The Greatest Cricketer Ever

[Ikki]

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 has got weaker, unlike Sachin who'd been very good, both when India were weak and when they were/are strong

I hate it when people misrepresent my positions. At least get them right and then ridicule them or disagree. I didn't say Ponting's fielding will remove Sanath's fielding and his bowling. I said Ponting's superiority in batting, captaincy and fielding cover Sanath's extra help with the ball. The debate became about Ponting's fielding and Sanath's bowling and people wanted to quantify how many run-outs Ponting had to affect to cover Sanath's bowling. My position was it did not have to be 1 run-out affected = 1 wicket taken. Such a ratio was unfeasible.

As for the Lillee argument it had nothing to do with Aus being strong as a team; I was referring to the bowling attacks. Lillee bowled lone-wolf and as a partner in crime both to high levels of success, whereas Marshall and Hadlee can only claim one side of that. And that is not the only reason I considered him superior, so don't be disingenuous. If I wanted a statistical warrior in terms of bowling I could have just named McGrath; but I do not think McGrath was as good as Lillee either. Next time pay attention to the points being made.

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 !

Hah. But he doesn't. He is protected even more from them. The guy is incredibly well-followed. There will always be a section that will critique him harshly but they are vastly outnumbered.

 

[abmk]

I hate it when people misrepresent my positions. At least get them right and then ridicule them or disagree. I didn't say Ponting's fielding will remove Sanath's fielding and his bowling. I said Ponting's superiority in batting, captaincy and fielding cover Sanath's extra help with the ball. The debate became about Ponting's fielding and Sanath's bowling and people wanted to quantify how many run-outs Ponting had to affect to cover Sanath's bowling. My position was it did not have to be 1 run-out affected = 1 wicket taken. Such a ratio was unfeasible.

IIRC, you were arguing with no good reason, that fielding ( catches/run-outs) is a "bonus" while belittling sanath's bowling saying he was neither cheap nor did he get quick wickets. That was what was hilarious IMO ...

Though you did mention it once or twice with an if , you didn't really take into consideration that sanath's bowling added balance to the SL team with a 5th bowling option ...

As for the Lillee argument it had nothing to do with Aus being strong as a team; I was referring to the bowling attacks. Lillee bowled lone-wolf and as a partner in crime both to high levels of success, whereas Marshall and Hadlee can only claim one side of that. And that is not the only reason I considered him superior, so don't be disingenuous. If I wanted a statistical warrior in terms of bowling I could have just named McGrath; but I do not think McGrath was as good as Lillee either. Next time pay attention to the points being made.

Read again, I said one of the arguments. Not the only reason . Why doesn't that apply when comparing Sachin/Lara with Ponting then ? You were talking about paying attention ?

 

[abmk]

Hah. But he doesn't. He is protected even more from them. The guy is incredibly well-followed. There will always be a section that will critique him harshly but they are vastly outnumbered.

Oh please , you don't have much clue about how much Sachin was/is criticized for his failures, especially during the 2004-2007 period !

 

[Ikki]

IIRC, you were arguing with no good reason, that fielding ( catches/run-outs) is a "bonus" while belittling sanath's bowling. That was what was hilarious IMO ...

Though you did mention it once or twice with an if , you didn't really take into consideration that sanath's bowling added balance to the SL team with a 5th bowling option ...

I was arguing that the value of a player affecting 1 run out per match is more than the value of a bowler taking 1 wicket a match. Therefore I was making the suggesting that 1ro =/= 1w and that a smaller ratio for run-outs affected/match for the fielder would be fine. What that ratio should be is up for discussion.

Read again, I said one of the arguments. Not the only reason . Why doesn't that apply when comparing Sachin/Lara with Ponting then ?

You're right, you did say it was one of the arguments. Sachin has had a fantastic batting line-up with him for a lot of his career - even when they weren't #1.

To make my position clearer, I do not like arguments that favour lone-wolves or a player in a pack. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The point with Lillee was that it was not a question of could he do both. He did both. That point was to emphasise the completeness of Lillee. If you recall, I also emphasised that Lillee was not only a bowler who at one point relied on raw pace, but also came back after his stress fracture problems and became a probing/intelligent bowler. What's more important about that point re Lillee is to show that he could bowl long spells (he actually bowled more overs than Hadlee) and he could also be trusted to bowl short spells and pick up wickets in hauls. Such points in favour of Lillee can be countered, but IMO it just emphasises how complete he was as a bowler.

As for cricket, I've said it several times on these boards...it is a team game but it is battle of individual duels. Being a part of a great batting line-up can mean you have less pressure to score runs for your team because others can make it up; but it can also mean more pressure in terms of your team being expected to get a result or more pressure in terms of competition for spots. Conversely, being in a weak line-up can mean extra pressure for a batsman trying to carry his team to a result or at other times it can mean less pressure because a lot of the time the result is not one his team is capable of achieving and the player can concentrate on their own batting.

You won't see me arguing for either lone-wolves or those in a pack unless it is brought up by others. It's a point that is hard to quantify, as well as having contradictory facets.

Oh please , you don't have much clue about how much Sachin was/is criticized for his failures, especially during the 2004-2007 period !

Yes, because I live under a rock.
[/sarcasm]

FFS, Chappell still gets the evils from Tendulkar fans after that article about him retiring (this when he was clearly not scoring many runs).

 

[honestbharani]

Ian Chappell is a gun. I like his taste in players and I agree with a lot of what he has to say.

AWTA.. He is wrong a few times like everyone else but at least he is consistent in his views and mostly offers a lot as a commentator..



Now the rest of that channel 9 gang (including Richie these days)... they are dicks!!!

 

[honestbharani]

Seriously laughing at the idea that praising Sachin is some kind of meticulously planned operation. Come on.

I've always said that ranking players at this level is a personal thing. On the "greatest cricketer of the last 20 years" poll, one of my first posts here was me trying to decide whether it was Ambrose or Wasim, just based on who I loved to see play.

I seem to remember reading an excellent post (can't remember who made it, sorry) justifying why for them, Graeme Hick was the best batsman they had ever seen. And they were more than welcome to it.

I think all of us try to justify having a solid opinion on players we weren't there to see - we all have pretty hefty opinions on Bradman, Grace, Jardine, etc. The only thing we've got to go on is anecdotes and records, and so when it comes to current players we end up doing the same thing.

So I can't feasibly contradict any of you, and I especially can't pick between GC, Viv and Miandad. I can have an opinion, sure, but the idea that it might be unarguable is ludicrous. I didn't watch them. Long story short, you had to be there.

****ing awesome post!!!

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah, fair point, Jono. I still disagree with contemporary opinion usually for other reasons as well though. For the lack of time atm, The most important one would be that most opinions admit that they are rating players based on 'skill sets'. For me the only thing that matters is the ability to make runs.

A batsman with the strokes to hit the ball all over the wicket will naturally usually be a better run-maker than one who gets most of his runs with 3-4 strokes. However those things are only means to the end of run-making, If the second batsman is able to overcome his disadvantage in array of strokes and score as many(on average, not a strictly face value statistical term in this context) runs as the first batsman, He should be rated alongside him.

However, This is rarely acknowledged in contemporary opinions which usually focus on things like 'genius' and 'ability to hit a good ball for four' which might make a batsman a more skillful batsman than the other but not necessarily a more valuable(and in my world, better) one.

The very simple point that is wrong about your ideas on this is that the men whom you are rating did not face the same challenges.. Each one faced different conditions, different bowlers and every other combination of the two in between... By your logic of better "runmaker", Samaraweera > Inzy????

 

[honestbharani]

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.

We have had this discussion before:


Lara faced the Ws quite a few times.


Ponting faced BOTH in 1 innings and either in 3 or 4 innings.. which ran something like an 80 odd and couple of ducks etc...


Doesn't wash that Ponting was > against the best Pak attacks.. In fact, it is a non-point.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

So what s the real thing? The 3 ducks against them or the 1 197?

 

[abmk]

I was arguing that the value of a player affecting 1 run out per match is more than the value of a bowler taking 1 wicket a match. Therefore I was making the suggesting that 1ro =/= 1w and that a smaller ratio for run-outs affected/match for the fielder would be fine. What that ratio should be is up for discussion.

that is fine, but saying fielding is a bonus and that sanath was neither economical nor was he a strike force to belittle his bowling is what I was pointing

You're right, you did say it was one of the arguments. Sachin has had a fantastic batting line-up with him for a lot of his career - even when they weren't #1.

Indian batting abroad in the 90s , was pretty average , bowling even more so , which puts a lot of pressure

YTo make my position clearer, I do not like arguments that favour lone-wolves or a player in a pack. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The point with Lillee was that it was not a question of could he do both. He did both. That point was to emphasise the completeness of Lillee. If you recall, I also emphasised that Lillee was not only a bowler who at one point relied on raw pace, but also came back after his stress fracture problems and became a probing/intelligent bowler. What's more important about that point re Lillee is to show that he could bowl long spells (he actually bowled more overs than Hadlee) and he could also be trusted to bowl short spells and pick up wickets in hauls. Such points in favour of Lillee can be countered, but IMO it just emphasises how complete he was as a bowler.

As for cricket, I've said it several times on these boards...it is a team game but it is battle of individual duels. Being a part of a great batting line-up can mean you have less pressure to score runs for your team because others can make it up; but it can also mean more pressure in terms of your team being expected to get a result or more pressure in terms of competition for spots. Conversely, being in a weak line-up can mean extra pressure for a batsman trying to carry his team to a result or at other times it can mean less pressure because a lot of the time the result is not one his team is capable of achieving and the player can concentrate on their own batting.

You won't see me arguing for either lone-wolves or those in a pack unless it is brought up by others. It's a point that is hard to quantify, as well as having contradictory facets.

fair enough, but in another thread you were completely ignoring his utter failure in Pak .

Yes, because I live under a rock.
[/sarcasm]

FFS, Chappell still gets the evils from Tendulkar fans after that article about him retiring (this when he was clearly not scoring many runs).

Seeing some of your posts, I'd be inclined to say yes :P

forget chappelli for a second

1.there were plenty of articles with the heading "endulkar",

2.greg coming up with the rubbish about his 'commitment', some of the Mumbai fans booing him ,

3. was criticized severely for failing in finals for a stretch of time( he didn't do well, but neither did ANY of the others ) and was labelled as a choker in finals/important matches, completely disregarding that he was as brilliant as any in finals before 2000 ...

4. was said he was not a matchwinner - pointing out his 4th innings average ( which is a load of cr*p ). They'd say lara was a MUCH better match-winner and cite his 153* as an example, completely ignoring that lara's 4th innings record wasn't stellar either

etc etc

So yes, I'd say you are pretty ignorant about how much sachin is scrutinized - hence both successes and failures are magnified, but you can only see his successes being magnified.

Coming back to chappelli, it was not the fact that he criticized sachin ,but the way he did it that was annoying to most ...

 

[vcs]

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.

It is also important to remember that while Ponting had been gunning it from the early part of the decade, it was not until the stretch between Ashes 2005 and Ashes 2006-07 where he really distanced himself from his own teammates. Upto Ashes 2005, Gilchrist was also averaging close to 55 (with an incredible SR), Martyn had been their best batsman in 2004 when they won on tough tours to the subcontinent, Langer had a great year somewhere in there and Hayden was an everpresent after having dominated in the earlier part of the decade. Why would you single Ponting out for praise and making Bradman comparisons when all these guys were equally worthy of it?

All those articles that I linked above hailing Ponting's greatness are from that stretch and are very effusive.

 

[vcs]

that is fine, but saying fielding is a bonus and that sanath was neither economical nor was he a strike force to belittle his bowling is what I was pointing






Indian batting abroad in the 90s , was pretty average







Seeing some of your posts, I'd be inclined to say yes :P

forget chappelli for a second, there were plenty of articles with the heading "endulkar", greg coming up with the rubbish about his 'commitment', some of the Mumbai fans booing him , was criticized severely for failing in finals for a stretch of time( he didn't do well, but neither did ANY of the others ) and was labelled as a choker in finals/important matches, completely disregarding that he was as brilliant as any in finals before 2000 ...So yes, I'd say you are pretty ignorant about how much sachin is scrutinized - hence both successes and failures are magnified, but you can only see his successes being magnified.

Coming back to chappelli, it was not the fact that he criticised sachin ,but the way he did it that was annoying to most ...

This.

 

[honestbharani]

It is also important to remember that while Ponting had been gunning it from the early part of the decade, it was not until the stretch between Ashes 2005 and Ashes 2006-07 where he really distanced himself from his own teammates. Upto Ashes 2005, Gilchrist was also averaging close to 55 (with an incredible SR), Martyn had been their best batsman in 2004 when they won on tough tours to the subcontinent, Langer had a great year somewhere in there and Hayden was an everpresent after having dominated in the earlier part of the decade. Why would you single Ponting out for praise and making Bradman comparisons when all these guys were equally worthy of it?

All those articles that I linked above hailing Ponting's greatness are from that stretch and are very effusive.

I have read Hayden mentioned as next to Bradman in one of the cricinfo articles..

 

[abmk]

It is also important to remember that while Ponting had been gunning it from the early part of the decade, it was not until the stretch between Ashes 2005 and Ashes 2006-07 where he really distanced himself from his own teammates. Upto Ashes 2005, Gilchrist was also averaging close to 55 (with an incredible SR), Martyn had been their best batsman in 2004 when they won on tough tours to the subcontinent, Langer had a great year somewhere in there and Hayden was an everpresent after having dominated in the earlier part of the decade. Why would you single Ponting out for praise and making Bradman comparisons when all these guys were equally worthy of it?

All those articles that I linked above hailing Ponting's greatness are from that stretch and are very effusive.

true .......tbh, I was a bit annoyed at some of those, IMHO he wasn't as good as his averages suggested back then

 

[abmk]

I have read Hayden mentioned as next to Bradman in one of the cricinfo articles..

ha ha, really ?

 

[honestbharani]

around when he scored his 380, I guess..

 

[Sanz]

It is hard for me to gauge because I am someone who really places little value on the character of a player (with regards to being a likeable personality or not) when I rate them. It is irrelevant in any case.

But when Jono pointed that Indian fans had no problem with Waugh in Waugh Vs.Tendulkar debate, you alleged "That's because whilst the comparison is there, it is much less of a threat to Tendulkar's standing. " May be Indian fans don't value Ricky Ponting as much because he rarely performed when they watched him play in their country.


Well, even if you take the character part out, Waugh, Lara and Tendy debate was never settled, there were many who considered Waugh the best batsman in the group, many considered Lara the best. That was certainly a much more debated topic back then than the Lara/Ponting/Tendy debate. That debate was never settled. OTOH, The Tendulkar Vs. Ponting debate is done now. There is no debate, nod oubt who is the daddy, not anymore.

 

[bagapath]

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.

ponting doesnt deserve any accolades for the way he is playing now. when he was on song, he got enough plaudits. i remember an indian tv interviewer introducing ricky ponting as the new king of world cricket urging the laras and the tendulkars to move over. the studio audience responded with a generous applause. and the whole thing felt right then. but you cant expect anyone to treat ponting with the same respect sachin gets these days. forget the media and the fans. ask the bowlers the world over. they will tell you sachin remains a great player but ricky is over the hill.

the most silly part of your argument was that indians are okay with the lara-sachin comparison because lara is inferior to sachin whereas as a ricky-sachin comparison might present sachin in bad light and hence we deliberately avoid it. this is bull****. ricky is no longer a contender so he is not compared with sachin anymore, that is all.

 

[Jono]

But when Jono pointed that Indian fans had no problem with Waugh in Waugh Vs.Tendulkar debate, you alleged "That's because whilst the comparison is there, it is much less of a threat to Tendulkar's standing. " May be Indian fans don't value Ricky Ponting as much because he rarely performed when they watched him play in their country.

That's such an excellent point.

It is very common for Australian fans to rate players they have seen live and do well higher than they should be rated, simply because they performed on their home soil in front of their eyes. It is also common for them to underrate players who haven't performed against them, but in general have had great careers. No one rated Smith after 2005/06. I don't think Aussies fully rate Kallis because he never dominated here in Australia too. Laxman's another example of who they do rate. Hell Marlon Samuels was always talked up because of what he did on Australian soil.

It is perfectly reasonable for Indian fans to have a similar view of Ponting. Not every Indian fan watches every match. Everyone thinks they know what Indian fans are like, but I have so many friends and family members who completely range in the way they follow cricket. Some watch it all. Others who live in India have no idea except for Indian home matches. Particularly until recent times where Indian television rights have exploded, as long as India won at home many were happy. Many didn't know or care about their away exploits.

Not everyone is a ****ing cricket aficionado. Many just don't rate Ponting because they didn't see him score. Yes he's scored heavily against India in Australia, but not everyone saw that.

People may just not rate him highly because they never had the opportunity to see him score. It's not some devious conspiracy planned in Indian street stores whilst eating Prata and curry to take down Ponting's reputation to ensure Sachin's reputation is strong.

Honestly this is some of the weirdest **** I've read.

 

[Sanz]

Maximus was referring to Cricinfo, and I agreed with him about the extra cover they give to Tendulkar's achievements. In general, I'd say the media are overly generous because they know that is what their audience wants.

TBF, I preferred that Tendulkar got little less coverage, but it is harder to not give him coverage now a days, because now a days he is creating a new record almost every other inning whereas Ponting is in coverage for wrong reasons.

He averages 44 in England, that's not the reason his away average is so low. The only reason Ponting has an average that low is because of India. The guy is consistent across the board.

Ponting Averages 41.79 in England after 20 tests. And no, he is NOT consistent across the board, unless you do not consider BCCI a Cricket Board and India a cricket nation.

Ponting is 31 in Zinbabwe, 26.48 in India and 41.79 in England, Not as impressive and as consistent as you suggest.

It's not like Ponting was not going to score on the tracks in Pakistan either - in fact, he scored lots of runs in the difficult neutral tests. He averages 62 against Pakistan in 6 tests away from home.

Of God now we are going to call those UAE/Colmbo track as "Difficult" ? And what did he average on the Neutral tracks of England ?

Anyway, the point is: Lara's average reflects more or less how he did on a country to country basis. Ponting's doesn't. His record in India outweighs just how good he was elsewhere. It can definitely mislead.

But India is where he played a good number of away test matches, you can not take that out of his record and include his record in Pakistan (that too with assumptions that he was going to succeed)