Rank your 5 best bats from Australia post-Bradman

[mr_mister]

Even though Ponting had that meh 07, he nearly bounced back in 08 with 4 tons which was nearly 5

That 101 and 99 in the boxing day test against SA were both awesome knocks. Maybe he if had converted the 99, got the glory of two tons in a match, I mean who knows what might have happened. But it was the beginning of the end

 

[Gob]

Even though Ponting had that meh 07, he nearly bounced back in 08 with 4 tons which was nearly 5

That 101 and 99 in the boxing day test against SA were both awesome knocks. Maybe he if had converted the 99, got the glory of two tons in a match, I mean who knows what might have happened. But it was the beginning of the end

From 08 onwards, he was throwing away lot of 70 plus scores. Think I did thought about it at the time and figured that he could have had 50 tons had he converted say 70% of those as he usually did before

Also it wasn't the beginning of the end for me. He played some crucial innings in the return series in SA (never forget the 83 in Joburg I think when Smith dropped him of Steyn and very next ball he hooked it for a six) and did the same in 09 Ashes. 10/11 Ashes was beginning of the end for me

 

[Gob]

I don't think that is true. I know that I rated Wasim and Waqar much more highly in the mid-90s than by the end of their careers. Same with Ponting before and after that Ashes 2007. Or Botham past the mid-80s.

If your post-peak phase is long enough it will definitely drop your standing.

I should have said most people. There is the odd individual here and there

 

[subshakerz]

Probably. He was destined to break Tendulkar's records for most runs and hundreds (and for a while it looked a real possibility) and there were serious comparisons between the two. Those discussions were permanently put to rest not only with Ponting's decline but Tendulkar's return to form

Forget Ponting. If Tendulkar decided to retire after the 2011 World Cup from cricket, he would have had a batting average touching 57. He would be the firm favorite for best after Bradman.

But he decided to play another 23 tests and that took the sheen off his record and put him in the debatable category with Sobers/Hobbs/Viv.

 

[Gob]

Forget Ponting. If Tendulkar decided to retire after the 2011 World Cup from cricket, he would have had a batting average touching 57. He would be the firm favorite for best after Bradman.

But he decided to play another 23 tests and that took the sheen off his record and put him in the debatable category with Sobers/Hobbs/Viv.

Actually by 2011, people were seriously arguing if he was the GOAT. Gavaskar instigated it and likes of Nasser joined in. Remember being very annoyed at the time

Moral of the story, Sachin should have been reading Cricket Web cricket chat

 

[mr_mister]

Yes I agree and like your reasoning. Average differences of one or two runs can be offset by longevity and stuff, eg Sachin averaging 57 after 177 tests > Ponting 60 after 107 tests

But Ponting 60 after 107 tests is to me > Viv's record, Lara's record etc

But he did keep playing so it's all hypothetical

 

[subshakerz]

The point is that Kohli and Smith would be close statistically, while today the difference in their averages is around 10.

If Smith retired today, I would rate him at around the same level as Viv/Lara/Ponting/Chappell. If he averages 40 for the next 10 years and ends up averaging 50, I would still consider him equal to these guys, so no my rating of him wouldn’t drop at all.

The same applies to Ponting in 2007. If he retired then, I would rate him at the same level as Viv/Lara/Chappell. I still rate him at the same level as those guys despite his last few years.

Yeah but this approach only works by ignoring huge chunks of players careers. You simply freeze the player's standing based on where they topped out at their peak.

 

[mr_mister]

One interesting potential counter point to all this is I guess Sanga. Finished averaging 57 after 134 tests, no dip, no adjustments, just a raw super high career average from a long career

Is Sanga written off by poor away performances or easy era for bowlers or something by CW? I haven't looked into his record too closely but damn you'd think on merit, he should be held a notch higher by everyone. Like that should be worthy of Sobers/Sachin/Hobbs tier at first glance

 

[ZK$]

And if batsman b retired with an average of 45? Would you still rate him higher based on the better peak?

Yes because he literally averaged 60 at the time the other guy retired. He outperformed him by 10 points over the same number of years.

 

[Gob]

One interesting potential counter point to all this is I guess Sanga. Finished averaging 57 after 134 tests, no dip, no adjustments, just a raw super high career average from a long career

Is Sanga written off by poor away performances or easy era for bowlers or something by CW? I haven't looked into his record too closely but damn you'd think on merit, he should be held a notch higher by everyone. Like that should be worthy of Sobers/Sachin/Hobbs tier at first glance

He is equal to Ponting here I think

 

[ZK$]

Yeah but this approach only works by ignoring huge chunks of players careers. You simply freeze the player's standing based on where they topped out at their peak.

Would you rate Smith lower than Kohli if Kohli retired today, but Smith played for another 10 years and ended up averaging 45? Let’s assume that Smith is still one of the best batsmen in his team throughout those 10 years even though that doesn’t really matter to me.

 

[social]

Yes I agree and like your reasoning. Average differences of one or two runs can be offset by longevity and stuff, eg Sachin averaging 57 after 177 tests > Ponting 60 after 107 tests

But Ponting 60 after 107 tests is to me > Viv's record, Lara's record etc

But he did keep playing so it's all hypothetical

Not quite that simple as Ponting would still have a massive hole in his record

 

[subshakerz]

Yes because he literally averaged 60 at the time the other guy retired. He outperformed him by 10 points over the same number of years.

A player can outperform another player at the same time and still end up with a worse career.

 

[subshakerz]

Not quite that simple as Ponting would still have a massive hole in his record

It would be argued that Ponting makes up for this hole by averaging 10 points higher than Viv. But the point is he would still be in conversation against Viv whereas now he is not.

 

[Adders]

So for those of you saying that Pontings decline at the end of his career shouldn't effect his rating.........can we also ignore that first part of James Anderson's career where he was mostly crap?

Since 2012 J Anderson has taken 427 wickets @ 23.77........that's Lillee, Holding, Waqar, Wassim numbers. Are we rating Anderson in that tier?

 

[subshakerz]

Would you rate Smith lower than Kohli if Kohli retired today, but Smith played for another 10 years and ended up averaging 45? Let’s assume that Smith is still one of the best batsmen in his team throughout those 10 years even though that doesn’t really matter to me.

Yes I would rate Smith lower because it would mean for 10 years Smith would be a sub-40 averaging batsman and end up with a worse record than Kohli which would massively damage his reputation. Look how badly Kohli's stock has fallen in the past three years. After 10 years, Smith's highs will be largely forgotten.

I don't see a reason to privilege Smith's first decade over his next decade in assessing him overall. His overall assessment would be similar to Botham's, a combo of adding a greatest ever peak half with a mediocre half equaling a somewhat ATG level cricketer.

 

[subshakerz]

So for those of you saying that Pontings decline at the end of his career shouldn't effect his rating.........can we also ignore that first part of James Anderson's career where he was mostly crap?

Since 2012 J Anderson has taken 427 wickets @ 23.77........that's Lillee, Holding, Waqar, Wassim numbers. Are we rating Anderson in that tier?

They likely won't because in their bizarre calculus, it advantages early/mid career peaks while ignoring late career slumps, not the other way around.

 

[ZK$]

Yes I would rate Smith lower because it would mean for 10 years Smith would be a sub-40 averaging batsman and end up with a worse record than Kohli which would massively damage his reputation. Look how badly Kohli's stock has fallen in the past three years. After 10 years, Smith's highs will be largely forgotten.

I don't see a reason to privilege Smith's first decade over his next decade in assessing him overall. His overall assessment would be similar to Botham's, a combo of adding a greatest ever peak half with a mediocre half equaling a regular almost ATG level cricketer.

Yeah we’re going to have to agree to disagree. You’re just not getting it lol.

 

[subshakerz]

One interesting potential counter point to all this is I guess Sanga. Finished averaging 57 after 134 tests, no dip, no adjustments, just a raw super high career average from a long career

Is Sanga written off by poor away performances or easy era for bowlers or something by CW? I haven't looked into his record too closely but damn you'd think on merit, he should be held a notch higher by everyone. Like that should be worthy of Sobers/Sachin/Hobbs tier at first glance

Thankfully most posters here can see the average inflation inherent in Sanga's record.

 

[ZK$]

So for those of you saying that Pontings decline at the end of his career shouldn't effect his rating.........can we also ignore that first part of James Anderson's career where he was mostly crap?

Since 2012 J Anderson has taken 427 wickets @ 23.77........that's Lillee, Holding, Waqar, Wassim numbers. Are we rating Anderson in that tier?

I rate Anderson in the same tier as Pollock due to his record since 2010. I rate both of them a tier below those other names you listed.