Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[Richard]

Yes it was the best innings of his career in testing conditions at the time. If it was a fluke as i said before he couldn't have scored runs in the testing conditions that WHERE present vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08. You can dodge this fact unless you give your detailed recollection of those 6 test vs SA & IND 07/08.

As i said, I have go through my recollection of every test of that series. You do the same now...

I really don't have any interest in doing so. I have my recollections, and whether or not I repeat them it will not change anyone's minds about Hayden - many will not even accept him as a flat-track bully 2001/02-2004. So all it would do would be waste my time.

Good, the fact that he kept getting out to "nothing deliveries" pretty much proves he was not out of form in any way. Just as i said the media pressure going into that series affected him.

Either that or he'd declined. No way of knowing, and not really relevant at all because whatever the reasons it was clearly a phase which had no relation to the rest of his career.

Secondly i dont know anything about Hayden in his career having a "habit" of getting out of nothing deliveries. You making up stuff now or what...

No, you are. I said he had a habit of not getting out to nothing deliveries very often. By-and-large, you had to get Hayden out, even though this was something any good bowler could do without tremendous difficulty. He went much longer between playing "get out" shots than most batsmen do.

He was good a smashing poor attacks between IND 01 to NZ 05 because none of the pace attacks (except for Akhtar & Mills 04/05) where able to test him technically. Not that wildness you stated.

He was good at smashing poor attacks all career. Even if you believe this was not all he was good at, there's absolutely no question he was good at it all career. It's how he made so many thousands of runs in easy batting conditions.

 

[aussie]

I really don't have any interest in doing so. I have my recollections, and whether or not I repeat them it will not change anyone's minds about Hayden - many will not even accept him as a flat-track bully 2001/02-2004. So all it would do would be waste my time.

Its me you talking to uncle rich not everybody. I agree that he was a FTB during the period - no debates.

Find interest or your discrediting of Hayden's performances vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08 will have no merit. What both us recall can be proved my cricinfo reports, so as we recall we shall use those reports to see who is more accurate.

Either that or he'd declined.

Either. He scored runs againts a better SA attack in more testing conditions. Thats why i know media pressure played a big part in the mental part of his batting.

No way of knowing, and not really relevant at all because whatever the reasons it was clearly a phase which had no relation to the rest of his career.

It certainly did. You personally may not have made the argument. But as soon as Hayden failed vs SA 08/09 the argument that he "Hayden had failed againts another good pace attack" crap was up and running.

No, you are. I said he had a habit of not getting out to nothing deliveries very often. By-and-large, you had to get Hayden out, even though this was something any good bowler could do without tremendous difficulty. He went much longer between playing "get out" shots than most batsmen do.

Haa this is funny. Overall though this is very odd logic..

He was good at smashing poor attacks all career. Even if you believe this was not all he was good at, there's absolutely no question he was good at it all career. It's how he made so many thousands of runs in easy batting conditions.

Well yes is do agree here 100%. I have forgotten how we got to this point to this portion of the debate haa. Anyway get to work on the first task...DONT BACK OUT!!

 

[bagapath]

Good, the fact that he kept getting out to "nothing deliveries" pretty much proves he was not out of form in any way. Just as i said the media pressure going into that series affected him.

Secondly i dont know anything about Hayden in his career having a "habit" of getting out of nothing deliveries. You making up stuff now or what...

usually good batsmen get out to "nothing deliveries" often when they are out of form.

 

[Uppercut]

I distinctly remember Patel costing MK Punter's wicket at least 6 to 8 times during the SCG test and the TVS Cup before that........

He's only got Ponting once in two tests and once in eight ODIs, tbh.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah.. I talked about getting beaten, going to be stumped only to see Parthiv or Rahul fluff the chance behind the wickets.. Those kind of "facts" are never stored as stats...

 

[Uppercut]

No. But facts like Ponting scoring 108* off 103 balls the first time he faced MK are

 

[aussie]

usually good batsmen get out to "nothing deliveries" often when they are out of form.

Well yes. BTW you haven't answered this post yet:

please stop this name calling!!!



i will. if ponting saves or wins a test in india with a decent contribution from his bat. dont want something to match his scorching double hundred in melbourne. even something similar to sachin's 71 in perth would do.

Where where you when he scored that Bangalore Hundred & throughout the 2008 series?. What about his batting in that series still gives you doubts about his ability to play spin?

 

[Richard]

yeah.. I talked about getting beaten, going to be stumped only to see Parthiv or Rahul fluff the chance behind the wickets.. Those kind of "facts" are never stored as stats...

Maybe not on official databases but there's no reason someone who watched the match - indeed the hundreds of thousands who did - cannot take note of them.

BTW as for Murali Kartik, strange, strange bowler. Capable of being both utterly brilliant and utterly diabolical, and so impossibly mentally fragile that you never knew what was coming. In a way not dissimilar to Philip Tufnell.

 

[Richard]

Its me you talking to uncle rich not everybody. I agree that he was a FTB during the period - no debates.

Find interest or your discrediting of Hayden's performances vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08 will have no merit. What both us recall can be proved my cricinfo reports, so as we recall we shall use those reports to see who is more accurate.

As I say - there's just no point. You believe what you believe, and you won't change my mind; I believe what I believe, and I won't change yours. I don't have enough time to be trying to get blood out of a stone currently.

It certainly did. You personally may not have made the argument. But as soon as Hayden failed vs SA 08/09 the argument that he "Hayden had failed againts another good pace attack" crap was up and running.

Well he was also failing against all other attacks around that time, the sorts of attacks he'd smashed in the past, so anyone making that suggestion (and TBH I can't say I've noticed anyone) isn't really too in-the-know IMO. I'd not bother overtly with such a POV.

Haa this is funny. Overall though this is very odd logic..

Not really.

 

[aussie]

As I say - there's just no point. You believe what you believe, and you won't change my mind; I believe what I believe, and I won't change yours. I don't have enough time to be trying to get blood out of a stone currently.

Yes both of us do believe what we respectibely believed happened in 05/06 vs SA. But if they are hardcore facts (the cricinfo reports) to approve or disapprove or recollection of what occured - it strenghtens or weakness either one of our arguemts.

Especially for you who IMO for incorrect reason still have doubts over Hayden. So unless you do take up this challenge whenever you have time (it doesn't have to be now since i dont know what your schedule is like), you basically have no credibilty in criticising Hayden - thus i would suggest you avoid all arguments about him, until you do this.

Well he was also failing against all other attacks around that time, the sorts of attacks he'd smashed in the past, so anyone making that suggestion (and TBH I can't say I've noticed anyone) isn't really too in-the-know IMO. I'd not bother overtly with such a POV.

Not really. vs IND he got some very good deliveries early in the series from Zaheer Khan, he hardly was troubled technically. He could have easily scored 2 centuries in that series.

He returned home vs NZ & on a very bowler friendly Brisbane deck where all the AUS & NZ batsmen except for a view & as the game of cricket goes he continued to get good balls.

Not really.

By-and-large, you had to get Hayden out, even though this was something any good bowler could do without tremendous difficulty.

You make it sound here once a bowler was good, by which is presume you are talking about good fast-bowlers capable of exposing his techincal weakness - he would be instantly in trouble.

This is true up until the Oval 05. This is where we keep going around in circles when it comes to his performances vs SA 05/06 & ind 07/08, where he improved & which you have wrongly failed to acknowledge. This is why i say let this argument go the next level by lets using cricinfo reports to either prove you or me right...

 

[Richard]

Yes both of us do believe what we respectibely believed happened in 05/06 vs SA. But if they are hardcore facts (the cricinfo reports) to approve or disapprove or recollection of what occured - it strenghtens or weakness either one of our arguemts.

Especially for you who IMO for incorrect reason still have doubts over Hayden. So unless you do take up this challenge whenever you have time (it doesn't have to be now since i dont know what your schedule is like), you basically have no credibilty in criticising Hayden - thus i would suggest you avoid all arguments about him, until you do this.

I remember each of those games well - I do not need CricInfo reports to strengthen my memories.

Not really. vs IND he got some very good deliveries early in the series from Zaheer Khan, he hardly was troubled technically. He could have easily scored 2 centuries in that series.

He returned home vs NZ & on a very bowler friendly Brisbane deck where all the AUS & NZ batsmen except for a view & as the game of cricket goes he continued to get good balls.

None of this is terribly important. All that matters is that Hayden's failures of 2008/09 - which went throughout the whole season, for whatever reason - were attributable to a decline in his game, and faults that had not previously been there. I am not going to use 2008/09 to make any sort of case regarding Hayden's batting because he played that season in a different way to how he had played previously.

By-and-large, you had to get Hayden out, even though this was something any good bowler could do without tremendous difficulty.

You make it sound here once a bowler was good, by which is presume you are talking about good fast-bowlers capable of exposing his techincal weakness - he would be instantly in trouble.

Yes, that's it. But if you were incapable of exploiting his technical weakness, you were in big trouble, because he would play a "get out" shot with much less regularity than most.

This is true up until the Oval 05. This is where we keep going around in circles when it comes to his performances vs SA 05/06 & ind 07/08, where he improved & which you have wrongly failed to acknowledge. This is why i say let this argument go the next level by lets using cricinfo reports to either prove you or me right...

I'm not sure what you do with your days, but let's get this straight - reading CricInfo (and other) reports takes hours. I currently have university work, work work, CricketWeb writing work and no shortage of other things to be doing. I have no inclination to be going through countless online prose, finding it first, just for the sake of one piddling batsman.

 

[Perm]

Well then stop arguing about him ffs.

 

[Richard]

I've tried to. Countless times. Sadly it's something people like to bring-up in circumstances that don't have much connection, and I regularly have to correct misconceptions when such a thing happens. As often as not those misconceptions are deliberately misconceived in an attempt to misrepresent my viewpoint and discredit it.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It's fortunate that Chappell only said "Ponting is better than Sachin" and not "Hussain is better than Hayden".

 

[aussie]

I remember each of those games well - I do not need CricInfo reports to strengthen my memories.

Nonsense, dont get arrogant. You since the Oval 05 test have constantly mainted the very incorrect notions about Hayden, which had lead me to believe you didn't didn't watch any of the 6 test vs SA 05/06 & IND 07/08

You keep saying that conditions in SA 05/06 although the bowling attack was a very good, the bowlers didn't have the ability to test Hayden's age old weakness of the ball swiniging into pads - where ENG 05 & Mills/Akhtar 04/05 managed to exploit before.

Although this is true, you fail to acknowledge that various conditions over those 6 test matches WHERE BOWLER FRIENDLY in which Hayden scored runs. Hayden scored runs by not being his typical "bully mode" - he played in the same way as he did in the Oval test - which shows that Hayden advanced his game. Which clearly disapproves your notion that the Oval was just as "one-off" performance above anything Hayden ever did before in his career.

None of this is terribly important. All that matters is that Hayden's failures of 2008/09 - which went throughout the whole season, for whatever reason - were attributable to a decline in his game, and faults that had not previously been there. I am not going to use 2008/09 to make any sort of case regarding Hayden's batting because he played that season in a different way to how he had played previously.

What are the factors that are an indicator that as batsman is in decline?. I would presume being exposed technically is the main one - which Hayden certainly wasn't between IND/NZ/SA 08/09.

As i've said before i think you & many other seriously underestimate the media pressure that Hayden was under after the IND tour, which clearly had a mental effect on his game. Hayden went into an unsual shell during the AUS summer.

If Hayden really had declined due to age, technically etc, i seriously doubt he could have gone to IPL 09 & batted the way he did.

Yes, that's it. But if you were incapable of exploiting his technical weakness, you were in big trouble, because he would play a "get out" shot with much less regularity than most.

As i've said before this was true up the Oval hundred. Hayden clearly after then improved on the technical flaw by planting his front pad too early to the bowlers capable of bowlers capable of exposing him vs IND 07/08.

I'm not sure what you do with your days, but let's get this straight - reading CricInfo (and other) reports takes hours. I currently have university work, work work, CricketWeb writing work and no shortage of other things to be doing. I have no inclination to be going through countless online prose, finding it first, just for the sake of one piddling batsman.

Yet you are always ready to defend your misguided position on Hayden, by posting the same incorrect notions in full.

Secondly i also have UNI work etc, but you clearly don't have to read EVERY single crincinfo reports regarding the period we are discussing about Hayden. But rather just the innings where Hayden scored runs.

 

[honestbharani]

No. But facts like Ponting scoring 108* off 103 balls the first time he faced MK are

might wanna see how many lives he got in that... or the ****oo land of statsguru's rules don't allow any FACTS other than the ones noted down in the books...


Obviously, one need not EVER watch cricket matches to decide who is going to win a particular match. All you need is Statsguru..

 

[Uppercut]

That is EXACTLY what I said.

 

[Furball]

I've tried to. Countless times. Sadly it's something people like to bring-up in circumstances that don't have much connection, and I regularly have to correct misconceptions when such a thing happens. As often as not those misconceptions are deliberately misconceived in an attempt to misrepresent my viewpoint and discredit it.

Try harder.

 

[Richard]

As I say - it isn't me that needs to try harder.

 

[miscer]

Imo Ian Chappell is wrong.