Well, before moving to a second point accept that your first point was basically pointless. You mentioned Sri Lankan bowling attack has been nowhere near as great as Australia, South africa, West Indies and Pakistan in the last 15 years and I proved it wrong. First accept defeat in your first point, then come with a second point.
When did I stipulate the last 15 years? My whole argument is based on the set of bowlers (already named) and they bowled in the 90s pretty much mostly, all of them. Common sense would dictate I am not talking about Sri Lanka nowadays - who are one of the best sides in the world. Furthermore:
which bowlers mentioned?...for which period?...don't just arbitrarily say 'the bowlers mentioned'...mentioned by whom? where?
For the bowlers you mentioned saying they played post 2002.
Yep. Although, when argued in these terms, both houses of worship start to look pretty grotty.And what a church we have...16 to the temple of Tendulkar's 47.
I think it's because these religions happen to be quantifiable, and myths are exposed
.
Like McGrath, Warne etc. against whom Ponting played more than 100 tests?...Again Kazo, don't continue the argument you were carrying with bagapath, simply because my perspectives are different...
Oh, you didn't mean they were underrated by all?
it was 'implied'?I didnt say 7 matches aren't enough. I simply demonstrated how an overall average is misleading. Excepting the last one where he was unfit he averages 48.5. I don't understand by what standard is this average against the best attack of his era. How many did better? It's silly to compare it with his own overall average against Australia which is obviously much higher. A better comparison is with Brian Lara who averages 50 when playing against the two.
Against the SA attack I agree that he was average. Against Wasim, Waqar though apart from the innings he played as a 16 year old, he's played just 6 innings. He played one of best knocks ever in one of them, was controversially run-out in another. So he's unproven against them.
I'd say he was excellent against the WI and Aus, average against SA and unproven against Pak.
O my God! ... Why would I say Border and Miandad are underrated by people who voted for (say) Lara, Tendulkar and Chappell when I myself said I would be happy if any two amongst Lara, Ponting, Richards, Chappell, Waugh, Border and Miandad are selected (alongwith Sachin)?Oh, you didn't mean they were underrated by all?
Oh. Is that what you are doing? Exposing myths? And quantifiably too? Good luck with that, mate.I think it's because these religions happen to be quantifiable, and myths are exposed
Then you should mention as such, without rudely jumping in and pointing fingers. I was arguing with bagapath, you say I'm wrong, so you must be talking about my argument with bagapath so I relate all arguments to that.
That's all fine and dandy, but if you still take the first 14 years of his career and compare it to Ponting's 14 his record is inferior. The difference between Sachin's records between the two polarised parts of his career are that his pummeling of the average side has lessened. He still pretty much held the same record against the same teams he had trouble to begin with - in Pakistan's case, improved it a bit.
It's of little importance because Ricky was simply God in SS and from memory didn't have trouble meeting those bowlers domestically. Furthermore, he beat bowlers of the same standard and had undeniable success. So as a question of ability, it's not that important because there shouldn't be a question. If you mean that they would have kept his run scoring in check more, well ok, but what does that prove? That his average would be slightly lower?
Kudos to you for saying that. Although IMO it's more than slightly.
My question to that is...what must he do to be better? His record is already more complete than Sachin. He scores runs (which remember what batting is about) in more places, at a higher rate and faster rate, in all innings, against the best bowlers better than Tendulkar...yet he can't catch him STILL?
The five top and leading batsmen on the poll are five of the all time best. I really dont see how that is not giving Ponting his due. The guy is, arguably, after all the second best Australian batsman after Bradman. In these cases where the margins are thin, it seems to me that in a good many cases it will come down to personal reasons and preference. I think there is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact it is difficult for me to see how it could be otherwise.
I rudely jumped in and pointed fingers because you presented a wrong fact. I had to correct it (and rudely, because I can't stand facts being presented wrongly)...
I'm sure fitness shouldn't be an argument, considering Warne was unfit to bowl for a good portion of those Tests. So arguing that one test changes it...well I can argue that one test where he belted Warne, if Warne were fit he would have held Tendulkar better.
I wouldn't say so. Look at the rest of his career vs a gradually fading Pakistan. It doesn't get hugely better.
Averaging in the 30s is average? I'd say it's poor. Especially in this argument. Overall, I'd say he was average though - 44 against those teams...yeh, average. But he is competing with two other batsmen (at least) who in his own era averaged 56 against those greats. So he is a notch (a bit more I'd say) below them.
The reason I think it's not giving him his dues is because the people who are being given vastly more votes really have no case (and I know people won't like me saying this) to be ignoring him in such a way. Thanks anyway.
Which fact did I present wrongly? You thought I meant the last 15 years for some reason when I'm obviously talking about the 4 attacks when they were the best ...the 90s. And when we investigated that I was still right; Ponting was better in this era too.
Well, thanks for saying in simple terms what I was trying to say...Yes, Ponting is arguably the second best Aussie batsman after Bradman...But so are Steve Waugh, Allan Border and Greg Chappell - one has to appreciate that fact...It really boils down to personal preferences...
My argument only had to do with the limitations of this particular polling system, due to its inherent nature, in drawing any sort of conclusions on the relative rating of the laggards based on non expression of the opinions of the overwhelming majority on said laggards. See, all I have to say is that it is not justified reaching a conclusion of a player being underrated on a first-past-the-post poll, just on the basis that the player X is sitting on 2 votes while another player Y is on 4 votes, considering we have no idea on what the other 50+ voters feel explicitly about those players X and Y because they have been busy voting for players A, B and C. You could of course say, as you have, that you're referring to just those 4 guys who voted for Y over X, in which case you're drawing a conclusion based on the voting patterns of just 4 out of the 50+ voters, which makes it a meaningless conclusion at worst, and useless at best. It is akin to entering into a discussion of Tendulkar vs Ponting and mentioning that Tendulkar got out for almost nothing in a World Cup Final while Ponting scored a century in the same game. Sure, you would technically be right, but do you think that point is really relevant? It is neither representative of a whole, nor can it allow meaningful conclusions about them when viewed in just isolation due to the extremely small sample size.