No. 6 for Post Packer XI

[0RI0N]

dont use that line or argument, mate. vijay merchant averages 12 runs more than ponting in FC cricket? Is he the second best batsman in cricket history after bradman?

also, if ponting is better than tendulkar because of his first class stats being better, is kambli better than ponting? check out their FC stats below.


VG Kambli 1989-2005 129 181 14 9965 262 59.67 35 44
RT Ponting 1992-2009 226 383 53 19488 257 59.05 71 81
SR Tendulkar 1988-2009 258 407 43 21318 248* 58.56 68 97

while judging the greatness of a player dont bring in the FC stats. they are misleading.

---
nah FC are not misleading.ponting has a brilliant record,test AND FC.
So according to ponting bashers,he
fluked his way to 37 test 100's at 56.8 and 19000 FC Runs at 59.ponting must be 1 lucky f___.
Favourite ponting odi innings:aus vs ind WC final 2003.you know the rest...

 

[bagapath]

---
nah FC are not misleading.ponting has a brilliant record,test AND FC.
So according to ponting bashers,he
fluked his way to 37 test 100's at 56.8 and 19000 FC Runs at 59.ponting must be 1 lucky f___.
Favourite ponting odi innings:aus vs ind WC final 2003.you know the rest...

FC records are misleading in general. so dont bring in such a weak tool to support ponting's case. the same with ODI because this discussion is only about test cricket. if you insist on FC stats anyone can mess up any argument. for example,

BS Bedi 370 90354 33843 1560 7/5 21.69 2.24 57.9 106 20

JE Emburey 513 112862 41958 1608 8/40 26.09 2.23 70.1 72 12

SK Warne 301 74830 34449 1319 8/71 26.11 2.76 56.7 69 12

Now, who is a better bowler?

Leave FC stats alone. They are irrelevant while discussing test cricket.

 

[Ikki]

FC stats aren't misleading in general, they just can be misleading in certain debates. Like all stats, they need to be used properly.

Some FC figures seem impressive but are put in a more accurate light once you know the level of competition the FC comps are/were played at. For Ponting, we know his FC comp was the best around so the fact that his FC figures are so high are clearly a compliment to him. Kambli's average and Ponting's average being the same does not mean Kambli is the same or better.

Again, your above comparison is not well made. You're comparing different FC competitions, in different countries; in different eras. When someone praises Ponting's FC average there is nothing misleading about them - because we know how tough the SS has been during his career and the depth of competition was/is frankly outstanding.

 

[Uppercut]

No, they're not, it's a big sample size, and people will often say that Ponting's test record flatters him. So you can say- if he really semi-fluked his way to an average higher (considerably so when minnows aren't included) than Tendulkar, Lara and Dravid, then how come he has a better FC record than pretty much everyone else too?

 

[bagapath]

FC stats aren't misleading in general, they just can be misleading in certain debates. Like all stats, they need to be used properly.

Some FC figures seem impressive but are put in a more accurate light once you know the level of competition the FC comps are/were played at. For Ponting, we know his FC comp was the best around so the fact that his FC figures are so high are clearly a compliment to him. Kambli's average and Ponting's average being the same does not mean Kambli is the same or better. When someone then praises Ponting's FC average there is nothing misleading about them.

Again, your above comparison is not well made. You're comparing different FC competitions, in different countries; in different eras.

so if you say ponting's FC record in this era, in australian settings is great then i will not argue with you. if it is used to prove his greatness as a test cricketer i wont agree. also, the superior quality of australian FC cricket is not quantifiable. if you lay strees on it, you can never compare his australian FC avg with an Indian's FC average and decide which is better. how much of Indian FC batting avg is equal to australian FC batting avg of 50? this will be a never ending argument. better to leave FC stats out of this discussion.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting > Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, Gavaskar, and most definitely >>>> Dravid.

Probably closer to:

Ponting, Chappell > Lara, Tendulkar > Dravid, Gavaskar

I'd tip Ponting over Chappell if push comes to shove simply because he's played against/in a wider range of difficulties. But their records are frankly outstanding and a slight cut above the others.

 

[bagapath]

No, they're not, it's a big sample size, and people will often say that Ponting's test record flatters him. So you can say- if he really semi-fluked his way to an average higher (considerably so when minnows aren't included) than Tendulkar, Lara and Dravid, then how come he has a better FC record than pretty much everyone else too?

he did not semi fluke his way. no one can semi fluke and score more than 2 centuries leave alone 37. his greatness is unquestioned. we are comparing few all time greats in test cricket here. that doesnt mean one is made king and the other one is stripped naked. but first class stats dont have any place in this argument. FC being so unequal across decades and countries, FC stats cannot be relied upon, even if they seem to reflect the right thing here - which is ponting is a great player. as for who is better SRT or RP, the argument cannot be ended with FC stats!

 

[Ikki]

he did not semi fluke his way. no one can semi fluke and score more than 2 centuries leave alone 37. his greatness is unquestioned. we are comparing few all time greats in test cricket here. that doesnt mean one is made king and the other one is stripped naked. but first class stats dont have any place in this argument. FC being so unequal across decades and countries, FC stats cannot be relied upon, even if they seem to reflect the right thing here - which is ponting is a great player. as for who is better SRT or RP, the argument cannot be ended with FC stats!

If his greatness cannot be questioned, then I find little sense when people say: "Ponting has to continue for a few more years...then he'll be as good as Tendulkar".

I am not saying you've said it, mind you, just that people seem to suggest that's what's missing about him. As if there is anything left to prove about his ability.

 

[Ikki]

so if you say ponting's FC record in this era, in australian settings is great then i will not argue with you. if it is used to prove his greatness as a test cricketer i wont agree. also, the superior quality of australian FC cricket is not quantifiable. if you lay strees on it, you can never compare his australian FC avg with an Indian's FC average and decide which is better. how much of Indian FC batting avg is equal to australian FC batting avg of 50? this will be a never ending argument. better to leave FC stats out of this discussion.

I'm not sure how I cannot compare Australian FC vs Indian FC? I think it's pretty clear which competition was better when you look at all the quality of players it has produced in recent history, at least. For most of Tendulkar's - for example - career - most of the FC sides in Australia would be as good if not better than the Indian Test team herself (and many other Test teams too).

Simply put, Ponting has outperformed everyone at Test and FC level. For some people, that counts as something. I suppose the context of the question is relevant also, but it's a very important fact. For example, myself, I rate performances that occured in WSC cricket. Some people may say they're irrelevant because they're not technically Tests but when you look at the teams in that competition and that they thought it was the hardest competition they played...it says a lot about those that succeeded in it.

There's pretty much nothing the man hasn't done yet he can't get into this team.

 

[bagapath]

If his greatness cannot be questioned, then I find little sense when people say: "Ponting has to continue for a few more years...then he'll be as good as Tendulkar".

I am not saying you've said it, mind you, just that people seem to suggest that's what's missing about him. As if there is anything left to prove about his ability.

that is really weird. i think, even in this era of more tests/ year, 40 - 45 tests is adequate to judge a player's ability. on an average it takes five seasons to complete 45 tests. one gets to play in a home and away series with most of the top teams by then. also, when you study old stats, the averages kind of settle of down by that time. in 45 tests, a good bowler would have taken close to 200 wickets and a good batsmen would have scored more than 3000 runs and around 10 centuries. so 45 tests is adequate. 70 tests + is more than adequate.

you are correct. i never said this about ponting. he is an absolute great. just that, i would like him as much sachin if his stats in india were at least decent.

 

[Uppercut]

he did not semi fluke his way. no one can semi fluke and score more than 2 centuries leave alone 37. his greatness is unquestioned. we are comparing few all time greats in test cricket here. that doesnt mean one is made king and the other one is stripped naked. but first class stats dont have any place in this argument. FC being so unequal across decades and countries, FC stats cannot be relied upon, even if they seem to reflect the right thing here - which is ponting is a great player. as for who is better SRT or RP, the argument cannot be ended with FC stats!

Completely agree, but that's what people sometimes say w.r.t. Ponting, and the FC record is a good response to dispell the suggestion.

 

[bagapath]

Completely agree, but that's what people sometimes say w.r.t. Ponting, and the FC record is a good response to dispell the suggestion.

come on, man! how is that a good response?

i say federer is better than sampras. and you say sampras won more tournaments in florida?

 

[Ikki]

No, they're not, it's a big sample size, and people will often say that Ponting's test record flatters him. So you can say- if he really semi-fluked his way to an average higher (considerably so when minnows aren't included) than Tendulkar, Lara and Dravid, then how come he has a better FC record than pretty much everyone else too?

That argument wouldn't make much sense to begin with because Ponting's record is only slightly affected by minnows where the players you mention (except for Lara) are more heavily affected. IIRC without minnows he still averages a healthy 56 (compared to (Lara/Kallis/Dravid/Tendulkar's 51-or-so).

 

[Ikki]

come on, man! how is that a good response?

i say federer is better than sampras. and you say sampras won more tournaments in florida?

How about he just say Sampras won more titles overall...and in Florida?

 

[Ikki]

that is really weird. i think, even in this era of more tests/ year, 40 - 45 tests is adequate to judge a player's ability. on an average it takes five seasons to complete 45 tests. one gets to play in a home and away series with most of the top teams by then. also, when you study old stats, the averages kind of settle of down by that time. in 45 tests, a good bowler would have taken close to 200 wickets and a good batsmen would have scored more than 3000 runs and around 10 centuries. so 45 tests is adequate. 70 tests + is more than adequate.

you are correct. i never said this about ponting. he is an absolute great. just that, i would like him as much sachin if his stats in india were at least decent.

Well, surprisingly, a lot of people do bring up that reasoning. I, personally, don't understand it and it seems just like some childish reason to hold onto a favourite for whatever reason.

I don't get your reason though...just because he did poor in India? Sachin did poor in India against S.Africa...and that's his home. And that's all you can really pick on Ponting for yet you can pick on Sachin for more things.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Completely agree, but that's what people sometimes say w.r.t. Ponting, and the FC record is a good response to dispell the suggestion.

It is as good a response as is offering Michael Bevans FC record as support for his Test credentials. They're two different worlds, calling this an argument is being extremely generous. Ikki, you need to shed this victim mentality wrt Ponting.

 

[Uppercut]

That argument wouldn't make much sense to begin with because Ponting's record is only slightly affected by minnows where the players you mention (except for Lara) are more heavily affected. IIRC without minnows he still averages a healthy 56 (compared to (Lara/Kallis/Dravid/Tendulkar's 51-or-so).

Well, if you were to think Tendulkar is better than Ponting, you're automatically arguing that Ponting's test record flatters him because it's a considerable bit better than Tendulkar's. And, if you were so inclined, you could put it down to variance. But his FC record is large enough to show that up as bollocks.

 

[bagapath]

How about he just say Sampras won more titles overall...and in Florida?

if the first part of the argument is true then you wont need the second part. but if the first part is not true then the second wont make much difference to the overall argument anyway. that is why i say FC stats are irrelevant.

say ponting is better in test cricket. and stop with that. i am willing to argue on that basis. FC records are less reliable than tests. you cant match them.

btw, in ODIs - minus minnows.

SR Tendulkar (India) 362 355 28 13716 186* 41.94 16317 84.05 32 79 20
RT Ponting (Aus) 265 263 30 9726 164 41.74 12096 80.40 22 56 17

I will not use these numbers to prove sachin is better than ponting because that doesnt belong in this thread.

 

[Ikki]

It is as good a response as is offering Michael Bevans FC record as support for his Test credentials. They're two different worlds, calling this an argument is being extremely generous. Ikki, you need to shed this victim mentality wrt Ponting.

Not all great FC players will become great Test players...but this is a poor argument. You can't talk about what is uncommon to prove a point about trend or likelihood. Warne's domestic figures are hardly what you would call good. I wouldn't then build a case that Aus FC > Tests.

 

[bagapath]

Well, if you were to think Tendulkar is better than Ponting, you're automatically arguing that Ponting's test record flatters him because it's a considerable bit better than Tendulkar's. And, if you were so inclined, you could put it down to variance. But his FC record is large enough to show that up as bollocks.

what is wrong with you uppercut? i made it clear to you i dont subscribe to "ponting should play more" theory. you are fighting with an imaginary enemy here.