Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[bagapath]

EDIT: I missed 2001, yeh he was really bad there. Although I think th ebowling has to take some slack over the Eden Gardens test. I guess, I find it hard to ever blame 1 player for a series loss.

four series. spread over 10 years. 3 losses and one victory. too difficult to find excuses for him every time.

even in the victorious series, the only match he played in resulted in a loss. everyone else contributed at some point to the victories or drawn games. taylor, m.waugh, martyn, gilchrist, hayden, clarke.

australia's bad record in india is a direct result of ponting's failures as the leading batsman and shane warne's as the leading spinner.

 

[Ikki]

four series. spread over 10 years. 3 losses and one victory. too difficult to find excuses for him every time.

even in the victorious series, the only match he played in resulted in a loss. everyone else contributed at some point to the victories or drawn games. taylor, m.waugh, martyn, gilchrist, hayden, clarke.

australia's bad record in india is a direct result of ponting's failures as the leading batsman and shane warne's as the leading spinner.

96: played 1 test
98: lost, but as aforesaid would be a stretch to blame a series loss over him
01: very poor and probably the most justifiable critique
04: played 1 test, but won
08: was certainly not the worst performer

You're exaggerating.

 

[bagapath]

96: played 1 test
98: lost, but as aforesaid would be a stretch to blame a series loss over him
01: very poor and probably the most justifiable critique
04: played 1 test, but won
08: was certainly not the worst performer

You're exaggerating.

i am not exaggerating. you are refusing to see.

you said:
04: played 1 test, but won

wrong. played one test and lost.

 

[Ikki]

I am talking about the series. What kind of criticism is "x played bad so they lost 1 test"? You're just criticising him for the sake of criticising him.

 

[Richard]

i am not exaggerating. you are refusing to see.

you said:
04: played 1 test, but won

wrong. played one test and lost.

It should be pointed-out that Australia lost that Test due to a failing that has haunted them since Australian teams begun playing against other international teams - the inability to chase down small targets.

Australia were comfortably the better side throughout most of that match at The Wankhede in 2004/05. What's more, it was a dead match, and dead matches should never be used to prove anything much.

 

[bagapath]

I am talking about the series. What kind of criticism is "x played bad so they lost 1 test"? You're just criticising him for the sake of criticising him.

but that x didnt play in any of the matches aus won!!!!! u r supporting him just for the sake of supporting him. how is it relevant if they won a series with him not playing in any of the victorious tests? u might as well talk of the 69-70 series win in india. even that one didnt feature ricky ponting! aus won the 04-05 series without him. he came back and they lost the test. had he played in place of, lets say clarke, in the earlier tests india might have won them too, who knows?

had ponting scored 20 odd runs in that mumbai test in 04 or another 20 odd runs in the chennai test of 01 series or managed to bat for half an hour more in the calcutta test of the 01 series then he would have done something useful for his team. like how he won the melbourne test with his bat against india in 03-04 or how he saved the old trafford ashes test in 05! my point is every other cricketer had done his bit in india. australia being a world beating team everywhere else, it has struggled in india only because the team's talisman didnt deliver. not once. not twice. but four times. there is no excuse for that. there is no other reason for australia's troubles in india other than ricky ponting failing to deliver. everyone else has contributed at various times.

 

[Ikki]

LOL, so because Ponting was on the field they magically turned to ****? Maybe a player is poor against certain opposition but to argue that he is the sole factor for their not winning a match - let alone a series - is a stretch to say the least. I've already conceded that in 01 he probably was relied upon to score a hefty amount of runs and if he had done decently they may have won the series but the rest of the series...give me a break.

Just did a bit of research; in the 90s Australia faced India 4 times, away, and our batsmen averaged 27. Now, that really shows how much the "team" was poor. In 04 they won the series and in 08 he was far from the worst player. So only in 01 could you legitimately make that claim, even if it is still a stretch IMO.

 

[bagapath]

Just did a bit of research; in the 90s Australia faced India 4 times, away, and our batsmen averaged 27. Now, that really shows how much the "team" was poor. In 04 they won the series and in 08 he was far from the worst player. So only in 01 could you legitimately make that claim, even if it is still a stretch IMO.

i wonder how much they average if you take out ponting's numbers.

even i would like to agree with you that there are many other reasons why the mumbai test was won by india. and i had said this before you entered this argument. still if ricky wanted to make a mark in india that was a good opportunity. though the 98 series would have been india's anyway (because sachin was dictating terms) the 01 series was a very close contest. ponting contributing usefully with the bat would certainly have won the series for australia. i am glad u agree with me on that at least. overall, i think australia's record in india would have been better if ricky ponting had been at least decent. anyways, i have made my point. you have made yours. i am stopping here.

 

[Ikki]

It would be 27.5 .

 

[aussie]

that is my point. he did well in one innings and australia saved the test. when he didnt do well, whether he was bad or whether the eng bowling was too good, his team struggled. all i am trying to say is that the team's talisman, ponting, should perform well for a test team to win series. he did not, and the team lost. that is the case with his indian adventures as well..

Ponting only scored one hundred, but its not as if he was poor by any means. He was just broguht down back to earth by some fantastic bowling.

If it was a situation in Ashes 2005 where Ponting the "Talisman" ALONE had batted miserably then this argument would have made sense. The whole top 7 was exposed, Ponting argubaly was still AUS best batsman on tour along with Langer.

So you really can't equate Ponting not being at his usual dominant force in 05 to AUS failing - their is no connection. Just that ENG where superb.

australia have always had the bowling fire power in the mcwarne combo during ricky's time. when the batters fired they would win the matches without trouble. you will see sachin or lara scoring a lot more centuries in losing causes or drawn games than ricky and hayden and gilly or richards and greenidge from the earlier era. it is simply because these guys played for teams with good bowling units. if they scored runs, matches could be won for sure. if they failed, it was difficult for bowlers to win matches. sachin and lara played with bowlers who were inconsistent. so despite some masterly performences (lara in SL, sachin in aus 99-00) when they batted as close to perfection as possible they still ended up on the losing side.

when a team with such classy wicket taking bowlers (mcwarne) and good strong second line bowlers (gillykaspermcgill) fails, it is to do with the batters not supporting them with enough runs. ponting has failed his team in india again and again. there is no doubt in my mind australia would have won at least two of the three series it lost in india had ponting performed better. the 98 series would have gone india's way any which way. his failure to fire has been a huge reason for the ashes losses as well..

This argument aint valid for the 2005 Ashes since their is one series where the bowling had declined considerably. After the 1st test Warne was carrying the entire attack. Lee was inconsistent, Kapser n Dizzy had lost it & McGrath never returned to full fitness in time after the 1st test.

With regards to his battin failures being the difference between AUS winning in IND 98 & 2001, again no way.

As i told you before in AUS dominant years of 95 to 2006/07 up until AUS won in SRI/IND 04, palying spin in sub-continent reamined a major problem for the team.

In IND 98 just like Ashes 05, AUS didn't have that strong bowling. It was Warne alone, their was no McGrath, Dizzy & Fleming. But AUS in 98 batting was still vulnerable to spin, so they probably would have still lost even if they had a full strenght bowling attack.

In IND 2001. The problems againts spin remained. The strong bowling attack was their unlike 98, but the batsmen (including a still young Ponting) overall still had not conquered the historical weakenss againts spin. As you would know Hayden was the only batsman who was comfortable all series (although S Waugh stood up well).

So equating Ponting's form (who at the time was still young & by no means was the batsman he has been between 2001 to now) to defeat in 98 & 01 then is highly inaccurate. AUS didn't deserve to win those series since they weren't prepared. The won in 04, because the batting & bowling together was tatically in order.

Ponting scored runs in IND 2008 because he was the complete batsman. He didn't get a chance to vanquish those 2001 demons in 2004 because he was injured. You cant use that one-off test on a bowling friendly Mumbai pitch to prove anything.

remember who won the man of the series when aus beat eng 5-0 three years ago? and compare the same man's numbers in the 2005 and 2009 campaigns with his numbers from the 06-07 series down under. u will see the difference. between a tiger at home conditions and a, well, may be a rottweiler abroad.

The tiger at home vs rottweiler abroad comparison would be nothing more than stats picking.

As i explained above their is no connection to AUS losing in 05 to Ponting form. So clear the cobwebs once and for all here.

In 2006/07 he averages big yes, but ENGs attack was poor.

In 09 Ponting batted very well all series that very clear. AUS lost here due to inconsistent team performances & poor selectorial decisions. Ponting form which was very good - had nothing to do with it.

 

[aussie]

That series was the one that finally established him, once and for all, in the side. He has never been dropped since then. Previously he'd been dropped three times, though never for all that long.

But in my book he didn't go from good to outstanding until Headingley 2001.

On point.

 

[aussie]

My mistake, it was "inaccurate" rather than "incorrect".

DEAR GOD, haaaaa. Yo i dont even know what happened their, dont remember writing that at all. Probably in the early days on this site when i used to smoke weed & type, so i dunno, that is horrible though..

It's of course exceedingly likely that Ponting would've still become the batsman he is today had the catch been taken, but most if not everyone in cricket recognises how important small breaks can be, even if they refuse to accept that the idea of first-chance averages is a very fine one indeed. So many players have reflected that if they didn't have a let-off at a certain point in their career things later would have happened differently, possibly a hell of a lot differently.

I brought it up as a means of demonstrating how one small break proved the catalyst. This is an interesting little piece of information. It wasn't even, quite, a let-off - Ramprakash standing where he was standing was never going to take the catch. Ever.

All true. People clearly recognise how important players having breaks can be. Most recently with Strauss in Napier 07. But its just part of the game, no need to create the theory on it like you have done with the FCA.

 

[Burgey]

four series. spread over 10 years. 3 losses and one victory. too difficult to find excuses for him every time.

even in the victorious series, the only match he played in resulted in a loss. everyone else contributed at some point to the victories or drawn games. taylor, m.waugh, martyn, gilchrist, hayden, clarke.

australia's bad record in india is a direct result of ponting's failures as the leading batsman and shane warne's as the leading spinner.

Always love it when people point out Australia's poor record in India (and it is poor btw).

Just out of interest, how many series has India won in Australia?

 

[Jono]

You can't blame that on Tendulkar though, since the last 3 times he's been down here he's won Man of the Series twice

The other time was Dravid too

 

[Jono]

Btw, I don't necessarily agree with Bagapath that Ponting is why Australia have lost in India quite often.

Just think that he obviously hasn't helped his team on the last few tours with some poor performances.

 

[aussie]

You think those attacks were challening; I don't. Simple as that.

Simple as nothing yo. The is not a matter of opinion it is FACT that that SA attack of 05/06 & conditions where challenging.

If you comapre that attack player vs player to the SA attack that Hayden faced in 07/08 its very similar.

Steyn 2008/09=Ntini 05/06 - Ntini was in the form of his life in those 6 tests, you really can't split them.

Ntini 08/09>Pollock 05/06 - Both great bowlers passed their best. But Ntini although he was poor was generally more challenging.

Nel 05/06>>>Morkel 08/09 - Nel way better in all area's. Nel's

Kallis 05/06=Kallis 08/09 - Same competent 4th seamer option capable of getting the odd breakthrough.

Harris 08/09>>>>>Boje/Botha 05/06 - Mainly because Harris's role was more set in a bowling attack that was playing together for 18 months. Even if Boje & him are fairly even as bowler.

Hayden failed in 08/09 mainly because of crazy media pressure on his place, which started during the IND 08 tour which affected him mentally. Steyn & co didn't expose him technically

I watched a great deal of both series and no-one ever looked like bowling the sort of stuff that throughout his career troubled Hayden.

Which stuff is this?. Hayden's weakness was him plunging the big front foot forward & getting which when the ball is swinging he would get trapped LBW. Plus given he was so strong through the leg-side - bowling full & wide outside off-stump & getting him out caught in the slips or gully area.

Before ENG exposed fully in 05, in his FTB days of IND 01 to NZ 05 was only exposed by Mills & Akhtar in 04/05.

Vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. Those tactics where clearly tried again, what where you watching. Hayden improved technically by not planting that front foot down the track early in innings - but rather until he was set. While his off-side game improved considerably.

 

[Richard]

Look, there is no way for me to prove that they weren't implemented, nor is there any way for you to prove they were. I'm happy to come to the conclusion I've come to, and I daresay you're happy to do likewise. I'll leave it there.

As for Hayden's failures in 2008/09 they had very little to do with exploitation of career-long faults and more to do with new faults that crept in that season - which may or may not have been to do with the media pressure. I actually agree that SA's attack of 2005/06 was probably better than their one of 2008/09. But the 2005/06 one was not stacked with (in fact did not contain at all) bowlers who could bowl big inswingers to the LHB, nor were any of the decks really very seam-friendly when Hayden batted on them (some of them had the odd session where they were, most of which occurred when SA were batting).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Btw, I don't necessarily agree with Bagapath that Ponting is why Australia have lost in India quite often.

Just think that he obviously hasn't helped his team on the last few tours with some poor performances.

Sure, it hasn't helped. But Ponting was only the side's best batsman in five Tests that he's played over in India (the Mumbai game, and the most recent series). To then put the blame at his feet for the losses before then is a huge stretch.

 

[bagapath]

Just out of interest, how many series has India won in Australia?

none... and i dont think they even came close to winning one... india have always had mediocre bowlers who struggled outside their own shores... they have had just two series wins in west indies, new zealand and england in 70+ years of test cricket. one each in SL and Pak. and nothing in aus and SA. them not winning against the best is not surprising at all.

australia on the other hand have had match winning leather flingers from spofforth down to warne. they have won against everyone everywhere many times. in the most successful period of that country's history, from mid/late 90s till last year, the won one series in india and lost three. and their most important batsmen failed in all four series. that is worth talking about.

EDIT: correction. india has beaten england in england thrice.

 

[bagapath]

This argument aint valid for the 2005 Ashes since their is one series where the bowling had declined considerably. After the 1st test Warne was carrying the entire attack. Lee was inconsistent, Kapser n Dizzy had lost it & McGrath never returned to full fitness in time after the 1st test.

excuses... excuses.... it is still mcgrath/warne/gillespie/kasper right? it is not zaheer, agarkar, kumble and nehra FFS !! being in or out of form is part and parcel of the game. if one were to rate a bowling unit only when all four bowlers are in prime form, then you wont have too many bowling attacks that would be called great. anyway, it is ok if you dont think ponting has failed his team. just dont blame everyone else to protect him (and your argument)