Choose three batsmen for the Post Packer XI middle order

[honestbharani]

How so? They faced the same bowlers for most of their career. In the 90s Lara's away record was even worse than what it was overall.

Or when you talk about having a feeling about Tendulkar against the best...that was quantifiable and shown here that he was the inferior of the 3.

I am at work right now, can't get into details here.. Maybe some other day, but I can tell you this.. When you have watched enough cricket (giving enough exception for the unmistakable bias that will be there in the judgement of anyone) you simply know who is a better batsman.. Stats are affected by so many things that it is hard to just argue why someone is better simply based on stats.. The simplest example is the fact that Ponting invariably came in after a healthy start... Following up at 10/2 is a lot different to following up on 100-1 in 20 overs.. Then there are the unquantifiable things like how Lara HAD to play the bowlers at their best. They were a one man team for most of the time in his career as far as batting is concerned (Chanderpaul was always good but never more than that during Lara's career) and it is just so hard to explain how the captains saved up their best bowlers for a fling at Lara...

The thing is, there is a reason why he is rated as highly as he is in the cricketing circuit. You point to the evidence of what people say about Warne to rate him as the best spinner (in fact, you rate him the best bowler, I think) in the world... Luminaries such as Ian Chappell, Sanjay Manjrekar, Tony Greig, Ravi Shastri and John Wright and even Michael Holding and Ian Botham think Sachin and Lara are a cut above Ponting.. Cricket is not just about the numbers...

 

[0RI0N]

I am at work right now, can't get into details here.. Maybe some other day, but I can tell you this.. When you have watched enough cricket (giving enough exception for the unmistakable bias that will be there in the judgement of anyone) you simply know who is a better batsman.. Stats are affected by so many things that it is hard to just argue why someone is better simply based on stats.. The simplest example is the fact that Ponting invariably came in after a healthy start... Following up at 10/2 is a lot different to following up on 100-1 in 20 overs.. Then there are the unquantifiable things like how Lara HAD to play the bowlers at their best. They were a one man team for most of the time in his career as far as batting is concerned (Chanderpaul was always good but never more than that during Lara's career) and it is just so hard to explain how the captains saved up their best bowlers for a fling at Lara...

The thing is, there is a reason why he is rated as highly as he is in the cricketing circuit. You point to the evidence of what people say about Warne to rate him as the best spinner (in fact, you rate him the best bowler, I think) in the world... Luminaries such as Ian Chappell, Sanjay Manjrekar, Tony Greig, Ravi Shastri and John Wright and even Michael Holding and Ian Botham think Sachin and Lara are a cut above Ponting.. Cricket is not just about the numbers...

they are...how else would we know how great a batsman bradman was.cricket is not just about numbers?WTF?
How do teams know they won if cricket not bout numbers.ignorant post by you.

 

[Ikki]

I am at work right now, can't get into details here.. Maybe some other day, but I can tell you this.. When you have watched enough cricket (giving enough exception for the unmistakable bias that will be there in the judgement of anyone) you simply know who is a better batsman.. Stats are affected by so many things that it is hard to just argue why someone is better simply based on stats.. The simplest example is the fact that Ponting invariably came in after a healthy start... Following up at 10/2 is a lot different to following up on 100-1 in 20 overs.. Then there are the unquantifiable things like how Lara HAD to play the bowlers at their best. They were a one man team for most of the time in his career as far as batting is concerned (Chanderpaul was always good but never more than that during Lara's career) and it is just so hard to explain how the captains saved up their best bowlers for a fling at Lara...

The thing is, there is a reason why he is rated as highly as he is in the cricketing circuit. You point to the evidence of what people say about Warne to rate him as the best spinner (in fact, you rate him the best bowler, I think) in the world... Luminaries such as Ian Chappell, Sanjay Manjrekar, Tony Greig, Ravi Shastri and John Wright and even Michael Holding and Ian Botham think Sachin and Lara are a cut above Ponting.. Cricket is not just about the numbers...

I grew up with Cricket in the 90s and if anything I've seen more of Tendulkar and Lara bat than I have Ponting. I like the aesthetics of each batsman and they are different. Tendulkar plays text-book shots, Lara is full of flair, and Ponting is just too skillful at making runs. I never got the feeling with Lara or Tendulkar the way I did with Ponting in that with Ricky scoring centuries is almost expected. He makes it look too easy - not in the sense that his technique is perfect - but in the sense that his game is on another level.

The thing with Tendulkar is that because he was so young and so good he caught a lot of attention and a lot of praise. Lara became his rival and a sort of Agassi vs Sampras or Nadal vs. Federer rivalry came to be. But Ricky himself was surrounded by massive talent, he just kept plugging away the runs with little notice. That's why Ponting does not get the same amount of praise or does not share the same amount of infamy. But where it counts, where the record is kept, he is a step above even Lara and Tendulkar. For his scoring in all conditions, in all moments of the game, against the best and the worst, home and away and at such a high rate he stands alone. There is not a modern batsman that shares his success across the board against so many opponents. If his record in India rises to 40 by the end of his career, you may as well call him Bradman Jr.

There are things that stats don't measure, and you brought one up which I think is important. Lara did have to bat alone for a good portion of his career and didn't have the cover Ponting or Sachin did. Sachin did, however, have a good portion with either Sehwag, opener x, and Dravid coming in before him, so I don't give that difference much credence. Lara is quite amazing, I rate him just above Sachin personally. He was great against the best, and in actual fact scores more per inning than the others - it's just that his lack of not outs drag his average down. But he is a tad inconsistent and does not have the complete record Ponting does so far that I mark him down. But it's also not like Ponting came out always for 100/1, he has his own proof to show his mettle. Of course, on the whole he had it a bit easier to settle in after the openers helped wear the bowlers/ball down. As aforesaid, I give this credence I'm just not sure how to quantify it to make the difference between Lara and the others. For example, Border had a similar situation, is he better than Viv then? I don't think so.

 

[stephen]

I am at work right now, can't get into details here.. Maybe some other day, but I can tell you this.. When you have watched enough cricket (giving enough exception for the unmistakable bias that will be there in the judgement of anyone) you simply know who is a better batsman.. Stats are affected by so many things that it is hard to just argue why someone is better simply based on stats.. The simplest example is the fact that Ponting invariably came in after a healthy start... Following up at 10/2 is a lot different to following up on 100-1 in 20 overs.. Then there are the unquantifiable things like how Lara HAD to play the bowlers at their best. They were a one man team for most of the time in his career as far as batting is concerned (Chanderpaul was always good but never more than that during Lara's career) and it is just so hard to explain how the captains saved up their best bowlers for a fling at Lara...

The thing is, there is a reason why he is rated as highly as he is in the cricketing circuit. You point to the evidence of what people say about Warne to rate him as the best spinner (in fact, you rate him the best bowler, I think) in the world... Luminaries such as Ian Chappell, Sanjay Manjrekar, Tony Greig, Ravi Shastri and John Wright and even Michael Holding and Ian Botham think Sachin and Lara are a cut above Ponting.. Cricket is not just about the numbers...

You are right, cricket isn't just about the numbers.

Lara had flair, style and knew how to score big.

However, I don't think that you can seriously suggest that Ponting was worse than Lara. They had different strengths and weaknesses, but both scored massive piles of runs over a long period of time. Ponting at a higher average than Lara, but that is possibly made up by having a stronger team around him. Yet Ponting still has a few years left in him and doesn't look like slowing down. I really think that the BIG 3 of this era - Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting are almost completely inseperable in their acheivements. As I have said before, I would have all three in my side:

Hayden
Gavaskar
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Imran (c)
Gilchrist
Warne
Marshall
McGrath
Murali

12th: Rhodes

 

[Evermind]

i will leave it to the 36 other guys who chose sachin ahead of ricky...

They went with Sachin over Ponting because Sachin is more likeable. I have no issue with that. However, purely according to stats, Ponting craps over everyone else above him. I wish people would stop being so disingenuous and just admit that they went with personal preference over starts.

And this is coming from someone who can't stand the sight of Ponting.

 

[bagapath]

They went with Sachin over Ponting because Sachin is more likeable.

how do you know this? did they tell you?

 

[bagapath]

But they won't get into it, maybe out of fear of having to explain themselves...who knows. You seem willing, so why not? Wow me.

my guess is they don't care to because the poll is going in their favor anyway. you should probably try to wow them, and hopefully that might influence the few who haven't voted yet.

 

[Ikki]

my guess is they don't care to because the poll is going in their favor anyway. you should probably try to wow them, and hopefully that might influence the few who haven't voted yet.

I try, I can only do my part and argue against the reasons people think Sachin is better and present a logical case against him.

 

[bagapath]

sachin 57 votes. ponting 20 votes. very similar to sachin's avg in australia and ponting's avg in india.

 

[honestbharani]

they are...how else would we know how great a batsman bradman was.cricket is not just about numbers?WTF?
How do teams know they won if cricket not bout numbers.ignorant post by you.

I said it is not JUST about numbers.. Numbers are importan and so are stats but there is something even more important.. It is perspective. You need to understand the how and why of those numbers than just the what...

I grew up with Cricket in the 90s and if anything I've seen more of Tendulkar and Lara bat than I have Ponting. I like the aesthetics of each batsman and they are different. Tendulkar plays text-book shots, Lara is full of flair, and Ponting is just too skillful at making runs. I never got the feeling with Lara or Tendulkar the way I did with Ponting in that with Ricky scoring centuries is almost expected. He makes it look too easy - not in the sense that his technique is perfect - but in the sense that his game is on another level.

The thing with Tendulkar is that because he was so young and so good he caught a lot of attention and a lot of praise. Lara became his rival and a sort of Agassi vs Sampras or Nadal vs. Federer rivalry came to be. But Ricky himself was surrounded by massive talent, he just kept plugging away the runs with little notice. That's why Ponting does not get the same amount of praise or does not share the same amount of infamy. But where it counts, where the record is kept, he is a step above even Lara and Tendulkar. For his scoring in all conditions, in all moments of the game, against the best and the worst, home and away and at such a high rate he stands alone. There is not a modern batsman that shares his success across the board against so many opponents. If his record in India rises to 40 by the end of his career, you may as well call him Bradman Jr.

There are things that stats don't measure, and you brought one up which I think is important. Lara did have to bat alone for a good portion of his career and didn't have the cover Ponting or Sachin did. Sachin did, however, have a good portion with either Sehwag, opener x, and Dravid coming in before him, so I don't give that difference much credence. Lara is quite amazing, I rate him just above Sachin personally. He was great against the best, and in actual fact scores more per inning than the others - it's just that his lack of not outs drag his average down. But he is a tad inconsistent and does not have the complete record Ponting does so far that I mark him down. But it's also not like Ponting came out always for 100/1, he has his own proof to show his mettle. Of course, on the whole he had it a bit easier to settle in after the openers helped wear the bowlers/ball down. As aforesaid, I give this credence I'm just not sure how to quantify it to make the difference between Lara and the others. For example, Border had a similar situation, is he better than Viv then? I don't think so.

I don't really have much against your arguments and I don't think I ever said Sachin and Lara were too far ahead of Ponting. And if I did or gave the impression I did, I apologize. What I have meant all along was that while Ponting is great, I consider Lara and Sachin just that bit better. There are a million reasons why and I just brought up one of them in my last post. And yes, FTR, I do think what Border did in terms of scoring runs in tough situations is better than what Viv did. But then again, that is not the sole reason for rankings. And honestly, I don't really like to rate players I have not seen, except maybe obvious ones like say a Richards > Haynes type... Ponting came in with better starts a lot lot more often than a Lara or Sachin did. Sachin at least had great middle order batters to back him up.. He had great support at home all through his career and away from home, he had a very solid Dravid (he was Chanderpaul's equal from 98 - 2001 and better since then) and he had a reasonable Laxman and Sehwag from around 2001 or 2002.


The thing is, I have seen them bat and I will have Lara a 9/10 and Sachin a 8.75/10 and Ponting a 8.5/10... I know Lara is more inconsistent when compared to the other two but for me, there were periods in his career when things were not going well. And the fact that he is good enough to do as well as he does means I dont mind him hitting the odd big trough.. Esp. with the quality of the other batsmen in this post Packer XI.. And just generally as batsmen, I rate Lara the best I have seen, Sachin a very close second and Ponting a very close third.

You are right, cricket isn't just about the numbers.

Lara had flair, style and knew how to score big.

However, I don't think that you can seriously suggest that Ponting was worse than Lara. They had different strengths and weaknesses, but both scored massive piles of runs over a long period of time. Ponting at a higher average than Lara, but that is possibly made up by having a stronger team around him. Yet Ponting still has a few years left in him and doesn't look like slowing down. I really think that the BIG 3 of this era - Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting are almost completely inseperable in their acheivements. As I have said before, I would have all three in my side:

Hayden
Gavaskar
Ponting
Lara
Tendulkar
Imran (c)
Gilchrist
Warne
Marshall
McGrath
Murali

12th: Rhodes

I kinda agree but I think (and you can call it my rating or personal preference) Lara was ever so slightly better than the other two and Sachin ever so slightly better than Ponting.



Of course, all this changes quite a lot in ODIs where I would put Sachin at 9.5/10 and Ponting a 9/10 and Lara a 8/10. So when rating them over all in both forms of the game, it will become Sachin, Ponting and Lara for me...


But for test cricket, I do think Lara to be slightly better than Sachin and Sachin to be slightly better than Ponting.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Stats/numbers are an important part of cricket as an historical record. However we're not talking about the sales of your favourite flavour of Heinz Soup. Unless people understand how to look at the stats within the context of the game of cricket it's just pointless. Blindly quoting figures without knowing the circumstance in which they were arrived at proves nothing. Anyone reading most the arguments in favour of Ponting and belittling Sobers would seriously be left wondering if the author had ever watched a game of cricket.

 

[Uppercut]

sachin's record in SA is no way comparable to ponting's in India. in fact it is not very different from Ponting's in England. please check it before you start pulling sachin's SA record down. if sachin's SA record is poor by his standards, so is ponting's in england. and sachin is not that horrible anywhere as ponting is in india.

When are you guys going to wake up and smell the coffee? Ponting is not THAT great yet. Dont be shocked when he is not put on the same pedestal as lara and sachin. I understand he is the only one left of the great australian team of the past decade. but, hey, the rest of the world accepted gilly and warne as the best ever and mcgrath among the very best of all time. be ahppy about it. but that doesnt mean hayden and ponting can also sneak into all-time XIs very easily.

Point missed- records in certain countries etc. are largely irrelevant. Everyone's scores are divided into eight groups, and sometimes one group will have a larger proportion of poor scores than others. When comparing two batsmen, sometimes one batsman will have a group that is very low while another won't. It's just a little thing that happens with statistics- normal distribution and all that jazz.

A lot of your bad scores falling into one particular group doesn't make you a worse player than your bad scores being evenly distributed across the board. Therefore, over-dissection of careers like Ponting's and Tendulkar's proves very little. I'd say that Ponting had problems with a particular bowler- Harbhajan- but can play spin on subcontinent pitches very well in fact, as shown by his handling of Murali.

Anyway, the whole Ponting vs. Tendulkar debate has distracted from the fact that Jacques Kallis contributes far, far more to a team than either, and would be in my side over them both every single time.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anyway, the whole Ponting vs. Tendulkar debate has distracted from the fact that Jacques Kallis contributes far, far more to a team than either, and would be in my side over them both every single time.

Not really. He's an inferior batsman who within the context of the team being selected isn't likely to be required to bowl.

 

[Uppercut]

Not really. He's an inferior batsman who within the context of the team being selected isn't likely to be required to bowl.

Fair point about the bowling, but I still don't think the difference in their batting is enough to justify picking anyone else over him.

 

[Matt79]

Lol at the toys being thrown out of cot re: Ponting only getting 21 votes while Greg Chappell only get 18 votes having faced probably the best bowling attacks of the period in question for a stinking average that's better than all save Ponting's...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Lol at the toys being thrown out of cot re: Ponting only getting 21 votes while Greg Chappell only get 18 votes having faced probably the best bowling attacks of the period in question for a stinking average that's better than all save Ponting's...

Chappell should be more of a candidate for the Pre-Packer XI having played for only 5 years after and only 36 of his 87 Tests.

 

[Matt79]

36/87 is 40-something percent. It's not like he just scraped in.


Getting deja vu from earlier in the thread.

But yeah, he'd be a good candidate for a pre-Packer team as well, except that there is a lot more competition for that, with Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Pollock, Headley, etc.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

36/87 is 40-something percent. It's not like he just scraped in.


Getting deja vu from earlier in the thread.

But yeah, he'd be a good candidate for a pre-Packer team as well, except that there is a lot more competition for that, with Bradman, Hammond, Sobers, Pollock, Headley, etc.

No matter what the percentage it's still a fairly small number of matches. If that was his entire career it's unlikely he'd be considered ahead of Lara, Tendulkar, Richards or Ponting and this is the only period he's being judged on for the purpose of this team.

 

[Matt79]

I'd always take Chappell over Ponting, if we're talking career vs. career. Let see what Ponting's last few years are like before we make any final judgements, but Chappell's still ahead of him now, for mine, and you'd think Ponting's average is probably going to move slightly down from here if anything.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'd always take Chappell over Ponting, if we're talking career vs. career.

So would I. But it wouldn't be such an obvious choice if the relevant 36 matches since Packer were all there was to make the judgement.