Tendulkar vs Ponting - who will win the battle of 100's?

[Eclipse]

I don't quite understand all this ****e about Tendulkar facing better attacks...

Ponting was around at the same time those attacks where in operation and VS the good pace attacks of Pakistan, South Africa etc he did very well.. His average against the likes of Akram and co is better than that of Tendulkar.

The ones he faild against where attacks like England, and spinners in India.

It's not like when Tendulkar was in his prime Ponting was a dud. He was bloody good still and his record against some of the best bowlers of that time is just as good and in some cases better than Tendulkars.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I doubt there will be too many comparisons between Tendulkar and Ponting in the future, as I think people will view them as being from different eras.. Tendulkar will be compared to 90s batsmen and Ponting will be compared to this decade, so the Lara/Tendulkar debates will continue and Ponting will probably be compared with other Aussie greats, I imagine.

Ponting has a greater chance of catching Tendulkar than Tendulkar does of holding him off, which is a surprise considering how long it took Sachin to overtake Gavaskar, BUT, Ponting has a far greater chance of being dropped should his form decline. Tendulkar has a clear advantage there. The problem for Tendulkar, though, is that you can expect Ponting to score another Test century, whereas Tendulkar could feasibly never score one again. Each additional century Tendulkar makes is a bit of a (pleasant) surprise.

 

[Ikki]

So? They were both still magnificent bowlers even right at the very end of their careers. He faced them, meanwhile, in 1994\95 (no Ambrose that series, of course) and 1997, which is hardly towards the end in any case.

Murali was hardly at the start of his career in 1997; nor McGrath and Warne in any of 1997\98 (no McGrath that series of course), 1999\2000 or 2000\01.

He didn't fare as well against them as he did against others, but an average of 38 is hardly out-and-out poor.

In a whole 1 series?

And those are hardly the only decent bowlers he faced; he scored runs against some good English and Kiwi bowlers too.

Richard mate, in some of those points I am talking about pre-Ponting. When someone says Tendulkar faced these guys - hence Ponting didn't - then the most apt period is before Ponting played, which is mostly to what I am referring to. After it, they were facing the same teams, they didn't adjust the bowling line-ups for Tendulkar one way and Ponting another - of course, this doesn't include Warne and McGrath, with which Ponting plays with.

And as for averaging 38 against said great attacks, that isn't a specifically good argument to be using for showing Tendulkar's peak being so much better than Ponting's. If he had done well against them, then that would be something.

 

[Ikki]

Ambrose's debut = 1988
Tendulkar's Debut = 1989

Enuff Said.

Ambrose didn't face Tendulkar till after Ponting debuted, so it wasn't like Tendulkar was having a hard time against him - because he didn't actually face him. There was the 94 test series between India and West Indies in which Ambrose didn't take part and that puts the "Tendulkar had to face X and Ponting didn't" argument to rest.

The one bowler who was there was Walsh, and whilst Tendulkar faced him once, after Ponting debuted Walsh was a very old bowler. I had this discussion with HB before and showed his scorecards for the games then, he was clearly at the end of it.

Anyway, I don't wish to rehash this whole argument again, I just wanted to show that the generalizations have become something like a game of Chinese whispers.

 

[PhoenixFire]

For some reason, I always thought Ambrose debuted a good 3 or 4 years before that.

Well I'm sure Walsh did, people think of those two as a pair.

 

[pup11]

Its gonna be Punter all the way.

I think Ponting is a cricketer who doesn't rest on his past laurels and he has already announced in the recent past that his best is yet to come (which might sound a bit ****y) and his eyes are set on reaching 50 test centuries before he retires. On the other hand Tendulkar clearly looks like a spent force, he is not even the mere shadow of the batsman he once was his aggressive style of batting which made him such a great batsman is no longer a part of his game and i can't see him keeping Ponting behind him for too long in the battle of test centuries. Though Tendulkar doesn't need to worry too much about his record of 41 odi centuries being broken any time in the near future.

 

[Richard]

For some reason, I always thought Ambrose debuted a good 3 or 4 years before that.

Well I'm sure Walsh did, people think of those two as a pair.

Absolutely. Walsh debuted in 1984\85 (before Patrick Patterson), and it's easy to forget that Walsh was until about 1998 very much third (and very early on sometimes fourth) seamer, as Ian Bishop, whose career was interrupted and eventually terminated by injury, was quite a bit better and was Ambrose's partner for a fair time.

 

[Richard]

Richard mate, in some of those points I am talking about pre-Ponting. When someone says Tendulkar faced these guys - hence Ponting didn't - then the most apt period is before Ponting played, which is mostly to what I am referring to. After it, they were facing the same teams, they didn't adjust the bowling line-ups for Tendulkar one way and Ponting another - of course, this doesn't include Warne and McGrath, with which Ponting plays with.

But between 1995\96 and August 2001 Tendulkar was vastly the superior batsman. Surely even you don't dispute that? Hence, that time can still be taken into consideration when comparing the two, as bowling was still generally pretty good at that time.

And as for averaging 38 against said great attacks, that isn't a specifically good argument to be using for showing Tendulkar's peak being so much better than Ponting's. If he had done well against them, then that would be something.

A roughly fair analogy, though not one I feel totally comfortable with, is Ponting and India. Tendulkar's worst - vs South Africa - is considerably better than Ponting's worst - in India.

 

[Ikki]

But between 1995\96 and August 2001 Tendulkar was vastly the superior batsman. Surely even you don't dispute that? Hence, that time can still be taken into consideration when comparing the two, as bowling was still generally pretty good at that time.

Yes, but the difference is that whilst Tendulkar had about 5-6 years of test batting under his belt, Ponting had arrived and it wasn't like Ponting was poor in that time. He was averaging 46. The two supposed eras overlap and Ponting just starting out and averaging that - 46 - is far from poor and is a good indication that he would go on to be better, which he has.

A roughly fair analogy, though not one I feel totally comfortable with, is Ponting and India. Tendulkar's worst - vs South Africa - is considerably better than Ponting's worst - in India.

There is quite a difference between that Ponting and the current one. I don't think there would be many here surprised to see Ponting go out in India and blast away as he has been doing elsewhere. Anyway, that analogy is not fair and is far too simplistic.

 

[Richard]

Yes, but the difference is that whilst Tendulkar had about 5-6 years of test batting under his belt, Ponting had arrived and it wasn't like Ponting was poor in that time. He was averaging 46. The two supposed eras overlap and Ponting just starting out and averaging that - 46 - is far from poor and is a good indication that he would go on to be better, which he has.

40.50. Sure, there was indication that he'd go on to do better. But I don't think the "he was new(ish - 45 Tests is hardly embryonic,Tendulkar was averaging over 50 in a comparable number of innings) to Test cricket" I think the bowling was generally good enough to keep a player of his calibre in check, if not to drag him down to the level of a failure. I reckon, had the standard of bowling not dropped off, Ponting might just have got his average up close to 50, and that's at best.

There is quite a difference between that Ponting and the current one. I don't think there would be many here surprised to see Ponting go out in India and blast away as he has been doing elsewhere. Anyway, that analogy is not fair and is far too simplistic.

Indeed it is, which is why, as I say, I'm not 100% comfortable with it. Ponting's failures in India are hardly easily explicable in any case, as he's prevailed in generally even tougher conditions for spin in Sri Lanka and against a higher-calibre bowler. All the same, were he to tour India and face turning wickets and Anil Kumble and a back-to-top-level Harbhajan Singh, I'd still expect him to have some problems (as I would for anyone, however good).

 

[Ikki]

40.50. Sure, there was indication that he'd go on to do better. But I don't think the "he was new(ish - 45 Tests is hardly embryonic,Tendulkar was averaging over 50 in a comparable number of innings) to Test cricket" I think the bowling was generally good enough to keep a player of his calibre in check, if not to drag him down to the level of a failure. I reckon, had the standard of bowling not dropped off, Ponting might just have got his average up close to 50, and that's at best.

Well I got 46 from calculating his average from his debut to the start of 2001. I just calculated again, his average is 44 at the end of 2001 - start of 2002.

The difference between them was that Ponting didn't always bat at #3, he had batted most in #6. His average in that position is 50, and it doesn't surprise me when he had to start adjusting to batting #3 that he lost a few runs on his average. Ponting is clearly not getting his dues.

Indeed it is, which is why, as I say, I'm not 100% comfortable with it. Ponting's failures in India are hardly easily explicable in any case, as he's prevailed in generally even tougher conditions for spin in Sri Lanka and against a higher-calibre bowler. All the same, were he to tour India and face turning wickets and Anil Kumble and a back-to-top-level Harbhajan Singh, I'd still expect him to have some problems (as I would for anyone, however good).

Not only that, but it's as simplistic as looking at a player's total runs scored and judging who is better. Kind-of unnecessary.

 

[Johnners]

Well I got 46 from calculating his average from his debut to the start of 2001. I just calculated again, his average is 44 at the end of 2001 - start of 2002.

The difference between them was that Ponting didn't always bat at #3, he had batted most in #6. His average in that position is 50, and it doesn't surprise me when he had to start adjusting to batting #3 that he lost a few runs on his average. Ponting is clearly not getting his dues.

Not only that, but it's as simplistic as looking at a player's total runs scored and judging who is better. Kind-of unnecessary.

can't help but agree after reading that.

 

[Richard]

Well I got 46 from calculating his average from his debut to the start of 2001. I just calculated again, his average is 44 at the end of 2001 - start of 2002.

The difference between them was that Ponting didn't always bat at #3, he had batted most in #6. His average in that position is 50, and it doesn't surprise me when he had to start adjusting to batting #3 that he lost a few runs on his average. Ponting is clearly not getting his dues.

He was only batting three in the last 3 of those Tests, though, so no real adjustment-problems are going to be applicable. And his average at six might be 50, but in reality six and seven are a combined position (he'd only have gone down to seven when nightwatchmen came to the party) - and five if we're honest, as that's simply moving up one so it'd be fair, IMO, to combine the three. Hence, Ponting's early career was not as impressive as Tendulkar's. Anywhere near.

 

[Ikki]

He was only batting three in the last 3 of those Tests, though, so no real adjustment-problems are going to be applicable. And his average at six might be 50, but in reality six and seven are a combined position (he'd only have gone down to seven when nightwatchmen came to the party) - and five if we're honest, as that's simply moving up one so it'd be fair, IMO, to combine the three. Hence, Ponting's early career was not as impressive as Tendulkar's. Anywhere near.

Uh, could you show me that?

This is what I got from my calculations Ponting played 33 of his 52 matches at #6 - in which he averaged 50 - and 13 of his matches at #3, in which his average drops to about 41.

In that same period, in the other 6 matches he batted at #5 in which his average was 37.

So he was actually shifted twice...

I think it shows, more than obviously, that Ponting was a very good batsmen in the same period whilst he was in his most familiar position.

 

[Richard]

As I say the period in consideration for me starts with his debut and ends at Trent Bridge in 2001. From Headingley 2001 onwards, the moment Ramprakash failed to get under that edge off Gough because he was standing a fraction too deep, Ponting has been the batsman we have seen for the last 6 years.

(A sidenote here - I'm not saying that if Ramprakash had been standing a bit closer and had taken that catch Ponting would never have become what he has, although it is interesting to look at a few possibilities, because I'm a big believer in the butterfly earthquake theorem, the consequences of just a tiny tweak can be massive if you consider things)

So, hence, he had batted three in the previous 3 Tests (and also 3 much earlier ones, when Michael Bevan was for some reason given David Boon's place) before being dropped for Justin Langer in 1996\97.

From that point onwards, he batted six (and seven when a nightwatchman was used, which is exactly the same position so a combined average is needed) and occasionally five when someone was injured until he was promoted to three again when Langer was dropped for Martyn at the start of that 2001 Ashes.

One thing that should be noted, for me, is that a batsman does not have a divine right to a constant start to his Test career. If he plays well and scores runs, he'll get a constant place in the side. If he doesn't, he'll get shifted around a bit.

Nonetheless, even if you were to knock out his innings at three, at five\six\seven he averages 45.29. Good, but nothing close to Tendulkar.

 

[The Sean]

Well this seems as good a thread as any to join back into after a long absence… (Hi again to all, by the way)

First, my answer – Ponting, barring something wildly unforeseen, will end up overtaking SRT and everyone else by the end of his career to hold the world record for most Test runs and centuries.

Secondly – no, I don’t necessarily think that automatically makes Ponting greater than Tendulkar (the reasons for that have been more than covered in the rest of this thread)…

BUT I don’t think the idea is as laughable as many on here would think, and I firmly believe the idea will become even more credible as Ponting’s career progresses. Punter’s performances over the past 5-6 years or so have been little short of astonishing – even in today’s age of roads for pitches and a relative lack of truly great bowlers (and the fact that two of them played for his team anyway), he has still statistically outshone his contemporaries. More than that, he has done it not by slowly grinding out big scores to boost his average while his team’s chances have been evaporating, but by playing attacking cricket, being prepared to take a chance, by dominating bowling attacks and by, most of the time, amassing runs as quickly as possible to win matches for his team. That he has played in that style is admirable enough, that he has had the ability to play in that style while still piling up the runs at a rate matched by few men in the long history of the game, is quite remarkable.

Yes, there are criticisms by which we can mark him down. He has yet to have a dominant series in India, and while I don’t necessarily consider this the be-all and end-all that some on these pages do, I have no doubt it is a wrong he is looking to right.

Yes, he has not had to face his own attack, which has been by far the best and most potent bowling line up of this era. But Viv Richards didn’t have to face his WI pace battery either, and he still didn’t end up with better figures than his contemporaries – Chappell, Gavaskar, Border and Miandad can all be said to have better numbers. Ponting, when blessed with the same advantage, has at least had the common decency to statistically outperform his contemporaries.

Yes, Ponting has “cashed in” in an era where bat has completely dominated ball, where conditions, pitches, bowling quality have all come together to send batting averages skyrocketing. But then so has everyone else, and none so well as him – despite Australia playing less Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh than most if not all other countries. The 1920s and 1930s were also an era where bat utterly dominated ball (even with the uncovered pitches back then) and when batting averages skyrocketed. Wally Hammond actually “ended” his Test career with a batting average of 54, which was then raised beyond 58 after his retirement with the recognition of the Eng v NZ series of 1932/33 as official Tests – a series in which Hammond “cashed in” against minnows to the tune of 563 runs in two innings and once out! Scoring runs against weak opposition in a batsman-friendly era is not necessarily a new phenomenon.

Bear in mind I am playing devil’s advocate here – let me state unequivocally that I consider WR Hammond and Sir Vivian Richards to be out-and-out, bona fide, unadulterated cricketing immortals, and I place them both higher in the Pantheon as it currently stands than Ricky Ponting. I simply wish to mention that while we can (and some on here seem only too eager to) find criteria by which to mark down Ponting’s (and other modern players) achievements, we should remember to try to apply those criteria consistently, and that the same criticisms can also be attached to other players who most or all of us agree rank indisputably among the truly great.

Whether Ponting eventually takes his place at the top table alongside Richards, Hammond, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Hobbs et al (Bradman has a special table to himself) is still to be seen, and I believe we will gain a much clearer picture when his career has run its course and we can assess it as a whole against the backdrop of history. But irrespective of exactly where his story finishes and which ranking tier he attains, the fact is that he scores mountains of runs, at a rate matched or exceeded by few in the history of the game, he scores them with dashing strokeplay and audacity, he has the capacity to tear a bowling attack to pieces and turn a match on its head, he scores them (with one or two exceptions) against all opposition and under all conditions, and he often scores them when they matter and are needed most. Put that all together and you have a great, great batsman, which is what I firmly believe Ricky Ponting to be.

It’s good to be back…

 

[Richard]

'Tis good to have you back...

You're right, of course, that cashing-in against substandard sides is nothing new (ironically, Ponting's averages against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe don't change the picture much, compared to Hammond's against New Zealand - he'd be more Mohammad Yousuf in that way).

One thing, though: has Ponting really enormously outperformed his peers? This is a question of which I'm honestly not totally sure of the answer to. Ponting's officially-recognised Test average in the period in question (I'd say, as I've already said, from Headingley 2001 onwards) is a fraction over 70. Now, this alone isn't enough - get rid of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, note the ridiculous amount of luck with let-offs he had in the 2005\06 season - it goes down a bit. I'd presume it'd be something in the early to mid 60s. How much is this above the Haydens (and Ponting, in my mind, is clearly a vastly superior player to Hayden), Dravids, Kallises, maybe even Sehwags for a time, at the same time? Unless I'm mistaken, not a particularly remarkable amount.

Another thing - I always tend to take batsmen who performed superlatively only in one bat-friendly era with a pinch of salt. You mention the 1930s (I'm less sure about the 1920s - I'd always heard it was often very ball-friendly myself, certainly there were some good bowlers around then which is harder to say about the 1930s, especially later on), there were Ponsfords and McCabes around that time who I consider quite possibly the Haydens of their day. Then there were Woodfulls, who are more the Stephen Waughs of their day IMO.

Sure, these batsmen who did well in that time (and failed - a bit - in harder times) MIGHT have been good had they played more in harder times. But I find it impossible to equate them with those (like Tendulkar, Lara and Stephen Waugh in the case of the 1990s, like Weekes and Chappell to pick one example from the 1950s and 1970s) who actually DID. See what I mean?

 

[Pup Clarke]

Rich, how much longer have you got Harmison for?.

 

[Richard]

'Till the 19th of bloody July.

And knowing my luck I'll probably have Tori or someone else Hakon likes after that too...

 

[Johnners]

Well this seems as good a thread as any to join back into after a long absence… (Hi again to all, by the way)

First, my answer – Ponting, barring something wildly unforeseen, will end up overtaking SRT and everyone else by the end of his career to hold the world record for most Test runs and centuries.

Secondly – no, I don’t necessarily think that automatically makes Ponting greater than Tendulkar (the reasons for that have been more than covered in the rest of this thread)…

BUT I don’t think the idea is as laughable as many on here would think, and I firmly believe the idea will become even more credible as Ponting’s career progresses. Punter’s performances over the past 5-6 years or so have been little short of astonishing – even in today’s age of roads for pitches and a relative lack of truly great bowlers (and the fact that two of them played for his team anyway), he has still statistically outshone his contemporaries. More than that, he has done it not by slowly grinding out big scores to boost his average while his team’s chances have been evaporating, but by playing attacking cricket, being prepared to take a chance, by dominating bowling attacks and by, most of the time, amassing runs as quickly as possible to win matches for his team. That he has played in that style is admirable enough, that he has had the ability to play in that style while still piling up the runs at a rate matched by few men in the long history of the game, is quite remarkable.

Yes, there are criticisms by which we can mark him down. He has yet to have a dominant series in India, and while I don’t necessarily consider this the be-all and end-all that some on these pages do, I have no doubt it is a wrong he is looking to right.

Yes, he has not had to face his own attack, which has been by far the best and most potent bowling line up of this era. But Viv Richards didn’t have to face his WI pace battery either, and he still didn’t end up with better figures than his contemporaries – Chappell, Gavaskar, Border and Miandad can all be said to have better numbers. Ponting, when blessed with the same advantage, has at least had the common decency to statistically outperform his contemporaries.

Yes, Ponting has “cashed in” in an era where bat has completely dominated ball, where conditions, pitches, bowling quality have all come together to send batting averages skyrocketing. But then so has everyone else, and none so well as him – despite Australia playing less Tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh than most if not all other countries. The 1920s and 1930s were also an era where bat utterly dominated ball (even with the uncovered pitches back then) and when batting averages skyrocketed. Wally Hammond actually “ended” his Test career with a batting average of 54, which was then raised beyond 58 after his retirement with the recognition of the Eng v NZ series of 1932/33 as official Tests – a series in which Hammond “cashed in” against minnows to the tune of 563 runs in two innings and once out! Scoring runs against weak opposition in a batsman-friendly era is not necessarily a new phenomenon.

Bear in mind I am playing devil’s advocate here – let me state unequivocally that I consider WR Hammond and Sir Vivian Richards to be out-and-out, bona fide, unadulterated cricketing immortals, and I place them both higher in the Pantheon as it currently stands than Ricky Ponting. I simply wish to mention that while we can (and some on here seem only too eager to) find criteria by which to mark down Ponting’s (and other modern players) achievements, we should remember to try to apply those criteria consistently, and that the same criticisms can also be attached to other players who most or all of us agree rank indisputably among the truly great.

Whether Ponting eventually takes his place at the top table alongside Richards, Hammond, Tendulkar, Lara, Sobers, Hobbs et al (Bradman has a special table to himself) is still to be seen, and I believe we will gain a much clearer picture when his career has run its course and we can assess it as a whole against the backdrop of history. But irrespective of exactly where his story finishes and which ranking tier he attains, the fact is that he scores mountains of runs, at a rate matched or exceeded by few in the history of the game, he scores them with dashing strokeplay and audacity, he has the capacity to tear a bowling attack to pieces and turn a match on its head, he scores them (with one or two exceptions) against all opposition and under all conditions, and he often scores them when they matter and are needed most. Put that all together and you have a great, great batsman, which is what I firmly believe Ricky Ponting to be.

It’s good to be back…

*nominates for Afridi* Gun post, bias aside, and it's great to have you back