The Greatest Cricketer Ever

[Ikki]

Ponting from debut to 2000 averaged about 45 - which in that decade was a very good average. From 2000 to 2006 he averaged 62 - an incredible average. From 2006 till now he averages 49 - again a very good average.

If you go year by year, the years that stick out before his recent trough are 96, 98 and 2001. He was suberb pretty much every other year between debut and 2007 apart from 2004 where he was merely OK (41). It's been his recent trough which has hurt his record where he has another 3 poor years in the span of 4 since 2007.

Ponting:
Year: Average

95: 84
96: 20
97: 50
98: 29
99: 63
00: 64
01: 39
02: 71
03: 100
04: 41
05: 67
06: 89
07: 38
08: 47
09: 39
10: 37

You're really taking liberties there.

 

[jaideep]

the thing is its not a bit more, the difference is quite significant. He averages ~40 for nearly 90 tests out of 150 ( outside of 2002-2006 ) , a pretty big sample, don't you think ? Is that not a 'significant' chink or a chink worth mentioning ?

This is just in response to you saying Ponting's only chink in record in his record in India, which is so NOT true .....

So according to you Greg chappell,Allan border,Javed miandad and Sunil gavaskar must be better test batsman than Viv richards because he averages 41 in 89 out of 121 tests(outside his peak period of 1976-81).

 

[abmk]

Ponting from debut to 2000 averaged about 45 - which in that decade was a very good average.

what would you call a player's performance who averaged 60 in that time-frame ( 1991-2000 ) then - well above any of his contemporaries ?

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

only here there is the mention that run-scoring was tougher in the 90s - but not while comparing Lara's record with Ponting's or Sachin's with Ponting's ?

From 2000 to 2006 he averaged 62 - an incredible average. From 2006 till now he averages 49 - again a very good average.

If you go year by year, the years that stick out before his recent trough are 96, 98 and 2001. He was suberb every other year between then. It's been his recent trough which has hurt his record where he has another 3 poor years in the span of 4 since 2007.

You're really taking liberties there.

I am the one taking liberties ? How about you overlapping stats whenever he had very good years - 2000 and 2006 ?

In 93 tests ( excluding tests starting from the Boxing day test in 2001 till 2007 Ashes ) , he averages 42-43 or thereabouts ......

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[abmk]

So according to you Greg chappell,Allan border,Javed miandad and Sunil gavaskar must be better test batsman than Viv richards because he averages 41 in 89 out of 121 tests(outside his peak period of 1976-81).

Oh jeez, learn to read, I said that was a chink in Ponting's record, not the only reason he is worse than Sachin/Lara !

 

[Ikki]

what would you call a player's performance who averaged 60 in that time-frame ( 1991-2000 ) then - well above any of his contemporaries ?

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

only here there is the mention that run-scoring was tougher in the 90s - but not while comparing Lara's record with Ponting's or Sachin's with Ponting's ?

Sachin, next to Waugh, was the batsman of the 90s. What is your point?

I am the one taking liberties ? How about you overlapping stats whenever he had very good years - 2000 and 2006 ?

In 93 tests ( excluding tests starting from the Boxing day test in 2001 till 2007 Ashes ) , he averages 42-43 or thereabouts ......

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

The reason I make a distinction between the 90s and the 00s is that batting averages have a noticeable spike between the decades. Averaging 45 in the 90s was a fine record. Averaging that much now means you are pretty average amongst very good batsmen. The year by year analysis I put up should put away the argument you were trying to make - as if Ponting was merely an OK batsman outside this period.

Anyway, I think Jaideep's point is superb and pretty much crushes your point. Batsmen will be somewhat inconsistent in the earlier part of their career and their good years and bad years will have a closer relationship. Then there will come a period in their prime where they will score lots of runs and there will be a few years congested with run-gorging. Towards the end they will again lose some consistency and it will be like their initial phase to their career.

There's nothing weird about that. What's more ironic about Ponting's average in the 90s was that his poor records were against the worst attacks and his better ones against the best.

 

[abmk]

Ponting from debut to 2000 averaged about 45 - which in that decade was a very good average. From 2000 to 2006 he averaged 62 - an incredible average. From 2006 till now he averages 49 - again a very good average.

If you go year by year, the years that stick out before his recent trough are 96, 98 and 2001. He was suberb pretty much every other year between debut and 2007 apart from 2004 where he was merely OK (41). It's been his recent trough which has hurt his record where he has another 3 poor years in the span of 4 since 2007.

Ponting:
Year: Average

95: 84
96: 20
97: 50
98: 29
99: 63
00: 64
01: 39
02: 71
03: 100
04: 41
05: 67
06: 89
07: 38
08: 47
09: 39
10: 37

You're really taking liberties there.

not really, and just taking year by year averages at face value is not correct, since the no of tests vary per year ( and that is only speaking statistically ) .... Oppositions, conditions etc also come into account ....

 

[abmk]

Sachin, next to Waugh, was the batsman of the 90s. What is your point?

Sachin was better than Waugh from 91-2000, anyways, that's not the main point of argument here

The reason I make a distinction between the 90s and the 00s is that batting averages have a noticeable spike between the decades. Averaging 45 in the 90s was a fine record. Averaging that much now means you are pretty average amongst very good batsmen. The year by year analysis I put up should put away the argument you were trying to make - as if Ponting was merely an OK batsman outside this period.

I was saying that shouldn't this same thing, that batting was in general tougher in the 90s, be factored into Lara-Ponting stats analysis then, considering Lara played many more matches in the 90s than Ponting did ?

Anyway, I think Jaideep's point is superb and pretty much crushes your point. Batsmen will be somewhat inconsistent in the earlier part of their career and their good years and bad years will have a closer relationship. Then there will come a period in their prime where they will score lots of runs and there will be a few years congested with run-gorging. Towards the end they will again lose some consistency and it will be like their initial phase to their career.

There's nothing weird about that.

yes, except that Ponting's troughs are noticeably lower than that of the others, so that is a chink ....

What's more ironic about Ponting's average in the 90s was that his poor records were against the worst attacks and his better ones against the best.

not quite

he did badly vs Ind in Ind where they were strong and crushed them In Aus where they were downright mediocre

he did ok vs WI, Pak, Eng

did well vs SL ,SA

 

[Ikki]

not really, and just taking year by year averages at face value is not correct, since the no of tests vary per year ( and that is only speaking statistically ) .... Oppositions, conditions etc also come into account ....

The same thing goes for a collection of years. And a similar phenomena occurs when you compare how they did against countries because they face them at different times in their careers and may face different teams altogether. What you're doing is simply disingenuous.

Imagine I was looking at Lara's record in the 90s:

From 1990 to 1993 and 1997 to 2000 Lara averaged about 46 in 40 of 65 matches.

The fact that you can arbitrarily pick and choose when to make a batsman look good or bad makes it a joke.

Again, go year by year; Lara only has 1 less bad year (30s and lower) than Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

Sachin was better than Waugh from 91-2000, anyways, that's not the main point of argument here

Not really, not much in it when you consider the quality of opposition they scored runs against. I am not so sure about 91-2000, I am talking about 90-99. But, yes, let's not go there.

I was saying that shouldn't this same thing, that batting was in general tougher in the 90s, be factored into Lara-Ponting stats analysis then, considering Lara played many more matches in the 90s than Ponting did ?

It's fine, but the irony is that if you actually look at their records Ponting did better than Lara against the "tough teams" in the 90s. Therefore there is less importance emphasised on that point, although you're welcome to emphasise it.

yes, except that Ponting's troughs are noticeably lower than that of the others, so that is a chink ....

It's only as much of a chink as Lara and Tendulkar's peaks not being as good as Ponting's.

not quite

he did badly vs Ind in Ind where they were strong and crushed them In Aus where they were downright mediocre

he did ok vs WI, Pak, Eng

did well vs SL ,SA

Ponting averaged 50 against Pak (63), SA (50) and WI (40).
Lara averaged 44 against Pak (30), SA (33) and Aus (54).

Both of them were poor in India, although Ponting poorer (33 v 19)

 

[abmk]

Not really, not when you consider the quality of opposition they scored runs against. I am not so sure about 91-2000, I am talking about 90-99.

waugh was only clearly better against SA, that's about it.

Also you might want to check steve's (team) 2nd innings average ( even at his peak )

Here's their record in the 90s vs the strongest teams of that time, almost identical ( 4 teams for sachin ( incl Aus ) and 3 for waugh ), averaging ~47.5

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...0;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

If we include the next best, that would be England, sachin goes ahead, if we include SL in SL, the gap widens in favour of Sachin ...

add to it, sachin's record is more balanced, home vs away and 1st innings vs 2nd innings

Ponting averaged 50 against Pak, SA and WI.
Lara averages 37 against Pak, SA and Aus.

Both of them were poor in India.

Jeez, how many times do I have to tell ponting's 119 runs in Pak in 1998 was without any of the Ws or saqlain, how on EARTH is that a strong attack ? Apart from this his scores were 0,0,0,197 ? Do you think that is really very good ?

WI , he averaged 40 ..

SA - he did well averaging somewhere around 50

ponting was poorer in India

 

[Ikki]

Jeez, how many times do I have to tell ponting's 119 runs in Pak in 1998 was without any of the Ws or saqlain, how on EARTH is that a strong attack ? Apart from this his scores were 0,0,0,197 ? Do you think that is really very good ?

WI , he averaged 40 ..

SA - he did well averaging somewhere around 50

ponting was poorer in India

Ponting scored his 197 against Wasim, Akhtar and Saqlain in Perth. Yes, it is far better to score 197 with 0s and average in the 60s than score little here and there and average 30. That's not much of an argument.

Unfortunately, Ponting was poor in India (Lara was too, of course) and that's a blight that has carried throughout his career. If he didn't have that he'd pretty much be the Malcolm Marshall of batting. Anyway, this discussion has gone long enough. You can see it how you want.

 

[abmk]

Ponting scored his 197 against Wasim, Akhtar and Saqlain in Perth. Yes, it is far better to score 197 with 0s and average in the 60s than score little here and there and average 30. That's not much of an argument.

one very good innings+ 3 ducks just isn't enough to prove he succeeded against a strong Pak attack, that was my point. Plus wasim/waqar were better ( or more closer to their peaks ) when they bowled against Lara

Unfortunately, Ponting was poor in India (Lara was too, of course) and that's a blight that has carried throughout his career. If he didn't have that he'd pretty much be the Malcolm Marshall of batting. Anyway, this discussion has gone long enough. You can see it how you want.

no, even then he definitely wouldn't be because of two reasons:

1. skill wise not that complete

2. marshall was still pretty good till the end, didn't have a big blip towards the end of his career like ponting nor did he take as much time as ponting to become very good/great

 

[Spark]

TBH I was perfectly ready to call Ponting #2 in 08.

 

[Jono]

The amount of times Ponting was compared to Bradman all over the world, but especially in the Australian media, back in 2006 and 2007, was large.

 

[Ikki]

Mainly to say he was the best Aussie after Bradman, though. When, really, his figures at the time put him pretty much after Bradman, full stop. The suggestion that Ponting and Tendulkar have gotten equal attention for their achievements is ludicrous IMO. Tendulkar has gotten far more attention all the way through his career even though Ponting has been neck and neck throughout it.

 

[bagapath]

Poor Ricky! For all that he has done for mankind he should be given the nobel prize for chemistry. Instead, every time he achieves something special, they praise brian lara so that sachin comes out better in the end. And even that happens only because there are too many indians reading cricinfo. It is all for money. What a cruel worldl!

 

[Jono]

It's a cunning plan that could only have been orchestrated by Tendulkar himself!

 

[Ikki]

Yeah yeah yeah. The grand majority of cricket fans are Indian and they want to hear everything good about their hero...and the media obliges. The guy deserves a lot of praise - I am not bitter about that - but it is disproportionate to the praise his rivals get, with regards to their similarly impressive performances. If you're denying that then there is not much to say to you.

 

[abmk]

Poor Ricky! For all that he has done for mankind he should be given the nobel prize for chemistry. Instead, every time he achieves something special, they praise brian lara so that sachin comes out better in the end. And even that happens only because there are too many indians reading cricinfo. It is all for money. What a cruel worldl!

LOL, good one ...

The huge amount of bias Ikki has for Australian cricketers is just way too transparent. What is worse is how he uses stats/facts only when they are convenient.

the other day he was arguing about gap between ponting's fielding and sanath's fielding in ODIs, being so much that it overshadows sanath's contribution with the ball

Then Lillee, one of the arguments he put forth for him being superior to Marshall and Hadlee is that he did well when Aus were strong as well as when Aus were not that strong. Marshall played in a strong WI side mostly and Hadlee mostly for a weak NZ side ...Funny how that doesn't apply for the comparison b/w Sachin and Ponting. Ponting hasn't been that good when his side was/is weaker, unlike Sachin who had/has been very good, both when India were weak and when they were/are strong ( ditto for Lara who did very well when the WI side was strong , say from 92-95 and after 2000, when it was pretty weak)

 

[abmk]

Yes, Tendulkar gets more praise than his contemporaries for his successes, but he also gets criticized more for his failures . That is how it is. You only see one part of it , because that is what you want to see !