***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[akilana]

should have converted one of the fifty into a big hundred. wish he turned all 3 into hundreds

 

[bagapath]

I know I'm in a minority (probably of one ) but I actually find the fact that he's always referred to by his first name as if people know him personally to be far more annoying than any praise of his ridiculously awesome batting. It doesn't bother me when people are celebrating in a tour thread (eg. YES!! SACHIN!! What an innings!") because that's supposed to be fan-ish, but when people are trying to make a serious point about him or compare him to someone else and they just call him Sachin, it puts me off a bit.

As I said, I doubt anyone else has this problem; just thought I'd put it out there.

dude... i am a tamil speaking south indian. many of us dont even have last names. i don't have one, for the record. we all go by our given names and use our father's name as the surname. srikkanth uses his dad krishnamachari's name before his given name. anand (chess player) uses his father viswanathan's name before his, too. I write my dad's name after mine. my wife uses my name as her surname. it works like this because we are expected to have first and last names all around the globe on our passports and we do it according to our convenience. also, most of the last names in india are supposed to signify the cast the person belongs to - iyer, nadar, pillai, yadav, reddy, rao etc. the modern society, in our state, kind of looks down upon this habit and that is also a reason we have only our first names to hold on to.

so for me, from a south indian perspective, sachin tendulkar's name is "sachin". it doesnt mean i am trying to sound personal. it is, AFAIK, his name.

 

[Sanz]

Bagapath, Any chance of directing a Hindi movie ?

 

[TumTum]

It would be good to get this thread back to topic

I don't have the time or skills to do it, but can somebody crunch out both Ponting's and Tendulkar's averages in the 2nd innings after they either make above= 50 or less than 50 in the 1st innings?

 

[sifter132]

I dunno about that one mate, but I was doing some crunching of my own yesterday. It's been annoying me of late how many Tendulkar v Ponting comparisons are coming up. Even the Cricinfo stats article about Tendulkar the other day slipped one in at the end. It's especially annoying since these last 3 years have been possibly the worst of Ponting's career, with Sachin has enjoyed a resurgence. I can't remember too many comparsions in the mid 2000s when Sachin was tanking and Ricky was peerless. But anyway...

The other thing about these comparisons that bugs me is that we always compare careers. But SRT has played for more than 20 years, where the average career would be lucky to be 10. It's not so annoying in the Tendulkar v Ponting comparison, but with every run Tendulkar scores it makes Lara, Steve Waugh etc. look worse because they only played for 10-15 years. I don't think that's fair.

So what I did was find out who had the best 10 year period - an average man's career. I also took out the matches v Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which penalises Tendulkar a little more than Ponting.

Tendulkar's best 10 year period? Either:
1992-2001: 68 Tests, 6071 runs @ 61.32, 24 100s, 89.28 runs/M, 100 every 2.83 Tests
or 1993-2002: 76 Tests, 6790 runs @ 60.63, 24 100s, 89.34 runs/M, 100 every 3.17 Tests
The second period SRT scores more runs, but his rate stats are slightly worse. Depends what you value really as to what you think is best.

Ponting's best 10 year period?
1999-2008: 98 Tests, 8938 runs @ 60.80, 33 100s, 91.20 runs/M, 100 every 2.97 Tests

Virtually equal to my eyes. Ponting scored more runs in his best 10 years, but he played more Tests. That's about the only major difference. Given that, overall I'd have to favour Tendulkar ever so slightly given the gun to the head choice, given that his career outside those 10 years has been more impressive than Ponting's. But the whole point of this is that Ponting at his best versus Tendulkar at his best are pretty much the same. The dodgy 'Tendulkar v Ponting since 2007' comparisons going around do not do justice to their equality because in my eyes they are virtually equal.

ODI cricket though would give Tendulkar a little more of an advantage.
Tendulkar's best 10 ODI years, either:
1994-2003: 238 ODIs, 9893 runs @ 46.45, S/R: 88.06, 31 100s
or 2001-2010: 165 ODIs, 7024 runs @ 48.44, S/R: 86.39, 17 100s

Ponting's best years, either:
1998-2007: 215 ODIs, 8556 runs @ 45.75, S/R: 82.50, 20 100s
2001-2010: 215 ODIs, 8516 runs @ 44.82, S/R: 84.98, 21 100s

Hope you enjoyed it...

 

[Prince EWS]

The other thing about these comparisons that bugs me is that we always compare careers. But SRT has played for more than 20 years, where the average career would be lucky to be 10. It's not so annoying in the Tendulkar v Ponting comparison, but with every run Tendulkar scores it makes Lara, Steve Waugh etc. look worse because they only played for 10-15 years. I don't think that's fair.

I don't agree with this at all. Tendulkar's longevity is very much part of what makes him a great cricketer. Put it this way - if you're the captain of a side and you get offered two choices: an all-time great batsman who plays for 15 years, or an all-time great batsman of roughly the same quality who plays for 20 years - who are you going to pick?

Being able to do it for longer has made him more valuable.

 

[Flem274*]

I dunno about that one mate, but I was doing some crunching of my own yesterday. It's been annoying me of late how many Tendulkar v Ponting comparisons are coming up. Even the Cricinfo stats article about Tendulkar the other day slipped one in at the end. It's especially annoying since these last 3 years have been possibly the worst of Ponting's career, with Sachin has enjoyed a resurgence. I can't remember too many comparsions in the mid 2000s when Sachin was tanking and Ricky was peerless. But anyway...

The other thing about these comparisons that bugs me is that we always compare careers. But SRT has played for more than 20 years, where the average career would be lucky to be 10. It's not so annoying in the Tendulkar v Ponting comparison, but with every run Tendulkar scores it makes Lara, Steve Waugh etc. look worse because they only played for 10-15 years. I don't think that's fair.

So what I did was find out who had the best 10 year period - an average man's career. I also took out the matches v Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which penalises Tendulkar a little more than Ponting.

Tendulkar's best 10 year period? Either:
1992-2001: 68 Tests, 6071 runs @ 61.32, 24 100s, 89.28 runs/M, 100 every 2.83 Tests
or 1993-2002: 76 Tests, 6790 runs @ 60.63, 24 100s, 89.34 runs/M, 100 every 3.17 Tests
The second period SRT scores more runs, but his rate stats are slightly worse. Depends what you value really as to what you think is best.

Ponting's best 10 year period?
1999-2008: 98 Tests, 8938 runs @ 60.80, 33 100s, 91.20 runs/M, 100 every 2.97 Tests

Virtually equal to my eyes. Ponting scored more runs in his best 10 years, but he played more Tests. That's about the only major difference. Given that, overall I'd have to favour Tendulkar ever so slightly given the gun to the head choice, given that his career outside those 10 years has been more impressive than Ponting's. But the whole point of this is that Ponting at his best versus Tendulkar at his best are pretty much the same. The dodgy 'Tendulkar v Ponting since 2007' comparisons going around do not do justice to their equality because in my eyes they are virtually equal.

ODI cricket though would give Tendulkar a little more of an advantage.
Tendulkar's best 10 ODI years, either:
1994-2003: 238 ODIs, 9893 runs @ 46.45, S/R: 88.06, 31 100s
or 2001-2010: 165 ODIs, 7024 runs @ 48.44, S/R: 86.39, 17 100s

Ponting's best years, either:
1998-2007: 215 ODIs, 8556 runs @ 45.75, S/R: 82.50, 20 100s
2001-2010: 215 ODIs, 8516 runs @ 44.82, S/R: 84.98, 21 100s

Hope you enjoyed it...

Tendulkar's longevity is part of what makes him great.

 

[TumTum]

I dunno about that one mate, but I was doing some crunching of my own yesterday. It's been annoying me of late how many Tendulkar v Ponting comparisons are coming up. Even the Cricinfo stats article about Tendulkar the other day slipped one in at the end. It's especially annoying since these last 3 years have been possibly the worst of Ponting's career, with Sachin has enjoyed a resurgence. I can't remember too many comparsions in the mid 2000s when Sachin was tanking and Ricky was peerless. But anyway...

The other thing about these comparisons that bugs me is that we always compare careers. But SRT has played for more than 20 years, where the average career would be lucky to be 10. It's not so annoying in the Tendulkar v Ponting comparison, but with every run Tendulkar scores it makes Lara, Steve Waugh etc. look worse because they only played for 10-15 years. I don't think that's fair.

So what I did was find out who had the best 10 year period - an average man's career. I also took out the matches v Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, which penalises Tendulkar a little more than Ponting.

Tendulkar's best 10 year period? Either:
1992-2001: 68 Tests, 6071 runs @ 61.32, 24 100s, 89.28 runs/M, 100 every 2.83 Tests
or 1993-2002: 76 Tests, 6790 runs @ 60.63, 24 100s, 89.34 runs/M, 100 every 3.17 Tests
The second period SRT scores more runs, but his rate stats are slightly worse. Depends what you value really as to what you think is best.

Ponting's best 10 year period?
1999-2008: 98 Tests, 8938 runs @ 60.80, 33 100s, 91.20 runs/M, 100 every 2.97 Tests

Virtually equal to my eyes. Ponting scored more runs in his best 10 years, but he played more Tests. That's about the only major difference. Given that, overall I'd have to favour Tendulkar ever so slightly given the gun to the head choice, given that his career outside those 10 years has been more impressive than Ponting's. But the whole point of this is that Ponting at his best versus Tendulkar at his best are pretty much the same. The dodgy 'Tendulkar v Ponting since 2007' comparisons going around do not do justice to their equality because in my eyes they are virtually equal.

ODI cricket though would give Tendulkar a little more of an advantage.
Tendulkar's best 10 ODI years, either:
1994-2003: 238 ODIs, 9893 runs @ 46.45, S/R: 88.06, 31 100s
or 2001-2010: 165 ODIs, 7024 runs @ 48.44, S/R: 86.39, 17 100s

Ponting's best years, either:
1998-2007: 215 ODIs, 8556 runs @ 45.75, S/R: 82.50, 20 100s
2001-2010: 215 ODIs, 8516 runs @ 44.82, S/R: 84.98, 21 100s

Hope you enjoyed it...

I get your point and agree with it slightly, but still reckon basically if Sachin has played almost 2 times longer and got the same amount of runs, he is clearly on top, although definitely not by twice, if that makes sense.

But I especially agree with comparing SRT and Punter since 2007, because I feel Ponting is just about to start a hot run of form, so all these comparisons are premature and should be made after they both retire. Still more fun to come

 

[bagapath]

for what it is worth i think ponting has inched closer to sachin overall with his two fantastic knocks in the ongoing test. except his indian record there is absolutely no gap in his resume. he has tried his best to rectify that and even though he has not completed the task, one cant ask for more.

 

[vcs]

for what it is worth i think ponting has inched closer to sachin overall with his two fantastic knocks in the ongoing test. except his indian record there is absolutely no gap in his resume. he has tried his best to rectify that and even though he has not comepleted the task, one cant ask for more.

Yep, his half-centuries in a tight match with his team under pressure are worth more than if he had scored a century in a bore draw. Gilchrist also averaged sub-30 in places like India and maybe SL but came up big when his team really needed it. Ponting has also done that. It's not easy to stall the momentum of the Indian spinners in India when they have just struck three quick blows and the crowd is baying for blood.

 

[Burgey]

for what it is worth i think ponting has inched closer to sachin overall with his two fantastic knocks in the ongoing test. except his indian record there is absolutely no gap in his resume. he has tried his best to rectify that and even though he has not comepleted the task, one cant ask for more.

Yeah it's certainly the most assured I've seen him look in tests in India.

 

[TumTum]

the crowd is baying for blood.

Just like the WI quick's short barrage on a variable bouncing pitch, ..oh wait

 

[vcs]

Just like the WI quick's short barrage on a variable bouncing pitch, ..oh wait

What does that have to do with anything?

I used the term in the metaphorical sense, our spinners and close-in catchers feed off the energy of the crowd to get dismissals though they may not be physically threatening to the batsmen like the WI pace attack.

 

[aussie]

I don't agree with this at all. Tendulkar's longevity is very much part of what makes him a great cricketer. Put it this way - if you're the captain of a side and you get offered two choices: an all-time great batsman who plays for 15 years, or an all-time great batsman of roughly the same quality who plays for 20 years - who are you going to pick?

Being able to do it for longer has made him more valuable.

I dont think an hypotetical all-time series would last 15 years though.

Longevity of Tendy is indeed what makes him great. But it shouldn't be used as yardstick to judging whether he is better than another great batsman.

 

[aussie]

Yeah it's certainly the most assured I've seen him look in tests in India.

I would say he look just as assured on the 2008 tour.

 

[Prince EWS]

I dont think an hypotetical all-time series would last 15 years though.

Haha well personally I don't base my entire opinion on a player's greatness on how they'd perform in one hypothetical series.

 

[aussie]

Haha well personally I don't base my entire opinion on a player's greatness on how they'd perform in one hypothetical series.

By a hypotetical all-time series i dont mean just one series. More like a test match championship, where all the top 8 all-time XIs would play each other home & away. Which could probably be completed within a year or so.

 

[Prince EWS]

By a hypotetical all-time series i dont mean just one series. More like a test match championship, where all the top 8 all-time XIs would play each other home & away. Which could probably be completed within a year or so.

Yeah, same point really. Don't base my opinions on that either. It's probably the crux of why we disagree on certain things when we do; we approach the way we rate players entirely differently.

 

[Jono]

I would say he look just as assured on the 2008 tour.

Bar one knock he basically failed in 2008.

Looked much better this series.

 

[aussie]

Bar one knock he basically failed in 2008.

Looked much better this series.

Not sure what about the other knocks outside of the Bangalore 1st innings hundred, constitutes failure.

Last i checked before the 2008 series, the universal consensus in the cricket world was that Ponting couldn't play the turning ball in India & until he score & hundred & improve on his technique againts spin in india. He would always be looked down upon in comparison to other great batsmen.

He did both in 2008 & continued that in this series.