Andrew Strauss - Not a bad start, chap.

[tooextracool]

No single figure scores in most recent series v SL - simply didnt convert the starts into centuries as he had done for the previous 3 years. It happens.

which proves that he was in good form during that series, and still couldnt convert his starts into big scores.

To say that he failed in the context of the series is incorrect and another example of why you should spend more time watching cricket rather than analysing stats.

doubt it, i've watched enough of ponting to realise that he isnt really all that good against spin.

 

[tooextracool]

My point is, based upon statistical measures alone, Ricky Ponting is as good as anyone player to have played the game bar Bradman. Therefore, should you exclude Ponting from consideration to an all-time list then, by implication, so must everyone else be..

to put ponting anywhere near the class of sobers, pollock and the like is quite frankly a joke.

We are, however, dealing with the relatively rare situation of a top-class player that has failed miserably in one particular country (IMO, it is not accurate to suggest one set of conditions because that very same player has succeded in Sri Lanka against arguably a better bowler and has also scored 2 double centuries against the Indian bowlers in conditions favourably enough disposed towards spin that Kumble secured 24 wickets in just 3 tests). It is obviously a blot on his career that needs to be rectified..

BRILLIANT. well done in completely ignoring the fact that the only turner in that entire series in australia came at sydney, the same place where ponting failed despite his brilliant form in the first 3 tests. and yes hes had 1 good series against SL in his entire career, well done to him for failing in the every one of the others that hes played in SL and india.

To say that he cant is nonsense.

which no one has ever said. to say that he will is even more nonsense given his prior record in india.

Equally, to say that it will have a huge impact on his overall standing in the game come retirement is just as farcical.

so how many greats have averaged 12 runs in a country after a sufficient amount of tests then?

 

[social]

to put ponting anywhere near the class of sobers, pollock and the like is quite frankly a joke.

I said "statistically", which apparently is the extent of your cricket knowledge.



BRILLIANT. well done in completely ignoring the fact that the only turner in that entire series in australia came at sydney, the same place where ponting failed despite his brilliant form in the first 3 tests. and yes hes had 1 good series against SL in his entire career, well done to him for failing in the every one of the others that hes played in SL and india.

Now to the crux of the matter, you obviously are completely unaware of the conditions under which the Indian series was played. Adelaide and Melbourne, if anything, favoured the spinners. Sydney, on the other hand, was roundly criticised for being one of the worst wickets ever produced in Australia as it favoured only the batsmen.




which no one has ever said. to say that he will is even more nonsense given his prior record in india.



so how many greats have averaged 12 runs in a country after a sufficient amount of tests then?

Probably very few. But then again, very few have a record equal to his either.

As I've said before, you need to turn off the lap-top and watch more - the game really is more entetaining that way.

 

[tooextracool]

I said "statistically", which apparently is the extent of your cricket knowledge.

look at it in anyway you want to. sobers and pollock averaged about 5 runs more than ponting against better bowlers on pitches that helped the bowlers far more than they do now.
and certainly accusing me of only being statistically involved is the biggest joke ive ever heard. certainly no one who says that tendulkar and hayden are overrated FTBs, tresco is mediocre, rates jones and key, and thinks that pollock is average on non seamer friendly wickets can possibly rely solely on stats.

Now to the crux of the matter, you obviously are completely unaware of the conditions under which the Indian series was played. Adelaide and Melbourne, if anything, favoured the spinners. Sydney, on the other hand, was roundly criticised for being one of the worst wickets ever produced in Australia as it favoured only the batsmen.

sydney didnt favor spin???!!!! please go ahead and explain to me how kumble managed to get 12 wickets in that game then. and you accuse me of not watching!
and of course neither of adelaide or the MCG assisted the spinners as is clearly obvious to those who watched the game and the figures obtained by the spin bowlers.

Probably very few. But then again, very few have a record equal to his either.

except that several have a similar average, by playing better bowling,on pitches that assisted the bowlers a lot more and scored in every country. lets hear you name me those few all time greats with a record as abysmal as pontings is in any country after a significant amount of tests.

As I've said before, you need to turn off the lap-top and watch more - the game really is more entetaining that way.

im afraid you need to watch more cricket, ive seen far more cricket than you will ever dream off.

 

[social]

look at it in anyway you want to. sobers

I lived and trained with the guy for 12 months so probably know as much as I need to about his talent

and pollock

likely to have proven himself an all-time-great but with so few tests who can say that definitively

averaged about 5 runs more than ponting against better bowlers on pitches that helped the bowlers far more than they do now

really. who?

and certainly accusing me of only being statistically involved is the biggest joke ive ever heard. certainly no one who says that tendulkar

destroyed all credibility there

and hayden

until proven otherwise, a great player

are overrated FTBs,

tresco is mediocre

technically wise, agreed, but let's stick with performances

rates jone

hope yo're not referring to the England wicket-keeper

and key

agreed - good player,

and thinks that pollock is average on non seamer friendly wickets

get real!

can possibly rely solely on stats.






sydney didnt favor spin???!!!! please go ahead and explain to me how kumble managed to get 12 wickets in that game then. and you accuse me of not watching!

only bowler capable of getting wickets and got most through process of elimination!

and of course neither of adelaide or the MCG assisted the spinners as is clearly obvious to those who watched the game and the figures obtained by the spin bowlers.

Would it hurt you so much to say that Ponting is a very fine player, albeit vulnerable early in his innings, who ranks, according to almost everyone, with the best in the game!

except that several have a similar average, by playing better bowling,on pitches that assisted the bowlers a lot more and scored in every country. lets hear you name me those few all time greats with a record as abysmal as pontings is in any country after a significant amount of tests.

Blah, blah, blah! All of today's cricketers are crap beacause I have my copy of Wisdens from 1912

Lillee did not prove himself on the sub-continent.

Richards was ordinary in New Zealand.

Bothan was exposed vs WI.

Ive heard it all before!

im afraid you need to watch more cricket, ive seen far more cricket than you will ever dream off.

If that is the case, which I doubt, then I suggest that the next time you watch cricket that you have someone there to explain it for you.

 

[marc71178]

My point is, based upon statistical measures alone, Ricky Ponting is as good as anyone player to have played the game bar Bradman.

There's a fair few ahead him on mere statistics.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

err what? hes had one, he failed in the most recent series.

Not really, at least not against the spinners. You will notice that he made one good score (92), and got a few starts (4 scores in the 20s). It certainly wasn't a *great* series, but an average of 33 with one good innings and some starts on turning pitches against quality spin bowling is not a failure for someone who supposedly struggles against spin. You will also notice that in 6 dismissals in the series Murali did not get him once, despite taking around half of Sri Lanka's wickets across the three tests. Vass got him three times, Chandana once and Herath once, indicating that he played Murali pretty well under the circumstances. He also handled Kumble in top form quite well during the Indian tour in 2003/04, as social pointed out. Sydney was as flat a batting deck as you will ever see anywhere and was widely criticised for it, and he failed there. Melbourne didn't have a lot in it for the spinners, but Adelaide did and he was brilliant there.

Ponting is a long way from the world's greatest player of spin bowling, but he is not hopeless against it and to suggest that someone with Ponting's wonderful record is not a great because he had a bad run in one country is ludicrous.

 

[social]

Ponting is a long way from the world's greatest player of spin bowling, but he is not hopeless against it and to suggest that someone with Ponting's wonderful record is not a great because he had a bad run in one country is ludicrous.

Hallelujah!

A balanced opinion!

 

[social]

There's a fair few ahead him on mere statistics.

Give me a break!

So person A averages 57 whilst Ponting averages 55.

If we're getting to this level, could you please provide me with the percentage of test matches that have been decided by 5 or less runs?

People can justifiably argue that Mark Waugh was a great player despite the fact that he averaged little above 40. Where does that fit into the staticians' equation?

 

[marc71178]

Mark Waugh a great?

Not all time.

Ponting does average less than a fair few players at a time when the nature of wickets and quality of bowling etc make batting easier than it has been for a long time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting does average less than a fair few players at a time when the nature of wickets and quality of bowling etc make batting easier than it has been for a long time.

In terms of current players he's third with 55.48, and the names in front of him (Dravid at 57.52 and Tendukar at 57.44) are players who are also likely to fall into the "all time great" category.

All time he's 15th, and aside from perhaps Paynter all the older players ahead of him are most definately recognised as greats who would have a fair shot at the all time XI for their country.

 

[social]

Mark Waugh a great?

Not all time.

Mark Waugh would not make an all-time X1.

But he is universally recognised as one of the most talented and attractive players of the modern era. He is also responsible for many more victories than most players who rank above him statistically. His major problem was that he gave his wicket away on numerous occasions when the challenge was not as great, hence the lower than expected average.

I mean, who would you rather have, Mark Waugh or Geoff Boycott? (Boycott averaged nearly 50, is regarded as an all-time great, but contributed very little to his team's overall preformance).

Ponting does average less than a fair few players at a time when the nature of wickets and quality of bowling etc make batting easier than it has been for a long time.

I'm sorry, but by quoting statistics alone as the definition of a players' quality, you're sounding ignorant. By this definition alone, Steve Waugh and Brian Lara rank behind Ponting and are therefore hardly worthy of the term "all-time great."

And who says it's so easy to score runs. McGrath, Warne, Murali, Vaas, Kumble and Pollock would all enter into serious considerations for their respective countries' "All-Time x1s."

The big difference is that so much cricket is played nowadays that a batsman can carry good form into a number of series not just tests.[/QUOTE]

 

[twctopcat]

(Boycott averaged nearly 50, is regarded as an all-time great, but contributed very little to his team's overall preformance).[/B]

That's not true, when Boycott stayed at the crease and scored, more often than not england avoided defeat. I'd say that was beneficial to the team.

 

[sledger]

That's not true, when Boycott stayed at the crease and scored, more often than not england avoided defeat. I'd say that was beneficial to the team.

agreed, however not sure if i would class boycott as an all time great, maybe an all time english great or decent player?

 

[twctopcat]

agreed, however not sure if i would class boycott as an all time great, maybe an all time english great or decent player?

Toughie really. His FC record is phenomenal 150 centuries or something but i would put him just behind the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton. However if it wasn't for the 3 years away from test cricket, he may well be up there with Sunil Gavaskar as one of the greatest test openers of the modern era.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Toughie really. His FC record is phenomenal 150 centuries or something but i would put him just behind the likes of Hobbs, Hammond, Hutton and Compton. However if it wasn't for the 3 years away from test cricket, he may well be up there with Sunil Gavaskar as one of the greatest test openers of the modern era.

That's true, but you also have to consider that Sir Geoff probably played past his peak. He was in his 42nd year when he knocked it on the head, test wise.

If he'd have retired at the end of 1977, say (at the age of 37) his career average would've been over 50.

 

[twctopcat]

That's true, but you also have to consider that Sir Geoff probably played past his peak. He was in his 42nd year when he knocked it on the head, test wise.

If he'd have retired at the end of 1977, say (at the age of 37) his career average would've been over 50.

But the 30 tests he missed were in his prime. If he would have played these and retired when you said he perhaps should have, who knows what he could have done.

 

[social]

But the 30 tests he missed were in his prime. If he would have played these and retired when you said he perhaps should have, who knows what he could have done.

But what was his real value to the teams in which he played?

I would contend that Mark Waugh is a more valuable test player than Boycott even whilst averaging 10 runs per innings less and a perfect example of why the appraisal of players from purely a statistical standpoint will never reveal the whole story.

As an aside, a member of this forum has the sig "Eastern Suburbs Cricket Club." During one of his self-imposed exiles from Test Cricket, Boycott played for Waverley CC (now Eastern Suburbs CC) and broke the record for the no. of runs scored in a Sydney Grade season.

Do you think Waverley had a very successful season?

Answer: No, took them too long to score their runs

 

[Scaly piscine]

I would contend that Mark Waugh is a more valuable test player than Boycott even whilst averaging 10 runs per innings less and a perfect example of why the appraisal of players from purely a statistical standpoint will never reveal the whole story.

Not in a million years. Scoring slowly can be a benefit and a disadvantage - any overall disadvantage you might perceive is never worth over 10 runs, and that's without looking the pitches they played on and the teams they played against.

 

[social]

Not in a million years. Scoring slowly can be a benefit and a disadvantage - any overall disadvantage you might perceive is never worth over 10 runs, and that's without looking the pitches they played on and the teams they played against.

Rather than debate the issue between ourselves, I think it would be more interesting to obtain quotes from those of Boycott's era (i.e. his own team-mates) - let's just say that he is not universally admired let alone liked.

And it is an indisputable fact that Boycott's attitude cost his side more than one chance of victory whilst he was in the team. Mark Waugh, on the other hand, was a proven match-winner.