Ricky Ponting Vs. Sachin Tendulkar - As Captains

[Harry Harrison]

I will admit, this is a slightly opportunistic thread since Australia are not doing too well at the moment. Despite the recent failures, Ricky has the results and Tendulkar, despite his failures as captain, has shown taht he has cricketing brains and great understanding of the game. Those who have played with SRT, always value/seek his opinion and consider him a fairly intelligent cricketer

Since we already know know who is the better batsman. Please disregard their batting achievements and focus on the captaincy and tell us who is the better captain and why ?

Whattttttttttttt? Tendulkar and Captain?????????????? Are you sure you were not drunk when you made this thread?

A submissive personality like Tendulkar can never be a captain. Have you gone through the TRAIT THEORY OF LEADERSHIP? If not then go through it.

This thread must be concluded. Its simply ................................ to comapre the captaincy of Tendulker with Ponting.

As a player yes. Tendulkar is much better than Ponting.

 

[susudear]

Sunil Gavaskar's record as captain

You (Ikki) mentioned that Gavaskar had a much better record as compared to Tendulkar.
Well, he had a better win:lose ratio

Played : 47
Won : 9
Lost : 8
Drawn : 30

He played in an era of sleepy subcontinental wickets. His only 2 overseas success came against New Zealand at Auckland and Australia at Melbourne in 81. And you said he had to deal with mediocre resources much like Tendulkar. Actually not. He had a much better team than Tendulkar. Here are the numbers.

Batsmen under Gavaskar tenure

Player		Mat	Runs	Ave	100	50
M Azharuddin	3	439	 109.75 3	1
M Amarnath	17	1373	 68.65 	5	7
SM Gavaskar	47	3449	 50.72 	11	14
SM Patil	22	1356	 43.74 	4	6
GR Viswanath	40	2305	 41.90 	7	10
DB Vengsarkar	47	2623	 40.98 	6	13
Yashpal Sharma	23	1075	 39.81 	2	6
RJ Shastri	21	1026	 39.46 	4	4
CPS Chauhan	23	1286	 36.74 	0	12
N Kapil Dev	45	2009	 35.24 	2	12
AD Gaekwad	10	502	 33.46 	1	3
SMH Kirmani	47	1373	 26.92 	2	6
S Madan Lal	15	320	 24.61 	0	2
K Srikkanth	8	288	 24.00 	0	2
KD Ghavri	21	391	 20.57 	0	1

6 batsmen averaging above 40 in a period where it was considered as excellent. And another 5 in the 30s as against zero in case of Tendulkar.

Bowlers during Gavaskar tenure

Player		Mat	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
N Kapil Dev	45	172	 29.65 	 3.19 	 55.70 	14	1
DR Doshi	30	110	 29.97 	 2.25 	 79.60 	6	0
BS Chandrasekhr	5	20	 30.50 	 2.65 	 68.90 	2	0
L Sivaramkrshnn	5	23	 31.43 	 2.63 	 71.60 	3	1
S Venkatraghvan	10	27	 33.11 	 1.91 	 103.5 	0	0
KD Ghavri	21	62	 33.87 	 3.09 	 65.70 	2	0
NS Yadav	18	51	 37.35 	 2.69 	 83.00 	0	0
RJ Shastri	21	43	 41.13 	 2.11 	 116.4 	1	0
S Madan Lal	15	31	 41.77 	 3.18 	 78.60 	2	0

Four bowlers averaged near 30, and another 3 between low 30s to 40s. Compare that with the records of bowlers during Tendulkar's captaincy and you'd get the idea.

 

[Harry Harrison]

The vast difference in the resources they had to work with is obvious from these tables.

Best batsmen under Tendulkar (Minimum 500 test runs)

Player		Mat	Runs	 Ave	100	50
NS Sidhu	9	720	 55.38 	3	1
SR Tendulkar	25	2054	 51.35 	7	7
M Azharuddin	18	1135	 45.40 	6	3
SC Ganguly	23	1505	 41.80 	4	7
R Dravid	25	1659	 41.47 	2	10
VVS Laxman 	12	526	 27.68 	1	3

Best batsmen under Ponting (Min 500 runs)

Player		Mat	Runs	Ave	100	50
MEK Hussey	33	2834	 59.04 	9	13
RT Ponting	52	4876	 58.74 	17	22
BJ Hodge	6	503	 55.88 	1	2
JL Langer	30	2403	 48.06 	6	8
PA Jaques	11	902	 47.47 	3	6
ML Hayden	48	3843	 46.30 	13	14
MJ Clarke	40	2508	 45.60 	8	10
DR Martyn	24	1624	 45.11 	6	7
DS Lehmann	8	563	 43.30 	2	3
A Symonds	26	1462	 40.61 	2	10
AC Gilchrist	41	2134	 40.26 	7	9
SM Katich	24	1569	 40.23 	5	7

During Tendulkar era, India had just 5 batsmen averaging over 40 and the sixth best batsman averaged 27, and just 2 over 50. During Ponting era, they had 12 batsmen averaging above 40.

Now the bowlers.

Best bowlers under Sachin Tendulkar (Min 20 wickets)

Player		Mat	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
J Srinath	17	71	 29.15 	 3.03 	 57.50 	3	0
SB Joshi	10	26	 31.42 	 2.40 	 78.30 	0	0
A Kumble	25	97	 33.61 	 2.53 	 79.60 	6	1
A Kuruvilla	10	25	 35.68 	 3.03 	 70.60 	1	0
BKV Prasad	20	53	 38.52 	 3.00 	 77.00 	4	1

A single bowler who averaged above 30, and that too just.

Best bowlers under Ponting

Player		Mat	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
GD McGrath	25	115	 21.69 	 2.49 	 52.20 	5	0
SR Clark	22	90	 22.96 	 2.54 	 54.00 	2	0
SK Warne	34	200	 24.34 	 2.97 	 49.10 	13	4
MG Johnson	17	74	 28.58 	 3.04 	 56.30 	2	1
SCG MacGill	14	61	 29.98 	 3.51 	 51.10 	3	0
B Lee		39	171	 30.12 	 3.37 	 53.50 	6	0
JN Gillespie	18	52	 32.61 	 2.94 	 66.30 	0	0
MS Kasprowicz	17	52	 32.84 	 3.27 	 60.20 	1	0
A Symonds	26	24	 37.33 	 2.56 	 87.20 	0	0

5 bowlers averaging under 30, and two of them absolute legends with 315 test wickets among them in 25 matches together.

Tendulkar had to command a ship that was near sunk, and had to bear the most burden. Ponting did not have to.

Leadership has nothing to do with a ship. Kapil Dev, Imran Khan and Arjuna Ranatunga had worst sides when they won the world cups. Leaders are always bold and aggressive, Tendulkar is shy and submissive kind of personality. He is not a kind of personality to be a leader. To be a great player does not mean that you are a good captain as well. Mike Brearley was a below average player but a good captain.

 

[susudear]

Mike Brearley

Leadership has nothing to do with a ship. Kapil Dev, Imran Khan and Arjuna Ranatunga had worst sides when they won the world cups. Leaders are always bold and aggressive, Tendulkar is shy and submissive kind of personality. He is not a kind of personality to be a leader. To be a great player does not mean that you are a good captain as well. Mike Brearley was a below average player but a good captain.

Your example of Brearley to illustrate your point sucks. He was hardly the intimidating kind and hardly inspired with own performances. He had a superb brain and had Botham.

World Cup winning is not the ultimate in every captain's life. They can be won if the team peaks (or 1 or 2 individuals) at the right time. Sustained performance at Test level and shaping a poor team into the World No.1 is the challenge every captain faces. Imran Khan was a good leader, but apart from winning the world cup, what exactly he made Pakistani test cricket team into? Or for that matter Arjuna Ranatunga? How many tests he won outside the subcontinent?

Tendulkar being shy or subservient is your interpretation of him. A player cannot withstand 20 years of high pressure cricket without some in-borne aggression and street-smart skills. The fact that he hardly displays chest thumping should not be construed as him being a pansy.

 

[Ikki]

You (Ikki) mentioned that Gavaskar had a much better record as compared to Tendulkar.
Well, he had a better win:lose ratio

Played : 47
Won : 9
Lost : 8
Drawn : 30

He played in an era of sleepy subcontinental wickets. His only 2 overseas success came against New Zealand at Auckland and Australia at Melbourne in 81. And you said he had to deal with mediocre resources much like Tendulkar. Actually not. He had a much better team than Tendulkar. Here are the numbers.

Batsmen under Gavaskar tenure

Player		Mat	Runs	Ave	100	50
M Azharuddin	3	439	 109.75 3	1
M Amarnath	17	1373	 68.65 	5	7
SM Gavaskar	47	3449	 50.72 	11	14
SM Patil	22	1356	 43.74 	4	6
GR Viswanath	40	2305	 41.90 	7	10
DB Vengsarkar	47	2623	 40.98 	6	13
Yashpal Sharma	23	1075	 39.81 	2	6
RJ Shastri	21	1026	 39.46 	4	4
CPS Chauhan	23	1286	 36.74 	0	12
N Kapil Dev	45	2009	 35.24 	2	12
AD Gaekwad	10	502	 33.46 	1	3
SMH Kirmani	47	1373	 26.92 	2	6
S Madan Lal	15	320	 24.61 	0	2
K Srikkanth	8	288	 24.00 	0	2
KD Ghavri	21	391	 20.57 	0	1

6 batsmen averaging above 40 in a period where it was considered as excellent. And another 5 in the 30s as against zero in case of Tendulkar.

Bowlers during Gavaskar tenure

Player		Mat	Wkts	Ave	Econ	SR	5	10
N Kapil Dev	45	172	 29.65 	 3.19 	 55.70 	14	1
DR Doshi	30	110	 29.97 	 2.25 	 79.60 	6	0
BS Chandrasekhr	5	20	 30.50 	 2.65 	 68.90 	2	0
L Sivaramkrshnn	5	23	 31.43 	 2.63 	 71.60 	3	1
S Venkatraghvan	10	27	 33.11 	 1.91 	 103.5 	0	0
KD Ghavri	21	62	 33.87 	 3.09 	 65.70 	2	0
NS Yadav	18	51	 37.35 	 2.69 	 83.00 	0	0
RJ Shastri	21	43	 41.13 	 2.11 	 116.4 	1	0
S Madan Lal	15	31	 41.77 	 3.18 	 78.60 	2	0

Four bowlers averaged near 30, and another 3 between low 30s to 40s. Compare that with the records of bowlers during Tendulkar's captaincy and you'd get the idea.

You're missing out on a few things. Firstly, in Gavaskar's day, draws were much more likely. Secondly, Gavaskar's players had a severe home dependency. Most of the players that averaged 40 for Gavaskar (apart from Amarnath) were in the 30s or lower IIRC away. So Gavaskar in about half his matches (away) could never hope to win. Counting Azhurradin, Chandra and Siva for Gavaskar or ignoring Laxman for Tendulkar shows intellectual dishonesty. You're give people who use stats a bad name mate.

And yes, Gavaskar had a better record and weaker team.

Dunno why, but you sound/talk/type like Precambrian.

 

[Anil]

You don't think Srinath was good? Probably India's 2nd greatest paceman, or even bowler.

he was probably india's second best paceman or close to it, he was nowhere near being india's 2nd best bowler...kapil, kumble, the spin quartet, possibly even some of the older bowlers would be better than him...the fact that he was india's pace bowling spearhead for a few years just speaks to the abysmal quality of indian pace attacks during that time...saying tendulkar had a better attack as captain than ponting has now is beyond ridiculous...

 

[susudear]

Nope

You're missing out on a few things. Firstly, in Gavaskar's day, draws were much more likely. Secondly, Gavaskar's players had a severe home dependency. Most of the players that averaged 40 for Gavaskar (apart from Amarnath) were in the 30s or lower IIRC away. So Gavaskar in about half his matches (away) could never hope to win. Counting Azhurradin, Chandra and Siva for Gavaskar or ignoring Laxman for Tendulkar shows intellectual dishonesty. You're give people who use stats a bad name mate.

And yes, Gavaskar had a better record and weaker team.

Dunno why, but you sound/talk/type like Precambrian.

Hardly close.

Your post regarding Laxman's omission shows your carelessness. I have indeed put Laxman in Tendulkar's stats above, and he averages just 27 in those matches.

You say Gavaskar's men had "home dependency". I don't really know what it means, and if Gav's men had, certainly Tendulkar's men too had as shown by their stats. Tell me one person I've ignored in Tendulkar's analysis which had a significant impact on perception by the reader.

Also note that while Gavaskar had so many batsmen around him, even upto Dev (who averaged 35), Tendulkar basically had only Sidhu (for 9 tests), himself, Azher (45), Dravid (41) and Ganguly (41). That means just 4 batsmen (excluding Sidhu as he retired early in Tendulkar's captaincy career) averaging above 30.

I really don't know what you mean when you still say Gavaskar had the weaker team.

 

[Anil]

Whattttttttttttt? Tendulkar and Captain?????????????? Are you sure you were not drunk when you made this thread?

A submissive personality like Tendulkar can never be a captain. Have you gone through the TRAIT THEORY OF LEADERSHIP? If not then go through it.

This thread must be concluded. Its simply ................................ to comapre the captaincy of Tendulker with Ponting.

As a player yes. Tendulkar is much better than Ponting.

a submissive personality? submissive personalities don't succeed in international cricket the way tendulkar has...it is true that he is comparatively quiet and very reserved but submissiveness is something altogether different and that's something he never was...

 

[silentstriker]

You don't think Srinath was good?

No, he was terrible.

Probably India's 2nd greatest paceman, or even bowler.

No he isn't. And even if he were, he still wouldn't qualify as being anything more than terrible.

 

[Anil]

No he isn't. And even if he were, he still wouldn't qualify as being anything more than terrible.

there aren't too many indian pacemen ahead of him other than kapil though(among players who have retired)...some in the current crop of fast bowlers are very likely to be better by the time they retire but i am reserving judgement on that based on how long they last...

 

[Harry Harrison]

Your example of Brearley to illustrate your point sucks. He was hardly the intimidating kind and hardly inspired with own performances. He had a superb brain and had Botham.

World Cup winning is not the ultimate in every captain's life. They can be won if the team peaks (or 1 or 2 individuals) at the right time. Sustained performance at Test level and shaping a poor team into the World No.1 is the challenge every captain faces. Imran Khan was a good leader, but apart from winning the world cup, what exactly he made Pakistani test cricket team into? Or for that matter Arjuna Ranatunga? How many tests he won outside the subcontinent?

Tendulkar being shy or subservient is your interpretation of him. A player cannot withstand 20 years of high pressure cricket without some in-borne aggression and street-smart skills. The fact that he hardly displays chest thumping should not be construed as him being a pansy.

You know nothing about the leadership and behaviors, so its useless to pass any comment on your words.

 

[Harry Harrison]

a submissive personality? submissive personalities don't succeed in international cricket the way tendulkar has...it is true that he is comparatively quiet and very reserved but submissiveness is something altogether different and that's something he never was...

You need o learn some basic principles of management and leadership.

 

[Ikki]

he was probably india's second best paceman or close to it, he was nowhere near being india's 2nd best bowler...kapil, kumble, the spin quartet, possibly even some of the older bowlers would be better than him...the fact that he was india's pace bowling spearhead for a few years just speaks to the abysmal quality of indian pace attacks during that time...saying tendulkar had a better attack as captain than ponting has now is beyond ridiculous...

If you think that's what I am saying, I must've not been clear. I was comparing Gavaskar's team to Sachin's.

No, he was terrible.

In the context of Indian bowlers? Comparatively, he's one of your best.

No he isn't. And even if he were, he still wouldn't qualify as being anything more than terrible.

But he is. Who apart from Dev has a better record?

Hardly close.

Your post regarding Laxman's omission shows your carelessness. I have indeed put Laxman in Tendulkar's stats above, and he averages just 27 in those matches.

I wasn't talking about his omission, I was talking about your inclusion of him as a batsman of a class of which averages 27 - which is intellectually dishonest, when you class batsmen by what they averaged under that short time for Tendulkar. As I questioned before, it could have had something to do with his captaincy?

You say Gavaskar's men had "home dependency". I don't really know what it means, and if Gav's men had, certainly Tendulkar's men too had as shown by their stats. Tell me one person I've ignored in Tendulkar's analysis which had a significant impact on perception by the reader.

It means that the batsmen you named that averaged 40 overall were actually very poor or average away (in the 30s). Their averages are higher because of dead pitches designed for draws in home conditions. Whereas the batsmen in Tendulkar's line-up were much more complete and did well over many conditions away from home. To merely say they averaged similarly because of the overall average they have is misleading. It is wrong, and shows you do not understand the difference in quality.

Also note that while Gavaskar had so many batsmen around him, even upto Dev (who averaged 35), Tendulkar basically had only Sidhu (for 9 tests), himself, Azher (45), Dravid (41) and Ganguly (41). That means just 4 batsmen (excluding Sidhu as he retired early in Tendulkar's captaincy career) averaging above 30.

I really don't know what you mean when you still say Gavaskar had the weaker team.

Again, your mistake is that you judge purely by how they did under Tendulkar. That is circular reasoning in a way. The reason they were poor could have easily been because of his captaincy because elsewhere - at other times - they did much better and have shown themselves to be class batsmen. In Dravid's case; an all-time great. Tendulkar won few and lost almost as many as he drew...so of course the batsmen wouldn't have performed well...because...hello, they wouldn't have been doing so badly then.

 

[silentstriker]

In the context of Indian bowlers? Comparatively, he's one of your best.

In the context of bowling at the Test level. He was terrible.

 

[Ikki]

In the context of bowling at the Test level. He was terrible.

I think we both know that. I was comparing Gavaskar's line-up to Tendulkar's at the time. I thought you would have caught that.

EDIT: wait, I've gone back and read the post. I didn't remove the second part of the quote where I guess all the misunderstanding has come from. My bad.

 

[Anil]

You need o learn some basic principles of management and leadership.

not really, i know enough...you need to know the meaning of words in order to put them in proper context though...

 

[Evermind]

This silly thread could only have been started by an India fan.

Ponting is most obviously the better captain and probably the better batsman.

It's like asking whether Javagal Srinath or Glenn McGrath was the better bowler. It pretty much reduces to trolling TBH.

 

[Anil]

If you think that's what I am saying, I must've not been clear. I was comparing Gavaskar's team to Sachin's.

thought you mentioned something like that a few posts back, if it was not you, i apologize...in any case, gavaskar had chandra, venkat, bedi, prasanna, doshi, kapil as genuine wicket-taking bowlers at various periods in his captaincy and a bunch of decent bowlers in binny, s. amarnath, m.amarnath, madan lal, ghavri, maninder, chetan, shivlal yadav, sivaramakrishnan, shastri etc etc...he also had a batting lineup of chauhan, vishwanath, vengsarkar, shastri, kapil, the amarnaths, srikkanth, azharuddin, yashpal sharma, sidhu and a few others at various times...

tendulkar had srinath as his "spearhead", the master trundler prasad, the one-and-only ajit agarkar, kumble(the only genuine and consistent wicket-taker, but he was certainly not at his best during the 90s), the incomparable dodda ganesh, the peerless abey kuruvilla, the great david(?) johnson and some outstanding spinners in kanitkar, chauhan, kulkarni, joshi etc etc...and he had the brilliant sourav ganguly in reserve...a glittering array of world beaters and any day better than gavaskar's options...

the batting lineup had azhar(was in woeful form for most of tendulkar's captaincy, could have been heavily into the match-throwing mode), sidhu, laxman, dravid, ganguly, jadeja(think he also played under tendulkar but not sure)...there were a few others but these were probably the mainstays of the batting apart from tendulkar...

it was emphatically a worse set of xis than most of gavaskar's teams...to clarify, i don't think tendulkar was a good captain at all during his stint at the helm in that he lacked good man management, an essential skill for a captain to get the best out of his resources....but to say he had a really good performing team under him and still didn't get the results is a palpably false statement...

 

[Anil]

on the thread question, ponting is certainly not the greatest of captains and he was helped in no small measure by a brilliant group of players in hayden, langer, ponting himself, gilchrist, mcgrath, warne, clarke, martyn etc etc but you can't argue with the results...he has an infinitely better record than tendulkar and has to get the nod on this front...

 

[susudear]

Haha

II wasn't talking about his omission, I was talking about your inclusion of him as a batsman of a class of which averages 27 - which is intellectually dishonest, when you class batsmen by what they averaged under that short time for Tendulkar. As I questioned before, it could have had something to do with his captaincy?

Haha what? Laxman averaged less because of poor captaincy? You need to check your head first mate.

It means that the batsmen you named that averaged 40 overall were actually very poor or average away (in the 30s). Their averages are higher because of dead pitches designed for draws in home conditions. Whereas the batsmen in Tendulkar's line-up were much more complete and did well over many conditions away from home. To merely say they averaged similarly because of the overall average they have is misleading. It is wrong, and shows you do not understand the difference in quality.

Not at all. Ganguly was very much prone in overseas conditions as any batsman in India's history. Dravid had not peaked till 2000, and his record in Australia during Tendulkar tenure shows he was not yet the complete batsman. That leaves just Tendulkar and Azharuddin as more or less "complete" batsmen during his period. And Azharuddin probably underperformed when we look at his subsequent involvement in match fixing.

Again, your mistake is that you judge purely by how they did under Tendulkar. That is circular reasoning in a way. The reason they were poor could have easily been because of his captaincy because elsewhere - at other times - they did much better and have shown themselves to be class batsmen. In Dravid's case; an all-time great. Tendulkar won few and lost almost as many as he drew...so of course the batsmen wouldn't have performed well...because...hello, they wouldn't have been doing so badly then.

Not at all. Kumble and Srinath were the only good bowlers during Tendulkar's captaincy and they averaged more or less close to their career averages. Kumble's average is higher because he played more in Australia and S Africa during that period, and he was not yet the force in overseas conditions as he was to become eventually. The remaining options were Prasad, Kuruvilla and Joshi, who were never test class at any point in their career, under anyone. They would have struggled to make it to a county team. Add to that the Noel Davids, the Dodda Ganeshs, the Thiru Kumarans and you get the picture. To suggest they did badly is as good as suggesting Siddle and Lee have averaged in the 40s since India tour because of poor captaincy.