ness) there was enough in the decks to allow Mervyn Dillon to average under 30. My recollection of that 2000/01 summer was that runs were far from easy to come by - and yes, I watched PLENTY of it (West Indies had just toured England and Australia were to do so next summer so I had big interest). And I'm not "cheating" at all by going up to 2001, I've stated time and again that the 31st of December 1999 is NOT a point of any relevance - the point in question is the 1st of September 2001. No argument of mine will ever pertain to a 1990s\2000s split, it's always pre-2001/02 and post-2001/02.

Two things;

1) Waugh initially was almost as expansive a stroke-maker as Ponting but toned it right down.

I'm 100% aware of this.

2) You're presuming Ponting wouldn't have done the same. Big presumption.

Not so, I don't think. Mind, it's certainly not OOTQ. It's a much bigger presumption, in my view, to presume Ponting would've done something he's never looked like doing than it is to presume he and the several others whose scoring exploded at the exact same time would not have done so but for the obvious decline in bowling quality and flattening-out of decks.

 

[Richard]

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


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

Why you imagine that has the remotest of relevance I'm not sure. It might do if you imagined I'd said "Ponting cannot play one innings of substance by playing expansively". Then again, as I said a few days ago, you've taken an extreme liking to replying to what you'd like me to have said rather than what I have.

 

[Richard]

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

I don't really think so TBH - McGrath played plenty 1995-2001 and his record was pretty well exactly the same as 2001/02-2006/07. He prevailed equally in almost all conditions.

 

[MrIncredible]

I cannot agree with that.

Ponting is easily the best batsman since Bradman as far as Australia is concerned. Chappell would come in third followed by Waugh and Border, very closely.

No way is Ponting "easily" Oz's 2nd best batsman. Im old enough to have watched Chappell in WSC vs the apocalypse (aka the 4 prong) and Waugh take care of WW, Donald, Amby/Walsh to know what im talking bout. My take is that u and streetwise etc are not old enough to have seen the exploits of Chappell in the mid to late 70s early 80s so u are going merely on stats which in Chappell's case are still outstanding.

As for Waugh i also think that u (Pigeon and ur like) r too young to appreciate the bowlers Waugh played early in his career when he was suspect vs short deliveries (Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Waqar, Qasim, Qadir, Bishop, Imran, Donald, de Villiers, Pollock etc). Waugh went back to the drawing board and imo he evolved into the batsman of the 90s (imo) doing well vs the said bowlers (Marshall, Hadlee qasim, qadir excepted they were retired).

 

[andyc]

So... what you're saying is 'I'm older than you, so I'm right?'

 

[Streetwise]

No way is Ponting "easily" Oz's 2nd best batsman. Im old enough to have watched Chappell in WSC vs the apocalypse (aka the 4 prong) and Waugh take care of WW, Donald, Amby/Walsh to know what im talking bout. My take is that u and streetwise etc are not old enough to have seen the exploits of Chappell in the mid to late 70s early 80s so u are going merely on stats which in Chappell's case are still outstanding.

As for Waugh i also think that u (Pigeon and ur like) r too young to appreciate the bowlers Waugh played early in his career when he was suspect vs short deliveries (Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Hadlee, Wasim, Waqar, Qasim, Qadir, Bishop, Imran, Donald, de Villiers, Pollock etc). Waugh went back to the drawing board and imo he evolved into the batsman of the 90s (imo) doing well vs the said bowlers (Marshall, Hadlee qasim, qadir excepted they were retired).

I've been watching cricket since 1972, I just dont get hung up on a particular era. Cricket has evolved and changed over the years with the introduction of ODI's but the biggest change in cricket has been the use of bowling machines. Players now can spend two hours in the nets facing 100mph bowling every training session. In the early eighties they just relied on bowlers who could not sustain any pace for long periods. Batting has changed with the use of bowling machines, players in juniors I coached would face 70mph bowling for an hour a day three times a week, unheard of when I started coaching.

 

[MrIncredible]

So... what you're saying is 'I'm older than you, so I'm right?'

Do u think Ponting is "easily" Australia's 2nd best batsman??

 

[MrIncredible]

I've been watching cricket since 1972, I just dont get hung up on a particular era. Cricket has evolved and changed over the years with the introduction of ODI's but the biggest change in cricket has been the use of bowling machines. Players now can spend two hours in the nets facing 100mph bowling every training session. In the early eighties they just relied on bowlers who could not sustain any pace for long periods. Batting has changed with the use of bowling machines, players in juniors I coached would face 70mph bowling for an hour a day three times a week, unheard of when I started coaching.

Thats all good and well but when a heap of players (Yousuff, Ponting, Hayden, Lara, Tendy, CHanderpaul etc) go from struggling or doing ok vs particular bowling attacks (RSA, Pak, WI) to dominatiing them post 2001 sumthing dramatic must have happened. In this case, it was the whole sale retirement of great bowlers all around the same time. Y do u think then, that most of the players above (lara excepted) struggled vs Oz post 01. Thats because Oz still had their great bowlers to keep batsmen like: Kallis, Tendy, Chanderpaul, Yousuff in check.

 

[Cruxdude]

Thats all good and well but when a heap of players (Yousuff, Ponting, Hayden, Lara, Tendy, CHanderpaul etc) go from struggling or doing ok vs particular bowling attacks (RSA, Pak, WI) to dominatiing them post 2001 sumthing dramatic must have happened. In this case, it was the whole sale retirement of great bowlers all around the same time. Y do u think then, that most of the players above (lara excepted) struggled vs Oz post 01. Thats because Oz still had their great bowlers to keep batsmen like: Kallis, Tendy, Chanderpaul, Yousuff in check.

The thing with Tendulkar is he never did too well against RSA all through. He had his brilliant matches, the one in 1996 where he and Azhar shredded the South Africans and the one in 2001 which was Sehwag's debut test also, but otherwise he was pretty normal against them. I can't think of any reason for that though. Seems to be an anomaly just like Ponting's struggle against Bhajjie while playing Murali pretty well.

Against Pakistan before 2000 Sachin never played them much. I am proud to have seen his 130 odd in chennai against them first hand. That was a true masterclass.

Tendulkar never struggled against australia post 2001 though. He averages a respectable 56 odd which is more than his career average.

 

[Ikki]

Thats all good and well but when a heap of players (Yousuff, Ponting, Hayden, Lara, Tendy, CHanderpaul etc) go from struggling or doing ok vs particular bowling attacks (RSA, Pak, WI) to dominatiing them post 2001 sumthing dramatic must have happened. In this case, it was the whole sale retirement of great bowlers all around the same time. Y do u think then, that most of the players above (lara excepted) struggled vs Oz post 01. Thats because Oz still had their great bowlers to keep batsmen like: Kallis, Tendy, Chanderpaul, Yousuff in check.

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.

 

[MrIncredible]

i never mentioned pitches but bowling outside of Oz and SL at home got weaker post 2001

 

[aussie]

Do u think Ponting is "easily" Australia's 2nd best batsman??

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.