***Official*** Tendulkar vs Ponting Thread

[kingjulian]

They don't. There are three phases in Tendulkar's career:

1. From debut to the end of the 2003/04 season before his Tennis elbow injury. Excluding Bangladesh he averages 57.63 over 14.5 years.

(There is no justification to remove runs against Zim prior to the player exodus in 2004 since the average of batsmen against Zim in this period is much lower than that against say WI in the last 7 or so years. But if you do remove them he still averages 56.14)

2. During his tennis elbow injury when he tried to continue playing without getting the required corrective surgery. This was a period of 3 years when he averaged 31.51 excluding Zim + Ban.

3. Since recovering from surgery to today: A period of 3.5 years when excluding Zim + Ban he averages 59.88.

So overall apart from the 3 years of injury, he scored 12500 runs over 18 years at an astounding average of 58.17. This is excluding Ban and Zim post 2004.

This doesn't suite Ikki's agenda either. We must include those 3 years. Even though, there is a huge discrepancy between that phase and the rest of his career. Particularly in a period when batsmen around the world were bumping their average on flat tracks. Tendulkar's average nearly halved......what a **** player he is.

 

[shankar]

Not really, Donald got Sachin's wicket as many as Cronje (5 times) and it was Donald that was taking Sachin's wicket earlier and cheaper.

Absolutely. Donald was a big factor in keeping Tendulkar quiet as well. This does not contradict my earlier statement. But my point was that in innings when Tendulkar survived Donald/Pollock he would get out to Cronje.

Tendulkar's average when Cronje would get him out was 47.20.

Exactly my point. He got out to Cronje at a stage when he had already gotten off to starts and had settled.

Pollock took his wicket 4 times and even cheaper than Donald.

I was talking about the tests in the 90's.

 

[aussie]

In terms of watching them; I'd rate Lara ahead of both. In reality, I'd place him 3rd.

Yes i prefer to watch Lara bat & am i bigger fan than his. But as i always maintained from my famous Tendy vs Lara thread. Tendy is better given he was more consistent when the bowling was tougher in the 90s than Lara. However both Tendy & Lara are better than Ponting.

 

[weldone]

Nothing related to this thread actually (I mean not in Sachin-Ponting context, unrealated completely), but one small point.

I guess a decade doesn't start from 2000 and ends in 2009, but it starts from 2001 and ends in 2010...(simply for the fact that our ancestors didn't start counting years from '0' AD onwards)...

 

[Slifer]

FWIW i dont know y there is all this hubub over individuals. Cricket is a team sport. If i were an Ozzie I would be more concrned with the state of the Oz bowling attack and the as an Indian the impending retirement of Sachin et al. Being WI I didnt stop watching WI cricket the day Lara retired but I will if WI continue in their rich vain of abject failure

 

[Slifer]

Yes i prefer to watch Lara bat & am i bigger fan than his. But as i always maintained from my famous Tendy vs Lara thread. Tendy is better given he was more consistent when the bowling was tougher in the 90s than Lara. However both Tendy & Lara are better than Ponting.

Ah yes what ever became of Mr Incredible?? Kinda uses the same argument Ikki is using 2day. IMo SRT>Lara> or = Ponting all less than Greg CHappell

 

[Ikki]

Let me put it differently, excluding Ban+Zim (post 2004) his average is above 58 over all but a 3-year period of his 21 year career.

Not really. You've just taken separate parts of his career to make it seem like that. For 12 of his 21 years he actually averaged under that. Even in the 00s he's fluctuated.

Personally, don't buy the tennis elbow argument a great deal. In 04 when he was supposed to have been injured he averaged in the 90s or 70 excluding B/Z. In 05 he averaged 44.40. The only year he suffers is 06. Even in 03 he was man of the tournament in the WC. Even throughout this period in the ODIs he was averaging more than healthily usually in the 40s, once in the 50s although he had a bad year in 05. His injury was always a matter of playing too long at the crease where his tennis elbow would flare up and restrict his movement. Yet throughout this time he played plenty of long innings.

I think it certainly did hinder him initially but he was clearly out of form. It's not like a Warne where had multiple surgeries in the time he's doing so poorly.

 

[vcs]

FWIW i dont know y there is all this hubub over individuals. Cricket is a team sport. If i were an Ozzie I would be more concrned with the state of the Oz bowling attack and the as an Indian the impending retirement of Sachin et al. Being WI I didnt stop watching WI cricket the day Lara retired but I will if WI continue in their rich vain of abject failure

It's a very valid point, that's why I don't have much time for arguments that go "Tendulkar averaged only so much against Australia when McGrath was playing, or against SA when Pollock and Donald were playing etc etc". Didn't know it was supposed to be a Tendulkar vs. whoever match, thought he was supposed to be representing India against Australia/SA.

 

[Ikki]

Nothing related to this thread actually (I mean not in Sachin-Ponting context, unrealated completely), but one small point.

I guess a decade doesn't start from 2000 and ends in 2009, but it starts from 2001 and ends in 2010...(simply for the fact that our ancestors didn't start counting years from '0' AD onwards)...

That means the year 2000 was part of the 90s, which I am not sure I agree with. Usually, we count from 2000-2009. That's how statsguru is filtered decade by decade and even when Cricinfo picked the player of the decade that was how it was done. That's how I've done it.

 

[aussie]

It's a very valid point, that's why I don't have much time for arguments that go "Tendulkar averaged only so much against Australia when McGrath was playing, or against SA when Pollock and Donald were playing etc etc". Didn't know it was supposed to be a Tendulkar vs. whoever match, thought he was supposed to be representing India against Australia/SA.

But surely isn't doing welll againts the opposition worth more when you have done well a gaints the best opposition players?

 

[Ikki]

Exactly my point. He got out to Cronje at a stage when he had already gotten off to starts and had settled.

I know, but the way I read your post it seemed to suggest the reason he has a low average is because of Cronje. When in reality he took Tendulkar's wicket when he had already made his runs.

 

[Ikki]

It's a very valid point, that's why I don't have much time for arguments that go "Tendulkar averaged only so much against Australia when McGrath was playing, or against SA when Pollock and Donald were playing etc etc". Didn't know it was supposed to be a Tendulkar vs. whoever match, thought he was supposed to be representing India against Australia/SA.

Personally, I think you're right overall. I just say he succeeded against the Australia attack (unless it was just unrecognisable or to a completely different standard). I would find it relevant though when discussing how a lot of the fast bowlers of the past did against him though.

 

[weldone]

That means the year 2000 was part of the 90s, which I am not sure I agree with. Usually, we count from 2000-2009. That's how statsguru is filtered decade by decade and even when Cricinfo picked the player of the decade that was how it was done. That's how I've done it.

Yeah, was pointing that out because that's the mistake most people (and cricinfo) make.

Then what was the first decade of the first century? 0000-0009? Guess what, we didn't have anything called 0000 AD, we started counting from 1 AD, so decades should go like 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 etc.

That's a generic point though. Not a point for cricket only.

 

[aussie]

Ah yes what ever became of Mr Incredible?? Kinda uses the same argument Ikki is using 2day. IMo SRT>Lara> or = Ponting all less than Greg CHappell

Dont know. Mr.Incredible was a top poster, too bad he never stuck around much after those debates in that thread.

 

[weldone]

I know, but the way I read your post it seemed to suggest the reason he has a low average is because of Cronje. When in reality he took Tendulkar's wicket when he had already made his runs.

...and was looking good for a big one, and thereby enhancing that average?

 

[Ikki]

Ah yes what ever became of Mr Incredible?? Kinda uses the same argument Ikki is using 2day. IMo SRT>Lara> or = Ponting all less than Greg CHappell

TBH, probably. We're in this thread discussing how these guys did against the best attacks or whatever when the attacks in the WSC were incredible.

 

[vcs]

But surely isn't doing welll againts the opposition worth more when you have done well a gaints the best opposition players?

It's not really something a player can influence. Tendulkar cannot do anything about what XI the opposition choose to put out, for all intents and purposes it's Australia/SA's best XI at a given point in time.

 

[Ikki]

...and was looking good for a big one, and thereby enhancing that average?

Of the 5 innings Cronje got Tendulkar's wicket he had scored: 111, 73, 35, 9 and 8 (avg. 47.20). I don't think Cronje was exactly the problem to him getting high scores.

 

[ankitj]

As I said before, in small samples averages are worthless as they tend to be very sensitive to extremes. If for example you remove those two matches against Aus in 2006 when Sachin rushed in too early after injury, his average in matches with McGrath would go up considerably.

Keeping aside averages, in 18 innings with McGrath, Tendulkar has 2 hundreds and 6/7 fifties - hardly a failure. And FWIW Tendulkar was MoS in 99 in Aus when McGrath played!

And for one last time, 2 Ws didn't get Tendulkar out in those 3 tests that he played against Pak in 90s.

 

[weldone]

Of the 5 innings Cronje got Tendulkar's wicket he had scored: 111, 73, 35, 9 and 8 (avg. 47.20). I don't think Cronje was exactly the problem to him getting high scores.

Maybe he would've got 148, 102, 43, 54 and 22 (avg. 73.80) in those 5 innings had Cronje not got him at those stages, and thereby enhance his average against SA overall?