• 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?

Steve Waugh vs Ricky Ponting


  • Total voters
    43

Bolo.

International Captain
Honestly I don’t think there’s much difference between a player who averages 65 at home and 45 away and a player who averages 60 at home and 50 away. Especially if they appear to be similar in quality when eye tested.
Not much difference. But that's only cos the numbers are close.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
How about actually attempt to disprove the conclusion I've arrived at with the stats I posted instead of this lazy comeback? It's not like I've invented those numbers, you can look them up.
Subs, of all people; have posted the reply. And why don't you do such a breakdown of Ponting's away record and see all the great Waugh '95 Windiesque performances he has??
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
The thing is, though, most good players are good at home, for obvious reasons. So if you are really good at home, it (a) doesn't stand out in the sea of other home-grown batsman putting up quality numbers and, more importantly imo, (b) means that the price of any failure on your behalf is not as high because there are plenty of alternative sources of runs if you happen to get out early every now and then.

This is not true against good, and especially great attacks away from home in unfamiliar and/or difficult conditions. In that case, there's a lot more at stake for the great batsman because there's the simple fact that if they don't perform personally, the chance that the team will fail overall is significantly higher. But with the higher stakes should come, imo, the higher recognition; it's only fair.

.
At the moment, in high stakes series involving Ind, Aus, Eng and maybe SA, the bowlimg attacks are quite strong, and there's no certainty that you will win at home. Plus the totals aren't very high either, so you need your best batter/s to perform, even though you can get away with low scores more easily at home than away. I agree.

When Australia played India in India in 2023, the threat revolved around spin and indian spinners.

When Australia faced India at home in 2020/21, the main threat was the indian seamers and in the coming tour end of the year, the main threat will be Indian pace bowlers again, especially on sporting pitches.

So sometimes the challenges at home can be tricky too, given the very recent pitches, where batting hasn't been easy. Therefore home batting performers standing out too.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
At the moment, in high stakes series involving Ind, Aus, Eng and maybe SA, the bowlimg attacks are quite strong, and there's no certainty that you will win at home. Plus the totals aren't very high either, so you need your best batter/s to perform, even though you can get away with low scores more easily at home than away. I agree.

When Australia played India in India in 2023, the threat revolved around spin and indian spinners.

When Australia faced India at home in 2020/21, the main threat was the indian seamers and in the coming tour end of the year, the main threat will be Indian pace bowlers again, especially on sporting pitches.

So sometimes the challenges at home can be tricky too, given the very recent pitches, where batting hasn't been easy. Therefore home batting performers standing out too.
For winning, might be but not to the extent you are talking about. There's a reason every decent team is favourite at home; even SA drew that series vs India with not really a very strong team. But the reason I try to focus on away performances is to identify a batsman's ability to score runs in more varied conditions, against more varied attacks. Warner scoring runs in Australia is good, him scoring that same run in an Indian rank turner is potentially better. Like Ponting for instance had a very clear weakness in India; mind you not against, performed more than finely (a.k.a, bashed the hell out of) in Australia. There are plenty of batsmen to go big in familiar home pitches, but a truly great one will perform when others don't; in conditions they're unfamiliar with. That's just how I rate batsmen.
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year
Maybe we should have a big ol’ test championship every year where you play every country in a yearly rotating country. You could also have the Ashes in addition to this.
For instance, in overcast sporting English conditions, any of the following attacks
Australian
South African
Kiwi
Indian
Pakistani

could rival and some even outperform the local English attack.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
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!!!".
Really? Is there any evidence he asked for the pitches to be flat?
 

centurymaker

Cricketer Of The Year

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Australian pitches have been flat even after Ponting (except last few seasons). How do you think Labuschagne averaged 70+ at home.. and now he is struggling. Flat pitches are the norm down under, rather than an exception
Yeah, frustratingly so for many seasons.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australian pitches have been flat even after Ponting (except last few seasons). How do you think Labuschagne averaged 70+ at home.. and now he is struggling. Flat pitches are the norm down under, rather than an exception
Maybe our bowlers need a comparative boost to their reputations
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Australian pitches have been flat even after Ponting (except last few seasons). How do you think Labuschagne averaged 70+ at home.. and now he is struggling. Flat pitches are the norm down under, rather than an exception
They were just flat for Ponting right??

Nothing to do with the majority of the decks switching to either drop ins or the 10 year drought
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Australian pitches have been flat even after Ponting (except last few seasons). How do you think Labuschagne averaged 70+ at home.. and now he is struggling. Flat pitches are the norm down under, rather than an exception
Don't necessarily disagree. And I think that needs to be taken into account. By any measure Ponting has one of the finest home records, but saying he didn't benefitted from the flat pitch era is also not right.
 

kyear2

International Coach
@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.
This, so very much this....

The only thing more valuable in cricket than having one of those batsmen at 3, is having a great attacking fast bowler.

If you have both, ummmmm.
 

kyear2

International Coach
Yeah, like Ponting gets the pass despite playing in the flattest of eras in the flattest of home conditions...
Think I've asked you this before, but why does everyone go after Punter, but Gilly gets a pass while batting in the same era, in the same team and 4 spots lower.
 

PlayerComparisons

International Vice-Captain
Think I've asked you this before, but why does everyone go after Punter, but Gilly gets a pass while batting in the same era, in the same team and 4 spots lower.
Both have inflated averages and would see their averages drop a bit if they played in a harder era. Ponting was an ATG bat though while Gilchrist was not even close to being one.
 

capt_Luffy

Cricketer Of The Year
Think I've asked you this before, but why does everyone go after Punter, but Gilly gets a pass while batting in the same era, in the same team and 4 spots lower.
Gilly bats at no 7. He gets the pass, or should I say why he's so valuable is because how much better a bat he is than the opposing team's keeper. Ponting is a pure no. 3, a team's leading batsman, an ATG just as a bat. Vastly different comparisons. Last I checked, Gilly was ranked 67 in my batsmen list, Ponting 22.
To put it bluntly, Gilly is competing with the likes of Knott, Ames, Watling, Waite and Dhoni; Ponting with Headley, Chappell, Sanga, Kallis, Dravid, etc.
 

Top