Ponting's streak of 16 vs Waugh's streak of 16

[FaaipDeOiad]

If there's any such doubts about the previouss streak, they're minimal in number. Nearly every single one was utterly convincing.

Could have something to do with the fact that the opposition was awful for the most part. Aside from Bangladesh, no team Australia has played in the last two years comes close to that West Indies team in terms of ineptitude, and 12 of the 16 wins have come against teams with reasonable claims to being 2nd or 3rd best in the world at the time.

You're stretching beyond belief if you think the streak loses credibility because of the Adelaide test against England, BTW. There was nothing remotely illegitimate about that win, it was simply a fantastic performance under pressure against good opposition. The mere fact that it was close hardly means it "should" have gone the other way.

 

[Richard]

Could have something to do with the fact that the opposition was awful for the most part. Aside from Bangladesh, no team Australia has played in the last two years comes close to that West Indies team in terms of ineptitude, and 12 of the 16 wins have come against teams with reasonable claims to being 2nd or 3rd best in the world at the time.

England weren't that much less awful, I couldn't care less about what rankings they'd attained (mostly with teams which bore little resemblence to the one in Australia). I watched both series very clearly and while there were occasional small windows of opportunity, both teams always let them go with interest. Only Adelaide 2006\07 means the two series can be divided.

In any case, aside from said West Indies side most of the rest were pretty decent, as were (at least in theory, in both cases) the likes of catch-dropping South Africa and Sri Lanka, and India.

You're stretching beyond belief if you think the streak loses credibility because of the Adelaide test against England, BTW. There was nothing remotely illegitimate about that win, it was simply a fantastic performance under pressure against good opposition. The mere fact that it was close hardly means it "should" have gone the other way.

Had Ponting been caught by Giles Australia would almost certainly never have won that. And even if he hadn't, it'd still have been a draw but for a once-in-a-lifetime style collapse on the final day.

There was nothing illegitimate, it was just nowhere near as convincing as, well, pretty much any of the victories of 1999\2000-2000\01.

 

[NUFAN]

Once in a life time even though I've seen it happen a fair few times in my life?

It was Englands inadequate fielding that lost the match. So Australia wins..

Average teams always find a way to lose.

 

[Richard]

Nah, they don't, almost any average team would have drawn that game.

Which other case thinketh you of? Of a collapse that bad?

 

[NUFAN]

Nah, they don't, almost any average team would have drawn that game.

Which other case thinketh you of? Of a collapse that bad?

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63920.html for example

 

[Agent TBY]

Which other case thinketh you of? Of a collapse that bad?

India v West Indies, 1997.

 

[Johnners]

The 1999-2001 streak easily IMO.

Achieved against better opposition, by-and-large; inclusive of 16 rather than 14 wins in genuine Tests; and there was pretty much no game that should have gone the other way, there are any number in the ongoing-as-of-this-post one.

The very first of the streak might well have been different had Kallis caught Hussey; the second would probably have been drawn but for being the final one in the series and maybe lost but for rain; the fourth would have been drawn had the rules been applied properly, though obviously but for lost time wouldn't have needed to be; the fifth was a one-wicket win; the eighth obviously should have been drawn and possibly lost; and of course the fourteenth should have been drawn or maybe lost but for bad Umpiring.

If there's any such doubts about the previouss streak, they're minimal in number. Nearly every single one was utterly convincing.

Worst reasoning, full of would haves, and could haves, which never happened, so it's a mute point really. Especially considering, as Faaip mentioned, 14 of the 16 wins in pontings streak have come against teams staking their case for the 2nd best overall. As for your usual "test standard wins" if you think the 1st match won against Banglas wasn't a match worthy of test match status (regardless of what you think of the quality of bangladesh cricket) you clearly have rocks in your head.

Oh, and I notice you included the win in Zimbabwe as a "test standard" win for Waugh, ITSTL.

 

[gunner]

after the assistance of the umpires theres no way pontings team should overtake waughs record

its bad enough they equalled it

 

[roseboy64]

Going Waugh as he's the better skipper of the two.

 

[aussie]

England weren't that much less awful, I couldn't care less about what rankings they'd attained (mostly with teams which bore little resemblence to the one in Australia). I watched both series very clearly and while there were occasional small windows of opportunity, both teams always let them go with interest. Only Adelaide 2006\07 means the two series can be divided.

In any case, aside from said West Indies side most of the rest were pretty decent, as were (at least in theory, in both cases) the likes of catch-dropping South Africa and Sri Lanka, and India.

Had Ponting been caught by Giles Australia would almost certainly never have won that. And even if he hadn't, it'd still have been a draw but for a once-in-a-lifetime style collapse on the final day.

There was nothing illegitimate, it was just nowhere near as convincing as, well, pretty much any of the victories of 1999\2000-2000\01.

Flag up off-side WTF, so you saying that the reason you rate Waugh's streak over Ponting because some of the victories i.e adelaide vs ENG & WI, Sydney vs SA & IND, BANG (just adding in a few going by your crazy reasoning) where errors & poor cricket from the opposition costed them?

 

[burr]

I like the first streak better (although I don't think it is better). It contained the famous Hobart win with Langer and Gilly against Pak, those NZ wins may be underrated but at the time we had to dig our way out of trouble. The white-wash of the Windies was not particularly memorable.

This streak – the South Africa 3rd test in Jo’burg was memorable and the Ashes 5 zip was very historic. I personally do think this match should have been a draw so I can’t help but wish this streak ended at 15. Both impressive though.

I do think Waugh's captaincy was poor in the match which ended the first streak. And I've been a fan of Ponting's captaincy on the whole during this streak.

 

[anoop4real]

I go for Waugh's streak ..........................i dont like Ponting he just do any fu**ing thing to win the game....

 

[vic_orthdox]

I go for Waugh's streak ..........................i dont like Ponting he just do any fu**ing thing to win the game....

Already been warned about filter avoidance, please refrain from repeating it again.

 

[Matt79]

Ponting's... just - the major problem with Ponting's streak is that the Aussies didn't deserve to win the 16th match, but otherwise the opposition they faced was superior to what Waugh's team faced.

 

[anoop4real]

Already been warned about filter avoidance, please refrain from repeating it again.

Sorry!!!!......next time for sure.....

 

[Richard]

Worst reasoning, full of would haves, and could haves, which never happened, so it's a mute point really. Especially considering, as Faaip mentioned, 14 of the 16 wins in pontings streak have come against teams staking their case for the 2nd best overall.

It's nothing to do with would haves or could haves, it's to do with dids. It is not a disputable case that the victories in 1999\2000-2000\01 were far more convincing ones than those 2005\06-2007\08. It's very simple, look at the cards, you don't even need to have watched a single game from either streak - the latter ones did involve far, far more games that were victories by whisker-standard margins.

And regardless of the fact that said 2006-2008 victories were over teams who might have been considered by X means as the 2nd-best team in The World, they were still rubbish sides. Plenty of them even worse than those in 1999\2000, if not 2000\01.

As for your usual "test standard wins" if you think the 1st match won against Banglas wasn't a match worthy of test match status (regardless of what you think of the quality of bangladesh cricket) you clearly have rocks in your head.

I've said it a million times, it's not the match that counts, else there'd be Tests here there and everywhere because the match was a good one worthy of Test status. Bangladesh are not a Test-standard team, never have been a Test-standard team, so no match involving them merits Test status.

Oh, and I notice you included the win in Zimbabwe as a "test standard" win for Waugh, ITSTL.

It's not ITSTL at all, because I've stated a million times that Zimbabwe were a Test-standard team until April 2003.

 

[Richard]

Flag up off-side WTF, so you saying that the reason you rate Waugh's streak over Ponting because some of the victories i.e adelaide vs ENG & WI, Sydney vs SA & IND, BANG (just adding in a few going by your crazy reasoning) where errors & poor cricket from the opposition costed them?

Obviously errors and poor cricket are usually going to cost a team who have been defeated. It's nothing to do with that.

The reason I rate the former streak over the latter one is because the former was composed almost exclusively of convincing victories, there were any number in the latter one that were very far from convincing.

 

[sideshowtim]

Obviously errors and poor cricket are usually going to cost a team who have been defeated. It's nothing to do with that.

The reason I rate the former streak over the latter one is because the former was composed almost exclusively of convincing victories, there were any number in the latter one that were very far from convincing.

You could argue that the only reason they have been less convincing is because of the higher quality of opposition during the streak.

 

[Johnners]

Haha what, there is simply no way that any of England 06/07, SA 06/07, SL 07, or India 07/08 are anywhere near as bad as the West Indies, and NZ teams faced in Waughs streak. Pontings streak has also included a number of convincing Victories, which should be held in higher regard considering they were generally made against a higher standard of opposition.

 

[Jono]

Ponting's... just - the major problem with Ponting's streak is that the Aussies didn't deserve to win the 16th match, but otherwise the opposition they faced was superior to what Waugh's team faced.

Lol, yep bit of a major problem.

Other than Sydney, Ponting's streak is far superior.

I do find it funny (and by funny I mean sad) that the first test of the streak was literally handed to Australia on a platter by Graeme Smith's sporting declaration, and the last test was handed on a platter by Bucknor and Benson.

Everything else in between though was brilliant.