Furball
Evil Scotsman
Ponting looks like one of those annoying ****s who would probably have been a world class bowler if he hadn't spent his youth trying and succeeding at being a fantastic batsman.Quite like Ponting's bowling actually.
Ponting looks like one of those annoying ****s who would probably have been a world class bowler if he hadn't spent his youth trying and succeeding at being a fantastic batsman.Quite like Ponting's bowling actually.
Clarke, because he brings the lulz against India.Should have a battle of the part time bowlers. Be a fun thread.
Could have had a record like Kallis...Ponting looks like one of those annoying ****s who would probably have been a world class bowler if he hadn't spent his youth trying and succeeding at being a fantastic batsman.
No actually, he doesn't.He's got you nailed down
Nah just looks so much like a batsman, can easily picture him in a bygone era.Ponting looks like one of those annoying ****s who would probably have been a world class bowler if he hadn't spent his youth trying and succeeding at being a fantastic batsman.
Lol I can see I got you all wrong my apologiesDon't make stereotypical generalisations on here when you've been around a New York minute. You wouldn't have a ****ing clue which posters rate which players compared with others, let alone where those posters are from.
Tell it to someone who wasn't clearly trollin'No actually, he doesn't.
Haha. Hard to tell sometimes.Tell it to someone who wasn't clearly trollin'
Choice of smiley was a poor option I must confess.Haha. Hard to tell sometimes.
There are surely few things more amusing in cricket than him taking wickets, not least because it's actually kind of predictable when it'll happen.Clarke, because he brings the lulz against India.
Look, there are various ways of judging a players quality. Consistency, longevity, how much a player dominated opposition etc. are just a few of those. For me, the main reason Ponting is still the better batsman overall is because I think his long period of dominance in the middle of his career still outweighs whatever extra consistency Kallis shown. Kallis has never dominated attacks like Ponting did. Don't get me wrong, he is still a fantastic batsman, but I tend to value the heights a player reaches in their careers and how much they have shown the ability to take the opposition by the throat more than longevity (within reason, of course).So it's not how well you do overall, it's only the good parts that determine what a kick ass player you are?
Imho "all time greats" need to at least have some sort of consistency or quality over their whole, or certainly most of their career. Many batsmen have had a few good years. But to be talked of as "all time great" tends to imply quality all the way through. Or it's a fairly worthless term tbh
Yay someone willing to make a logical counter argumentLook, there are various ways of judging a players quality. Consistency, longevity, how much a player dominated opposition etc. are just a few of those. For me, the main reason Ponting is still the better batsman overall is because I think his long period of dominance in the middle of his career still outweighs whatever extra consistency Kallis shown. Kallis has never dominated attacks like Ponting did. Don't get me wrong, he is still a fantastic batsman, but I tend to value the heights a player reaches in their careers and how much they have shown the ability to take the opposition by the throat more than longevity (within reason, of course).
Ponting at his peak was absurd. I'm not entirely sure I'll see such a long streak of sustained phenomenal batting in my life ever again.
Should watch me play backyard cricket on boxing day each year then.Ponting at his peak was absurd. I'm not entirely sure I'll see such a long streak of sustained phenomenal batting in my life ever again.