Tendulkar vs Ponting - who will win the battle of 100's?

[Ikki]

Surely you are not arguing that Tendulkar is not a great? I can accept that you think that he is not the greatest of his contemporaries (though I disagree), but to say he is not great is to call a spade a pencil.

Of course not. That was just a general statement. I'm sure you're a sportsman yourself and in your life you've seen players with exceptional skill that never made it. But even at the top, there are players with different mentalities. Brian Lara had, in many peoples' opinion more talent than Sachin. But did Talent ALONE make him an overall better batsmen?

 

[Ikki]

Sorry, I honestly don't understand much of that. There were bowlers who were nearing the end of their career in 2001-2002 sort of time - are you agreeing or disagreeing with that? I'm saying precisely that their rep doesn't matter - "Donald & Pollock" instantly conjures a fearsome image, but the reality was nothing like that in 2001\02, in fact they were no real amount better than most that we've seen the last 6 years.

Well that's my whole point. Donald, Ambrose and Walsh, and alike, were at the end of their careers, so it's not like the bowling standards suddenly collapsed after they retired. Even the couple years prior they weren't their old selves and how can you judge Tendulkar batting against them with any special exception? The Pollock now is bowling as well as the Donald then.

And another question, these flat tracks, how much have they inflated the current bowlers' averages? And how much is that disguising their real efforts?

To bat worse is regardless of the era. I don't, as I say, myself hold much against Tendulkar for not being the force he once was. It doesn't impact on my judgement of him in the 1990-2002 time.

Ponting, however, is different - the 1996-2001 time does impact on my judgement of him in the 2001-2007 time, because as I say with one it's a change in the calibre of the player himself, with the other it's a change in the calibre of what he was facing.

Yes, but that's the point. Ponting was averaging VERY well in that era for someone in his first 50 tests and naturally, he'd get better. But you don't make that distinction. How much better did he get and how much worse did the bowling standards get?

As I asked before, 5 runs a wicket worse? Someone who was averaging about 50 until 2000 where he had to change his batting position from #6 to #3 can be forgiven but the fact that he was THAT good even then sways that argument immensely, and his form prior is just as creditable as his form current.

Sure, at that time Tendulkar was the better batsmen and at another time in the same era I bet Lara was better. Top form for a player is anything but a science. As the americans say, sometimes players are just 'in the zone'.

I don't here, though, that's the point. In the Tendulkar case, I credit (or discredit, more accurately) the man - Tendulkar is clearly not the player he was previously. If it's more appropriate to make a distinction (whether crediting or discrediting) on the era, I do that.

That's only for Tendulkar, however. For Ponting it is a different case, and you do.

I don't see why one matters any more than the other.

Because we can judge our past as it has happened, something we can't with our future. And only when the future becomes our 'past' will we really get a better look at it. There is no definitive way about it, even now, and even now we can bring in statistics and facts to put doubt in this comparison.

As I say, for me he averaged 45 - that was his average at the combined five-six-seven in that time. Then he did a hell of a lot more when the quality of the bowling deteriorated, rapidly.

That's not simplistic, at all, as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly plausible.

Yes, it is, and I'll show you why.

Dravid averaged about 52 in the same scrutinised period and averages 57 now. Yet Ponting averaged, taking your evaluation, 45 then and averages 59 now. If it was a simple shift because of the era, then the batsmen's rank amongst their peers and their averages would remain stable. Yet Ponting grows into his skin and becomes not only a better batsmen, in terms of himself, but in the world. So Ponting is not just cashing in because the era's run scoring is easier, but he's gone that extra yard more because he is a much better batsmen.

There are a lot of examples, from Inzamum to Kallis to Dravid to Tendulkar to Lara in which, some of the players, their averages improve after this era - and no one is doubting why - but yet they don't touch Ponting in how much better he got. Now, the spanner in the works is that Sachin actually got worse after this period - his average was 57 before and is 55 now.

So, I do think it's a tad simplistic. And you're not giving enough credit here to Ponting.

A question: what is it that Ponting will have to do to, in your mind, reach Sachin?

 

[silentstriker]

You didn't ask me, but I'll answer anyway: Not average 12 in a particular country or continue his current form for the next two years.

 

[Richard]

the difference between the two is

3 world cups

Umm... no, it's not. World Cup medals do not dictate the calibre of a player.

 

[Richard]

Well I believe i'm more qualified to judge that.. I've seen alot more of his batting both before and after that period.

Really, you watched extensively in 1995 and 1997, did you? Can't ever remember you mentioning that back in ' day, but if you did, fair noof.

 

[Richard]

Well that's my whole point. Donald, Ambrose and Walsh, and alike, were at the end of their careers, so it's not like the bowling standards suddenly collapsed after they retired. Even the couple years prior they weren't their old selves and how can you judge Tendulkar batting against them with any special exception? The Pollock now is bowling as well as the Donald then.

I don't agree. Walsh and Ambrose were magnificent bowlers right to the very end of their final Test-matches; Donald in all but his last season. Bowling standards did indeed, in my mind, collapse very, very rapidly in just a year or 18 months around the time already mentioned.

And another question, these flat tracks, how much have they inflated the current bowlers' averages? And how much is that disguising their real efforts?

Obviously, they've made things harder still. But as far as judging the efforts of batsmen are concerned, poor bowlers and flat tracks are broadly the same thing as they combine.

Yes, but that's the point. Ponting was averaging VERY well in that era for someone in his first 50 tests and naturally, he'd get better. But you don't make that distinction. How much better did he get and how much worse did the bowling standards get?

As I asked before, 5 runs a wicket worse? Someone who was averaging about 50 until 2000 where he had to change his batting position from #6 to #3 can be forgiven but the fact that he was THAT good even then sways that argument immensely, and his form prior is just as creditable as his form current.

I don't think Ponting was averaging very well in that era, at all. I think he was averaging well. It's not a given that someone will get better after playing 40 or 50 Tests, not at all, plenty have already been as good as they'll ever be at that time. As I say, I saw no real sea-change in Ponting's game around the time in question, I just saw him doing what he'd always done and suddenly getting one hell of a lot more from that game.

Yes, it is, and I'll show you why.

Dravid averaged about 52 in the same scrutinised period and averages 57 now. Yet Ponting averaged, taking your evaluation, 45 then and averages 59 now. If it was a simple shift because of the era, then the batsmen's rank amongst their peers and their averages would remain stable.

It doesn't work like that, though - some batsmen are better at cashing-in when the going's good - Hayden being someone who's done that exceptionally well. Yet I've always been of the mind that the ability to do this is something of minor importance compared to scoring when the going is tough. Ponting is indeed better than anyone - even Hayden - at making mincemeat of the recent nonsense bowling. Dravid and Kallis cannot match him in this regard, though both have also done a sterling job (Kallis averages 65 - Bangladesh excluded - in the same time, compared to Ponting's 70; Dravid manages 60). However, the fact that they can't doesn't for me mean Ponting is overwhelmingly superior to either in any respect other than this one. I place far more importance on other aspects of batsmanship.

A question: what is it that Ponting will have to do to, in your mind, reach Sachin?

Quite simply, it's not within his control. The only thing that could happen would be for the bowling standards to increase again, and I don't see that happening in the near future. In any case, Ponting will be 33 when he next plays a Test, and any reduction in performances from now could justifiably be placed at the door of decline.

 

[Eclipse]

Really, you watched extensively in 1995 and 1997, did you? Can't ever remember you mentioning that back in ' day, but if you did, fair noof.

Not so much in 1995 but from just before 1996 world cup onwards yes.

 

[straightbat]

Umm... no, it's not. World Cup medals do not dictate the calibre of a player.

I think it goes some way to ending this discussion. People will argue all day about who is the better batsman, who has done this and done that. The only way you can split the pair is through their achievements.And I think winning 3 world cups does not happen to any player ( so in a way does dictate the calibre of player).

 

[Richard]

Umm... no, it doesn't. You judge a player by his own calibre, not that of his team.

Eldine Baptiste won every Test he played in - does that mean he was the best player The World has ever seen? No, of course not, in fact he was fairly middle-of-the-road.

You do not judge a player by how many medals he has, but but his own personal performance.

 

[The Sean]

Umm... no, it doesn't. You judge a player by his own calibre, not that of his team.

Eldine Baptiste won every Test he played in - does that mean he was the best player The World has ever seen? No, of course not, in fact he was fairly middle-of-the-road.

You do not judge a player by how many medals he has, but but his own personal performance.

Did he really? That's some record.

 

[Richard]

I think, at 10, he has the most number of Tests played for a 100% record.

Funny thing, too, was that the last of those was 6 years after the first 9.

 

[Ikki]

Quite simply, it's not within his control. The only thing that could happen would be for the bowling standards to increase again, and I don't see that happening in the near future. In any case, Ponting will be 33 when he next plays a Test, and any reduction in performances from now could justifiably be placed at the door of decline.

I disagree with most things you said, but I'll quote this end bit. I keep reading this, and it seems even more ridiculous every time I read it. That Ponting cannot be that much better than everyone else - some who were around in the same era - and will have to make do. That to me is rubbish.

It's like saying batsmen who play on covered pitches cannot simply hope to be as the batsmen who played on uncovered ones. Or batsmen who played with inferior equipment and didn't use a helmet will always be superior to the ones that have them now. The game changes, and is you unintentionally implied, some change with it better than others. If you're going to credit the batsmen in playing one way, then discredit them for not being able to change. I mean by that measure Kallis is still better, because he averaged a measly 3 runs more in that era - overall, but not when Ponting was at #6.

And again, something that is going missing, if you can destroy an attack it is much more beneficial for the team than just holding said attack off.

 

[straightbat]

Umm... no, it doesn't. You judge a player by his own calibre, not that of his team.

Eldine Baptiste won every Test he played in - does that mean he was the best player The World has ever seen? No, of course not, in fact he was fairly middle-of-the-road.

You do not judge a player by how many medals he has, but but his own personal performance.

I am sorry for trying to seperate these 2 great players. Both have exceptional records and cant be split except for personal/team achivements and there Ponting is on top.

 

[sohummisra]

I am sorry for trying to seperate these 2 great players. Both have exceptional records and cant be split except for personal/team achivements and there Ponting is on top.

1. They can be split which is precisely what the debate over the last few pages is about.
2. Why should team achievements be the tie-breaking category? What if I suggest Tendulkar is better because he has picked up quite a few wickets along the way? Doesn't have anything to do with how good a batsman he is.

Also, Ponting may have been part of 3 WC winning teams, but Tendulkar really turns up the heat during World Cups. For example, he was clearly the best batsman on display in the 2003 World Cup.

 

[Richard]

I disagree with most things you said, but I'll quote this end bit. I keep reading this, and it seems even more ridiculous every time I read it. That Ponting cannot be that much better than everyone else - some who were around in the same era - and will have to make do. That to me is rubbish.

It's like saying batsmen who play on covered pitches cannot simply hope to be as the batsmen who played on uncovered ones. Or batsmen who played with inferior equipment and didn't use a helmet will always be superior to the ones that have them now. The game changes, and is you unintentionally implied, some change with it better than others. If you're going to credit the batsmen in playing one way, then discredit them for not being able to change. I mean by that measure Kallis is still better, because he averaged a measly 3 runs more in that era - overall, but not when Ponting was at #6.

There are perminant changes, and there are temporary ones. It's not always a case of changing, either - as I say, sometimes it's a case of staying the same and allowing the change to do the work for you.

Truth is, things like covered pitches and helmets aren't so straightforward as they're sometimes made-out to be. Quality of bowling is a very simple thing - it's a linear scale, with no but-what-maybes.

And again, something that is going missing, if you can destroy an attack it is much more beneficial for the team than just holding said attack off.

Not neccessarily. The runs coming quicker is obviously of some benefit, but as I say - it's 5 days' worth of match. You can score slowly and still win. IMO people overrate the importance of fast scoring.

 

[Ikki]

There are perminant changes, and there are temporary ones. It's not always a case of changing, either - as I say, sometimes it's a case of staying the same and allowing the change to do the work for you.

Truth is, things like covered pitches and helmets aren't so straightforward as they're sometimes made-out to be. Quality of bowling is a very simple thing - it's a linear scale, with no but-what-maybes.

And the difference in pitches? I'm sure has added a few more runs in inflating the current bowlers' average. Sorry, you may buy all that, I don't.

Not neccessarily. The runs coming quicker is obviously of some benefit, but as I say - it's 5 days' worth of match. You can score slowly and still win. IMO people overrate the importance of fast scoring.

Winning a game in 4 days is much preferable to a 5 day win every time. The longer a match lasts the more chance your opponent has to get back. It's simple. If you can knockout an opponent in 2 rounds, you do it. You don't play around till the 10th just because you can - you may get hit by a lucky swing.

 

[R_D]

is it much of suprise that we have 3 or 4 players avg close 60 in this era.... Ponting, Kallis, Dravid and Yousef muyst be up there.
Once avg of 50 considered hallmark of a great batsman but now we've had lots of players avergaing close to 50 or 50.. take Sehwag for example. So its not such a suprise to see Ponting's average ballon up so much... while Dravid and Kallis had to face Mcgrath n Co to keep their average in check a bit but Ponting didn't.

Like been said before if Ponting if Ponting scores runs in India and keeps his current form for another 2 years.. he will be considered good as Sachin but at the moment nowhere near really.

 

[Dr_Brad]

Ponting imo

 

[miscer]

i say tendulkar no way ponting scored 30+ more.

and even in tests only no way he scores another 10 or w.e it is

 

[Athlai]

Cue massive Ponting decline and Tendulkar getting into the form of his life.