Where does Ricky Ponting rank?

[honestbharani]

Yes. But that wasn't the point of contention was your first statement:



So if Ponting plays in India again and performs well, I thought you would still hold the 8 tests against him which would be wrong.

As I said earlier, given his records in Lanka and in one dayers in India and versus India, I do not hold his failures in India too much against him (even though the above two are not perfect gaugers).

However, I do not have a huge problem with people holding Ponting's record in India against him like you might.

well, I would rate Ponting over most other batters, as a matter of fact. But let us say when you are comparing him with a batsman who has had a good record in all the countries he has played in, in most of his tours, then yes, I would rate that batsman higher than Ponting.

Because when rating all time greats, you have to take their whole careers into account. No good saying Ponting of the last 8 years is the greatest batsman since Bradman. It may even be true, but that wouldn't make Ponting the greatest batsman since Bradman.

 

[Pratters]

Because when rating all time greats, you have to take their whole careers into account.

You have to take whole careers into account but if some one improves or strides over past deficiencies, the past should not be held against them.

 

[Pratters]

well, I would rate Ponting over most other batters, as a matter of fact. But let us say when you are comparing him with a batsman who has had a good record in all the countries he has played in, in most of his tours, then yes, I would rate that batsman higher than Ponting.

As I said earlier,

I do not hold his failures in India too much against him.

However, I do not have a huge problem with people holding Ponting's record in India against him like you might.

 

[honestbharani]

You have to take whole careers into account but if some one improves or strides over past deficiencies, the past should not be held against them.

even when comparing him to someone who had no such deficiencies in the first place?? I am not too sure of that. After all, the gap is generally very narrow between the great players. That is the reason they are called "great", isn't it? And so, when one is trying to compare, you do need to weigh such stuff. There is no disputing that he is (or will go on to be) one of the greats, but when the question is "how great?" such things will have to be debated upon.

 

[silentstriker]

You have to take whole careers into account but if some one improves or strides over past deficiencies, the past should not be held against them.

But then does it work the other way? If they grow worse after a while, do you only take their past into account?

 

[Khaalis Gumbs]

It is very suprising that a man of Sir Viv's power and quality to the game of cricket is unable to have a higher average than Lara could I be given the reason . Viv is one of the greats don't get me wrong Lara is to but it's just suprising .

 

[Pratters]

even when comparing him to someone who had no such deficiencies in the first place??

Depends on the careers of the given individuals really. For instance, I wouldn't hold Steve Waugh's deficiencies against the bounces earlier in his career against him because he developed the game to play brilliantly despite it.

 

[Pratters]

But then does it work the other way? If they grow worse after a while, do you only take their past into account?

Again, depends on the career in question. Richards' and a lot of greats if I am not mistaken, had relatively poorer careers at the fag end. They were not enough to tarnish their legacy much while in some cases, legacies were tarnished a bit, like in the case of Kapil Dev for instance. Also, this (legacies cricketers leave) is pretty subjective a lot of the times and people will have different views on it - which is why I can understand some one feeling differently right now regarding Ponting's career because of his record in India right now. However, I do not see why his earlier record should be held against him if he makes runs in a future tour to India because like Steve Waugh, he would be dispelling doubts and would show he has developed/honed his game.

 

[marc71178]

well, I would rate Ponting over most other batters, as a matter of fact. But let us say when you are comparing him with a batsman who has had a good record in all the countries he has played in, in most of his tours, then yes, I would rate that batsman higher than Ponting.

What, like a Dravid?

 

[Francis]

I sometimes think that if a player has a poor record against one country, after playing them for a while, he shouldn't be chatised and said "oh but he stuggles there." Ponting is an example of someone who sould not be chastised for playing poor in India because quite frankly, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't do well in India if you ask me. He's a glorious player of spin, had tremendous footwork... technically he's got flaws, but they rarely hinder him.

The fact that Ponting may have a poor record in India doesn't neccessarily mean he has a problem in India... who knows? It could simply have been he played there when in poor form, or when injured (like in 2004) and simply didn't fire for reasons that have nothing to do with India. I mean if you could see Ponting having trouble adjusting to subcontinent wickets or something to that effect, then you could count that against him... if he played a rash shot he normally wouldn't play though, well you can't count that against him and say "well he sucks against India." Truth is, there's no reason to believe Ponting wouldn't rock anywhere in the world.

There's plenty of cricketers who never did great against one country, many of them you wouldn't suspect as having such a poor record, and I think the fact that it didn't bug us before we knew of their poor record, is reason to believe that it really doesn't matter.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I sometimes think that if a player has a poor record against one country, after playing them for a while, he shouldn't be chatised and said "oh but he stuggles there." Ponting is an example of someone who sould not be chastised for playing poor in India because quite frankly, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't do well in India if you ask me. He's a glorious player of spin, had tremendous footwork... technically he's got flaws, but they rarely hinder him.

The fact that Ponting may have a poor record in India doesn't neccessarily mean he has a problem in India... who knows? It could simply have been he played there when in poor form, or when injured (like in 2004) and simply didn't fire for reasons that have nothing to do with India. I mean if you could see Ponting having trouble adjusting to subcontinent wickets or something to that effect, then you could count that against him... if he played a rash shot he normally wouldn't play though, well you can't count that against him and say "well he sucks against India." Truth is, there's no reason to believe Ponting wouldn't rock anywhere in the world.

There's plenty of cricketers who never did great against one country, many of them you wouldn't suspect as having such a poor record, and I think the fact that it didn't bug us before we knew of their poor record, is reason to believe that it really doesn't matter.

I believe the term is "Afridi".

 

[silentstriker]

What, like a Dravid?

No, like a Lara.