Piper
International Captain
Hahahahahah! I think it's hilarious to be honest!'Till the 19th of bloody July.
And knowing my luck I'll probably have Tori or someone else Hakon likes after that too...
Dude. Butt. MSN. Now. Please.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Tendulkar vs Ponting - who will win the battle of 100's?
- Thread starter Laurrz
- Start date
Dude. Butt. MSN. Now. Please.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
I don't know what you're knocking around about? It still holds sway. Ponting batted mostly at #6 as I showed you and his average only dropped when he was moved around. It really doesn't matter from when to when you think the period is. His debut to the start of 2002. That sounds more fair, considering leaving out those matches does sway the argument unfavourably.
Uptil then he had 52 tests
He batted 33 times at #6 and he averaged 50.
He batted 13 times at #3 and he averaged 41.
He batted 6 times at #5 and he averaged 37.
Ponting started off his career in 95/96 messing around in 3 test matches at #3 but then was moved to #6 where he played predominantly until 2001 where he was swapped back to #3. In between those years he was adjusted to #5 and back in those few test matches. So, again...
And if we want to be fair, let's compare Tendulkar's trough to Ponting's in the period after. If it's so much easier to score then it's even more damning to Sachin. As 'The Sean' has said, at least be respectful and compare all these guys consistently.
Last edited:
The Sean
Cricketer Of The Year
Thanks mate, and thanks to Rich for the welcome back too. I can't promise I'll be on here as often as I would like to be, but I'll try to be here more often than I have over the past few months!*nominates for Afridi* Gun post, bias aside, and it's great to have you back
Manee
Cricketer Of The Year
ALL IN TESTS BECAUSE I WILL DO ONE DAYERS AT A LATER DATERichard said:
I would not say he has outperformed them, but he has always been up at their standard and never dropped below. Look at this...never a poor season.
Code:
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
1995 (age: 20y 13d) 2 2 0 167 96 71 - 83.50 0 2 0
1996 (21y 13d) 4 8 0 163 88 20 14 20.37 0 1 0
1997 (22y 13d) 7 11 1 497 127 105 73* 49.70 2 1 0
1998 (23y 13d) 9 14 1 382 76* 62 60 29.38 0 3 0
1999 (24y 13d) 11 17 3 883 197 125 105* 63.07 4 3 3
2000 (25y 13d) 5 7 2 318 141* 92 26* 63.60 1 1 0
2001 (26y 13d) 14 24 4 772 157* 144 72 38.60 2 4 3
2002 (27y 13d) 11 16 1 1064 154 150 141 70.93 5 2 0
2003 (28y 13d) 11 18 3 1503 257 242 206 100.20 6 4 1
2004 (29y 13d) 10 19 2 697 98 92 68 41.00 0 5 0
2005 (30y 13d) 15 28 5 1544 207 156 149 67.13 6 6 1
2006 (31y 13d) 10 18 3 1333 196 143* 142 88.86 7 4 0
2007 (32y 13d) 1 1 0 45 45 - - 45.00 0 0 0Bottom is Langer, Top is Ponting,
Code:
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
overall 110 183 25 9368 257 242 207 59.29 33 36 8
105 182 12 7696 250 223 215 45.27 23 30 11
Pakistan in Australia, 1999/00 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 4 0 197 197 0 0 49.25 1 0 3
3 4 0 331 144 127 59 82.75 2 1 0
Australia in South Africa, 2005/06 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 6 0 348 116 103 74 58.00 2 1 0
3 5 1 122 37 35 34 30.50 0 0 0
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 2000/01 [Series]
(won by Ind) 3 5 0 17 11 6 0 3.40 0 0 3
3 5 0 161 58 35 28 32.20 0 1 0
Southern Cross Trophy (Aus/Zim) in Zimbabwe, 1999/00 [Series]
(won by Aus) 1 1 0 31 31 - - 31.00 0 0 0
1 1 0 44 44 - - 44.00 0 0 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2005 [Series]
(won by Eng) 5 9 0 359 156 61 48 39.88 1 1 1
5 10 1 394 105 82 61 43.77 1 2 0
Pakistan in Australia, 2004/05 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 6 2 403 207 98 62* 100.75 1 2 0
3 6 0 390 191 97 50 65.00 1 2 0
ICC Super Series Test Match (Aus/ICC) in Australia, 2005/06 [Series]
(won by Aus) 1 2 0 100 54 46 - 50.00 0 1 0
1 2 0 22 22 0 - 11.00 0 0 1
South Africa in Australia, 2005/06 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 6 1 515 143* 120 117 103.00 3 2 0
2 4 0 129 47 37 25 32.25 0 0 0
Australia in South Africa, 2001/02 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 1 309 100* 89 47 77.25 1 1 0
3 5 0 152 58 37 28 30.40 0 1 0
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in New Zealand, 2004/05 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 2 293 105 86* 47* 97.66 1 1 0
3 5 2 206 72* 59* 46 68.66 0 2 0
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in West Indies, 1998/99 [Series]
(drawn) 2 4 1 168 104 22 21* 56.00 1 0 0
4 8 0 291 127 51 51 36.37 1 2 0
Southern Cross Trophy (Aus/Zim) in Australia, 2003/04 [Series]
(won by Aus) 2 3 1 259 169 53* 37 129.50 1 1 0
2 3 0 36 26 8 2 12.00 0 0 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 2006/07 [Series]
(won by Aus) 5 8 1 576 196 142 75 82.28 2 2 0
5 9 2 303 100* 82 37 43.28 1 1 1
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 2004/05 [Series]
(won by Aus) 1 2 0 23 12 11 - 11.50 0 0 0
4 8 0 228 71 52 44 28.50 0 2 2
Australia in Sri Lanka, 2003/04 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 6 0 198 92 28 27 33.00 0 1 0
3 6 0 241 166 32 19 40.16 1 0 0
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in New Zealand, 1999/00 [Series]
(won by Aus) 0 - - - - - - - - - -
3 6 1 288 122* 57 47 57.60 1 1 0
Australia v Pakistan Test Series in Sri Lanka/U.A.E., 2002/03 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 4 0 342 150 141 44 85.50 2 0 0
3 4 0 138 72 37 25 34.50 0 1 0
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in Australia, 1996/97 [Series]
(won by Aus) 2 4 0 110 88 9 9 27.50 0 1 0
2 3 0 31 19 12 0 10.33 0 0 1
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 1998/99 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 4 0 47 21 11 10 11.75 0 0 0
5 10 1 436 179* 74 52 48.44 1 2 0
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in Australia, 1999/00 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 2 375 141* 125 67 125.00 2 1 0
3 5 0 289 223 38 11 57.80 1 0 0
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in Australia, 2000/01 [Series]
(won by Aus) 5 8 2 242 92 51 26* 40.33 0 2 0
5 8 0 203 80 48 31 25.37 0 1 0
South Africa in Australia, 2001/02 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 1 115 54 25 22 28.75 0 1 0
3 6 1 365 126 116 85 73.00 2 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in Australia, 2002/03 [Series]
(won by Aus) 5 8 0 417 154 123 68 52.12 2 1 0
5 8 0 423 250 48 32 52.87 1 0 0
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in Australia, 2003/04 [Series]
(drawn) 4 8 1 706 257 242 54 100.85 2 2 1
4 8 0 369 121 117 58 46.12 2 1 1
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in Australia, 1992/93 [Series]
(won by WI) 0 - - - - - - - - - -
2 4 0 85 54 20 10 21.25 0 1 0
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in Australia, 2004/05 [Series]
(won by Aus) 2 3 1 145 68 51 26* 72.50 0 2 0
2 3 0 295 215 46 34 98.33 1 0 0
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in Australia, 2005/06 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 6 2 329 149 104* 56 82.25 2 1 0
1 2 0 119 99 20 - 59.50 0 1 0
The Frank Worrell Trophy (Aus/WI) in West Indies, 2002/03 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 1 523 206 117 113 130.75 3 0 0
4 8 1 483 146 111 78* 69.00 2 2 1
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in New Zealand, 1992/93 [Series]
(drawn) 0 - - - - - - - - - -
3 4 0 87 63 24 0 21.75 0 1 2
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in Australia, 2001/02 [Series]
(drawn) 3 5 2 251 157* 32* 31 83.66 1 0 0
3 5 1 320 123 104 75 80.00 2 1 1
Australia in Pakistan, 1994/95 [Series]
(won by Pak) 0 - - - - - - - - - -
1 1 0 69 69 - - 69.00 0 1 0
Australia in Sri Lanka, 1999 [Series]
(won by SL) 3 4 1 253 105* 96 51 84.33 1 2 0
3 4 0 51 32 7 7 12.75 0 0 0
Australia in Pakistan, 1998/99 [Series]
(won by Aus) 1 2 1 119 76* 43 - 119.00 0 1 0
3 5 0 211 116 51 30 42.20 1 1 1
Sri Lanka in Australia, 2004 [Series]
(won by Aus) 1 2 0 67 45 22 - 33.50 0 0 0
2 4 0 210 162 30 10 52.50 1 0 0
Bangladesh in Australia, 2003 [Series]
(won by Aus) 2 2 0 69 59 10 - 34.50 0 1 0
2 2 0 72 71 1 - 36.00 0 1 0
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 2001 [Series]
(won by Aus) 5 8 0 338 144 72 62 42.25 1 2 0
1 1 1 102 102* - - - 1 0 0
Sri Lanka in Australia, 1995/96 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 4 0 193 96 71 20 48.25 0 2 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 1997/98 [Series]
(won by Ind) 3 5 0 105 60 18 16 21.00 0 1 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
Trans-Tasman Trophy (Aus/NZ) in Australia, 1997/98 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 4 1 119 73* 26 16 39.66 0 1 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
South Africa in Australia, 1997/98 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 0 248 105 62 32 49.60 1 1 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
The Ashes (Aus/Eng) in England, 1997 [Series]
(won by Aus) 3 5 0 241 127 45 40 48.20 1 0 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Aus/Ind) in India, 1996/97 [Series]
(won by Ind) 1 2 0 27 14 13 - 13.50 0 0 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -
Australia in Bangladesh, 2005/06 [Series]
(won by Aus) 2 3 1 191 118* 52 21 95.50 1 1 0
0 - - - - - - - - - -Langer outperformed Ponting in 10 series'
Ponting outperformed Langer in 20 series'
Outperforming someone in 2 out of 3 series is fantastic and shows consistancy. Not only this but several of Ponting's series' have averaged at over 80 runs per dismissal and this shows match winning ability, surely this points to greatness in all directions. Doing this for Tendulkar would be pointless obviously since he has no peers with the class of Langer, but distinguishably worse than him, it would not be a fair test.
Judging by pitches and quality of bowlers, let us compare them in the years they both played.
Code:
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
1994 0 - - - - - - - - - -
[COLOR="Red"]7 11 1 700 179 142 96 70.00 2 3 0[/COLOR]
1995 2 2 0 167 96 71 - 83.50 0 2 0
[COLOR="red"]3 4 2 58 52* 4 2 29.00 0 1 0[/COLOR]
1996 4 8 0 163 88 20 14 20.37 0 1 0
[COLOR="red"]8 15 0 623 177 122 74 41.53 2 2 1[/COLOR]
1997 7 11 1 497 127 105 73* 49.70 2 1 0
[COLOR="red"]12 17 1 1000 169 148 143 62.50 4 3 0[/COLOR]
1998 9 14 1 382 76* 62 60 29.38 0 3 0
[COLOR="red"]5 9 1 647 177 155* 113 80.87 3 1 0[/COLOR]
1999 11 17 3 883 197 125 105* 63.07 4 3 3
[COLOR="red"]10 19 3 1088 217 136 126* 68.00 5 4 3[/COLOR]
2000 5 7 2 318 141* 92 26* 63.60 1 1 0
[COLOR="red"]6 10 1 575 201* 122 97 63.88 2 1 0[/COLOR]
2001 14 24 4 772 157* 144 72 38.60 2 4 3
[COLOR="red"]10 18 2 1003 155 126 103 62.68 3 6 0[/COLOR]
2002 11 16 1 1064 154 150 141 70.93 5 2 0
[COLOR="red"]16 26 1 1392 193 176 176 55.68 4 5 3[/COLOR]
2003 11 18 3 1503 257 242 206 100.20 6 4 1
[COLOR="red"]5 9 0 153 55 44 37 17.00 0 1 2[/COLOR]
2004 10 19 2 697 98 92 68 41.00 0 5 0
[COLOR="red"]10 15 5 915 248* 241* 194* 91.50 3 2 0[/COLOR]
2005 15 28 5 1544 207 156 149 67.13 6 6 1
[COLOR="red"]6 10 0 444 109 94 52 44.40 1 3 0[/COLOR]
2006 10 18 3 1333 196 143* 142 88.86 7 4 0
[COLOR="red"]8 12 1 267 63 44 34 24.27 0 1 1[/COLOR]
2007 1 1 0 45 45 - - 45.00 0 0 0
[COLOR="red"] 3 5 1 332 122* 101 64 83.00 2 1 0[/COLOR]So who is better you ask...well, I think Tendulkar. He captivated crowds with his attacking style and Ponting has not. As mentioned earlier, his form has extended further than Ponting's too with his run tally dwarfing Ponting's (about 1500 more). That is the slightest difference in two players so similar in class in tests.
Last edited:
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I think Headingley 2001 was the best period to start part-two and I've said why several times. I've said, also, that I think five, six and seven are one entity as the only reason he moved around was nightwatchman and injuries - in essence, the three positions are the exact same role.
As such, I think his average at five, six and seven between his debut and Trent Bridge 2001 is the best indicator of his ability to combat the bowling of that time. I suppose it's fair enough to make a case for excluding him being pushed up to three, but as I say - five, six and seven are one entity as far as I'm concerned.
As I say, however - Tendulkar's trough period is not really up for consideration. It's not anything worth consideration, really - it's not like he's gone from being good to being fairly good. The last 5 years are so poor they really mean pretty well nothing to the previous 12.
Ponting's, simply, is not a trough - it's a case of his runscoring altering because of a downgrading in the quality of the bowling. Tendulkar, it's a case of going from being incredibly good to being not particularly good. Incomparable cases.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Sorry to do this to you after what was presumably a fair bit of research mate but...
I was talking about Ponting, between Headingley 2001 and his most recent Test, in comparison to the others around that time. With all things being equal (ie with substandard sides removed, and with luck taken out of the equation).
So ie, compare Ponting in said time period to Dravid and Kallis in said time period.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Regardless of everything else you said, the above is key and this is what I have a problem with. It's poor reasoning and a cop out. Whilst Tendulkar is now, not as good, Ponting is simply benefiting from lower bowling standards?
I think everyone in their right mind would agree that the Ponting of 2002 and beyond is different to the one that was before. He IS actually a better batsmen and it has little to do with the downgrade in bowling. Maybe the statistics are inflated a bit here and there but to deny he is great now, because he has improved and to cancel it because of the downgrade is preposterous.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
They're of similar age.
sohummisra
U19 Debutant
Injury has no role to play in your analysis?
sohummisra
U19 Debutant
I think it's pretty clear Tendulkar will retire at an earlier age than Ponting unless Ponting suffers a severe drop in fitness.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I honestly am not willing to say he has definitively improved - it's too much of a coincidence that said "improvement" happened at the exact same time as the quality of worldwide bowling dropped off. It wasn't a gradual drop - it happened within 6-12 months.
Note one thing - I'm not saying Ponting definately hasn't improved, it's certainly possible that he has. I didn't see a great deal of him before it I have to admit but I've not seen any wholesale changes in his game - he always has been vulnerable to the moving ball, especially early on (like almost everyone, of course). That has been a somewhat rare commodity in the last 6 years, as I've already been over in the Hayden case. Yet, just as in the Hayden case, on the rare occasions we have seen it, the player in question has still had the same problems. Now as I've said, Ponting is vastly superior to Hayden, as he was already a high-class Test batsman before the bowling standards dropped. But I'm not willing to definitively say Ponting became a better player at the exact same time as bowling standards dropped-off unless there's very obvious reason to say so - and there isn't IMO.
Whereas the only thing that makes any sense in the Tendulkar case is that he has simply become a lesser player. There's absolutely no disputing that. No-one, so much as once that I've seen, has suggested he's been worked-out in any way shape or form.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
The thing is, it's not too much of a coincidence. Because better batsmen, like the one in question, have actually gone the other way. It's fine, what you say is your opinion. But a lot of people don't denigrate so much that from a 2001 a stiff breeze came and knocked all the good bowlers off their porch or that suddenly Ponting needs to average in the high 60s to compare to the batsmen of his OWN era.
Ponting in the same 'great' era, whilst batting in his most consistent position averaged 50 for 33 test matches. It's clear he was more than good. So this big thing about comparing Ricky's and Sachin's peak is irrelevant as altogether they're very close.
If you take that Sachin's peak came in a more difficult batting era, you also have to take into account that his trough comes from an, allegedly, weaker batting era. So, the good with the bad.
And I reiterate, the way Ponting is going it'll be hard to argue he isn't at least as good as Tendulkar, and if he does go breaking all those records in the same manner as he has been doing then it'll be even fair game to say he was better.
Ponting in the same 'great' era, whilst batting in his most consistent position averaged 50 for 33 test matches. It's clear he was more than good. So this big thing about comparing Ricky's and Sachin's peak is irrelevant as altogether they're very close.
If you take that Sachin's peak came in a more difficult batting era, you also have to take into account that his trough comes from an, allegedly, weaker batting era. So, the good with the bad.
And I reiterate, the way Ponting is going it'll be hard to argue he isn't at least as good as Tendulkar, and if he does go breaking all those records in the same manner as he has been doing then it'll be even fair game to say he was better.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Sure, but that's an exaggerated reason IMO. He's been fit, he's been back for a while and it's more form than a physical incapability. I'd say the remedy needed is for the mental aspect of his game. He announced he was over it, so he's not making an excuse because he plays, why should I?
And, on this point, I'd have to give some credit to Ponting and the Aussie side for their fitness regiment. Ponting is of similar age and has played almost a similar amount of test matches, although his schedule has been more congested and has managed to look like he's going to go good for another few years.
Eclipse
International Debutant
No but importaint things like better shot selection and softer hands have made a very big diference.
Plus he is not the nervous starter he once was.
sohummisra
U19 Debutant
I think you take too much away from how much injury affects players. Sachin didn't exactly just miss a whole bunch of series and then come back--he played a few series, missed a few, played a few, missed a few. It's difficult to regain form when you get injured between series, and that in itself shows that he had not fully recovered from the injury, and was playing with it.
Tendulkar has been playing for about 18 years, though, and that will take the toll on him if nothing else. Just keeping up that intensity for almost 2 decades affects mental and physical fitness to such levels that I think you and I cannot even fathom it. Besides, having a better fitness regime hardly makes you a better batsman, in the talent aspect of the evaluation.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Well, Shane Warne has suffered worse injuries as a bowler and has still come out with great form following it. Should he get extra credit for it? Yeah, sure, injuries definitely effect batsmen, but there is a reason why I credited Ponting in the previous post. Either be really precautious and keep your fitness up or bounce back and learn to get past your injuries.
And as I said, and can be seen when you watch Sachin. It's all in his head, he is still, and can be, a great batsmen.
Yeah, but Sachin is still pretty young and when he started sliding down he was still in his 20s for pete's sake. And fathoming it is what all elite sportsmen do, or must do.
A better fitness regime means your body will last longer and will be less susceptible to injury and being fitter does make you play better. It doesn't make you more talented but more physically prepared to use your talent. No offense to the Indians, and many have said it themselves on this board, your squad hasn't ever been the fittest bunch.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Word out, perfect example of these two points are his play againts the spinners since 2004 & how he came out to bat in the 1st ashes test never seen a man so confident in such a tense atmosphere you just knew he was going to score a big one in that innings.
sohummisra
U19 Debutant
It's definitely not all in his head, or at least has not been all the time. When you're playing with an injury (which Sachin did, which is why he missed in-between series because of his tennis elbow injury) it's not only in his head.
Yes, he is still pretty young but he has also been playing for ages. He started playing cricket when his body had not developed completely. And I know the players themselves must fathom it, but the point I am making is that the toll that two decades of cricket takes on your physical and mental fitness is not something anyone on this forum is in the position to empathize with. And finally, if being more fit makes you more prepared to use your talent and Indians haven't ever been the fittest bunch, yet Tendulkar has still been one of the greatest batsmen we've seen, doesn't that make Tendulkar even better? Because if he was as fit as Ponting, by your theory, Ponting would be no where near him.
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
Of course it is not all in his head, but his drop in form is more his drop in form, rather than it being just his injury - to which he had declared to have overcome.
I do empathize with the fact that he has played so much cricket, but as can be seen in articles and forum discussion alike, it isn't going to be pardoned just because he isn't as fit as he used to be.
And no, by saying Indians aren't fit and reasoning that Tendulkar must be fitter than the average Indian doesn't make him any better than anyone else, just better than his own teammates who share the same regiment. If he was fitter he might have overcome his injuries better, that is what I am saying. He is still fit to play the game of cricket - as was Inzamum.
The simple fact is that if injuries were barring him to be on form or that he had just played too much cricket then it would be upto him to retire. He is towards the end of his career and naturally, like all cricketers, they do slow down.