The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[mr_mister]

I don't see how it is odd. I explained it pretty easily.



He did have a good home summer in 1999/2000, but then he wasn't anything special the next summer against a very weak WI side. That's why I'd say his real consistent peak didn't start until the home summer of 2001/02, which is when he became consistently exceptional for the next 5+ years.

He still averaged 40 in that WI home series. No tons but it wasn't a total failure. I checked and since the beginning of 1999 to the India series he was actually averaging 63 from 17 tests, with 5 tons and 2 nineties. Averaged at least 40 in 5 of the 6 series, everything except the 1 off Zimbabwe test. Essentially Graeme Pollocks whole test career from 1999 to the India tour

Honestly I'd say his peak had begun and you couldn't make an excuse he wasn't in form/ready for the '01 India series

 

[TheJediBrah]

He still averaged 40 in that WI home series. No tons but it wasn't a total failure. I checked and since the beginning of 1999 to the India series he was actually averaging 63 from 17 tests, with 5 tons and 2 nineties. Averaged at least 40 in 5 of the 6 series, everything except the 1 off Zimbabwe test. Essentially Graeme Pollocks whole test career from 1999 to the India tour

Honestly I'd say his peak had begun and you couldn't make an excuse he wasn't in form/ready for the '01 India series

Nah averaging 40 over 5 tests against that WI side is pretty ordinary. Definitely not ATG peak level. Then the India series was his next series. Then the 2001 Ashes right after he only averaged low-40s too.

If you contend that his peak started around 1999 that's fine, you definitely have fair reasoning. But if you do you'd have to think that the 2000-02 period he was very out of form in comparison. It wasn't just the 2001 India tour where he wasn't great. Averaging low-40s in both of the 5 Test series before and after is pretty far below Ricky Ponting's peak.

That's 13 mediocre Test matches for his standard, which is why his peak starting in the 2001/02 Home summer, after the 2001 Ashes, makes a lot more sense IMO

 

[stephen]

India is a huge hole in Ponting's record, moreso than Warne I'd say.

That doesn't mean he wasn't an incredible batsman but Smith is simply better.

 

[Logan]

Sunil Gavaskar had a 43+ average against every opponent. Except against England where he averaged a respectable 38. Gavaskar averaged 40+ in every country he played except SL where had a healthy average of 37.

Viv Richards had a 42+ average average every opponent and in every country he played. Except in NewZealand where he averaged 19 but that was just one 3 Test match series

Sachin Tendulkar had a 42+ average against every opponent. Sachin had a 40+ average in every country he played. To maintain that kind of consistency over 200 Tests is unreal and extraordinary.

Are there any other cricketers that displayed that level of consistency?

 

[morgieb]

Chappell comes to mind. Averaged 40 against England but everywhere else was 50+ IIRC.

And let's not forget TPC.

 

[vcs]

Sangakkara and Kallis also have very well-balanced records.

 

[Gob]

Nah averaging 40 over 5 tests against that WI side is pretty ordinary. Definitely not ATG peak level. Then the India series was his next series. Then the 2001 Ashes right after he only averaged low-40s too.

If you contend that his peak started around 1999 that's fine, you definitely have fair reasoning. But if you do you'd have to think that the 2000-02 period he was very out of form in comparison. It wasn't just the 2001 India tour where he wasn't great. Averaging low-40s in both of the 5 Test series before and after is pretty far below Ricky Ponting's peak.

That's 13 mediocre Test matches for his standard, which is why his peak starting in the 2001/02 Home summer, after the 2001 Ashes, makes a lot more sense IMO

Think it all began @ Headingley 01 when he hooked his way to a hundred. IIRC his average had dipped below 40 at that point.

 

[mr_mister]

Nah averaging 40 over 5 tests against that WI side is pretty ordinary. Definitely not ATG peak level. Then the India series was his next series. Then the 2001 Ashes right after he only averaged low-40s too.

If you contend that his peak started around 1999 that's fine, you definitely have fair reasoning. But if you do you'd have to think that the 2000-02 period he was very out of form in comparison. It wasn't just the 2001 India tour where he wasn't great. Averaging low-40s in both of the 5 Test series before and after is pretty far below Ricky Ponting's peak.

That's 13 mediocre Test matches for his standard, which is why his peak starting in the 2001/02 Home summer, after the 2001 Ashes, makes a lot more sense IMO

I feel like you can still have a peak period with some blotches inside it. His super peak, often described as 02-06 or thereabouts, included a 2004 where he averaged 40 and didn't score a century from 19 innings. That was the first year he hadn't tonned up since '98 when he was still very much a fringe player. I think he was injured for part of that year? But he still had a lot of tests for that low return.(and I call it low only coz we've set a standard that 40 was meh for him during his peak) He got two nineties at least, but yeah 1999 was a considerably better year.

I've always thought his 197, scored after 3 ducks in 1999, was when he reached that top level that he sustained for nearly a decade before declining. Certainly felt like a star was born that day watching it as a kid. Though possibly because it was the highest score I'd ever seen scored before as an 8 year old who only got to watch the home summers

Not every series can have him averaging 80 but the India series was especially horrendous and he wasn't a rookie trying to establish himself by that stage, he was arguably the 2nd best batsman in the side after Tugga

Maybe he wasn't ATG but he was world class, averaging 47 after 40 tests and I guess my point was in hindsight he should have been more than good enough to at least score a 50 in one of those tests, instead of less than 50 runs total. Not sure you're neccesarily arguing against that but yeah

 

[TheJediBrah]

I feel like you can still have a peak period with some blotches inside it. His super peak, often described as 02-06 or thereabouts, included a 2004 where he averaged 40 and didn't score a century from 19 innings. That was the first year he hadn't tonned up since '98 when he was still very much a fringe player. I think he was injured for part of that year? But he still had a lot of tests for that low return.(and I call it low only coz we've set a standard that 40 was meh for him during his peak) He got two nineties at least, but yeah 1999 was a considerably better year.

I've always thought his 197, scored after 3 ducks in 1999, was when he reached that top level that he sustained for nearly a decade before declining. Certainly felt like a star was born that day watching it as a kid. Though possibly because it was the highest score I'd ever seen scored before as an 8 year old who only got to watch the home summers

Not every series can have him averaging 80 but the India series was especially horrendous and he wasn't a rookie trying to establish himself by that stage, he was arguably the 2nd best batsman in the side after Tugga

Maybe he wasn't ATG but he was world class, averaging 47 after 40 tests and I guess my point was in hindsight he should have been more than good enough to at least score a 50 in one of those tests, instead of less than 50 runs total. Not sure you're neccesarily arguing against that but yeah

no doubt we can talk out way around it however we want. My main point is that his record in India is somewhat affected by when the tours landed in relation to his career. I'm definitely not saying that he would have been a great player in India if he had have played all of 2004, his record still would have been ordinary most likely, but it's definitely a factor.

His 2001 tour of India being bookended on each side by 5 match series' that he averaged 40 or below in, against weak sides, makes it pretty clear to me that he wasn't in the same place during that period as he was the following year.

 

[Burgey]

I don't see how it is odd. I explained it pretty easily

No you didn’t. In any sense

 

[mr_mister]

no doubt we can talk out way around it however we want. My main point is that his record in India is somewhat affected by when the tours landed in relation to his career. I'm definitely not saying that he would have been a great player in India if he had have played all of 2004, his record still would have been ordinary most likely, but it's definitely a factor.

His 2001 tour of India being bookended on each side by 5 match series' that he averaged 40 or below in, against weak sides, makes it pretty clear to me that he wasn't in the same place during that period as he was the following year.

Fair enough yeah. I think I just love discussing Ricky a bit too much ha

 

[OverratedSanity]

Chappell comes to mind. Averaged 40 against England but everywhere else was 50+ IIRC.

And let's not forget TPC.

Chappell didn't even have many meaningful tours in key countries. AB's overseas record is way more impressive and rounded.

 

[TheJediBrah]

No you didn’t. In any sense

Yes I did. Very clearly.

If you need me to go over it again I will

I don't know how he managed to decline the way he did, yet have his two best tours of the place he never did well, during the same period of decline. Very odd.

Ok working with the hypothesis of his peak being post 2001 Ashes to the end of 2006/07 Ashes. His only tour of India during that was 2004, and he only played the 1 game on an unplayable pitch. Why wouldn't his best tours be during his decline when the only other ones were before his peak (and in the middle of a relatively poor patch in 2001)?

I'd say Ponting was as good, or better, a player in 2008-2010 than he was in 2001. More specifically in the context of playing in the subcontinent due to a decade's experience.

 

[bagapath]

Chappell didn't even have many meaningful tours in key countries. AB's overseas record is way more impressive and rounded.

push comes to shove, even chappell's mom would agree that AB was the real deal !

 

[trundler]

Choose between


Hobbs
Hutton
Bradman
Smith
Hammond
Border
Gilchrist
Warne
Truman
Barnes
McGrath

Or

Hutton
Hobbs
Bradman
Hammond
Border
Miller
Gilchrist
Botham
Warne
Truman
McGrath

 

[jimmy101]

No black Bradman?

 

[trundler]

Was doing an Ashes theme.

 

[jimmy101]

Nice.

 

[Gob]

I don't know how he managed to decline the way he did, yet have his two best tours of the place he never did well, during the same period of decline. Very odd.

Got better against spin worse against pace

 

[CricAddict]

Choose between

Smith
Barnes

Or

Miller
Botham

You mean the above, right? I will choose option 1.