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

[Richard]

The point though, is that you dont measure a team's success based upon which side beat the rubbish side most convincingly which is equivalent to comparing the quality of 2 batsmen by seeing who scored more runs against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. The current Australian team has beaten better quality sides than the one from 2000/01

The bottom line is that said victories didnt happen and theres no point manufacturing these victories. I firmly believe that good teams manage to win the initiative in situations 'that could have gone another way'.

They tend to win matches and series, but even the very best teams don't often tend to win 16 (or 14) matches in a row without quite a few things going their way. And had things gone the way of the side in 2004 and 2005, they could have. Things have gone the way of the side in 2006 and 2007, and they did.

But the side of 1999-2001 didn't need anything much to go their way, except maybe the Langer decision in the Bellerive game. There was virtually nothing that was ever going to stop the string of victories. That, to me, makes it a more worthy string of victories, even if the opposition were to be said to be inferior.

 

[pup11]

They tend to win matches and series, but even the very best teams don't often tend to win 16 (or 14) matches in a row without quite a few things going their way. And had things gone the way of the side in 2004 and 2005, they could have. Things have gone the way of the side in 2006 and 2007, and they did.

But the side of 1999-2001 didn't need anything much to go their way, except maybe the Langer decision in the Bellerive game. There was virtually nothing that was ever going to stop the string of victories. That, to me, makes it a more worthy string of victories, even if the opposition were to be said to be inferior.

Isn't that the whole point mate, Waugh's side was almost invincible it had all the talent a captain would dream of, so them winning sixteen on the trot shouldn't or doesn't suprise too many people, but Ponting's team's achievement only gets magnified when you take into account that it has beaten good sides with an inferior bowling attack, as compared to the one Waugh had.

 

[Manee]

I feel that Steve Waugh's streak had more vunerability about it. They were beating good teams with good cricket but there was always the feeling that they could lose. Even when they crushed opposition, it was with sustained good cricket and it seemed that it would just take one team to 'fight back' to beat them.

Ponting's team just seem to bore me somewhat. It seems like 'yet another win' with them and seems more tedious than brilliant. Hayden hundred, Ponting hundred...oh look, Australia are 10/4 (4/10 for you Aussies), but Symonds has hit a hundred. It is just all a bit 'meh - here we go again'

As someone mentioned earlier, Waugh's streak is better to me due to intangibles. I didn't explain it well.

 

[ColdSnow]

Really ponting's streak should have ended at 15. The 16th was won by Bucknor.

 

[Johnners]

Really ponting's streak should have ended at 15. The 16th was won by Bucknor.

Lolz, u are lyk the 1st person to say that.

Seriously though, it's getting tedious, well all get the point. The umpires had a shocker, and they shouldn't have won it. But fact of the matter is, they did, it's in the record books now. It's not like Australia didn't have to play some quality cricket to still win the test match. Get over it.

 

[Evermind]

Lolz, u are lyk the 1st person to say that.

Seriously though, it's getting tedious, well all get the point. The umpires had a shocker, and they shouldn't have won it. But fact of the matter is, they did, it's in the record books now. It's not like Australia didn't have to play some quality cricket to still win the test match. Get over it.

You're missing the point. We're comparing streaks. A person is fully allowed to say he prefers one over the other simple because the other shouldn't have happened at all.

Yes, it is in the record books, but he's saying it shouldn't be, and that's why he prefers Waugh's. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Will always rate Waugh's above Ponting's because of the nature in which it was defied and ended - victory after following on, at Waugh's self-proclaimed final frontier, and a platform for a series win.

I imagine Ponting's will go down with a more realistic whimper, along the less scriptworthy lines of blocking out a draw after being beset by injury. Even if not, Tugga's will be hard to top.

 

[sideshowtim]

Will always rate Waugh's above Ponting's because of the nature in which it was defied and ended - victory after following on, at Waugh's self-proclaimed final frontier, and a platform for a series win.

I imagine Ponting's will go down with a more realistic whimper, along the less scriptworthy lines of blocking out a draw after being beset by injury. Even if not, Tugga's will be hard to top.

What if Ponting's does go down in similar circumstances?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

What if Ponting's does go down in similar circumstances?

I'm sure Betfair will be delighted to accommodate, if that's what you reckon.

 

[Perm]

Miller, Slater, Langer, Kasprowicz, Muller. Is it really any different?

Yeah, Michael Slater and Justin Langer were very fine Test batsmen.

As somebody else said, the current weaker players (Jaques, Hogg, Johnson and Symonds) could well have distinguished careers, meaning we will remember them more fondly.

 

[Mister Wright]

Lolz, u are lyk the 1st person to say that.

Seriously though, it's getting tedious, well all get the point. The umpires had a shocker, and they shouldn't have won it. But fact of the matter is, they did, it's in the record books now. It's not like Australia didn't have to play some quality cricket to still win the test match. Get over it.

You're missing the point. We're comparing streaks. A person is fully allowed to say he prefers one over the other simple because the other shouldn't have happened at all.

Yes, it is in the record books, but he's saying it shouldn't be, and that's why he prefers Waugh's. Nothing wrong with that.

Ermind makes a great point here. Whether it's in the record books or not, he's given his opinion.

EDIT: Australia did not deserve to win. A draw was a true reflection of both team's performance.

 

[four_or_six]

I'm going for Ponting's because it has the Ashes 5-0 in it.

 

[Johnners]

You're missing the point. We're comparing streaks. A person is fully allowed to say he prefers one over the other simple because the other shouldn't have happened at all.

Yes, it is in the record books, but he's saying it shouldn't be, and that's why he prefers Waugh's. Nothing wrong with that.

Was actually more replying to the Bucknor comment.

I'm not saying he can't say which one he prefers. In fact, I basically agreed with him in saying that Australia shouldn't have won it. I'm just sick of people making it sound like there was basically no quality cricket played from either side and Steve Bucknor was the sole factor that determined the outcome of the match. It's as much an insult to India, as it is to Australia in that regard afaic.

 

[Josh]

Must vote Ponting here. Annhialation has continued post-McGrath and post-Warne. Also; ripping the heart out of England after they took the Ashes from us - brilliant! Demoralised SL and so far are doing the same to India. It's gotta be Ponting's streak.

 

[Richard]

Isn't that the whole point mate, Waugh's side was almost invincible it had all the talent a captain would dream of, so them winning sixteen on the trot shouldn't or doesn't suprise too many people, but Ponting's team's achievement only gets magnified when you take into account that it has beaten good sides with an inferior bowling attack, as compared to the one Waugh had.

Exactly, so that made the former streak the more remarkable!

 

[aussie]

Ermind makes a great point here. Whether it's in the record books or not, he's given his opinion.

EDIT: Australia did not deserve to win. A draw was a true reflection of both team's performance.

You could say the same about the Hobart victory in Waugh streak don't think Pakistan deserved to lose that test. (even though the recent adelaide test had a bit more umpiring controversies).

 

[aussie]

They tend to win matches and series, but even the very best teams don't often tend to win 16 (or 14) matches in a row without quite a few things going their way. And had things gone the way of the side in 2004 and 2005, they could have. Things have gone the way of the side in 2006 and 2007, and they did..

I agree that the 2004 & 2005 Australian sides where better, but what did they miss that was so special that would have prevented them from winnings a potential 18 test in a row?. They should have beaten SRI on the last day at Cairns no doubt but i'd say Australia did the best they can to win their was no drop cathces nor bad umpiring decisons but they just fell short.

They went to India & drew in Chennai where the test could have gone either way (although i believe the way Indian batsmen where worked over in that series Australia would have won) & lost on a Mumbai dustbowl. Plus it was not as if anyone expected Australia to whitewash India at home given that Australia had conquered them for 35 years at that time.

So overall its irrelevant bringing up that example regardless if that was better Australian side on paper. The current bunch have conquered the opponents in front of them which was without doubt stronger challenges than Waugh's streak which make this streak better, even if from a personal point of view watching Waugh's side was better.

But the side of 1999-2001 didn't need anything much to go their way, except maybe the Langer decision in the Bellerive game. There was virtually nothing that was ever going to stop the string of victories. That, to me, makes it a more worthy string of victories, even if the opposition were to be said to be inferior.

I dunno maybe the fact that in Waugh's streak he didn't have much of a challenge is because the quality of the opposition was not as good as the one's faced in Ponting's streak?

 

[Richard]

I agree that the 2004 & 2005 Australian sides where better, but what did they miss that was so special that would have prevented them from winnings a potential 18 test in a row?. They should have beaten SRI on the last day at Cairns no doubt but i'd say Australia did the best they can to win their was no drop cathces nor bad umpiring decisons but they just fell short.

They went to India & drew in Chennai where the test could have gone either way (although i believe the way Indian batsmen where worked over in that series Australia would have won) & lost on a Mumbai dustbowl. Plus it was not as if anyone expected Australia to whitewash India at home given that Australia had conquered them for 35 years at that time.

So overall its irrelevant bringing up that example regardless if that was better Australian side on paper. The current bunch have conquered the opponents in front of them which was without doubt stronger challenges than Waugh's streak which make this streak better, even if from a personal point of view watching Waugh's side was better.

They have, to my mind, only conquered them because things went their way, which things didn't for the side in 2004 and 2005. I know no-one expected Australia to win 4-0 in India but I doubt many people expected them to win the upcoming series 4-0 (heck, even ss predicted there'd be a draw somewhere - and, of course, there should have been) but had things gone their way, it might very well have. Certainly, it should have been 3-0, and if it didn't rain on the last day at Chennai it would have been either 3-1 or 4-0.

I dunno maybe the fact that in Waugh's streak he didn't have much of a challenge is because the quality of the opposition was not as good as the one's faced in Ponting's streak?

As I said - regardless of that, the latter streak wouldn't have happened but for the stars aligning. If that's because the opposition was too strong to allow it without the stars aligning, that can be said of every single other team's failure to win 16 Tests in a row.

 

[JBH001]

Pontings team may have done it against better opposition, but I do question the oft repeated statements on this thread that it has a weaker bowling attack. Really? Did not Warne and McGrath play for most of this streak (Warne certainly and Mcgrath for half iirc)? Further, iirc, were they not better bowlers post 2001 than before? There has also been a great support cast in Clark (sub 20 avg for most of it) and Lee (who has been improving and whose improvement this summer no one would have thought possible). So, I dont see where all this comment about weaker bowling attack is coming from.

However, as some have said, Waugh's team seemed to possess some intangibles that Ponting's team does not, and I just plain liked that team better (to watch and otherwise). And my vote reflects that.

 

[silentstriker]

I think this Aussie team will certainly pass 16 now, with Perth coming up. WIth that said, I am anxiously waiting for the Australian tour to India in October. That should be a cracking series - one which could go down to the wire.