Where does Ricky Ponting rank?

[Johnners]

Welcome to the forums Hamilton B , well written first post as well

 

[Ikki]

Okay. So basically, Ponting himself is a nut because Ponting himself has commented of the incredible ammounts of pressure Tendulkar faces and how amazed he's with the way Tendulkar deals with it. This has been noted by several authors over and over. So all of them, ponting included, are nuts. Fine, if you think that, i have nothing more to look or read of your comments.

LOL, you're talking about a player 'apple-shining' another player. That's great, it happens a lot.

What Ponting hasn't said was "I am inferior because I've taken my opportunity later on whilst Tendulkar took his earlier. It is the pressure that Tendulkar faces that is getting to him, not any drop in form".

The problem I have with the pressure argument is that it ignores his poor form.

Look, ever player will have a trough, and that will almost always have some external connection. But to ignore the trough altogether because of that external affair is what gets me. If you don't accept Tendulkar has been playing poorer, that means you ignore that the guy EVER had a bad moment in his career because bar the last few years he hasn't.

 

[Ikki]

Err commonly,that is not the case. Prodigies improve slightly as their career keeps developing but just like Tendulkar, Mozart's works didnt improve radically as he aged. He just started producing opera works at age 12 which were of good quality and kept doing so.

You're missing the point. The initial talent is what is prodigal, the entire career after is not prodigious anymore. Tendulkar fits the first definition plainly for having started off so well and so young, It is nothing more and nothing less than that.

And i agree that there are two definitions to the prodigy. The reason i don't focus on the 'other' definition ( ie, prodigious production) is because there really is only one person who fits the bill : Bradman. For all the production 'peaks' that Ponting or Tendulkar or Lara have/have had, its not that much different in numbers from the peaks of Sobers/Waugh/Richards, etc. except maybe in terms of number of matches played in that peak period.
So yes, if Ponting was putting nutty numbers up - like say a 65-70 average today while the next best guys are in the 55-58 zone, then yes, i'd say he is a prodigal talent worth considering. But so far, he didnt start abnormally young and neither is his peak that much more astonishing than peaks of great players previously at the height of their powers.
Only difference would be # of matches played.

I disagree, whilst I think Bradman is the top player to be regarded prodigal, he isn't the only one.

 

[Ikki]

*sigh*

It is the prime for most players- who have started around a normal age ( 20-21 for debut in international cricket and regularly featuring from then on). But when you start really young, you also break down really young because the effects of the physical strain ( continuous fitness programs + travelling + wear and tear) seriously impedes the full development of the body. You have to be a pretty big dolt not to see that and realize that people who have started playing at the highest level at an extremely young age also wear out faster physically.
Wayne Gretsky, another prodigy is pretty much the same story. Pavel Bure, the greatest goal scorer in hockey history, is the same way.

I just gave you examples of players who started their careers at about 18 who continued well into their mid 30s. Hockey players aren't really apt to be honest. Their game is much more physical and injury prone. Now starting at 16 is one thing, playing only 38 matches is another. 7 test matches a year till you're 21 isn't going to destroy your physique at age 28 bro.

In my opinion, Tendulkar is at the very top because of what he achieved relative to others when he was at the top of the game, as well as under what conditions he achieved them.
It is indisputable that when Tendulkar scored most of his runs, pitches were significantly harder to bat on and bowling attacks on average were much stronger.
When Tendulkar was sitting at a similar stage as Ponting ( just over 100 matches or so) and at his peak, his figures were identical to what Ponting's are today. Except for the fact that those runs came against much tougher opposition, on much tougher pitches while batting in a much weaker batting lineup for most part.

Yes, Tendulkar's prime correlated with the tougher pitches/bowlers. Tendulkar's trough also correlates with these pitches and bowlers becoming 'easier' to play with. Brian Lara is the best example to refute all these 'mileage' claims. He's played the same people, had the same pressure, has done it just as long and is older than Tendi - yet doing much better in these conditions.

What stands out for Tendulkar is what he's done relative to others at his peak and seeing that in Ponting's case.
When Tendulkar started averaging 50, only 3 others were averaging 50 in test cricket : Border, Viv and Miandad. All of them were over a decade older than the 21 year old Tendulkar. So basically, he reached the top level at an age where most great batsmen ( Ponting, Dravid, Waugh, Viv, etc) are barely getting their feet wet in Test cricket.

Ponting is almost averaging 60. The only player - and it's mostly because he's played less test matches - higher than that is Mike Hussey. After next year, Ponting will surely (most probably) increase his average to over 60. Then he will have no peer. Will that suffice?

Secondly, when Tendulkar was at his peak, he was averaging 58+ while the 'next best' guy around was averaging 51-52 and there were only 4 of them apart from Tendulkar ( Inzy, Tugga, Lara and Flower) averaging 50+. Ponting's averaging almost 60, great and all that but he's got Dravid sitting around at 58, Kallis, Yousuf and Tendulkar sitting in the 54-57 range, Lara in 53-54 area, Inzy, Sehwag, Smith and a bunch of others in the 47-51 zone.
So it is pretty evident that Ponting's peak doesnt stand out as much as Tendulkar's did despite the fact that Ponting bats under easier conditions pressure-wise ( not only the population factor, the fact that Ponting plays for a lot better side means there is lot less riding on him) and on easier pitches against tripe bowling.

No, there is no clear evidence in that. You are a factual person, that doesn't equate a fact. The inverse to that theory is that there are much better batsmen in this era thus more people are averaging that score. That the professionalism, coupled with the pitchers/bowlers, is causing that. BTW if Dravid is 58, Ponting is 60.

A lot less riding on him is one thing. But the fact is that in these past few years he has been the one putting up all these scores. If anything, HE takes the pressure off others.

It boggles my mind when people dont see that Tendulkar has come down a notch or two due to his injury problems and it is unlikely to ever improve because of the injury damage. That is pretty much the prime reason he isnt taking as heavy advantage as some others under easier conditions.

It boggles my mind that you can't see how special Warne is when he has had his shoulder and finger injured on yet has such a brilliant end to his career. Relearning everything.

Guy is playing with a permanently messed up back, shattered toe and consistent elbow problems. Even if i were to grant you that Warne's injury in the games he played in India were genuine, its still clear to see why Tendulkar stands out just that much more - Warne's bowling went to pieces while Tendulkar's performance since being rocked by injuries is still very much good in relative terms ( mid 40s average and almost 2000 runs) and his ODI form has come down from 'mindboggling' level to rest of 'next best' folks. ( 7 tons, 2500+ runs and 43+ average)

Yeh mate, that's what tends to happen after playing 135 test matches. And when did he get injured btw?

 

[C_C]

7 test matches a year till you're 21 isn't going to destroy your physique at age 28 bro.

No but 7 tests and a dozen-n-half ODIs a year for 5 years between 16 and 21 is equivalent of a mid 20s guy carrying a 12-13 tests and 20+ ODI load for the same period, if not worse.

Tendulkar's trough also correlates with these pitches and bowlers becoming 'easier' to play with

And that is because the last four years of his career has been severely hit by injuries.

Brian Lara is the best example to refute all these 'mileage' claims.

Err no he isn't. Lara started playing for the WI when he was 22 or 23, Tendulkar when he was 16. That is a huge difference.

Then he will have no peer. Will that suffice?

Unless he gets it in the 65-70 range, he doesnt even enter comparison with Tendulkar tbh.

The inverse to that theory is that there are much better batsmen in this era thus more people are averaging that score.

No,anyone who thinks that this era has 'much better batsmen' and that Ponting is a patch on Tugga or Youhana is a patch on Miandad, Younis Khan is a patch on Deano, etc. got rocks for brains really.

And when did he get injured btw?

Shortly after or during world cup 2003.

endulkar fits the first definition plainly for having started off so well and so young, It is nothing more and nothing less than that.

The very fact that he fits the definition of a classic early starting prodigy earns him way more points in my books.

I disagree, whilst I think Bradman is the top player to be regarded prodigal, he isn't the only one.

He is the only one who can stake a claim to prodigal production. No one else, not even Ponting can- as i said, Ponting is at the height of his career and at similar stage, Tendulkar had identical stats but against better bowling opposition.

But to ignore the trough altogether because of that external affair is what gets me.

I am not ignoring it at all. Merely saying that the trough came at a stage where bowling and pitches are substandard, thus not raising any questions about newfound weakness or inability/chink in the armor. The high came against far better opposition and pitches in much more tougher conditions. If Tendy, like Ponting too had started to make cheap runs with no bowlers around and easy pitches while batting in the strongest batting lineup and puttered along with a mid 40s average (again, like Ponting) when good bowlers and good pitches were the norm, i'd say Tendy is overrated too.

BTW if Dravid is 58, Ponting is 60.

Yes.
Like i said, Ponting's peak doesnt stand out like Tendulkar's does. When Tendy was averaging 57-58, Lara was averaging 51-52, Steve Waugh 50-51, Andy Flower 50-52 and Inzamam 49-50. Rest were all in the 45-ish zone.
That is way more dominant than Ponting who is sitting just short of 60, with one guy at 57, 3 guys in 56-54 range with about 8-9 guys in the 48-53 range.

Batting obviously hasnt improved for there is no bowler today ( yes, not even McGrath) who is equal of over half a dozen from Tendy's peak period.

Making runs against Waqar, Wasim, Saqlain, McGrath,Fleming, Gillespie, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Caddick,Gough, Fraser, Donald, Pollock, deVilliers, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop and Cairns everywhere around the world counts a lot more than making runs against Kumble, Harbhajan, Vaas, Murali, Flintoff, Ntini, half-steam Pollock, Harmison, Collins, Akhtar, etc.

Hell, given the bowling depth and pitch conditions of the 90s, Ponting has to finish atleast 5-10 clear of Tendulkar's average to even merit comparison.

LOL, you're talking about a player 'apple-shining' another player. That's great, it happens a lot.

Curiously it happens only with Tendulkar/Dravid and Ganguly.I wonder why. Geez.
Look, nomatter how you spin it, it simply does not compare- Aussies face next-to-no-pressure compared to Tendulkar : not only does he have 50 times more people's hopes riding on him, a lot more is riding on Tendulkar than any single Aussie player.
This is a fact that many commentators and players have acknowledged about stars from India- it simply does not compare to the kind of pressure they face.

It boggles my mind that you can't see how special Warne is when he has had his shoulder and finger injured on yet has such a brilliant end to his career.

Oh i recognize Warne's great comeback from injury and he deserves kudos for that. However, unlike some, i am not willing to believe nonsense tripe such as he was injured throughout the whole tour but somehow managed to bowl more than any aussie, not skip a game and even play meaningless ODIs in a bilateral series. I don't dispute the fact that Warne got injured in that tour and subsequently had to make a great comeback but he clearly got injured after the tests were over and 2-3 ODIs were over too. Its nothing more than nonsense because before that series, Warne vs Tendulkar/Azhar was billed as 'contest of a lifetime' and Warne got utterly owned. Aussie media couldnt swallow their pride and when Warne got injured at the tail end of the tour, the media just went 'oh he was injured all along. Its okay i suppose. Our hero is still infallible'. Unfortunately, the myth of Warne getting injured during the tests still exists because its the crutch for Aussie media to justify how their bleached-blonde superhero at the height of his powers got horribly owned by the best players of spin in the world. In 99 the excuse was 'he's fresh off of injury' - when he happened to've come back 6-7 months prior to the India series and had already played 4-5 tests since his comeback till he faced India again.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting is handicapped by the fact that he did pretty much diddly squat in the 90s against the likes of Wasim/Waqar/Donald/Pollock/Klusener/Walsh/Ambrose etc. Tendulkar averaged 59 towards the start of the 2000s against that bunch + McGrath/Warne, while Ponting is doing the same against a significantly poorer batch of bowlers.

It could very well be that the current Ponting could have averaged 59 against that bunch if he were transported today back into the 90s, but it is also equally plausible that the Tendulkar of the 90s could average 70+ against the current batch of bowlers.

The only reasonn why we're witnessing this argument is because Ponting's ascent has coincided with Tendulkar's decline (and much of that decline is injury imposed if I'm not mistaken).

I'd give Tendulkar the nod ahead of Ponting in both forms of the game.

Ponting had about 33 games pre-2000 and scored at an average of about 44 whilst batting at #6. That's not poor at all .

Oh, Tendulkar played about the same amount of matches pre-Ponting.

When you mention these bowlers, do you also mention he didn't do that great against most of these nations?

Here is his test record pre-Ponting, country by country.

Biggest avg comes against Sri Lanka, I'm sure people wouldn't argue that they were a great bowling side. Not only wasn't Murali established then, he'd only played a handful of test matches against India.

West Indies, great achievement, and his performance in Australia was fine too. But the rest doesn't paint the picture you do as above where it seems he faced all those bowlers.

I mean, Klusener and Pollock debuted at around the same, if not a bit after, Ponting did. So Sachin has no exclusivity on that. And when he faced S.Africa there was one great bowler and that was Donald.

Against the Windies there was one that was Walsh and that's it. I've searched, it seems Ambrose never played Tendulkar. He played India in 88/89 but Tendulkar hadn't debuted by then.

Against Australia the best we had was Mcdermott, and in the middle of the 91 season Warne debuted (and we know all EXACTLY how he was in the beginning). McGrath didn't even face India. The century that he got was when the last test, when tie was already a dead. Finished 4-0 to Australia.

So as you see, it's not so much that Tendulkar faced massively great bowlers before Ponting debuted, but rather that for his age he faired well despite his inexperience. I mean, all the bowlers named above Ponting played against. I mean this is Ponting pre-2000 vs those same sides and sometimes he batted 9th.

He faced the Wasims, the Mushtaqs, the Muralis...Donald Pollock, Klusener, Kumble.

So I think it's a tad exaggerated right now...

 

[Ikki]

No but 7 tests and a dozen-n-half ODIs a year for 5 years between 16 and 21 is equivalent of a mid 20s guy carrying a 12-13 tests and 20+ ODI load for the same period, if not worse.

Do I add Ponting's ODI stats too?

Let's stick to the test matches and their performances.

You also seem to think that when you're younger you're less capable of handling this physical pressure, not so. Mental pressure, probably. But as you age those two characteristics swap places. The mental pressure lessens as the physical pressure raises. To say that from 28 onwards Tendulkar lost his shape in the way that you describe is unrealistic to me.

And that is because the last four years of his career has been severely hit by injuries.

LOL, so at the World cup when he had like 650 runs in 11 matches he was injured? Everyone has problems mate. Ponting was an alcoholic, that doesn't enhance your play btw. Everyone gets injured, everyone has problems. All sportsmen have an expiry date in which their best form ends. Tendulkar's has gone, but it's not just because of his injuries. Tendulkar's form has steadily dropped, and it's only since 05 that his yearly average has gone to lows we hadn't seen since 96 or 97. He's not doing terribly bad, he is just slumping off.

Err no he isn't. Lara started playing for the WI when he was 22 or 23, Tendulkar when he was 16. That is a huge difference.

Um, no actually it works in favour of Lara. He is still playing despite being much older than Tendulkar and still scoring runs. Whilst it can be debatable, I think it's a tad tougher to bad through your mid-to-late 30s than to do so through 18-21. So again, this 'mileage' issue has not affected Lara as much and he IS taking advantage of the so-called 'easier standards'.

Unless he gets it in the 65-70 range, he doesnt even enter comparison with Tendulkar tbh.

LOL, sure he doesn't.

No,anyone who thinks that this era has 'much better batsmen' and that Ponting is a patch on Tugga or Youhana is a patch on Miandad, Younis Khan is a patch on Deano, etc. got rocks for brains really.

Sorry, I explained myself wrongly there. I don't actually imply that it is. What I am trying to get you to do is get out of your square box where everything seems to be tied in a knot. No one really knows how the bowlers of this era will turn out or how it's batsmen will finish.

Shortly after or during world cup 2003.

That's what I thought too.

The very fact that he fits the definition of a classic early starting prodigy earns him way more points in my books.

Your books? That's great.

He is the only one who can stake a claim to prodigal production. No one else, not even Ponting can- as i said, Ponting is at the height of his career and at similar stage, Tendulkar had identical stats but against better bowling opposition.

Stop talking crap and trying to define everything for everybody. I know what it means and guys like Ponting and Lara can be considered prodigal.

I am not ignoring it at all. Merely saying that the trough came at a stage where bowling and pitches are substandard, thus not raising any questions about newfound weakness or inability/chink in the armor. The high came against far better opposition and pitches in much more tougher conditions. If Tendy, like Ponting too had started to make cheap runs with no bowlers around and easy pitches while batting in the strongest batting lineup and puttered along with a mid 40s average (again, like Ponting) when good bowlers and good pitches were the norm, i'd say Tendy is overrated too.

That's rubbish. If Tendy continued to plug away and play like he did it would make him an even greater batsman than he is.

You make no sense, because he is failing to take advantage of these conditions he's great, but if he were to he'd be poor. Non sense.

Yes.
Like i said, Ponting's peak doesnt stand out like Tendulkar's does. When Tendy was averaging 57-58, Lara was averaging 51-52, Steve Waugh 50-51, Andy Flower 50-52 and Inzamam 49-50. Rest were all in the 45-ish zone.
That is way more dominant than Ponting who is sitting just short of 60, with one guy at 57, 3 guys in 56-54 range with about 8-9 guys in the 48-53 range.

Batting obviously hasnt improved for there is no bowler today ( yes, not even McGrath) who is equal of over half a dozen from Tendy's peak period.

Making runs against Waqar, Wasim, Saqlain, McGrath,Fleming, Gillespie, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Caddick,Gough, Fraser, Donald, Pollock, deVilliers, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop and Cairns everywhere around the world counts a lot more than making runs against Kumble, Harbhajan, Vaas, Murali, Flintoff, Ntini, half-steam Pollock, Harmison, Collins, Akhtar, etc.

Hell, given the bowling depth and pitch conditions of the 90s, Ponting has to finish atleast 5-10 clear of Tendulkar's average to even merit comparison.

If 'Yes', then you just proved yourself wrong. Ponting is in his own class. And if you actually watch cricket these years you would see that.

BTW, you should stop naming bowlers willy nilly as if Sachin faced all of them, or that Ponting hasn't. Ponting has faced pretty much all those bowlers in the first category, just as Sachin has faced all those in the second category (apart from their respective teammates, of course).

Curiously it happens only with Tendulkar/Dravid and Ganguly.I wonder why. Geez.
Look, nomatter how you spin it, it simply does not compare- Aussies face next-to-no-pressure compared to Tendulkar : not only does he have 50 times more people's hopes riding on him, a lot more is riding on Tendulkar than any single Aussie player.
This is a fact that many commentators and players have acknowledged about stars from India- it simply does not compare to the kind of pressure they face.

Hahahaha, what? 'Aussies face next-to-no-pressure compared to Tendulkar". Are you that far gone? I always conceded that the Indian team faces a lot of pressure, but you're just getting into that brown zone with your arguments now.

Oh i recognize Warne's great comeback from injury and he deserves kudos for that. However, unlike some, i am not willing to believe nonsense tripe such as he was injured throughout the whole tour but somehow managed to bowl more than any aussie, not skip a game and even play meaningless ODIs in a bilateral series. I don't dispute the fact that Warne got injured in that tour and subsequently had to make a great comeback but he clearly got injured after the tests were over and 2-3 ODIs were over too. Its nothing more than nonsense because before that series, Warne vs Tendulkar/Azhar was billed as 'contest of a lifetime' and Warne got utterly owned. Aussie media couldnt swallow their pride and when Warne got injured at the tail end of the tour, the media just went 'oh he was injured all along. Its okay i suppose. Our hero is still infallible'. Unfortunately, the myth of Warne getting injured during the tests still exists because its the crutch for Aussie media to justify how their bleached-blonde superhero at the height of his powers got horribly owned by the best players of spin in the world. In 99 the excuse was 'he's fresh off of injury' - when he happened to've come back 6-7 months prior to the India series and had already played 4-5 tests since his comeback till he faced India again.

Yeah, I've heard your rambling before. It's good you credit Warne and noticing how hard it was to continue bowling with those injuries. Yet I think you have no place to question Warne's competitiveness. He is, to me, and others, one of the most COMPETITIVE and big hearted players out there. You can knock his character all you want, on the field, he has few peers.

 

[C_C]

You also seem to think that when you're younger you're less capable of handling this physical pressure, not so.

Is so. Should i refer you to a doctor ?

To say that from 28 onwards Tendulkar lost his shape in the way that you describe is unrealistic to me

To you. Which explains a lot.

LOL, so at the World cup when he had like 650 runs in 11 matches he was injured?

Didnt say he was injured through the whole world cup, did i ??

Tendulkar's has gone, but it's not just because of his injuries.

False. It is pretty much due to injuries and injuries alone because Tendulkar is not old enough to have fading reflexes/eyesight that commonly afflicts players during their natural decline.

Um, no actually it works in favour of Lara. He is still playing despite being much older than Tendulkar and still scoring runs.

Lara has less mileage than Tendulkar on him and furthermore, he wasnt subject to the stress and strain of international cricket at such an early age.

No one really knows how the bowlers of this era will turn out or how it's batsmen will finish.

Who cares how they turn out ? So if tomorrow Zaheer Khan becomes worldclass and starts taking 5 wickets/match regularly, somehow Ponting's performance against a really crap Zaheer in 2003 get better ? what kind of ridiculous logic is this ? It doesnt matter how the bowlers of today turns out or what not in the future. The bottomline is they suck as of now and its these sucky bowlers that Ponting has beaten around to make his records.

Stop talking crap and trying to define everything for everybody. I know what it means and guys like Ponting and Lara can be considered prodigal.

If you knew what the word meant, you wouldnt be thinking Ponting or Lara to be 'prodigal' because they neither started young enough to be a prodigy neither did they produce runs massively better than their peers like Bradman did.

Ponting is in his own class. And if you actually watch cricket these years you would see that.

yes i see that- he is in his own class allright. Pretty much the only batsman i can think of who is demon against mediocre pace bowling and sucks against spin when it actually requires more skill than just closing the eyes and sweeping.
Sorry but anyone who's seen cricket from the 90s knows that Ponting is not in Lara-Tendulkar class.
He is distinctly second tier compared to them.

You make no sense, because he is failing to take advantage of these conditions he's great, but if he were to he'd be poor. Non sense.

What i meant is Tendulkar would be less great in my books if his career-path had followed Ponting's, where he is a mid 40s averaging decent bat till his mid 20s and somehow hits form at the same time when pitches go utterly flat and opposition bowling quality goes down the drain.
Tendulkar as far as i am concerned is better simply because his peak came at a time far more trying and his current slump doesnt mean much since runs are cheap today anyways.

Ponting has faced pretty much all those bowlers in the first category, just as Sachin has faced all those in the second category

Ponting has faced those bowlers :
a) Lot less frequently
b) with a lot less success.

The point in naming the bowlers was to demonstrate who the top adversaries were during their respective peaks.

Are you that far gone?

I should be asking you the same question.

It's good you credit Warne and noticing how hard it was to continue bowling with those injuries.

he didnt bowl through injuries in that tour, thats just a lame excuse created by the Aussie media.
If Warne says he was injured during the tests, he is lying out of his teeth, period. Given his character ( or lack of it), i wouldnt be surprised if the media generated this story and Warne endorsed it to save his ego.

 

[C_C]

I've searched, it seems Ambrose never played Tendulkar

You obviously have not searched well enough.

Oh, Tendulkar played about the same amount of matches pre-Ponting.

So ?

West Indies, great achievement, and his performance in Australia was fine too. But the rest doesn't paint the picture you do as above where it seems he faced all those bowlers.

I mean, Klusener and Pollock debuted at around the same, if not a bit after, Ponting did. So Sachin has no exclusivity on that. And when he faced S.Africa there was one great bowler and that was Donald.

First off, England were a competetive bowling unit back then. Secondly, South Africa were a lot more than just Donald - a lot of their early 90s bowlers were extremely good players at the tail end of their careers. Shultz was excellent the few times he played.

Against Australia the best we had was Mcdermott, and in the middle of the 91 season Warne debuted (and we know all EXACTLY how he was in the beginning).

McDermott-Hughes-Reid were an excellent bowling attack and just for comparison, they'd be easily third best behind Aus and Rsa in the early 2000s-current day stakes.
These are the bowlers Tendulkar made runs against while still a teenager.

So as you see, it's not so much that Tendulkar faced massively great bowlers before Ponting debuted, but rather that for his age he faired well despite his inexperience.

He faced bowling quality on average better than what Ponting faces today or through his peak. And that too on far harder surface to bat on.

In short, Ponting's runs have far less value than Tendulkar's since they are made at a time when making runs is a lot easier. Tendulkar would be cashing in too if injuries hadn't taken his toll and his peak happened about now.

 

[Matt79]

Oh good, another 5 page discussion about whether CC's definition of "being a prodigy" is correct... excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out.

I'm an avowed Ponting fan, but I don't think you can make the case that Ponting is better than him. He MAY, and I stress MAY, end up his career being bracketed as roughly equal to Tendulkar, although that's quite speculative because there's a fair chunk of his career to come and we don't know what that will bring. Suffice to say that at the moment, Ponting is doing pretty much all he can to make his case, and if he can continue like this it will be great to watch and will further enhance his reputation.

 

[R_D]

Oh good, another 5 page discussion about whether CC's definition of "being a prodigy" is correct... excuse me while I go gouge my eyes out.

hahaha this happens every few months or so innit? There's no social this time..... its usually a 3 way thing.. C_C and Social and Kazholic.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The prodigy thing of C_C's is particularly annoying, really, and he trots it out pretty often, as Matt said. The reality is that Ponting was a cricketing prodigy himself. He was spotted in school and fast tracked from then on, there's numerous glowing reviews of his performances in junior cricket, and he began his career with Tasmania and then Australia respectively at an incredibly young age, given the norms of Australia's cricket setup and the strength of the team at the time. You'd be hard pressed to name any player in the recent past other than Tendulkar who was so talented and so talked about at such a young age, in fact.

Nobody is ever going to play test cricket for Australia at 17 in the modern era. They could be Bradman's reincarnation and they'd still have to wait until 20, simple as that. Arguing that Tendulkar is better than Ponting because he played from a younger age is just stupid. It's like arguing that Ponting is better because he won more often. Both are related to the country they represent, and have nothing to do with their respective abilities. Ponting certainly took longer to develop in test cricket, but success at test level isn't really where you judge whether or not someone is a "prodigy".

And this is leaving aside that it's more or less irrelevant to rating them as cricketers today...

 

[Ikki]

Is so. Should i refer you to a doctor ?

To your shrink, sure. I need to check his certificate.

To you. Which explains a lot.

Well if you think that it ISN'T strange for a sportsmen of Tendulkar's stature to take a dip like this, even despite him starting off young, then that is half your problem.

Didnt say he was injured through the whole world cup, did i ??

Doesn't matter if you did or didn't.

False. It is pretty much due to injuries and injuries alone because Tendulkar is not old enough to have fading reflexes/eyesight that commonly afflicts players during their natural decline.

Yes, because that is his only Kryptonite. He is unlike every other player in history which has had a certain trough due to form. For him, it's purely injuries.

Lara has less mileage than Tendulkar on him and furthermore, he wasnt subject to the stress and strain of international cricket at such an early age.

You don't seem to get it, not every cricketer has had to start at Tendulkar's age to have gained any strain. As early as Tendulkar started, he hasn't played at Lara's age yet. So it's a comparison between Tendulkar's start and Lara's end. And to me, it is much more impressive seeing Lara at his 'mileage' still doing it. Funny, Sachin has been known more for his consistency.

Who cares how they turn out ? So if tomorrow Zaheer Khan becomes worldclass and starts taking 5 wickets/match regularly, somehow Ponting's performance against a really crap Zaheer in 2003 get better ? what kind of ridiculous logic is this ? It doesnt matter how the bowlers of today turns out or what not in the future. The bottomline is they suck as of now and its these sucky bowlers that Ponting has beaten around to make his records.

LOL, nevermind, you're not getting the point. Ponting beat 'sucky' bowlers to get these records? How has Tendulkar been doing against these 'sucky' bowlers? Oh...

If you knew what the word meant, you wouldnt be thinking Ponting or Lara to be 'prodigal' because they neither started young enough to be a prodigy neither did they produce runs massively better than their peers like Bradman did.

I know what the word means, sunshine. And looking at this thread and with others you've discussed this same matter I think it's time for you to concede 1 intsy bitsy point.

yes i see that- he is in his own class allright. Pretty much the only batsman i can think of who is demon against mediocre pace bowling and sucks against spin when it actually requires more skill than just closing the eyes and sweeping.
Sorry but anyone who's seen cricket from the 90s knows that Ponting is not in Lara-Tendulkar class.
He is distinctly second tier compared to them.

And anyone who has read this post and read this thread knows how the wheels turn in your head.

What i meant is Tendulkar would be less great in my books if his career-path had followed Ponting's, where he is a mid 40s averaging decent bat till his mid 20s and somehow hits form at the same time when pitches go utterly flat and opposition bowling quality goes down the drain.
Tendulkar as far as i am concerned is better simply because his peak came at a time far more trying and his current slump doesnt mean much since runs are cheap today anyways.

That's your problem, you think a player peaking or not is directly related to how the pitch or bowling conditions are. If they are that much easier now it wouldn't make sense for Tendi to be losing his grip on the mantle. As I said, if you want to go down that road, then you should be even more critical of Tendulkar now. Yes, he has mitigating factors but NONE of those will wash away his poorer form.


But you said it...runs are cheap nowadays...I think everybody should stop playing cricket because this generation will never amount to anything.

Ponting has faced those bowlers :
a) Lot less frequently
b) with a lot less success.

Actually, when you make the case for young Tendi, of those bowlers you named that he actually DID play, only had 2-3 test matches. Tendulkar had started off great, that's his claim to fame, but he hasn't sustained that success towards the current date and even these 'sucky' bowlers seem to cause the great man trouble. Because you know, he is a man. Not a prophet, not a God. A simple sportsman.

Anyway, Ponting:

a) played against those sides just as much
b) was a tad less successful

I think we can forgive him for averaging 44 for his first 4 years, considering Tendi's first few years weren't much to write home about and actually he averaged less than Ponting did. But of course, that's because he was younger .

The point in naming the bowlers was to demonstrate who the top adversaries were during their respective peaks.

Yeah, it kinda doesn't matter when you don't play them .

he didnt bowl through injuries in that tour, thats just a lame excuse created by the Aussie media.
If Warne says he was injured during the tests, he is lying out of his teeth, period. Given his character ( or lack of it), i wouldnt be surprised if the media generated this story and Warne endorsed it to save his ego.

Again, you have no respect. On the field, absolutely no question of his commitment. The guy bowled his guts out through his divorce, carried the Aussie side on his back. He's bowled when he was unfit, injured and even against it. You can rant as much as you like, you won't defame Shane Warne.

 

[Ikki]

You obviously have not searched well enough.

Well give me some help. I'm not a wizz at this like you . When/where/how many?

So ?

So, if Ponting playing 30 or so games in the "hard era to bat" doesn't gain any merit, because it isn't enough, then Tendulkar also has the same trouble because he only played 38 tests before Ponting arrived on the scene.

First off, England were a competetive bowling unit back then. Secondly, South Africa were a lot more than just Donald - a lot of their early 90s bowlers were extremely good players at the tail end of their careers. Shultz was excellent the few times he played.

Yeah, we're talking about excellent bowlers. Not just 'good' bowlers. We have 'good' ones even now. I hear straws being clutched...

McDermott-Hughes-Reid were an excellent bowling attack and just for comparison, they'd be easily third best behind Aus and Rsa in the early 2000s-current day stakes.
These are the bowlers Tendulkar made runs against while still a teenager.

Lovely fellows...just not the kind of bowlers we were talking about right? Or do you want to digress into a debate to make these guys seem excellent too.

He faced bowling quality on average better than what Ponting faces today or through his peak. And that too on far harder surface to bat on.

It sounds to me you're willing to make every generalisation under the sun, or any excuse, to protect your hero. Which is fine, but just don't think you're fooling everyone mate.

If you're going to bring up bowlers now, it would actually be more apt to say that nowadays they have more trouble...considering you keep bringing up the pitches debate...

In short, Ponting's runs have far less value than Tendulkar's since they are made at a time when making runs is a lot easier. Tendulkar would be cashing in too if injuries hadn't taken his toll and his peak happened about now.

LOL, and YOU judge which runs have value do you?

Please, stick to facts, stick to some good common sense. And don't go overboard, it's getting a tad annoying.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, I've heard your rambling before. It's good you credit Warne and noticing how hard it was to continue bowling with those injuries. Yet I think you have no place to question Warne's competitiveness. He is, to me, and others, one of the most COMPETITIVE and big hearted players out there. You can knock his character all you want, on the field, he has few peers.

Agreed. He didn't do well in India, but neither did Murali really, because its a real hard place for opposing bowlers (both fast and spin). Unless a spinner comes along who does well everywhere PLUS India, you can't really blame Warne.

And I can't really fault Warne's competitiveness. Really, he has bowled very very long spells just because his team needed to. Including bowling very defensively, which I am sure he hated, because thats what the team needed. It's not really much of a shame to lose the battle against Indian batsman in India if you're a spinner, considering Murali has lost that battle to.

Murali may or may not be a better spinner, but I'd have Warne in my team any time without blinking. Period.

 

[silentstriker]

Agreed. He didn't do well in India, but neither did Murali really, because its a real hard place for opposing bowlers (both fast and spin). Unless a spinner comes along who does well everywhere PLUS India, you can't really blame Warne.

And I can't really fault Warne's competitiveness. Really, he has bowled very very long spells just because his team needed to. Including bowling very defensively, which I am sure he hated, because thats what the team needed. It's not really much of a shame to lose the battle against Indian batsman in India if you're a spinner, considering Murali has lost that battle to.

Murali may or may not be a better spinner, but I'd have Warne in my team any time without blinking. Period.

Also: I'm out of the Ponting-Sachin-Lara discussion for the next two years, until Ponting proves it one way or another. Right now, I don't see him equivalent to the other two. If he improves his record in India, then I am more than willing to acknowledge that he is.

I don't see it out of the question that someone can be better than Lara or Sachin...there have been better batsmen before and I'm sure there will be in the future. That's part of sport. As long as its not some guy that makes me puke when I watch them (Afridi, Sehwag, Symonds), I have no problem admitting it.

 

[C_C]

Yeah, we're talking about excellent bowlers. Not just 'good' bowlers. We have 'good' ones even now. I hear straws being clutched.

Clutching straws ? eh ?

Okay, lets see how good the attacks back then ( late 80s to mid 90s) were compared to today:

Australia : worse back then
England : About even-par or very slightly better today
South Africa: About the same as today
WI : Way better back then
Pakistan: Way better back then
New Zealand: way better back then
Zimbabwe : way better back then.
Sri Lanka : better today

The kind of opposition against whom Tendulkar built his 50+ average is still better than the ones today on average.

Which is fine, but just don't think you're fooling everyone mate.

If you're going to bring up bowlers now, it would actually be more apt to say that nowadays they have more trouble...considering you keep bringing up the pitches debate...

yes. Bowlers nowadays have more trouble - which makes the batsmen's job a lot easier.

As per the mid90s to 2002 period when Tendy peaked as opposed to 2000-2007 period, the bowling attack in general was way better.

England's bowling was about the same in the 90s compared to today.
Pakistan's bowling attack in the 90s was infinitely better than it is today
Sri Lanka's bowling attack was about the same when Tendulkar peaked ( Murali + Vaas from 96 onwards and Sachin has clobbered them too)
South Africa's bowling attack was way better in the 90s.
New Zealand on paper have a better attack today due to Bond but considering how less Bond plays, NZ attack of the mid/late 90s too was better
West Indies had infinitely better bowling and Tendulkar faced Ambrose,Walsh and Bishop in their home turf, went away averaging 57.
Even Zimbabwe were a decent bowling outfit when Streak-Olonga-Strang played together and they would be a much better bowling attack than WI/BD/ZIM today.

And furthermore, Australia's bowling attack has always been a lot better than India's.

So in reality, apart from Sri lanka and England, who are no better than their 90s versions, every single bowling attack Tendulkar played during his peak period was categorically better than their new millenium reincarnations.
That is an indisputable fact to anyone who's watched cricket long enough, really.

Yeah, we're talking about excellent bowlers. Not just 'good' bowlers. We have 'good' ones even now. I hear straws being clutched

Err no. More good bowlers back then.

During his first 5-6 years, Tendulkar faced Reid, McDermott, Hughes, Wasim,Waqar,Imran,Qadir, Hadlee, Embury,Fraser, Donald, Walsh, etc.

That is certainly not a weak pool of bowlers.

 

[marc71178]

England : About even-par or very slightly better today

A bit more than "very slightly" better these days I'd have to say.

 

[C_C]

A bit more than "very slightly" better these days I'd have to say.

Disagree. Malcolm-Fraser-Gough-Caddick-Tufnell are about even-par with Flintoff-Harmison-Jones-Giles-Hoggard.

The latter group looks a lot better than they are because the bowling quality today is a lot thinner.

 

[Ikki]

This is going to go on forever it seems.

I already showed you his performances against the other nations on only a few of them were really notable. Just because he faced the rest doesn't mean he did well overall. Against Pakistan his average was 35, against South Africa it was 33. It doesn't do him favours just to name these bowlers.

The few teams he did do impressively against did not have those great bowlers. Sri Lanka for one, England for another. Windies was a solid achievement, even though there was no Ambrose, just a Walsh.

So, as it stands, pre-Ponting Tendulkar was impressive with the few games he did play against these bowlers, but not so much as that he knocked them around but moreso because of his age.

And when you talk about mid-90s to 2000 being more difficult than 2000-2007, I agree. Except that Ponting having only played 30 or so matches in that era, did better than Tendulkar in his first few years. These are just the formative years in a cricketer's test career. He averaged 44 at #6. That is far from any suggestion that Ponting would not be capable of becoming better, even if the bowling stayed the same. As I said, your problem is you directly correlating peaks and troughs with pitch/bowling conditions. This assumption is fallable and contradictory.

If you wish to, as a rule, stain Ponting's record because his peak came in this era, then you should also take into account that Tendulkar has done much poorer. So this isn't a 1+1=2 argument here.

To clarify, I agree that Tendulkar is better than Ponting - outside of those two I think better than both is Lara. However, the quick generalisations of the periods, the players and those they faced is bothersome. Whilst many will agree that this decade the runs were a bit easier in getting than those in the last, quality batting will always be quality batting. I tend to think that if Ponting had this form in the 90's, he would be doing very very well. How well, well that's speculative, and to each his own.