Waqar Younis vs James Anderson

[BazBall21]

Ponting v Smith was dead in the water after the 2019 Ashes. Ponting never had an equivalent tour of England or India to Smith's best in both lands, and Smith had just as remorseless a peak. An even more remorseless peak in fact you could probably argue.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

I don’t think anyone is saying Ponting was as good against movement as Smith or Tendulkar. He was still very good against it though.

 

[Johan]

Fuller Pilch said Ponting is arguably better.

and Nah, he was just decent against movement, not very good or great. Ponting is an ATG against Pace and Bounce, not Movement.

 

[Gob]

again, My case is entirely against movement and not against Pace in general, I quite literally admit he is one of the greatest ever against Bounce and Raw pace, I don't know what you don't get.

What's the point then bringing up 'past his best' Ponting's number's against some second tier quicks? All the great fast bowlers that he faced when he was actually good moved the ball as much as the set of bowlers you highlighted. Anyway here are the numbers of Ponting against all the best fast bowlers I can think of and most importantly, faced them before his decline

 

[PlayerComparisons]

What's the point then bringing up 'past his best' Ponting's number's against some second tier quicks? All the great fast bowlers that he faced when he was actually good moved the ball as much as the set of bowlers you highlighted. Anyway here are the numbers of Ponting against all the best fast bowlers I can think of and most importantly, faced them before his decline

View attachment 41975

Should have added Bond too

 

[capt_Luffy]

What's the point then bringing up 'past his best' Ponting's number's against some second tier quicks? All the great fast bowlers that he faced when he was actually good moved the ball as much as the set of bowlers you highlighted. Anyway here are the numbers of Ponting against all the best fast bowlers I can think of and most importantly, faced them before his decline

View attachment 41975

Let me just add the contexts that:

Post 1994, Waqar was mediocre, Wasim had diabetes.

Was Donald's last few years, was kinda bad. Post 2000s, when Ponting had his lion's share in SA, Pollock was a shadow of his 90s self and Ntini was their best bowler.

Ambrose wasn't there in 2001 and Walsh was way too old. The rest of the attack was diabolical.

 

[Johan]

What's the point then bringing up 'past his best' Ponting's number's against some second tier quicks? All the great fast bowlers that he faced when he was actually good moved the ball as much as the set of bowlers you highlighted. Anyway here are the numbers of Ponting against all the best fast bowlers I can think of and most importantly, faced them before his decline

View attachment 41975

I mean, this doesn't really work, because it's matches involving them and not head to head but hey, I'll play this game too, here you've his numbers against Ambrose and Walsh, batting at 5, his average and strike rate fall

 

[capt_Luffy]

Should have added Bond too

Bond took 3 wickets in 2 matches vs Australia in Tests, @96.

 

[Johan]

Let me just add the contexts that:

Post 1994, Waqar was mediocre, Wasim had diabetes.

Was Donald's last few years, was kinda bad. Post 2000s, when Ponting had his lion's share in SA, Pollock was a shadow of his 90s self and Ntini was their best bowler.

Ambrose wasn't there in 2001 and Walsh was way too old. The rest of the attack was diabolical.

also, most of his great record against Waqar comes from the 2002-2003 stuff in UAE, just months from Waqar's retirement, and Waqar still got him twice for 55 runs even tho Ponting averaged 85+ that season.

just an example of why "matches involving X bowlers" are not as good as head to head

anyway, should go back to Waqar and Jimmy now I think.

 

[Gob]

also, most of his great record against Waqar comes from the 2002-2003 stuff in UAE, just months from Waqar's retirement, and Waqar still got him twice for 55 runs even tho Ponting averaged 85+ that season.

just an example of why "matches involving X bowlers" are not as good as head to head

Well no I don't think it does since head to head averages do not reveal player's input for the game

I mean if a certain bowler is bowling we'll, a batsman can opt to see him out/try get to the other end and score of the rest

I mean imagine a hypothetical situation where Shoaib is bowling really well so Ponting decides to not to take risks against him, sees him off and takes on Danish Kaneria and goes on to score 120. He scores 20 off Shoaib and Shoaib eventually gets him out so his head to head against Shoaib will be 20 but made a match winning ton against Pakistan. This was pretty much the case in that UAE series from memory although it must have been Saqlain not Danish

My point being that head to head can be misleading. Runs in a match involving a player can be misleading too but its a better indicator of how a certain batter succeeded against a a certain bowler as the primary objective of the batsman to score runs for the team. Not against the bowler x

 

[Johan]

Well no I don't think it does since head to head averages do not reveal player's input for the game

I mean if a certain bowler is bowling we'll, a batsman can opt to see him out/try get to the other end and score of the rest

I mean imagine a hypothetical situation where Shoaib is bowling really well so Ponting decides to not to take risks against him, sees him off and takes on Danish Kaneria and goes on to score 120. He scores 20 off Shoaib and Shoaib eventually gets him out so his head to head against Shoaib will be 20 but made a match winning ton against Pakistan. This was pretty much the case in that UAE series from memory although it must have been Saqlain not Danish

My point being that head to head can be misleading. Runs in a match involving a player can be misleading to but its a better indicator of how a certain batter succeeded against a a certain bowler as the primary objective of the batsman to score runs for the team. Not against the bowler x

I mean if he sees him off and blocks against him he doesn't get out against him, and if he doesn't get out against him I don't make a case against him, I don't see how this correlates with the fact that so many pacers have been able to get the upper hand on Ponting, that coupled with him struggling in England all his career, I don't know why you're trying to deny that he has trouble against seam and swing, his legend is built upon being one of the greatest players of raw pace and bounce, not against movement by a pacer.

like if he blocks out Shoaib than he makes run against him at a slow SR but doesn't get out, if he tries to block out and gets out in your scenario, that's a problem.

 

[Gob]

I mean if he sees him off and blocks against him he doesn't get out against him, and if he doesn't get out against him I don't make a case against him, I don't see how this correlates with the fact that so many pacers have been able to get the upper hand on Ponting, that coupled with him struggling in England all his career, I don't know why you're trying to deny that he has trouble against seam and swing, his legend is built upon being one of the greatest players of raw pace and bounce, not against movement by a pacer.

like if he blocks out Shoaib than he makes run against him at a slow SR but doesn't get out, if he tries to block out and gets out in your scenario, that's a problem.

Well he does get out against him but after making a century, winning his team the game and doing his primary job that he was set out to, which is scoring a counter attacking hundred at number 3 against an attack featuring Shoaib Akthar. Not scoring much against Shoaib himself does not make it any less valuable

I'm not talking about Ponting's batting against the moving ball here. I'm pointing out the flaw in your head to head run argument because it's very common for most batters to see of a good spell of a good bowler so he can cash on the rest. What ultimately matters is how many runs you made against the attack that featured bowler X not how many you scored against X

 

[Johan]

Well he does get out against him but after making a century, winning his team the game and doing his primary job that he was set out to, which is scoring a counter attacking hundred at number 3 against an attack featuring Shoaib Akthar. Not scoring much against Shoaib himself does not make it any less valuable

I'm not talking about Ponting's batting against the moving ball here. I'm pointing out the flaw in your head to head run argument because it's very common for most batters to see of a good spell of a good bowler so he can cash on the rest. What ultimately matters is how many runs you made against the attack that featured bowler X not how many you scored against X

I'm completely fine witn the presentation you did of him, but the problem is if he gets out to Shoaib earlier than his hundred, in your scenario he scored a hundred inspite of Shoaib Akhtar but it's not really a display of his excellence against pace bowling, it's more a display of his excellence against other bowlers but it's not really something that can be used as a feat of Pace bowling

that's fine, I don't think Ponting's head to head struggles are what makes him a not so great player of movement, it's the fact so many pacers, good and decent, have found success against him, that is what makes him suspect to quality seam and swing bowling in my eyes, I never said he's a bad Batsmen against all kind of bowling, just that he is vulnerable to one kind.

 

[Gob]

I'm completely fine witn the presentation you did of him, but the problem is if he gets out to Shoaib earlier than his hundred, in your scenario he scored a hundred inspite of Shoaib Akhtar but it's not really a display of his excellence against pace bowling, it's more a display of his excellence against other bowlers but it's not really something that can be used as a feat of Pace bowling

that's fine, I don't think Ponting's head to head struggles are what makes him a not so great player of movement, it's the fact so many pacers, good and decent, have found success against him, that is what makes him suspect to quality seam and swing bowling in my eyes, I never said he's a bad Batsmen against all kind of bowling, just that he is vulnerable to one kind.

Mate, surviving a great spell from a great fast bowlers is as impressive feet as any in Test batsmanship. What if you are trying to save a game and blocking out? wait I better hit out and make some runs against Bumrah or that dude on cricketweb.net would diminish my batting skills against quality pace. Yeah not very good

As per my take on Ponting, we'll he had his struggles against moving ball from time to time but it did not really stood out for me because he found ways to score runs. I'd probably say he was not any worse than Lara but that's my take. There are guys like Dravid who was really good against swing and then there were guys like Sehwag who was at the opposite end of the spectrum by being really bad. Ponting is somewhere in the middle

 

[Johan]

Mate, surviving a great spell from a great fast bowlers is as impressive feet as any in Test batsmanship. What if you are trying to save a game and blocking out? wait I better hit out and make some runs against Bumrah or that dude on cricketweb.net would diminish my batting skills against quality pace. Yeah not very good

As per my take on Ponting, we'll he had his struggles against moving ball from time to time but it did not really stood out for me because he found ways to score runs. I'd probably say he was not any worse than Lara but that's my take. There are guys like Dravid who was really good against swing and then there were guys like Sehwag who was at the opposite end of the spectrum by being really bad. Ponting is somewhere in the middle

Yeah, but it's only impressive if you survive, if you don't survive and get out then even at your most defensive the bowler managed to penetrate your defenses, thus you weren't really impressive against him, if there was a great pacer that Ponting survived many balls against without getting out then I'd count that as a feat, but most of the time they got him, and that's my point, he isn't bad at batting but to a good seamer he will be vulnerable.

Yeah, there's a vulnerability there if a team has good seamers and for what you said, you'd agree with me, and this is clearly showed by the sheer volume of number of seamers he struggled with constantly, I'll say he was a decent player of seam and swing who could play some great knocks but also was very inconsistent in his performance against it, and thus when compared to guys like Waugh he has an extra vulnerability to him other than the obvious spin one that in my eyes, is a point for players who were strong against movement.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Rating Waugh above Ponting isn’t ridiculous. I think they’re around the same level.

 

[Johan]

think this is what seprates tier 2 ATGs from tier 1s

Ponting is amazing against Raw pace and Bounce but flawed against any form of movement

Root is amazing against Swing/seam and Spin but flawed against Bounce

Dravid is amazing against swing and can handle spin but flawed against Bounce

Kallis is amazing against bounce and can handle spin but flawed against swing.

while guys like Lara/Tendulkar/Viv don't have a glaring weakness.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

think this is what seprates tier 2 ATGs from tier 1s

Ponting is amazing against Raw pace and Bounce but flawed against any form of movement

Root is amazing against Swing/seam and Spin but flawed against Bounce

Dravid is amazing against swing and can handle spin but flawed against Bounce

Kallis is amazing against bounce and can handle spin but flawed against swing.

while guys like Lara/Tendulkar/Viv don't have a glaring weakness.

Idk what your point in this thread is. Ponting is rated around Sangakkara and Kallis level. Most people don’t rate him around Tendulkar/Lara level.

 

[Johan]

Idk what your point in this thread is. Ponting is rated around Sangakkara and Kallis level. Most people don’t rate him around Tendulkar/Lara level.

that man isn't better than Waugh

 

[Gob]

Yeah, but it's only impressive if you survive, if you don't survive and get out then even at your most defensive the bowler managed to penetrate your defenses, thus you weren't really impressive against him, if there was a great pacer that Ponting survived many balls against without getting out then I'd count that as a feat, but most of the time they got him, and that's my point, he isn't bad at batting but to a good seamer he will be vulnerable.

Yeah, there's a vulnerability there if a team has good seamers and for what you said, you'd agree with me, and this is clearly showed by the sheer volume of number of seamers he struggled with constantly, I'll say he was a decent player of seam and swing who could play some great knocks but also was very inconsistent in his performance against it, and thus when compared to guys like Waugh he has an extra vulnerability to him other than the obvious spin one that in my eyes, is a point for players who were strong against movement.

After making a hundred.

I don't know how else to put this. We are talking about two separate points here. One is Ponting's batting against the moving ball and the other is your flawed head to head logic.

If you score a century against an attack featuring a great bowler and if thet bowler did not hop off after few overs due to an injury and bowled at his best, that century should be a testimony to how the batsman over came the challenge of facing that bowler. Nit picking in to how many runs you made against that bowler doesn't make it any less valuable for me.

And making a century at any level is a success so it doesn't really matter if you fell to the great bowler or not since you have already done your job