capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I really am not. I really believe that Steve Waugh is better than Ponting, clearly in my mind.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Steve Waugh vs Ricky Ponting in Tests?
- Thread starter Majestic
- Start date
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
I don't really have a thing for this "dominance"; but even then, shouldn't the era difference make up for that by the Ponting logic of being a no. 3??
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
I'm Sri Lankan you imbecile.
Burgey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I’m sorry mate
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
I will be eating their breakfast on friday.
Yes, it should. Also, the away performance. Ponting went missing in India which were a strong side in 2000s and has middling record in England. Runs in England matter more for Australia than elsewhere due to Ashes thing. Isn't it? I mean there are more reasons to rate S Waugh higher than Ponting.
Spark
Global Moderator
Ah, so you're turning into Americans.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
trundler
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Sunil1z
International Regular
My deepest condolenceI will be eating their breakfast on friday.
you really have no clue about cricket, do you?
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
T20s have messed up with all your minds....
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
No, definitely I know about crickets:
Crickets are orthopteran insects which are related to bush crickets, and, more distantly, to grasshoppers. In older literature, such as Imms,[3] "crickets" were placed at the family level (i.e. Gryllidae), but contemporary authorities including Otte now place them in the superfamily Grylloidea.[1] The word has been used in combination to describe more distantly related taxa[3] in the suborder Ensifera, such as king crickets and mole crickets.
| Synonyms[2] | |
|---|---|
| Families | |
Scientific classification | |
| Cricket (insect) Temporal range: Triassic–Recent PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N [1] | |
 | |
| Juvenile Gryllus campestris | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Orthoptera |
| Suborder: | Ensifera |
| Infraorder: | Gryllidea |
| Superfamily: | Grylloidea Laicharting, 1781[2] |
| See Taxonomy section | |
|
Crickets are distributed all around the world except at latitudes 55° or higher, with the greatest diversity being in the tropics. They occur in varied habitats from grassland, bushes, and forests to marshes, beaches, and caves. Crickets are mainly nocturnal, and are best known for the loud, persistent, chirping song of males trying to attract females, although some species are mute. The singing species have good hearing, via the tympana on the tibiae of the front legs.
Crickets often appear as characters in literature. The Talking Cricket features in Carlo Collodi's 1883 children's book, The Adventures of Pinocchio, and in films based on the book. The insect is central to Charles Dickens's 1845 The Cricket on the Hearth and George Selden's 1960 The Cricket in Times Square. Crickets are celebrated in poems by William Wordsworth, John Keats, Du Fu and Vladimir Nazor. They are kept as pets in countries from China to Europe, sometimes for cricket fighting. Crickets are efficient at converting their food into body mass, making them a candidate for food production. They are used as human food in Southeast Asia, where they are sold deep-fried in markets as snacks. They are also used to feed carnivorous pets and zoo animals. In Brazilian folklore, crickets feature as omens of various events.
centurymaker
Cricketer Of The Year
@capt_Luffy
A dominant batsman puts the pressure back on the opposition attack, making it easier for himself and his teammates, as the opposition attack loses its control or some control.
A passive batsman though holds the innings together, he allows the opposition attack to settle and bowl better and more often than not get on top of you, putting your partners at the other end under pressure as they have to deal with more controlled bowling and also having to pick up the scoring rate. It works when other batsmen around that passive batter are able to take charge.
Enforcer vs Anchor
A team needs an anchor or two but dominant batters make life easy for everyone around them leading to relatively better outcomes for their team, more often than not.
For eg, Hayden and Ponting would destroy the soul of the opposition attack, (allowing the batsmen to follow to make hay and thus ground the opposition into dust). And you have to be a more skillful batter to be able to do that successfully and set it up for your team. A passive batsman is typically less skillful and has to 'rely more' on patience and perseverance side of things. And they typically need others around them.
Please realise that this is not T20/ODI or bazball type of batting we are talking about. Its controlled / calculated aggressive batting.
A dominant batsman puts the pressure back on the opposition attack, making it easier for himself and his teammates, as the opposition attack loses its control or some control.
A passive batsman though holds the innings together, he allows the opposition attack to settle and bowl better and more often than not get on top of you, putting your partners at the other end under pressure as they have to deal with more controlled bowling and also having to pick up the scoring rate. It works when other batsmen around that passive batter are able to take charge.
Enforcer vs Anchor
A team needs an anchor or two but dominant batters make life easy for everyone around them leading to relatively better outcomes for their team, more often than not.
For eg, Hayden and Ponting would destroy the soul of the opposition attack, (allowing the batsmen to follow to make hay and thus ground the opposition into dust). And you have to be a more skillful batter to be able to do that successfully and set it up for your team. A passive batsman is typically less skillful and has to 'rely more' on patience and perseverance side of things. And they typically need others around them.
Please realise that this is not T20/ODI or bazball type of batting we are talking about. Its controlled / calculated aggressive batting.
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Reading the first part I almost thought we found a middle ground.... No, saying a batsman like Gavaskar is "less skillful" than Sehwag; because Sehwag is more dominant; is just wrong. And it's also wrong to think dominant batsmen don't need support any more than passive ones. Reference; George Headley. If you think the things like patience and perseverance are secondary and not as important as dominance; I don't think we really have much to continue this discussion on.
PlayerComparisons
International Vice-Captain
I don’t think the difference in strike rates would be that big between Ponting and Waugh if Ponting played in a harder era.
Batting position and more runs and hundreds is a better reason for rating Ponting higher IMO.
Batting position and more runs and hundreds is a better reason for rating Ponting higher IMO.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
capt_Luffy
Cricketer Of The Year
Come Subs, join us....