Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[Johnners]

Just wait until ikki gets in here

 

[honestbharani]

Chappell says currently Ponting is better than Sachin. Why is that even an issue?

 

[Isura]

Nah, no question for me Shivnarine Chanderpaul has been the best from 2007/08 to the current time. It's just a shame he's not currently playing - without him it's probably a straight fight between Michael Clarke and Kevin Pietersen.

All have been comfortably better than Tendulkar and Ponting of late, who as I say leave no-one in any doubt about how good they once were and are still capable, sometimes, of evoking that, but both are quite clearly not what they once were. Still easily good enough to play Test cricket, of course, but no longer good enough to dominate The World.

Over-rating Clarke imo. He's about the same level as AB and other 2nd tier guys. No mention of Sanga?

 

[Zinzan]

Chappell says currently Ponting is better than Sachin. Why is that even an issue?

Because there's always a few drama-queens who like to make something out of nothing, surely you've been around CW long enough to know that without being told

 

[Dissector]

There is no question that Ponting was the best batsman in the world from 2003-2007 by a fairly wide distance and far better than Tendulkar in that period though this was a time of relatively flat tracks and mediocre attacks. Since then there has been little to choose between them though I would give Sachin the edge. Before 2003 Tendulkar was a better batsman by a wide margin and IMO his batting between 93 and 2002 was the best since Bradman. What does this mean for their careers? I would give it to Tendulkar by a significant margin and my guess is this is the majority view though far from unanimous.

 

[Ikki]

Just wait until ikki gets in here

Already been here and left .

Ponting: better against the best in the 90s, better against everybody else all-up. More complete record. Not much more needs to be said. Although I think bagapath is right and people will always tend to rate Tendulkar ahead, I don't think he is actually superior.

And really, this bit from Chappell is not newsworthy. If anything, it's late. And why should it be so naughty even if it were talking overall? I don't think Aussies would take it badly if Gavaskar said Tendulkar is better than Ponting. Both great batsmen, either way.

 

[Uppercut]

Interestingly, the aggregate average in games Ponting has played in is lower than the aggregate average in games Tendulkar has played in. (32.81 to 33.77).

Obviously you can point to Ponting's superior attack, but then his batting partners were largely superior too. I do certainly think Tendulkar's the better batsman overall, but I can't help but feel the "Ponting played only on flat pitches" is quite badly overstated. As it always is on CW, actually. The Richard influence.

 

[James]

Ian smokes Pot all the time. Ignore him.

Comments like that are unacceptable and don't add anything to the discussion.

Please refrain from posts like that in future.

 

[bagapath]

I can't help but feel the "Ponting played only on flat pitches" is quite badly overstated.

I dont think it has been stated enough to be called overstated. if you compare the aggregate averages from the 90s with the 00s, the current era is definitely easier for batters.

90s: 31.64
00s: 34.08

a difference of 2.5 runs shows that it is possible for a batsman to average more in the last 10 years than the decade before.

but despite this, ponting's superiority over tendulkar (and everyone else) for most of this decade should be accepted without any grumbling. only while juxtaposing their overall careers the nature of wickets in this era gets taken into account apart from other factors and puts tendulkar well ahead of ricky.

Before 2003 Tendulkar was a better batsman by a wide margin and IMO his batting between 93 and 2002 was the best since Bradman.

I agree with the first part of the statement. But since WW2 we have had hutton, the three Ws, g.pollock, gavaskar, g.chappell, and lara to compete for the "best since bradman" tag. even if they all could be placed behind sachin (personally i think lara is a tad above tendy) one can't ignore gary sobers and viv richards. they were peerless. and even in an all-time list they have only the don, hobbs and hammond to share the top 5 positions. lara and sachin should come immediately after them; ricky ponting will be there too within the next 10 names - and that is a very very big deal.

 

[bagapath]

Ponting: better against the best in the 90s, better against everybody else all-up. More complete record. Not much more needs to be said. Although I think bagapath is right and people will always tend to rate Tendulkar ahead, I don't think he is actually superior.

hi ikki. i have promised my wife i would take her out this evening and wont waste my time fighting with you over useless cricket stats. still........

ricky's record in india is bad. so dont call his record "complete". failing in one test playing nation is not as pardonable as failing against a country on home conditions (example: sachin against SA at home). it is obvious that sachin can bat in india because he has done well in home conditions. he has also scored 3 hundreds in SA. ricky can play indian bowling; we know that because he scores very well against them in australia. but he is pathetic in india. though it is not a crime and i am not asking for his head, u cant say his record is more complete. ponting does have some unfinished business.

 

[Uppercut]

I dont think it has been stated enough to be called overstated. if you compare the aggregate averages from the 90s with the 00s, the current era is definitely easier for batters.

90s: 31.64
00s: 34.08

a difference of 2.5 runs shows that it is possible for a batsman to average more in the last 10 years than the decade before.

but despite this, ponting's superiority over tendulkar (and everyone else) for most of this decade should be accepted without any grumbling. only while juxtaposing their overall careers the nature of wickets in this era gets taken into account apart from other factors and puts tendulkar well ahead of ricky.

Oh this is true for sure, pitches are certainly much flatter this decade. It's only in the context of this argument that it's overstated, because there's an implicit assumption that Ponting only played during the 2000s and Tendulkar only played during the 1990s.

The aggregate average for the duration of Tendulkar's career (i.e. since his debut) is 30.92, while Ponting's equivalent in Australia is 31.19. That's a much more accurate analysis of the relative difficulties of batting during their respective careers IMO.

 

[bagapath]

there's an implicit assumption that Ponting only played during the 2000s and Tendulkar only played during the 1990s.

i get your point. that assumption is wrong. sachin is still playing and ponting played for at least 5 years when the pitches were different from now. this argument about the pitches should only be seen from the context that sachin's peak was in the late 90s and ponting's was in the mid 00s. if they had both made their debuts together in 89 sachin would probably average 2 runs more than ricky now after 20 years. if they had started their careers in '96 then sachin would have averaged 4 runs more than ponting. it so happened that sachin started in 89 and ponting in 96. so ponting averages 1.5 to 2 runs more than sachin.

 

[Uppercut]

i get your point. that assumption is wrong. sachin is still playing and ponting played for at least 5 years when the pitches were different from now. this argument about the pitches should only be seen from the context that sachin's peak was in the late 90s and ponting's was in the mid 00s. if they had both made their debuts together in 89 sachin would probably average 2 runs more than ricky now after 20 years. if they had started their careers in '96 then sachin would have averaged 4 runs more than ponting. it so happened that sachin started in 89 and ponting in 96. so ponting averages 1.5 to 2 runs more than sachin.

Where are your numbers coming from?

 

[Ikki]

I dont think it has been stated enough to be called overstated. if you compare the aggregate averages from the 90s with the 00s, the current era is definitely easier for batters.

90s: 31.64
00s: 34.08

a difference of 2.5 runs shows that it is possible for a batsman to average more in the last 10 years than the decade before.

Big point: Ponting averaged better against the better bowling sides in the 90s. It's actually his smashing of everybody else that puts him over the edge in the 00s.

ricky's record in india is bad. so dont call his record "complete". failing in one test playing nation is not as pardonable as failing against a country on home conditions (example: sachin against SA at home).

Why? If anything, you have more reason to fail away from home than at home. That's why having high away averages is impressive.

it is obvious that sachin can bat in india because he has done well in home conditions. he has also scored 3 hundreds in SA. ricky can play indian bowling; we know that because he scores very well against them in australia. but he is pathetic in india. though it is not a crime and i am not asking for his head, u cant say his record is more complete. ponting does have some unfinished business.

It's also obvious that Ponting can bat in places very similar to India because the only place he fails in the subcontinent - in fact, anywhere - is in only India. Conversely, we know Sachin can't play S.Africa, not even at home nor even away. He has a sub-40 average in both instances and in the 20s at home IIRC.

Ricky has a more complete record, it's that simple. The only two countries he averages less than 50 against is India (47) and England (48). Sachin averages 35 against S.Africa andand 42 against Pakistan - where if they hadn't fallen to bits post 2000 he'd average similar against them too.

 

[Uppercut]

Ugh. The idea that scoring an equal amount of runs against each team is fundamentally better than scoring more heavily against some teams, even when the overall number of runs is the same, is such bull****. And it seems to be the basis for a lot of Ikki's thinking.

 

[Ikki]

Ugh. The idea that scoring an equal amount of runs against each team is fundamentally better than scoring more heavily against some teams, even when the overall number of runs is the same, is such bull****. And it seems to be the basis for a lot of Ikki's thinking.

I am not talking about the amounts of runs, I am talking about averages. Ponting scores against everybody, pretty much everywhere, except in India. When you are averaging virtually 50+ everywhere, then that is an ideal record. How can you even begin to critique that (rhetorical question)?

He has a great record against virtually every team. If I were to average 70 against Bangladesh and 40 against England and you 60 against Bangladesh and 50 against England; which is the better record? Saying they've both scored the same amount of runs is, frankly, missing the point. So concentrating on aggregate runs scored is about as useful as concentrating on aggregate wickets taken. With reasoning like that you can say Kumble is better than Marshall. So I am not sure what you're even talking about.

 

[Matt79]

Saw this title and thought, "I hope the guy who makes effigies has got his stock delivery for this week".

Smacks of the typical column a commentator puts out because he's got nothing particularly insightful or relevant to discuss this week, but is expected to put a column in anyway. They're both geniuses of the modern game - they're on a plain where any judgement will have an element of subjectivity in it.

I'm just happy I got to see both of them in their prime, will be something to look back on fondly when I'm an old(er) fart.

 

[Uppercut]

Ponting scores against everybody, pretty much everywhere, except in India. When you are averaging virtually 50+ everywhere, then that is an ideal record. How can you even begin to critique that (rhetorical question)?

He has a great record against virtually every team. If I were to average 70 against Bangladesh and 40 against England and you 60 against Bangladesh and 50 against England; which is the better record? Saying they've both scored the same amount of runs is, frankly, missing the point. So concentrating on aggregate runs scored is about as useful as concentrating on aggregate wickets taken. With reasoning like that you can say Kumble is better than Marshall. So I am not sure what you're even talking about.

It makes no difference whether I average 60 against South Africa and 40 against Australia or 50 against both. I'm contributing the same amount to my team either way. It's a statistical curiosity, nothing more.

 

[Ikki]

It makes no difference whether I average 60 against South Africa and 40 against Australia or 50 against both. I'm contributing the same amount to my team either way. It's a statistical curiosity, nothing more.

It does, otherwise by that same logic it also makes no difference whether you are averaging 70 against S.Africa and 30 against Australia. The same too then goes for home and away record, I guess. To sum it up as a simple curiosity insults the intelligence of anyone who actually follows the game.

 

[Uppercut]

I'll stop insulting your intelligence then.