Ponting or Murali: Who is the greater test cricketer?

[vic_orthdox]

I think the argument about "not getting the chance to do what X did" is pretty weak. There are very few cricketers who are as good as Ponting in the field. What about Sachin would suggest he could be that good? Especially since Indian fielders are notoriously poor.

Especially when that/those "someone" played well over 100 Tests. Neither plied their trade in the position usually reserved for the best fielder in the ring (point), neither have shown the ability to catch in close like Ponting has, and Ponting is at least an equal in the slips.

 

[vcs]

I think the argument about "not getting the chance to do what X did" is pretty weak. There are very few cricketers who are as good as Ponting in the field. What about Sachin would suggest he could be that good? Especially since Indian fielders are notoriously poor.

I actually think that post was tongue in cheek, but how exactly does that add to your argument in any way?

If anything suggests Sachin is not as good as Ponting in the field, it's that he is clearly not as natural an athlete as Ponting and his reflexes are slower. But then there aren't many that are as good as Ponting in the field. I can assure you he is much better than the average Indian fielder though.

And I personally believe Tendulkar's bowling more than makes up the shortfall.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think the argument about "not getting the chance to do what X did" is pretty weak. There are very few cricketers who are as good as Ponting in the field. What about Sachin would suggest he could be that good? Especially since Indian fielders are notoriously poor.

I don't think Sachin was a terrible fielder at any point in his career. Actually from his debut to till ridden by injuries, Sachin used to field almost everywhere.. He has effected quite a number of memorable catches runouts in this period.

Ponting however is more athletic and dives around regularly makes great run outs.

Yeah nothing shame in admitting Ponting is a better fielder than Sachin. But that noway means Sachin is not a bad fielder, or not even average.

 

[Teja.]

The importance of fielding, IMO is extremely overrated in Test match cricket. While an extremely talented fielder(Ponting) looks way better, the difference that unyokes him from a merely good one(Tendulkar) is extremely minute when it comes to real impact on the game.

IMHO,

Awesome fielder>Good Fielder/Fielder who can catch>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bad Fielder/Fielder with butterfingers.

 

[Shri]

I think the argument about "not getting the chance to do what X did" is pretty weak. There are very few cricketers who are as good as Ponting in the field. What about Sachin would suggest he could be that good? Especially since Indian fielders are notoriously poor.

This is your problem. You don't have have to go all geeky and analyze everything that is said on the internet. You did that after I clearly stated that I was not being serious.

 

[Sir Alex]

The importance of fielding, IMO is extremely overrated in Test match cricket. While an extremely talented fielder(Ponting) looks way better, the difference that unyokes him from a merely good one(Tendulkar) is extremely minute when it comes to real impact on the game.

IMHO,

Awesome fielder>Good Fielder/Fielder who can catch>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bad Fielder/Fielder with butterfingers.

Would disagree tbh. A good fielding side definitely saves a lot more runs and takes more catches which puts the opposition in more pressure. A good stop/ a great catch adds a lot of morale and momentum to the team and vice versa.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Would disagree tbh. A good fielding side definitely saves a lot more runs and takes more catches which puts the opposition in more pressure. A good stop/ a great catch adds a lot of morale and momentum to the team and vice versa.

How do you quantify momentum?

 

[Uppercut]

How do you quantify momentum?

You can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Good stops are definitely overrated in test cricket. Good catches are indeed horribly underrated. Top-class slip fielders never get the credit they deserve.

 

[Ikki]

I actually think that post was tongue in cheek, but how exactly does that add to your argument in any way?

If anything suggests Sachin is not as good as Ponting in the field, it's that he is clearly not as natural an athlete as Ponting and his reflexes are slower. But then there aren't many that are as good as Ponting in the field. I can assure you he is much better than the average Indian fielder though.

And I personally believe Tendulkar's bowling more than makes up the shortfall.

I'm just building a case which shows just how unlikely it would have been for Tendulkar to have turned into a fielder like Ponting (who already stands out against great fielders, in his teammates). Is good as Tendulkar was, even amongst his peers, does that suggest he'd have been better? I just don't buy it was an issue of opportunity.

Tendulkar's bowling in ODIs makes up quite a bit of ground, but certainly not in Tests IMO.

Unlike Teja I think good fielding cricket is a must. In that form of the game you simply can't drop a catch. The wickets are vital. Whilst ODI certainly has more fielding and it is more central to the game, I feel the taking of a catch can be argued more important in Tests since you have to take all the wickets to win, whereas you don't need to in ODIs.

This is your problem. You don't have have to go all geeky and analyze everything that is said on the internet. You did that after I clearly stated that I was not being serious.

I didn't think you were being unserious, just that you were worried you hadn't expressed yourself well. ?

 

[Teja.]

Unlike Teja I think good fielding cricket is a must. In that form of the game you simply can't drop a catch. The wickets are oh so vital. Whilst ODI certainly has more fielding and it is more central to the game, I feel the taking of a catch can be argued more important in Tests since you have to take all the wickets to win, whereas you don't need to in ODIs.

The point I was making was,

There are fielders like Viv, Collingwood and Ponting who are prodigious fielders. Then, there are fielders like Tendulkar, Border and Sanga who are 'good' fielders who perform all the duties expected of a reasonable fielder well and take the occasional beauty. Then, there are the Gangulys, Prabhakars and Inzys of the world who are dire fielders, do not put in any kind of special effort etc.

IMHO, Judging on actual impact of the game, The difference between the first two categories is minute while there is a huge difference between the second and the third category.

 

[vcs]

I'm just building a case which shows just how unlikely it would have been for Tendulkar to have turned into a fielder like Ponting (who already stands out against great fielders, in his teammates). I just don't buy it was an issue of opportunity.

Tendulkar's bowling in ODIs makes up quite a bit of ground, but certainly not in Tests IMO.

Unlike Teja I think good fielding cricket is a must. In that form of the game you simply can't drop a catch. The wickets are vital. Whilst ODI certainly has more fielding and it is more central to the game, I feel the taking of a catch can be argued more important in Tests since you have to take all the wickets to win, whereas you don't need to in ODIs.



I didn't think you were being unserious, just that you were worried you hadn't expressed yourself well. ?

Well, that's where our opinions differ.. I feel Ponting's ground fielding, athletic stopping and direct hits are exponentially more valuable in the shorter format compared to Tests. Whereas Tendulkar might have a crap average and SR in Tests, he has taken a number of top-order wickets, broken partnerships when nothing else was working, or even filled in as an extra spinner when the wicket was providing a bit of assistance. I think that ability makes a bit more of a direct impact in Test cricket. He also rarely drops any catches.. doesn't take many extraordinary ones but doesn't drop sitters either.

 

[ColdSnow]

IMO, Kumble has also won India more Test matches than any of those three have done for their respective teams. Isn't it just another version of the old cliche "you have to take 20 wickets to win a Test match and only bowlers can do that for you"? The second point is a valid one - but one could say that Murali is not even the best spinner of his own generation outside the subcontinent (without wanting to spark a Warne-Murali war).

Its been so long since I have been on this site but I just simply had to respond to this post.

Yes, bowlers win matches and batters save them, unless of course it is Virender Sehwag we're talking about. India VS England at the Chennai test (in 2008 I think)...India were chasing 387 to win in the 4th innings and if not for Sehwag's blinder would not have won. I think 9 times out of 10, any team would have gone for a draw or lost.

As for the original question, Murali anyday.

 

[Zinzan]

For me Murali is the 3rd greatest cricketer since 1990, behind Warne & Lara

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think Murali's achievements have quite sunk in with people yet. 800 wickets in 133 tests is just sick.

 

[Sir Alex]

I don't think Murali's achievements have quite sunk in with people yet. 800 wickets in 133 tests is just sick.

This.

If anything it is a Bradmanly achievement. Almost double the fifers as compared to next competitor, incredible wickets/match ratio, stunning average for a spinner, and records that'll never perhaps be broken.

 

[R_D]

I don't think Murali's achievements have quite sunk in with people yet. 800 wickets in 133 tests is just sick.

It's his bowling action which makes people question his achievements obviously.

I do think Murali's a better cricket than Ponting.

 

[honestbharani]

You can't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Good stops are definitely overrated in test cricket. Good catches are indeed horribly underrated. Top-class slip fielders never get the credit they deserve.

And adding to that, I think Sachin/Lara are better than Ponting in the slips.. I have seen Punter drop a couple in the slips and I have seen both Sachin and Lara pull off pretty good ones there... I am not denying Ponting > Sachin/Lara as a fielder but it is not enough to get over the fact that the other two are better batsmen, in my eyes.


Ikki, if you want to discuss SAchin/Lara/Ponting again, I suggest we use one of the threads open for that purpose... But to state my case at its simplest: Sachin/Lara played against better bowling attacks and did well... Ponting didn't have the opportunity to face some of the best, so it is a judgement call and from what I have seen, Sachin and Lara looked a slight cut above Ponting as a batsman, something most of the cricket world seems to agree with.... Perhaps it is futile to argue further as I can see you regard Ponting better and we both know we are not going to change our opinions that easily.


BTW, I never said they were not comparable.. And the level I meant is not how it came out. DoI think all 3 are great batsmen and comparable to each other? Yes. But within that level of greatness, I think Sachin and Lara are a slight notch above Ponting. It is hard to quantify and I am basing it as a cricket watcher.. I am no pundit on this but for my money, Ponting would have found it very hard to do well in a poor batting side with no bowling support which Sachin and Lara both managed.. Completely subjective and I can totally see why you would think otherwise. Perhaps the fact that I watched Sachin/Lara a lot more than Ponting (and I would venture a guess that you watched more of Ponting than Sachin/Lara) plays a part.. We will leave it here?

 

[honestbharani]

Well, that's where our opinions differ.. I feel Ponting's ground fielding, athletic stopping and direct hits are exponentially more valuable in the shorter format compared to Tests. Whereas Tendulkar might have a crap average and SR in Tests, he has taken a number of top-order wickets, broken partnerships when nothing else was working, or even filled in as an extra spinner when the wicket was providing a bit of assistance. I think that ability makes a bit more of a direct impact in Test cricket. He also rarely drops any catches.. doesn't take many extraordinary ones but doesn't drop sitters either.

He actually has a semi match winning performance as a bowler in a test.. Is there any test where you can claim the same for Ponting and his fielding?

 

[vcs]

Sachin contributing with the bowling and Ponting as a great fielder is also a product of the respective environments they found themselves in... if Sachin played for Australia, they would have no use for his part-time fare as they have always had excellent bowling depth. On the other hand, if you put Ponting in the Indian team - as good as he is in the field - he would not have single-handedly lifted the Indian fielding standards all that much... Sachin's ability as a 5th bowler is much more valuable to us.

I still remember in the Hero Cup semifinal when South Africa needed 6 off the last over, no one wanted to bowl it, Sachin went and grabbed the ball from Azhar's hands. He was willing to put his balls on the line even as a part-time bowler that early in his career. In the final where Kumble took 6-12, it was Sachin who dismissed Lara.

 

[Hurricane]

I don't think Murali's achievements have quite sunk in with people yet. 800 wickets in 133 tests is just sick.

This is why I voted for Murali. I am not sure why he is not getting his due.