• 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.

The Greatest Cricketer Ever

bagapath

International Captain
greenidge over boycott? I agree with the contemporary opinion that gordon was the superior opener.

lara over kallis? even though kallis averages a good five points over and above lara, he is lesser than brian on the greatness scale.

richards over border is another example that comes to my mind because even though they averaged the same, richards is considered far superior to border, who has a stellar record himself. and I agree that richards was the better batsman. richards averaged less than g.chappell and miandad too. but he was better than them as well. this is something greg and javed would also be willing to concede.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Well still, which batsman are not rated alongside other batsman which you feel they should be?

If people separate batsman based on dominance or strike rate, yet both batsman have similar records, I don't see how it's unfair?
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Well still, which batsman are not rated alongside other batsman which you feel they should be?

If people separate batsman based on dominance or strike rate, yet both batsman have similar records, I don't see how it's unfair?
That wouldn't be. However people separating batsman on skill-sets such as ability to hit good balls for fours and having a wider array of shots is only relevant to a batsman's skillfulness which while heavily decides your run-scoring ability is directly not equal to it. If people's definition of a better batsman is a more skillful one, It's their call.

If by that criteria Viv Richards was the true genius of his generation and definitely better than anyone else, fine, I won't disagree with them from a skill POV. However, My criteria for better batsman-ship is plainly related to the ability to make runs. Then, The difference between say, Viv and Border is negligible for me even though in most people's eyes, Viv was obv. the better batsman.

As to the question, of the top of my head,
Herbie Taylor and Victor Trumper
Richards and Border
 
Last edited:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I meant in this generation. The generation you have seen so you can actually see what the contemporary commentators and experts are saying, and show that you disagree with them, and explain why.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
The main disagreement would be the Kallis/Pollock>everyone one.

Apart from that I feel Murali>Everyone as a pure bowler by a decent bit(7 wpm for a decade @ under 20) in this generation, Obv. Most experts feel Warne is better.

Donald as a test bowler pretty much equals McG and is even a slightly better bowler than Akram, for mine. Pollock is an actual ATG bowler too.While Akram, Ambrose and McG who I think are Donald's equals are almost always talked about in a discussion about the best pacer of the generation, Donald's name is never brought up.

Can't think of many things else but my point is that I arrive at my opinions in a much different way than the experts do, I try to isolate actual performance from skill-sets while it is apparent from reading most experts' opinions that it is not the case.

I'll never ever get why skill matters at all tbh. Maybe it can be used as a predictor for how 2 kids will fare in cricket in the future but when the career is done and dusted, Whether a bowler 'could' do more things with the ball doesn't matter at all in comparison to how they both have performed.

Sometimes I get the impression in CW, That past greats are compared more on the basis of what they 'could' do rather than what they actually did. If a bowler could be unplayable on his day yet ended up the same performance-wise as another player, It means he could be much more 'playable' than the second player on another day. It's like people care only about the first factor and act like the balancing of it on the other side does not matter.
Edit CW and put 'Most people' and you have my opinion about why I DWTA with most expert opinions regarding cricketer comparisons. While the answer of who is better? might be the same in some cases, There is a crucial difference in how the answer is arrived at.

Anyway, Have an exam tomorrow and loads of studying to do, Will answer further posts tomorrow. :)
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Your Donald/McGrath example doesn't work, because people always talk about McGrath having less pace, less skill (often didn't swing the ball) etc. yet people rate him above others. It shows that they are looking at output and results.
 

Teja.

Global Moderator
Your Donald/McGrath example doesn't work, because people always talk about McGrath having less pace, less skill (often didn't swing the ball) etc. yet people rate him above others. It shows that they are looking at output and results.
I thought you were asking me specifically about expert opinions I disagree with in this generation and not interlinking that question with the skill-sets thing.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
I'm not going to respond because you have an exam. Go study dude, talk about this later :p
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There isn't a lot to disagree with what you've written there. Donald is certainly up there IMO.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Don't know why you feel so. Actually both Lara and Ponting are statistically equally inferior to Sachin. Tendulkar has no holes in his resume whereas Lara has been comparatively weaker overseas than at home. And it is well known that Ponting is a flop in India. Sachin has been a success story in every major test playing nation he has taken guard.

So I dont think there is any ulterior motive in Sachin fans placing Lara above Ponting. It could simply be because Lara was a clearly superior batsman to Ponting. I place Lara above Sachin as well because there was more magic in his batsmanship, numbers be damned.

Ponting is never going to match Lara's artistry; also he has fallen so far behind Sachin in the stats race that he is not a contender on that front either. So it will always be Sachin and Lara on one plane and Ponting on a lower lever, which is where I knew Ponting would end up in in even when he was considered their equal for a brief period.

Of course, even those two top batters of this age (S-L) can not stake any claim to the title this thread is dealing with.
I think it's somewhat subconscious, but I reckon some do it. Lara statistically (using very simple statistics the majority of fans would use) is inferior to both. He has a few "holes" in his resume. Yet he always got a fairer shake of the hand with regards to Sachin fans.

Ponting is only a small way behind Sachin statistically and although artistically (subjective, as that is) inferior to Lara, I reckon he provides the best of both worlds. Flair and unrelenting consistency. Of the 3, I think Sachin has taken the lead again in the last 2 years but the exaggeration towards every tonne of Tendulkar or non-innings of Ponting is bothersome.

This is rubbish. Tendulkar > Ponting, not by a massive gulf and there's an argument, but he is. Lara is, IMO, closer to Ponting. Both had amazing highs as batsmen.
I disagree. I watched pretty much the entirety of all three players' careers also. Looks-wise, Lara was above both IMO and Sachin inferior of the lot. Yet, if I wanted to rank them fairly as batsmen (a whole package, including output) that order is pretty much reversed (Sachin the lead, and Lara last). The Kallis argument you bring just doesn't parellel IMO because if you break down his record I think it shows why a lot of people tend not to rate him as high.

Anyway, to reiterate, I agree with Maximus' post re the exaggerated Sachin adulation whereas Ponting was getting stiffed (even in his prime) for their batting. It is more than obvious IMO that a lot of these sites are just searching for hits. It irks me because, like it or not, it will unfairly exaggerate the legacy of one player over the other.
 
Last edited:

abmk

State 12th Man
I'd certainly put donald ahead of wasim in tests, but only slightly behind Mcgrath . Murali/Warne are hard to split , but I'd go with warne, but only just
 

abmk

State 12th Man
I think it's somewhat subconscious, but I reckon some do it. Lara statistically (using very simple statistics the majority of fans would use) is inferior to both. He has a few "holes" in his resume. Yet he always got a fairer shake of the hand with regards to Sachin fans.

Ponting is only a small way behind Sachin statistically and although artistically (subjective, as that is) inferior to Lara, I reckon he provides the best of both worlds. Flair and unrelenting consistency. Of the 3, I think Sachin has taken the lead again in the last few years but the exaggeration towards every tonne of Tendulkar or non-innings of Ponting is bothersome.
At present Ponting is statistically closer to Lara than to Sachin.( avg of 52.8 vs 53.5 vs 56.9)

Regarding holes in the resume, do you take only performance against teams and home and away for consideration ? What about consistency thorough the years ? Ponting averages ~40 outside of 2002-2006 .... ( ~40 for about 90+ tests out of 150 )

Yes, he was the most consistent of 3 at his 5-year peak, but what about outside of it ?

Neither Lara nor sachin were that 'bad' outside of say, their best 5-6 years

If we remove the minnows, as you usually do, gap narrows down even more statistically

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

Considering

1) Lara faced the Aussie attacks

2) Ponting averaged just ~40 when the WI attack was actually good and plundered them later when they were mediocre
 
Last edited:

abmk

State 12th Man
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yes, when you remove minnows you see that Tendulkar is only marginally ahead of Ponting even now.

Ponting's only poor record in the subcontinent is against Ind - in fact is his only poor record anywhere home or away. He averages 50 in SL IIRC and something ridiculous against Pak away or on neutral grounds.

Compared to Lara, Ponting also has the better average (50 vs 37) against the better attacks of the 90s. Apart from Australia Lara was not successful against any of the others. Ponting's average of 40 against WI is still better than Lara's against Pak or SA (against whom Ponting has a far higher average against).

This dance has been done. To give you an example of what I was referring to Ponting not getting as much praise, even at this peak: at the point that Ponting averaged 59.99 (and this after 107 tests, no small sample) Tendulkar was averaging 55.39 (in 132 tests). So basically the difference we have now when people are saying Tendulkar is far ahead of Ponting, for some reason. More interesting, if we remove minnows from this sample Ponting averaged 59.10 and Tendulkar 52.85. That is almost 7 points on average (7!). Now how many articles did you read about Ponting being as good as Bradman let alone taking the lead against Tendulkar and how many do you read now?

As I said earlier, even in his prime Ponting was not getting the proper kudos IMO. It just wasn't going to be much of a selling point.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Ponting's average away might be slightly better, but against major test teams that are common ( excl Aus for Lara and WI for Ponting ), ponting falls well behind, average of 43.5 vs average of 50 for Lara

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

even statistically you could EASILY make arguments that Lara is better. We're not in 2006 anymore, just saying :)
Haha, that average is only because of Ponting's record in India, as it distorts his away record against other countries. Here is an enlightening stat: there is only 1 country away that Lara averages above 50: SL (2 if you include 2 tests against Zimbabwe). Ponting averages above 50 everywhere bar India and England. That tells you how much better Ponting has been away from home. As I said earlier, Lara is statistically the worst of the lot.
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
That's because whilst the comparison is there, it is much less of a threat to Tendulkar's standing.
Obviously, it has nothing to do with Steve Waugh's attitude ? Back then When Lara, SRT and Waugh were on top, it was an open debate to who was better. With Ponting, the longer he plays, the more obvious it is to fans (Not just Indian fans) all over about who is better.

Not to forget, apart from being a great player, Steve Waugh is a much more liked in India because of his charity work and his overall attitude and approach toward the game, fans and fellow cricketers and something that Ponting seriously lacks.


True, a lot of Indian fans appreciate Lara, but whenever the discussion arises there is plenty said against him. I also get the feeling that Lara seems to be used as a buffer these days to further distance Ponting from Tendulkar - where Sachin's fans are more willing to put Lara on a pedestal because he stacks up better statistically to him than Ponting.

Most of this doesn't really apply to CW but a lot of sites in which Indian fans frequent you almost feel like they are fishing for hits.
So if that does not apply to CW, which is where ,I am assuming, most of your interaction with the Indian fans happens, what are you basing such an outlandish allegation against Indian fans ?
 

abmk

State 12th Man
Yes, when you remove minnows you see that Tendulkar is only marginally ahead of Ponting even now.
yes, but still better, even though, he faced more of the better attacks/tougher conditions in the 90s

Ponting's only poor record in the subcontinent is against Ind - in fact is his only poor record anywhere home or away. He averages 50 in SL IIRC and something ridiculous against Pak away or on neutral grounds.
Here again, for you :

Regarding holes in the resume, do you take only performance against teams and home and away for consideration ? What about consistency through the years ? Ponting averages ~40 outside of 2002-2006 .... ( ~40 for about 90+ tests out of 150 )


Ponting also has the better average against the better attacks of the 90s. Apart from Australia Lara was not successful against any of the others.
Does he now ? Let's see:

1. Lara's record vs Aus >>> Ponting's vs good WI attacks ( lara ~50 vs Aus and ponting 40 vs WI till 2001 )

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

2. though not exactly in the 90s only ( Lara played them till 2003 ) lara's record vs SL ( especially in SL ) > ponting's vs them

3. Ponting was better against SAF clearly

4. Pakistan is an interesting case as far as Ponting is concerned, on face value it appears Ponting is/was MUCH better against quality Pak attacks in the 90s, but a closer look reveals :

that in the first test Ponting played against them in Peshawar, their attack was without either wasim/waqar/saqlain ( akhtar was only starting ) - he scored 119 runs there , getting out only once

then in the 99 series, he had 3 ducks in a row ( wasim,akhtar,waqar ) and then scored an excellent 197

2002, waqar was past his best, even more so in tests, akhtar was the only quality bowler, ponting scored a brilliant 140 odd in the first innings, but fell to akhtar in the 2nd

certainly better than lara's record against Pak attacks before 2003, but not as much as the averages would tend to suggest ( lara wasn't a success against them when the attacks were real good )

5. Lara was better against England , both home and away

6. Ponting's overall record against India is better, but he's done worse than lara IN Ind where Indian attacks were/are actually effective.

This dance has been done. To give you an example of what I was referring to Ponting not getting as much praise, even at this peak: at the point that Ponting averaged 59.99 (and this after 107 tests, no small sample) Tendulkar was averaging 55.39 (in 132 tests). So basically the difference we had now when people are saying Tendulkar is far ahead of Ponting, for some reason. More interesting, if we remove minnows from this sample Ponting averaged 59.10 and Tendulkar 52.85. That is almost 7 points on average (7!). Now how many articles did you read about Ponting behind as good as Bradman let alone taking the lead against Tendulkar and how many do you read now?

As I said earlier, even in his prime Ponting was not getting the proper kudos IMO. It just wasn't going to be much of a selling point.
That was because Bradman himself said sachin batted like him and that got lapped up by the media.
 
Last edited:

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes, when you remove minnows you see that Tendulkar is only marginally ahead of Ponting even now.

Ponting's only poor record in the subcontinent is against Ind - in fact is his only poor record anywhere home or away. He averages 50 in SL IIRC and something ridiculous against Pak away or on neutral grounds.

Compared to Lara, Ponting also has the better average (50 vs 37) against the better attacks of the 90s. Apart from Australia Lara was not successful against any of the others. Ponting's average of 40 against WI is still better than Lara's against Pak or SA (against whom Ponting has a far higher average against).

This dance has been done. To give you an example of what I was referring to Ponting not getting as much praise, even at this peak: at the point that Ponting averaged 59.99 (and this after 107 tests, no small sample) Tendulkar was averaging 55.39 (in 132 tests). So basically the difference we have now when people are saying Tendulkar is far ahead of Ponting, for some reason. More interesting, if we remove minnows from this sample Ponting averaged 59.10 and Tendulkar 52.85. That is almost 7 points on average (7!). Now how many articles did you read about Ponting being as good as Bradman let alone taking the lead against Tendulkar and how many do you read now?

As I said earlier, even in his prime Ponting was not getting the proper kudos IMO. It just wasn't going to be much of a selling point.
In the shoes of Bradman | Old Regulars | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

Waugh says Ponting the best since Bradman | Australia Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

Ponting is 'the modern Bradman' | Cricket News | Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

Peerless Ponting too good for Bangladesh | Cricket News | Australia in Bangladesh | ESPN Cricinfo

Ponting approaches the pantheon | Cricket News | Australia in South Africa | ESPN Cricinfo

Smith proposes Ponting disposes | Cricket News | South Africa in Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
 
Last edited:

Top