And anyways, I am not disputing that Ponting is a great batsman. He is and no doubt, if he does better in India next time (as I expect he will, esp. with Kumble perhaps not being there), he will rise up in everyone's estimations. But I don't think it is only coincidence that he started to peak to such ridiculous heights when bowling attacks around the world started diminishing in quality. I am not saying he wouldn't have done well had the attacks in 2000s been as good as the attacks in the nineties, but I think he wouldn't have done SO well. To be honest, it is possible he may have done just as well and in fact, even better but those are all, unfortunately, just speculations. It is not his fault that he didn't face better bowling but neither was it Barry Richards' fault that he didn't play test cricket that much.
No, I think it is partly a coincidence, and partly the fact that he has improved greatly since then. Ponting was still learning many things as a batsman earlier in his career. He wasn't a tenth of the batsman in the 90s that he is now. And he was still good. Watch his game these days, compared to back then. Earlier in his career he used to dabble outside that off stump so often, as a Ponting supporter it'd make you pull your hair out. He also used to play across the line way too much and that saw his stumps go flying occasionally. He has sorted those issues out big time though, and even if the bowling quality today was greater, I'd still expect him to master them quite simply due to his supreme technique. It's almost faultess really. He falls across his stumps a bit early in the innings, but once he gets going there isn't much wrong you can pick about his technique and temperament. This is why I feel he'd suceed against any other bowling attack in the world today too. Let's not forget just how much his play against spin has improved. Out of sight if you ask me.
Anyway, how many batsmen peak in their early 20s? None. You're a pretty tough judge if you're expecting him to be at his peak then.
All I meant to say was that while he is a great and perhaps his record in India may have been just an aberration, both his record in India and also his relative lack of success against better bowling (albeit in the early part of his career) will be points raised against him whenever he is compared to the other all time greats.
I refer you back to my last point. You only need to watch him bat in comparison to how he batted in the 90s to know he's a far, far better batsman now for a variety of reasons. That being said, his record is still pretty damn good in that period.
You're right, it is mere speculation, but based on what I've seen, I speculate that he'd be able to most bowlers nowadays.
so how many centuries has Ponting scored in India?
And no, runs in ODIs don't prove that you have what it takes to cut it at the test level. Loads of players have good ODI records in some places but have bad test records in those very same places.
Sure ODI runs count. They show that Ponting can score runs in conditions that people doubt him in.
And while we are on the topic about his record in India, ever tried to figure out why Kumble and Harbhajan have shockingly poor records in Sri Lanka and Pakistan?
Because they're not as great as some people say they are?
Ponting is in a different league to these guys, there is a massive diference.
Does that even hint you at the idea that for all that is being said out there, the conditions in India are actually different from Pakistan and Sri Lanka? Ok, not so much the conditions, but definitely the pitches.....
Disagree. The term 'subcontinental pitches' gets thrown around a lot these days, and it's quite simply because many of them mirror each other. They are largely products of their climate and conditions, and the subcontinental nations share similar climates and conditions.
.
