Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[Streetwise]

you do understand what I meant by "same circumstances" right?

You call it circumstances I call it excuses.

 

[TumTum]

Voted Ricky Ponting because I'm biased and he is too far behind in the polls ..... Oh wait this isn't the CW favorite cricketers thread

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's not the size that counts, it's what you do with it.

Never figured you'd have brain envy, four_or_six.


But it's true, when we guys get together in the locker rooms, we're actually discussing the brain sizes of chicks. We're so shallow

 

[honestbharani]

You call it circumstances I call it excuses.

we call it facts, you just ignore them.

 

[four_or_six]

Never figured you'd have brain envy, four_or_six.


But it's true, when we guys get together in the locker rooms, we're actually discussing the brain sizes of chicks. We're so shallow

Shocking.

 

[Uppercut]

Who is better at cricket? Ponting.

Do you really think this? What exactly do you mean by it?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, if you talk about cricket as a whole game; batting, bowling, fielding, etc. Ponting is more talented across those facets.

 

[Uppercut]

This is why rankings is not a valid criteria when comparing this.
Take for example, Pakistan won the second test against Australia because they bowled Australia out for 88..That allowed them to chase a measly 180 in the second innigns and their batsmen struggled and huffed and puffed and finally managed with 3 wickets remaining.

On the other hand, say Indian batsmen pile up 500..if Mithun, Ishant, Ojha and Harbhajan bowl as poorly as they did in Sri Lanka, I dont think they will win the test match.

The issue here is, Indian bowling attack with Zaheer, Sreesanth, Ishant and Harbhajan is more effective than Pakistani batting line up of Salman, Farhat, Ali, Amin, Akmal.

Long story short, Great bowlers with crappy batsmen can still help win a match..Great batsmen with crappy bowlers are relatively less likely to do so.

Yeah, it's not a fair comparison at all. Top-class bowling and utterly useless batting is by no means better than top-class batting and decent bowling. And that's not even mentioning the massive difference competent fielding makes.

Many of India's most notable victories were characterised by top-class bowling. Their victory in England was the work of Zaheer and RP Singh, their win over Australia at Mohali was one of the best team bowling performances in recent memory. Can you imagine Pakistan's batting lineup pulling out something similar? It just doesn't happen.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, if you talk about cricket as a whole game; batting, bowling, fielding, etc. Ponting is more talented across those facets.

Not sure I even agree on that. Murali was srsly awesome.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Shocking.

It's true. Just last week we were discussing who's more well thunk - Marie Curie or Cheryl Cole

 

[weldone]

The key phrase is direct influence. In a team, you cannot hold A as superior to B when both are contributing in their own way, directly or indirectly, by doing what they are picked for. The only argument in favour of doing that is if A is harder to replace than B, but in the case of Murali vs Ponting/Tendulkar/Lara, I'm not totally convinced that's true, unless you are picking an all-time XI. Even then, you could go with an all-pace attack, or pick Warne instead.

And why not O'Reilly or Grimmett?

 

[vcs]

And why not O'Reilly or Grimmett?

Well, I only considered the spinners I've watched..

 

[weldone]

Well, I only considered the spinners I've watched..

Fair enough.

By the way, do you keep Bradman (or, for that matter Sobers or Hobbs or Barnes) in your All-Time XI?

 

[Burgey]

nobody in their right mind would vote for ponting here.

See, this is why these discussions invariably go thermo-nuclear.

They add nothing to the debate and only (no doubt unintentionally in this case as DD is a good poster) lead to people getting justifiably pissed off. Which in turn leads to the discussion going downhill fast.

And it happens in every one of these threads. Interesting discussions will eventually get lost in more bile than Mark Latham.

By all means say you prefer one to the other, even say why. But denying there's an opposing argument at all is facile. Same with the inevitable Tendulkar-Ponting-Lara cesspit. By all means prefer one to the others, but to deny that there should even be a counter-argument is ridiculous.

 

[vcs]

Fair enough.

By the way, do you keep Bradman (or, for that matter Sobers or Hobbs or Barnes) in your All-Time XI?

I've never actually picked an all-time XI... but yeah, Bradman would obviously be there.

 

[weldone]

I've never actually picked an all-time XI... but yeah, Bradman would obviously be there.

I guess you haven't seen him play, too.

 

[GotSpin]

I guess you haven't seen him play, too.

Bradman is a given though

 

[vcs]

I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here... I just suggested Warne as one of the possible alternatives to Murali, no disrespect meant to Grimmett or O'Reilly.

 

[weldone]

Nothing against you, vcs.

But there is an overwhelming number of people who would keep Bradman in their all-time XI because 'he's a given' (sometimes Sobers too in spite of not seeing him play) and would refuse to rate other players from the yesteryears citing the reason that they haven't seen them. Isn't it a case of double standards? I don't mean to be rude, just a genuine question.

I mean saying that you can't rate players you haven't watched is perfectly acceptable, given that always remains the case.

 

[honestbharani]

Nothing against you, vcs.

But there is an overwhelming number of people who would keep Bradman in their all-time XI because 'he's a given' (sometimes Sobers too in spite of not seeing him play) and would refuse to rate other players from the yesteryears citing the reason that they haven't seen them. Isn't it a case of double standards? I don't mean to be rude, just a genuine question.

I mean saying that you can't rate players you haven't watched is perfectly acceptable, given that always remains the case.

Possibly because Bradman was SO much ahead but the gap is not so big between a O'Reilly and a Warne for instance..