Hahaha
Because you decided to be an idiot about it, I'll reply so that I leave you no delusions of grandeur.
I don't think so. Lets have a poll then?
You do not become a "proper test batsman" overnight. You have the ability to do so and faced with the right experience, the proper environment and leadership you will become one. Being shipped from 5th/6th/7th to opener is hardly the kind of stability that will enable you to become a test batsman. This is precisely what happened with Laxman under Tendulkar.
I agree. So what's the point?
Furthermore, you're clutching at straws because even WITHOUT Laxman Tendulkar still had the better batting side.
Bull ****. I have replied to this in form of player's records and I think you are still stuck with your head in the sand.
No, because during that same reign many other players averaged superlatively under Ponting, and they won a lot. Whilst with Tendulkar, everyone was averaging worse than what they used to - which of course, led to such a poor record. So it's not a one-off as you are trying to imply. So Gilchrist's demise was his personal game falling to bits, it had nothing to do with Ponting or the team's success.
The same could be applied to batsmen in Tendulkar's era also. Dravid, Laxman and Ganguly were budding. Shifting goal-posts eh?
Ganguly, sunshine. When your 4th-5th test batsmen is averaging in the 40s, that's a pretty good line-up. With Gavaskar, his 2ND best batsmen was averaging that much.
Hold on. 4th and 5th best batsmen? Rather 3rd and 4th batsmen. Since Sidhu hardly played 30% of total matches helmed by Tendulkar. When your 5th best batsman averages in the 20s, you don't have even a full XI that can be called test class.
You seem to miss the point, again and again.
No, it's you who has to come out of Ponting's backside and appreciate things they are.
You said that pre-2000 Dravid was not Dravid. I showed you, pre-2000 Dravid was averaging almost 50 which is not only superlative (especially for that era) but would still be better than anything else Gavaskar had - because remember, we are comparing their two squads. You then said he averaged only 41 with Tendulkar - all the while forgetting that even when averaging 41 he'd STILL be better than most of the batsmen Gavaskar had - and I showed you that pre-2000 without Tendulkar as Captain Dravid was averaging about 56. So the only thing that brings him down is Tendulkar's time with the leadership.
Pre-99 Dravid did not average 50, and was hardly in the class of batsmen like Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath etc. I think you hardly know anything about pre-90 Indian batsmen. So quit before it becomes embarrassing.
What you believe and what is true is like water and mud. Azhar did the same as he did throughout the rest of his career. The numbers proved that. And remember, we are comparing Gavaskar's squad with Sachin's squad, so averaging 45 for India (especially in the 90s) is very good. In fact, had Azhar been in Gavaskar's squad he would have been the 2nd, or equal 2nd, batsmen. So you're out of luck again.
When did I say Azhar averaged below his career average? I said he was capable of much better innings (he started with 3 hundreds in a row) and was definitely capable of averaging 50+, especially in the mid 90s when he was at the peak of his career. But shady stuff behind the screens could have made him deliberately underperform.
[QUOTE[No, they were not better at all. They averaged close, but only because they played on dead pitches at home that were doctored for draws which inflates their averages. Ganguly and Dravid, amongst others, played not only in a tougher era but they did well away AND at home. So you frankly have no clue what you are talking about. Taking the small peak Amarnath had with Gavaskar and saying that was his true value is bullcrap. And if you are saying that we must judge on that basis then you should attribute some sort of credit towards Gavaskar for gearing his team to succeed whilst Tendulkar failed to get his players, that were probably even better than Amarnath, to reach those heights. And that's only Amarnath...Viswanath and Vengsarkar were home bullies. Viswanath averaged 54 at home and 25 away. Vengsarkar averaged 48 at home and 31 away. Stop making your arguments as you go along, those players are not better than Dravid nor Ganguly. And I'll let you check their averages in wins/loss/draws - IIRC averaged like 20-30 in wins and losses and 50 in draws.[/QUOTE]
Another load of crap. Amarnath was as good as a test batsman you can get, and the fact that he averaged less than what he should have was because he played to too far an old age. And genuine lol at your comments that Vengsarkar and Vishwanath were home bullies. Ask any Englishmen in the 80s about the best innings by an Indian at Lords, and you'd get the answer as Vengsarkar. Batting attack during Gavaskar era was >>>>> Sachin's era. Tell me, the averages of the 10th best batsman during Gavaskar was equal to the average of 5th best batsman during Tendulkar, despite in a better era as far as batting is concerned. You have no clue about anything outside Ponting and that shows.
Tendulkar himself was a match for Gavaskar,if not better
If you are comparing at their peaks, yes.
Dravid was a match for Amarnath, if not better.
No, Dravid of the Tendulkar era was not even 75% of what Amarnath was during Gavaskar era.
And Ganguly and Azhurradin are quite better than Viswanath and Vengsarkar.
Bull ****. Vishwanath and Azharuddin are comparable at the most. Vengsarkar was >>>> Ganguly.
And then you had the spoiled potential of Laxman for ****s and giggles.
No idea what you are talking about. Guess by the pattern so far, it's hardly more than crap.
Adding to your one-on-one comparison, what about the rest of the Gavaskar-era batsmen? Whom can you equate to in Sachin's era as to the following batsmen in Gavaskar era
Ravi Shastri
Patil
Yashpal Sharma
Kapil Dev
Gaekwad
Kirmani
Probably Kirmani could be equated to Laxman. Shows the difference.
You don't seem to get it. I already conceded that Gavaskar had a slightly better bowling line-up. But it is not as large as the difference in their batting line-up. The only way Gavaskar's batting line-up had a chance was at home, and they mostly drew and inflated their averages. Otherwise they were no more than batsmen who'd average in the mid-to-high 30s.
So don't you think Gavaskar actually gained because he played more of his matches at home rather than away? And playing at home does not inflate averages like this.
Next time, look at the records, study more about the era and then come and make a silly argument and act like a jackass, Precambrian.
You have no clue whom you are arguing. And by referring me to some banned guy, you are just adding trolling to this argument. Let's leave personal attacks and concentrate on the argument. Oh whom am I talking to! And keep that advice to yourself, because anyone reading this thread knows you don't have a clue about batsmen like Vishy, Patil, Vengsarkar etc and shows your lack of class.
Saying X captain didn't have a good team because his team averaged poorly would exonerate every captain and make arguments about captaincy into a chicken and egg scenario.
IF the differences were trivial, you have a point. But there is such a vast ocean of difference in the class of batting and bowling resources that both captain had, which is substantiated by stats.
And Ponting...winning 4 out of the last 6 series makes you a failure. Interesting.
Interesting. Who were the opponents?
Sri Lanka (home) - Minnow-like away, blasted in Australia
India (home) - A close series. Australians got off the hook at Sydney thanks to umpires.
Windies (away) - Ha what? A series win against the world no.8, Praise the captain!
India (home) - Got their asses kicked and could not win a single game in the tour. The first time since Jan, Ponting and Co. came up against a world class team.
NZ (home) - Again, a series win against World No.7 team. Praise Ponting!
SA (home) -
So, get a life kyd.
By the same logic, Gilchrist averaged mere 30 during Ponting's tenure, does that mean Ponting "mismanaged" Gilly? Get your thoughts properly aligned.
