• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Kallis vs Ponting as test batsmen

Who is the better test batsman

  • Total voters
    140
Jono

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
DeusEx said:
I think all of these batsmen; Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Kallis, Dravid etc. etc. are in roughly the same league. Even though Tendulkar is the clear favourite amongst fans, I really don't think he is significantly better than any of the others. In modern cricket there is yet to be a batsmen who really stands out from the crowd imo - one everyone automatically says "yep, he is better than all of the rest". Do people see Tendulkar as a Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Roger Federer etc.?
Click to expand...
Sachin would never do this:

 
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
The Sean said:
Exactly. And this is where you raise all sorts of problems by saying that Tendulkar is better than Bradman - because by doing that it means that you're saying Lara is also as good or better than Bradman, that Ponting/Kallis/Dravid are all at least in the same class as him, and that all of them are considerably better than Hobbs, Hammond, Headley or Sutcliffe.

Which is bollocks, just quietly.
Click to expand...

Yeah and nobody is in the same league as George Lohmann too as a bowler.:ph34r:
 
bagapath

bagapath

International Captain
Cevno said:
Yeah and nobody is in the same league as George Lohmann too as a bowler.:ph34r:
Click to expand...
no dude. bradman played test cricket for 20 years and averaged twice more than other greats of his times either side of the war. loahman played on under prepared wickets that heavily favored the bowlers, and that too for a shorter period. george was a product of his times. but don would have succeeded in any era. more so in this age of covered wickets, helmets, limited number of bouncers per over, heavier bats, better outfields etc. it is unfair to say his success is similar to loahmann's.
 
Cevno

Cevno

Hall of Fame Member
bagapath said:
no dude. bradman played test cricket for 20 years and averaged twice more than other greats of his times either side of the war. loahman played on under prepared wickets that heavily favored the bowlers, and that too for a shorter period. george was a product of his times. but don would have succeeded in any era. more so in this age of covered wickets, helmets, limited number of bouncers per over, heavier bats, better outfields etc. it is unfair to say his success is similar to loahmann's.
Click to expand...
I was just saying it jest,tbh.

But Bradman did only play in 2 countries,did not have so many off field distractions,ODI'S AND T20's, a lot more cricket causing lot more injuries.

With Video technology getting better and bowlers figuring out lines too ball to you until you can sort it out after some innings in which your average is minimised. The average level of bowler was lower too and there were not many mystery bowlers too and people doing so many things with the delivery which until you figure you average got neutralised.

Don Bradman is the best and would have probably succeeded in this era ,but would not have averaged what he did here.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Cevno said:
I was just saying it jest,tbh.

But Bradman did only play in 2 countries,did not have so many off field distractions,ODI'S AND T20's, a lot more cricket causing lot more injuries.

With Video technology getting better and bowlers figuring out lines too ball to you until you can sort it out after some innings in which your average is minimised. The average level of bowler was lower too and there were not many mystery bowlers too and people doing so many things with the delivery which until you figure you average got neutralised.

Don Bradman is the best and would have probably succeeded in this era ,but would not have averaged what he did here.
Click to expand...
This is pretty speculative, but given Bradman's technique was never even said to be very 'proper' I think he must have just had uncanny hand-eye coordination and concentration to be able to achieve what he did. From what I've seen of him, he looked like a very wristy player and everyone knows the story of him practicing as a child with the stump and golf ball etc. Both those things seem to be consistent with that theory. If that is true, and those abilities were why he was so successful, then I doubt any modern analysis of his game would signficantly impair his performance - i.e. how do you try and combat immense concentration/coordination?
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah that was a very 'spoilt-brat' moment from Federer. Felt sorry for Nadal, he put in all the hard effort for his first AO title and even then the spotlight wasn't on him.

On the whole Fed is a good guy, but he definately does have a bit of an arrogant/self-centred streak. Doesn't make him any less of a champion player though.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
DeusEx said:
Yeah that was a very 'spoilt-brat' moment from Federer. Felt sorry for Nadal, he put in all the hard effort for his first AO title and even then the spotlight wasn't on him.

On the whole Fed is a good guy, but he definately does have a bit of an arrogant/self-centred streak. Doesn't make him any less of a champion player though.
Click to expand...
Many champions do though.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah true, but it's definately not a prerequisite. Nadal would have to be one of the most humble (almost painfully so) players out there. Looks reasonably set to challenge Fed's GOAT status as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top