Well, we're not on the same page because I am not arguing that because Ponting did well against S.Africa and Pakistan he is better than Sachin.
Here we go:
Sachin is considered untouchable because of his form in the 90s. Yet Ponting is trounced on because of his in the 2000s. Really, the bowling differences are too small to suggest Ponting would still be mediocre, being the only one averaging 60+ (taking out Bang/Zim) he stands alone his record is very comparable with Sachin's.
But here's the thing, Sachin is considered great, because he somehow played tougher attacks and was great whereas Ponting failed. Which I've proved isn't true. Sachin was great against 2/4 great attacks of his time and was more than great against the rest. Whereas with Ponting, where it's apt to compare, with regards to the touted differences, ALSO does well against 2/4 (one of them is his own team which he cannot play - so it's 2/3 really). So what does that mean? That in the 90s, when bowling and pitch conditions were tough, Ponting has a similar record to Sachin.
Now, fast forward to post-2000 and there is absolutely no comparison. Tables have turned immensely if not even more in favour of Ponting. Ponting still has the record of doing well against great attacks in the 90s, but he dominates even the 'mediocre/weaker' ones of the post 2000 (that aren't much different to the ones in 90s that Sachin was belting).
So, on that equal footing, we look at their overall records and it's plain to see. Ponting has the better all-round record and anything that justifies denigration is debatable at best.
Now, despite the fact that their records are so close, and where it mattered in the 90s Ponting also had success, Ponting
still cannot compare for some people. And then you have to ask yourself, what did Tendulkar do to get this unabashed support by some people? Couldn't be his performances post-2000, has to be pre-2000. And here we are, looking at them and seeing that Ponting's overall record makes a mockery of Tendulkar's 90s one. But STILL, cannot compare.
Sachin played an away series a month before the 90s as well, let's factor that in because apart from date, it's relevant. But even disregarding that, it's still not upto standard here.
Ponting looked like a man possessed in his 197, what does that matter if for the rest of his scores he was poor? But Ponting's obviously not a fluke. A couple years later against Pakistan with Akhtar, Waqar and Saqlain he scored another 141.
Cricket is more than playing one innings great or two innings great, it is about consistency. And you simply cannot argue that 30 runs per dismissal is a great record. You may argue that Tendulkar is/was capable of more? I can't dispute that, that's conjecture anyway. I am talking about what
did happen.
And to be frank, Tendulkar against S.Africa is still rather poor. Not just home or away but overall. There are no ifs or buts there.
HB mate, have you seen me dispute him batting very well? Looking great? Being on top? I have not. I dispute his record because consistency is what I am after in this instance.
Still, my reply to that is much the same as the one above.
I'm sure there are side-issues and I would love to hear more of them. As much as I can remember, I don't remember everything. Lara aside, Tendulkar is different. He faced them both (Pakistan/S.Africa) when he was pretty much on top-form.
Here's the thing, I am not going just by stats. I've been around for a while, I've seen both play many many times. Tendulkar looking a cut above is just funny for me because that is exactly what I think of Ponting, but it doesn't matter...because it is all subjective. Ponting in the last few years has looked so good it's beyond belief. You're literally disappointed, he is in himself, if he doesn't at least hit a century. How ridiculous is that? And if we're getting that subjective? What about Viv? What about Lara? For me, without some justification, simply saying one player looked better than another is not a valuable point.
And with regards to Warne, well my friend, Warne didn't have to face much of ol' Ricky did he? Warne's player ranking (as we saw from his top 50 list) is also quite objectionable - see Steve Waugh. But I leave that aside, because I can respect that opinion and it's fine. I can respect anyone that says Tendulkar is slightly better, it's fine. Frankly, I think Lara is better than Tendulkar too. But it's just my opinion and it's too close to deny that there is logic saying Tendulkar can also claim to be better.
Well, I think you just hit the right note there. It is subjective, especially because it is so close. But what isn't subjective is how Ricky fared in the 90s against quality bowling. What isn't subjective, is even regarding the drop in bowling standard/pitches, Ponting's peak is mammoth. What isn't subjective is that they're close and there is no clear choice either way. But to call someone biased if they pick Ponting is a joke. To say they're not close is a joke. Some of the points raised against Ponting are, frankly, a joke.
There seems to be something in the forum that has just eaten up the ideas that batsmen/bowlers of today aren't comparable and use hyperbole towards anything anyone else has done in the past. We've had a long debate here and I hope I've opened some people's eyes. Wouldn't be much of a voluntary thing as I'm sure it's more akin to prying some people's eyes open.
