The Latest Comparison - Ponting or Chappell?

[Richard]

Not being a world beater before you're 25 doesn't mean you can't be an all time great. There are a few different discussions going on on different threads re the different natures of cricketing systems in different countries etc. Plus, such a distinction discounts the greatness of players like Waugh, and to an extent Ponting, who go away, analyse what isn't working for them and then fix it. It has been commented previously in a variety of media that as much as anything else, for Ponting getting married and achieving a settled and happy personal life coincided with his transition from good player to great player. Does the fact that it took him a few years to get his head right diminish him as a cricketeer, given its now manifest that he succeeded in doing so?

Age and domestics isn't the big thing - the point is, to do so well as people like Laxman, Ponting, Kallis, Hayden, etc. have on such flat pitches is not a particularly extraordinary achievement.
All these batsmen played in the 1990s and very early 2000s - and all were good players without being anything extraordinary. Coincidentally, a great number of players had something of a boom in high scoring around that period.
Dravid, for me, though, does not fit into the same category as he averaged in the high 40s and early 50s between 1996 and 2000, too.
I think the deterioration in standard of bowling and vast increase in bat-friendly pitches have had far more to do with anything than any developments in the careers of said players.

 

[Richard]

Out of curiosity, do you actually have a reason for that opinion, besides that they didn't average as high in the early part of their careers as they do now? Given that Ponting was only 26 in 2001 after which his career really kicked off (same with Kallis), it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that he simply wasn't as good then as he is now, and that explains the difference in performance. Indeed, if you've watched Ponting over the course of his career, it's quite obvious that he's a much better player than he was 5 years ago. Beyond that, Ponting has a superb record against pace bowling on wickets of all kinds, and in the last few years he's done extremely well against spinners in all conditions as well.

I can understand the argument with Hayden, because he was percieved to have a weakness against good swing bowling for a long time. I think that weakness was significantly overblown, but nevertheless it was there to some degree, and it's reasonable to suggest that if he'd faced quality swing bowling more often he'd be less likely to be successful, particularly as an opener. Ponting on the other hand has proven himself in all conditions, and the only real question mark you could place over his career is his ability against spin... and given that we live in one of the strongest periods of spin bowling ever, that weakness has certainly been tested over and over again in a way it wouldn't have been if Ponting had played in the 80s or 90s. So what's the weakness in his game that makes you think he would average at least 10 runs per innings less than he does now if he played in the 90s?

Ponting has undoubtedly proven himself a very fine player of seam and swing. That's not something anyone would possibly dispute.
Nonetheless, he didn't face much of the stuff between 2001 and 2003\04 - the time of his most prolific run-scoring.
It's reasonable to suggest that had he done so, he'd probably have averaged more like 50 than 80.
I don't really think ANYONE would be able to go for 30 Tests or so averaging 60, 70, 80 whatever the way batsmen like Ponting, Kallis, Laxman and the like had they been playing in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Unless, of course, they were a Tendulkar, Lara, Stephen Waugh, Richards, Border, Gavaskar, Greg Chappell type player. No, Javed Miandad doesn't qualify - who knows how much lower his average would've been if it were possible to dismiss him lbw at home.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It was quite possible to maintain a high average throughout the 90s if you were good enough. Take Steve Waugh... a guy who had a very poor test career up until 1989, and even into the early 90s, and a significant decline from around 2001 or so, still managed a career average of 51. He did it by averaging 60+ for the best part of the 1990s.

 

[Richard]

Yes, he did...
And Waugh was a top-drawer player.
The same cannot be said about Ponting, because Waugh pretty much always outperformed him 1996-2001.
You can blame Ponting's inexperience\naivity if you want but IMO that's simplistic.
It's just not possible that the rapid proliferation of flat pitches and poor attacks didn't contribute largely to Ponting's run-scoring orgy from where I'm standing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm sure they contributed to it somewhat, obviously, but then when pitches have been less flat Ponting has still made plenty of runs, which is the key point. Nobody would suggest that Australia have generally played on flat tracks against poor bowlers in the last 12-18 months for example, and Ponting still averages 73 since the start of 2005. They did play generally on flat tracks and against poor bowlers in 2002/2003, and Ponting made even more runs then.

Saying "Waugh outplayed Ponting during X period when their careers coincided, therefore he is better" is pretty ridiculous, given that Waugh was at the peak of his powers when Ponting came into the side, and only began his decline about the same time that Ponting matured as a test batsman. Yes, a 32 year old Waugh was better than 23 year old Ponting, go figure.

And of course, when he was one of the best batsmen in the world in the mid to late 90s, Waugh feasted on plenty of poor bowling too. He might have faced better bowling all round, but Ponting has also faced some challenging attacks and came out on top, and there's also the fact that his career average is a good 7 runs higher than Waugh's, which does something to make up for the gap in bowling class.

Personally, I'd say Chappell still holds the crown as Australia's second best, at least until we've seen a bit more of Ponting's career (the guy still has 5 good years in him, after all), but Ponting's done enough already to ensure that he'll be remembered alongside the likes of Waugh and Border.

 

[Richard]

But for the absurd amount of luck against SA, Ponting's average since 2004 would be far less impressive.

 

[C_C]

Nevertheless, it's fair to argue that Hayden wouldn't have been as successful as he has been if he'd played the way he has in a different era, even if I don't believe he would have been an outright failure. I don't think it's really fair to say that about Ponting.

I wouldnt say either one of them would be failures.
But if Hayden/Ponting played the better part of their careers between 1970s and 2000, i would go for a 46-47 ave. for Punter and 38-40 ave. for Hayden.
Excellent but not alltime great.

 

[marc71178]

The same cannot be said about Ponting, because Waugh pretty much always outperformed him 1996-2001.

So he outperformed him at a point when he was at the peak of his powers and Ponting was nowhere near his.

What exactly does that show?

 

[social]

I wouldnt say either one of them would be failures.
But if Hayden/Ponting played the better part of their careers between 1970s and 2000, i would go for a 46-47 ave. for Punter and 38-40 ave. for Hayden.
Excellent but not alltime great.

Impossible to speculate with any certainty as we know.

After all, Ponting is widely regarded as one of the best players of pace in recent memory. The period in question was dominated by pace - something that could've played right into his hands. Who's to say that he wouldnt have been equally as successful.

Likewise, Hayden is, IMO, as least as good as Geenidge and Haynes and they both averaged above 40.

Unfortunately, we'll never know.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So he outperformed him at a point when he was at the peak of his powers and Ponting was nowhere near his.

What exactly does that show?

1. That all was right with the world.
2. That all is wrong with Richard's logic.

 

[C_C]

Impossible to speculate with any certainty as we know.

After all, Ponting is widely regarded as one of the best players of pace in recent memory. The period in question was dominated by pace - something that could've played right into his hands. Who's to say that he wouldnt have been equally as successful.

Likewise, Hayden is, IMO, as least as good as Geenidge and Haynes and they both averaged above 40.

Unfortunately, we'll never know.

Ponting is widely regarded as one of the best players of pace. In an era where the ball hardly swings and on pitches which are flat. Back in the days where pace ruled on pitches suited for pace, Punter struggled to average 45. Ponting's play of pace, to me, is good on pitches that dont do squat.

And Hayden, IMO, is not as good as Greenidge or Haynes. I certainly dont rate him even in the Majid Khan bracket. Hayden is a better polished version of Kris Srikkanth who in the same era as Srikkanth, would probably have averaged 35-40.

 

[Jono]

Thing is, Ponting's beginning to score on pitches which are doing things. The SA series was a good example, and he was facing good to very good fast bowlers then.

I do think Ponting's current achievements must be put into perspective, and his overall average since 2000 does show that the decline in genuine world class bowling and the better batting conditions, however you can't deny that he's scored in tough conditions before.

 

[Burpey]

I wouldnt say either one of them would be failures.
But if Hayden/Ponting played the better part of their careers between 1970s and 2000, i would go for a 46-47 ave. for Punter and 38-40 ave. for Hayden.
Excellent but not alltime great.

A question then. Ponting and Hayden have been two of the best batsmen of the last five years, I don't think there's any debating that. If that's what you think their averages would have been, what does it say about all the other current batsmen who average 35-45 in this "era where the ball hardly swings and on pitches which are flat"?


I think you are selling them short.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Thing is, Ponting's beginning to score on pitches which are doing things. The SA series was a good example, and he was facing good to very good fast bowlers then.

I do think Ponting's current achievements must be put into perspective, and his overall average since 2000 does show that the decline in genuine world class bowling and the better batting conditions, however you can't deny that he's scored in tough conditions before.

I think that's the point, yeah.

It's one thing to say he's primarily played during the peak of his career on flat wickets, but when he's been presented with quality fast bowlers or lively wickets he's still performed. As mentioned earlier, the recent six tests against South Africa were mostly played on seam-friendly pitches, aside from the WACA test, and Ponting made five centuries in them. Since the start of 2005 he's played in mostly bowler-friendly conditions and faced the best pace attacks in the world and averaged over 70.

Ponting would be recognised as one of the best players of fast bowling in any era, and if anything I think playing in the 80s or 90s where he didn't have to deal with spin very much would mostly allow him to seperate himself from the rest of the pack, as guys like Hayden wouldn't be averaging 55.

That's not to say I think Ponting is poor against spin now, but he certainly wasn't very good against it early in his career, and if you take out the series he played in India in 2001 and before from his record his career average is over 60.

 

[Jono]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think Sydney was exactly 'bowler friendly'. I mean look at the 5th day chase Australia did with ease.

IMO 4 of the 6 tests in the two recent SA vs. Australia series had fairly tough conditions, with 3 of them genuine seaming wickets (all 3 in SA) whilst the MCG test had a bit of movement early in the day thanks to the dampness. The WACA and SCG were pretty flat IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think Sydney was exactly 'bowler friendly'. I mean look at the 5th day chase Australia did with ease.

IMO 4 of the 6 tests in the two recent SA vs. Australia series had fairly tough conditions, with 3 of them genuine seaming wickets (all 3 in SA) whilst the MCG test had a bit of movement early in the day thanks to the dampness. The WACA and SCG were pretty flat IMO.

The SCG had enough movement that you couldn't call it a flat pitch. It certainly wasn't a seamer by any stretch of the imagination, but it had more seam movement in it than any pitch Australia played on in 2003 or 2004, excluding Darwin.

edit: having said that, it was the least seamer friendly of the five, and the match was quite high scoring, so it's fair enough to exclude it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sorry to be pedantic, but I don't think Sydney was exactly 'bowler friendly'. I mean look at the 5th day chase Australia did with ease.

I thought that the first innings for both sides, the pitch was much more lively than normal.

 

[Jono]

I guess the fact that the pitch flattened out incredibly by around day 3, and hardly took any turn the whole match made me think it was pretty batsman friendly.

I do remember there being some movement on day 1 (Symonds was getting the ball to move around!) but not enough IMO to call it bowler friendly. Rather I think it was just an even battle, but recently in Australia with all the flat tracks we've been served up with, the slightest sign of movement on day 1 excites us, and we call it a bowler friendly wicket. When IMO it should be fairly normal.

Compared to 03/04 and 04/05 the SCG test this year did help the fast bowlers more though, definitely acknowledge that.

 

[C_C]

A question then. Ponting and Hayden have been two of the best batsmen of the last five years, I don't think there's any debating that. If that's what you think their averages would have been, what does it say about all the other current batsmen who average 35-45 in this "era where the ball hardly swings and on pitches which are flat"?


I think you are selling them short.

They would struggle to average 30 in the 70s/80s. I didnt say Punter would be 35-45 zone...he probably would be in 45-50 zone. The only players i can see averaging 50+ from today's lineup playing in the 70-2000 period are Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar.

 

[social]

They would struggle to average 30 in the 70s/80s. I didnt say Punter would be 35-45 zone...he probably would be in 45-50 zone. The only players i can see averaging 50+ from today's lineup playing in the 70-2000 period are Lara, Dravid and Tendulkar.

Tendulkar and Lara are great talents but Dravid ....

Ponting's average drops by 20% whilst Dravid who, if were being extremely generous, is on a par as a player of quicks, hardly changes.

That makes no sense.