Steve Waugh vs Ricky Ponting in Tests?

[Red_Ink_Squid]

I think you’re being sarcastic here but in general this reasoning is my least favourite argument in regards to batsmen. Much hate.

Your best batsman generally bats at 3/4 unless they’re a specialist opener. However, some players e.g Waugh, Border, Chanderpaul come into sides with established upper order players and then stay down the order when these other players retire, where they’ve built their reputation and record. I have no issues with this, and don’t believe its selfish. If they were to move up the order and struggle in a different role, it would inevitably hurt the team. Not really self serving imo.

Hmm. Leaving the "hiding" teasing aside, do you not think it is easier batting at 5 vs batting at 3? I get that you might not like the jibes that Waugh is selfish/cowardly/whatever - which are indeed mostly in jest.

Let's say that these players batting at 5 was absolutely the best thing for their sides and they did the right thing to play in that position. But that doesn't mean that the job of batting 5 isn't inherently easier than batting at 3, and especially so if you have a competent top order.

Obviously there are plenty of other considerations but all else being equal wouldn't you rate a player averaging 50 at 3 higher than a player averaging 50 batting at 5? No character aspersions on the #5, they're doing a fine job, it just happens to be the easier job.

 

[trundler]

I get that you might not like the jibes that Waugh is selfish/cowardly/whatever - which are indeed mostly in jest.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Different players with different roles.

Ponting came in and dominated - especially with Hayden. There was a real presence there. He set up innings/matches and took down opening bowlers.

Waugh came in and fought. He recovered innings/matches and showed that Australia would keep fighting. He gave confidence to his tailenders and recovered situations that looked lost.

Basically Ponting was a lesser Viv, while Waugh was a slightly lesser Border.

Re their results in England, Steve Waugh faced terrible English bowling attacks while Ponting faced good ones.

 

[capt_Luffy]

I don't see any influencing reason to pick Ponting over Waugh except that Ponting was an aggressive batsman while Waugh was a defensive batsman and their batting positions also, so okay that's two. But Waugh had to bowl also, use himself as 5th bowler so again that batting position is not necessarily a very valid argument.

However, there are multiple reasons to pick Waugh over Ponting.

1. Waugh played on tough batting conditions in Australia in the era of 90s and mid-80s within a weak team while Ponting had the luxury of flattest batting decks you get across the world in 2000s.

2. Probably the most influential argument, the quality of bowling was far far superior in Waugh's era than it was Ponting who actually went on to hit his beast form once all those great fast bowlers started retiring.

3. The record vs top teams away from home, that's where Steve Waugh was again superior to Ponting. His performance in India, England( where he was absolute beast) and South Africa are superior to Ponting's record there. Didn't checked for Windies but is he better there also?

Steve Waugh was an extremely clutch batsman who played several memorable knocks in Tests. So, there is no clutch factor in favour of Ponting either.

Have similar averages, played vastly different bowling attacks. Steve Waugh's 1995 series is better than any Ponting series.

 

[capt_Luffy]

This for me.

Also had way easier era.....

 

[Silver Silva]

Still Ponting despite some pathetic attempts to degrade him lately. Best player of the 2000s.

Ponting was The Guy in the 2000's , how many hopes and dreams he buried with the help of that awesome Australian team ..Triple H of cricket

 

[capt_Luffy]

Hmm. Leaving the "hiding" teasing aside, do you not think it is easier batting at 5 vs batting at 3? I get that you might not like the jibes that Waugh is selfish/cowardly/whatever - which are indeed mostly in jest.

Let's say that these players batting at 5 was absolutely the best thing for their sides and they did the right thing to play in that position. But that doesn't mean that the job of batting 5 isn't inherently easier than batting at 3, and especially so if you have a competent top order.

Obviously there are plenty of other considerations but all else being equal wouldn't you rate a player averaging 50 at 3 higher than a player averaging 50 batting at 5? No character aspersions on the #5, they're doing a fine job, it just happens to be the easier job.

Also way easier era..... If you want just go by this logic, then surely Herbert Sutcliffe is better than none bar Don!

 

[trundler]

Have similar averages, played vastly different bowling attacks. Steve Waugh's 1995 series is better than any Ponting series.

lmao at taking Steve Waugh's average at face value relative to someone who actually batted 3 like a man

 

[capt_Luffy]

lmao at taking Steve Waugh's average at face value relative to someone who actually batted 3 like a man

Then Mathews Hayden> Ponting confirmed?? A player who actually opened the innings like a MAN!!!

 

[Fuller Pilch]

3. The record vs top teams away from home, that's where Steve Waugh was again superior to Ponting. His performance in England( where he was absolute beast)

England were not a top team during Waugh's career.

 

[trundler]

Then Mathews Hayden> Ponting confirmed?? A player who actually opened the innings like a MAN!!!

Ponting didn't chase red ink so no.

 

[capt_Luffy]

England were not a top team during Waugh's career.

Neither were they much better really during majority of Ponting's. Waugh's performance in SA, India and England are degrees superior.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Ponting didn't chase red ink so no.

Lmfao. Ponting chased the ****ing Australian board officials and curators to make pancakes called 'pitches'. Honestly, haven't seen one good argument except "hmmmm..... He batted top 3!!!".

 

[Fuller Pilch]

England were not a top team during Waugh's career.

Neither were they much better really during majority of Ponting's. Waugh's performance in SA, India and England are degrees superior.

England's attacks in 2005 and 2009 were a million times better than any in the 1990s (better selectors probably helped). And the less said about the 1989 England Ashes team the better!!

 

[capt_Luffy]

England's attacks in 2005 and 2009 were a million times better than any in the 1990s (better selectors probably helped). And the less said about the 1989 England Ashes team the better!!

I don't think I would consider Ponting great in England by an stretch of the word.... 2005 was a great attack and Ponting played a great innings; 2009 was decent from him. Waugh averages 74 in England, I don't think the difference in attack qualities overall, with taking pitches into account; were really a 30 runs difference in averages.

 

[trundler]

Lmfao. Ponting chased the ****ing Australian board officials and curators to make pancakes called 'pitches'. Honestly, haven't seen one good argument except "hmmmm..... He batted top 3!!!".

You're right, there are no good arguments for Ponting except the good arguments for Ponting.

 

[kyear2]

Also had way easier era.....

You do know I value three things more than anything else in cricket. Fast blowing, attacking batsmen and slip fielding, particularly great 2nd slip guys. As much as I hated him when we played against him, he's my guy. So......

Ponting was The Guy in the 2000's , how many hopes and dreams he buried with the help of that awesome Australian team ..Triple H of cricket

Yes he was, the ultimate heel. Also loved Trips for some reason

 

[Coronis]

Hmm. Leaving the "hiding" teasing aside, do you not think it is easier batting at 5 vs batting at 3? I get that you might not like the jibes that Waugh is selfish/cowardly/whatever - which are indeed mostly in jest.

Let's say that these players batting at 5 was absolutely the best thing for their sides and they did the right thing to play in that position. But that doesn't mean that the job of batting 5 isn't inherently easier than batting at 3, and especially so if you have a competent top order.

Obviously there are plenty of other considerations but all else being equal wouldn't you rate a player averaging 50 at 3 higher than a player averaging 50 batting at 5? No character aspersions on the #5, they're doing a fine job, it just happens to be the easier job.

No. I believe some people are more suited to playing certain positions, but I believe they also require different skill sets.

I mean, if I rated players like that, my top 5 batsmen of all time would probably be Bradman, Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hutton, Gavaskar.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You do know I value three things more than anything else in cricket. Fast blowing, attacking batsmen and slip fielding, particularly great 2nd slip guys. As much as I hated him when we played against him, he's my guy. So......



Yes he was, the ultimate heel. Also lived Trips for some reason

I can understand that why you would rate Ponting highly, as he ticks some very you specific boxes; I can't understand why someone like say Coronis; who doesn't particularly care of fielding, almost seems to punish fast scorers and really have no unique likability for high order batting; will rate him higher than Waugh, given the era and especially the away record.

 

[trundler]

I can understand that why you would rate Ponting highly, as he ticks some very you specific boxes; I can't understand why someone like say Coronis; who doesn't particularly care of fielding, almost seems to punish fast scorers and really have no unique likability for high order batting; will rate him higher than Waugh, given the era and especially the away record.

You've (unintentionally) hinted at a grain of truth (in a roundabout way). There may be some cognitive dissonance on this topic for those who foolishly pretend that strike rate and the ability to dominate an attack don't matter a lot. Obviously they do and it's purely nerd wankery to pretend otherwise.