Ponting vs. Steve Waugh, Who Was the Better Batsman?

[Anil]

This. One of the more appalling myths perpetrated by Ian Chappell, who couldn't stand Steve Waugh.

yeah, steve was miles ahead...

 

[Anil]

waugh for me, but valid arguments for both...

 

[Prince EWS]

What is he good for?

 

[Sir Alex]

Good question.

Seriously though, let bygones be bygones.

Welcome back. We missed you mate.

 

[honestbharani]

Welcome back. We missed you mate.

AWTA. Welcome Pratters.. Enjoy talking cricket and chill...

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I don't see how eleminating entire shots from your kitty demonstrates mental strength. Someone compared SW to Kallis, this is incorrect as Kallis has and plays every shot in the book, albeit pragmatically.

Surely mental strength on behalf of Waugh would be to buckle down and learn to play them better.

 

[Debris]

I don't see how eleminating entire shots from your kitty demonstrates mental strength. Someone compared SW to Kallis, this is incorrect as Kallis has and plays every shot in the book, albeit pragmatically.

Surely mental strength on behalf of Waugh would be to buckle down and learn to play them better.

Depends on the shot. Some shots are just inherently too risky. Hook and pull shots probably aren't in that list though.

 

[GotSpin]

I don't see how eleminating entire shots from your kitty demonstrates mental strength. Someone compared SW to Kallis, this is incorrect as Kallis has and plays every shot in the book, albeit pragmatically.

Surely mental strength on behalf of Waugh would be to buckle down and learn to play them better.

Or you could see this in another light as a sign of mental strength since he's refusing to play a shot that he perceives as a weakness in his game

 

[slippyslip]

Stuff like this is really annoying. Cherry Picking of stats to prove BS. I do believe that Ponting is the better batsman but to suggest that SRW somehow played a worse attack is really upsetting.

Steve Waugh played cricket in 3 different decades and faced much better bowling throughout his career than Ponting did.

Yes Ponting did play against Ambrose/Walsh, he averaged 40, Waugh averaged 47+.

Hardly cherry picking. His average once England removed is lower, its even lower if you just count him in England. 3200 of his 10927 were scored against England.

Ponting has now played in 3 different decades as well.

Sure the West Indies had great bowlers during Waugh's early part of his career. But lets not forget that Waugh took three and a half years to score a test century. Up until 1989 Waugh was viewed as an all rounder and before the 1989 Ashes his batting average was 30.

And the stupidest thing is that Ponting and Waugh for nearly TEN years faced the EXACT same bowling. Ponting has played more of his cricket with Waugh in the team than without him. 75 of his 144 test were played when Steve Waugh was still playing.

Before Ponting made his debut Waugh's average was a bit over 47. After Ponting's debut Waugh made 6287 runs@54.19. Ponting's average through his time playing with Waugh was 55.

That doesn't tell you who the better batsman was. But it does show that the bulk of Waugh's runs came in the 70+ test matches he played WITH Ponting.

While Waugh might have face a few more top class bowlers earlier on his omst consistent and successful batting came during the era he was playing with Ponting.

 

[GotSpin]

Hardly cherry picking. His average once England removed is lower, its even lower if you just count him in England. 3200 of his 10927 were scored against England.

Ponting has now played in 3 different decades as well.

Sure the West Indies had great bowlers during Waugh's early part of his career. But lets not forget that Waugh took three and a half years to score a test century. Up until 1989 Waugh was viewed as an all rounder and before the 1989 Ashes his batting average was 30.

And the stupidest thing is that Ponting and Waugh for nearly TEN years faced the EXACT same bowling. Ponting has played more of his cricket with Waugh in the team than without him. 75 of his 144 test were played when Steve Waugh was still playing.

Before Ponting made his debut Waugh's average was a bit over 47. After Ponting's debut Waugh made 6287 runs@54.19. Ponting's average through his time playing with Waugh was 55.

That doesn't tell you who the better batsman was. But it does show that the bulk of Waugh's runs came in the 70+ test matches he played WITH Ponting.

While Waugh might have face a few more top class bowlers earlier on his omst consistent and successful batting came during the era he was playing with Ponting.

Wouldn't that be because a lot of those top class bowlers had retired by then, thus having a lower average during the beginning of his career and then improving later on

 

[Matt79]

I don't see how eleminating entire shots from your kitty demonstrates mental strength. Someone compared SW to Kallis, this is incorrect as Kallis has and plays every shot in the book, albeit pragmatically.

Surely mental strength on behalf of Waugh would be to buckle down and learn to play them better.

Because he decided that he didn't play it well enough, no matter how much he enjoyed playing it, or instinctively wanted to play it. Whether or not the same is true for a different batsman is irrelevant, the fact is lots of batsmen probably might be honest enough to admit they have a problem with a shot, but few would be prepared to put it away and stick to it. Learning to play the shot better, if that were possible, would take longer to be effective, and in any case would demonstrate technical strength rather than mental strength. Not that one is better than the other necessarily, but they're just different aspects of what makes a great batsman. Doesn't mean that what Kallis does requires any less mental strength either.

I remember the younger Steve, he was my idol as a kid, but the fact was that, the 1989 tour of England aside, that model of Steve was not nearly as effective as the remodeled version.

Disagree with your "two divisions" remark regarding limited overs - I'll give you one division, but Waugh was a very good ODI batsman in his younger days, by the standards of the time.

 

[Himannv]

Since neither of them have faced Warne and McGrath, they both suck!!!

LOL j/k.. Voted for Ponting. For me, he's clearly the better batsman.

 

[asty80]

Ponting to me is easily the best batsman Aus have produced since the 80/90's.
Waugh might not even be second on that list with the contenders being Dean Jones, Mark Waugh, Matty Hayden, Justin Langer. Hussey and Clarke seem to be a rung below these..

Both are big match players (example:Waugh in Gibbs dropping WC match, Ponting in 2003 WC final), both are fighters when the chips are down (example:Ponting in the chase against SA for about 300 in a day, Waugh numerous times incl his last test in Sydney against Ind) but talent wise Ponting takes the cake as he can dominate much better and has more shots in his reportoire.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

In my opinion it can be summed up as follows:

Ponting is one of the greatest batsman ever.

Waugh is one of the greatest men, greatest force of will, greatest role models to have batted, but not one of the greatest batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Hardly cherry picking. His average once England removed is lower, its even lower if you just count him in England. 3200 of his 10927 were scored against England.

Why would you remove SRW's performance against England though, what purpose does it serve ?

Between Ponting's Debut and Waugh's retirement both batsmen faced the same English attack and Waugh was miles better than Ponting.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

 

[Sanz]

And the stupidest thing is that Ponting and Waugh for nearly TEN years faced the EXACT same bowling. Ponting has played more of his cricket with Waugh in the team than without him. 75 of his 144 test were played when Steve Waugh was still playing.

Before Ponting made his debut Waugh's average was a bit over 47. After Ponting's debut Waugh made 6287 runs@54.19. Ponting's average through his time playing with Waugh was 55.

That doesn't tell you who the better batsman was. But it does show that the bulk of Waugh's runs came in the 70+ test matches he played WITH Ponting.

While Waugh might have face a few more top class bowlers earlier on his omst consistent and successful batting came during the era he was playing with Ponting.

You make it sound as if Waugh's success as a batsman had something to do with him Batting with Ponting. Just so you know, before Ponting made his debut Waugh, 3 year in a row ,averaged 60+ .

 

[Burgey]

Why would you remove SRW's performance against England though, what purpose does it serve ?

Between Ponting's Debut and Waugh's retirement both batsmen faced the same English attack and Waugh was miles better than Ponting.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Yeah Waugh was better in that period vs England. But that's no more a basis for saying Waugh is better than Ponting than removing Waugh's England stats is for saying Ponting's better.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Waugh was much better against the best bowlers and maintained his 50 average for 165 matches.

 

[Burgey]

Waugh was much better against the best bowlers and maintained his 50 average for 165 matches.

As opposed to 55ish for nigh on 150?

You can't use two players up against the same bowlers as a defining characteristic when one of the two players is in his absolute pomp and the other is a whelp on his way up. That would be like me saying Steve Waugh can't be better than Border because when they each played against good bowlers together Waugh was crap (and he was much worse in his young days than Ponting was in his), and Border was at his best as a player.

 

[Ikki]

Waugh was much better against the best bowlers and maintained his 50 average for 165 matches.

He didn't play all those great bowlers for all his 165 matches. In fact, Ponting did play many of those "best bowlers" well. Granted, Waugh played them in many more matches.

I think it's misleading comparing them in this way as Burgey outlines - one was an up-and-comer, the other was in his pomp.

You gotta hand it to Waugh; he turned himself into a very good batsman into an all-time great batsman. Still, Ponting was destined for glory even at a very tender age. This is not an argument for prodigious talent over worked talent - as if it is ever that simple, anyway - but just to illustrate that Ponting is such a talented batsman I'd back him in any era and I don't think the above argument detracts from him much.