Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[Flem274*]

Stfu about Hayden-nobody cares

Imo, Ponting is currently better than than Tendulkar. Moving on.

 

[Ikki]

The considerable difference between Hayden and Lara is that Hayden was exposed completely before the flattening-out of decks and decline in bowling from 2001/02 onwards, while Lara had already proven his greatness long before it. Hayden actually continued to be exposed on odd occasions post-2001/02 (because it wasn't the case that every delivery of every Test had nothing in it for bowlers), whereas Lara showed how the only difference 1992-1996, 1996/97-2001 and 2001/02-2006/07 was with himself. Some people like to think Hayden himself was the reason behind the change in his scoring, as Lara was; I don't believe this and never will.

BTW as you of course know I've never said anyone was anything relating to the 1990s and 2000s, even though you for whatever reason seem to think it's clever to continue to make-out that I have.

And you know this based on? The handful of tests Hayden played in the 90s? The only thing that was remarkably different between the eras was the bowling. The pitches were/are never going to cover mediocre bowling. Hayden would have tonked the poor ones regardless of the era.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a whole Hayden-fest. It just shows the extent of your unbelievable double-standards. Who knows what your problem with him is; is it personal? So sad.

 

[bagapath]

Haa you gone too far now, trying to hard to find faults. AUS losing back to back Ashes clearly had nothing to do with Ponting's batting (his captaincy maybe).

In 2005 it was because the entire batting was exposed to quality swing bowler.

In 2009 it was due to inconsistent performances & poor selections by the selectors.

do you believe ponting maintained his own high standards with the bat in the two ashes series in england? he played a classic knock and saved the test in 2005. he failed to do anything significant otherwise and that also contributed to the losses.

 

[Burgey]

do you believe ponting maintained his own high standards with the bat in the two ashes series in england? he played a classic knock and saved the test in 2005. he failed to do anything significant otherwise and that also contributed to the losses.

This must be true tbh. Every player's performance impacts on the result of a match.

If a top order batsman isn't scoring at their usual accomplished level, of course it impacts on the team, just as Gillespie's fall in 05 contributed to the loss. these must be factors in a side's performaces, as is the quality of the opposition, the conditions etc etc.

Ponting's reduced output in 05 was of course a factor in Australia losing, irrespective of its cause.

 

[aussie]

And why isn't there a reason? I count Australia for Tendulkar because he did well, even if Ponting didn't face his own team, and yet again count India where Ponting didn't do well against them in India, when Tendulkar didn't face them either?

I see what your saying, but its futile argument yo. Would you want to say G Chappell was better than Richards because he never had to face his own WI attack?. I dont think so.

Thankfully cricket is more than stats, thus we can judge from watching cats bat. So if their is a case where batsman 1 is part of a team where its a strong bowling attack & you want to compare him with batsman 2 from another country - who has in most cases has a similar record againts most nations - but has trouble againts batsman 1 team of great bowlers.

The best & only thing you can do is judge them based on what you have seen of them in bowler friendly conditons - to conclude whether batsman 1 is really lucky that he doesn't have to face his own bowling. Since stats won't tell you that.

 

[aussie]

do you believe ponting maintained his own high standards with the bat in the two ashes series in england? he played a classic knock and saved the test in 2005. he failed to do anything significant otherwise and that also contributed to the losses.

In 2005 he didn't mainly because the bowling was so good. But his 156 @ OT showed he was still in good form. You really couldn't dominant that ENG attack, even Tendy & Lara would have been kept moderate. So overall AUS lost due to the entire batting being exposed technically - cant blame Ponting at all.

In 2009 he was batting fairly well as usual. But as i said some inconsistent performances & poor selectorial work where the main reason for defeat. You really cant draw a comparison here either.

 

[aussie]

This must be true tbh. Every player's performance impacts on the result of a match.

If a top order batsman isn't scoring at their usual accomplished level, of course it impacts on the team, just as Gillespie's fall in 05 contributed to the loss. these must be factors in a side's performaces, as is the quality of the opposition, the conditions etc etc.

Ponting's reduced output in 05 was of course a factor in Australia losing, irrespective of its cause.

But Ponting really wasn't out of form in 2005. He just ran into a superb bowling attack, few batsmen could dominate that attack. Thats why the comparison with Dizzy bowling in that series is unfair - Ponting clearly wasn't a hinder to batting like Dizzy was to the bowling.

 

[honestbharani]

Lara didn't face his own team either. In fact, Lara only succeeded against Australia. Poor against SA and PAK, and India at home. He probably has the worst record of the 3.

He never played against India at home except one series.. So there goes that....


And for Pak and SA, again, he never toured Pak since 97 till very recently and RSA was again one horrible tour in 98... And there was a period from mid 98 till late 2001 when he played through a chipped elbow bone. In fact, he himself stated in an inteview that it was THAT six month break just before the 2003 WC that allowed him to completely recover and be back at 100%. The same can be seen with a bit of a horrid run that Sachin had when he played through what was a 95% fit elbow... It was even less for Lara as I personally saw a number of series when he couldn't play certain strokes like pull, cut and down the track lofts... That is a HUGE handicap and one of the reasons I rate Lara this high is precisely that.. He was able to average 40+ quite easily inspite of such handicaps...

 

[honestbharani]

And you know this based on? The handful of tests Hayden played in the 90s? The only thing that was remarkably different between the eras was the bowling. The pitches were/are never going to cover mediocre bowling. Hayden would have tonked the poor ones regardless of the era.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a whole Hayden-fest. It just shows the extent of your unbelievable double-standards. Who knows what your problem with him is; is it personal? So sad.

Are you saying he should have gotten more tests in that period even though the selectors themselves felt he was not good enough and HENCE dropped him???????

 

[Ikki]

I see what your saying, but its futile argument yo. Would you want to say G Chappell was better than Richards because he never had to face his own WI attack?. I dont think so.

No, but then I probably wouldn't say that Richards faced Australia and Chappell hadn't he was not good either. But you simply cannot ignore it. Regardless, I'd still contend Ponting has the better record against the best attacks in the 90s and at the worst no statements should be made that Ponting is separate from Lara or Tendulkar simply because most of their careers occurred in the 90s whereas his was in the 00s.

Thankfully cricket is more than stats, thus we can judge from watching cats bat. So if their is a case where batsman 1 is part of a team where its a strong bowling attack & you want to compare him with batsman 2 from another country - who has in most cases has a similar record againts most nations - but has trouble againts batsman 1 team of great bowlers.

The best & only thing you can do is judge them based on what you have seen of them in bowler friendly conditons - to conclude whether batsman 1 is really lucky that he doesn't have to face his own bowling. Since stats won't tell you that.

And based on that I think there is little to split them other than Ponting probably being more consistent throughout his career than Tendulkar. I think Ponting is much better facing pace and Tendulkar better at spin, but overall I think Ponting has had more success.

I agree with you on the other point you are making in this thread re Ponting and Ashes.

 

[Ikki]

Are you saying he should have gotten more tests in that period even though the selectors themselves felt he was not good enough and HENCE dropped him???????

If Hayden played for anyone else but Australia, he would have gotten more tests. And whether he would have continued poorly is a stretch. I hold the opinion that all-time greats in one era will be an all-time great in another. The main difference between the 90s and the 00s were the bowlers; the pitches were merely complimentary to that.

He never played against India at home except one series.. So there goes that....

Sorry, I meant India's home. Made a mess of that; but should've kinda been obvious since we were talking about how good India's attack was at home.

And for Pak and SA, again, he never toured Pak since 97 till very recently and RSA was again one horrible tour in 98... And there was a period from mid 98 till late 2001 when he played through a chipped elbow bone. In fact, he himself stated in an inteview that it was THAT six month break just before the 2003 WC that allowed him to completely recover and be back at 100%. The same can be seen with a bit of a horrid run that Sachin had when he played through what was a 95% fit elbow... It was even less for Lara as I personally saw a number of series when he couldn't play certain strokes like pull, cut and down the track lofts... That is a HUGE handicap and one of the reasons I rate Lara this high is precisely that.. He was able to average 40+ quite easily inspite of such handicaps...

I have an open mind about it and these reasons could of course have been very relevant. I didn't raise the point to critique Lara, but to show Richard's inane double standards. How can one give so much leeway to one player, and then absolutely shut out another based on a handful of tests? Dumb IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

If Hayden played for anyone else but Australia, he would have gotten more tests. And whether he would have continued poorly is a stretch. I hold the opinion that all-time greats in one era will be an all-time great in another. The main difference between the 90s and the 00s were the bowlers; the pitches were merely complimentary to that.



Sorry, I meant India's home. Made a mess of that; but should've kinda been obvious since we were talking about how good India's attack was at home.



I have an open mind about it and these reasons could of course have been very relevant. I didn't raise the point to critique Lara, but to show Richard's inane double standards. How can one give so much leeway to one player, and then absolutely shut out another based on a handful of tests? Dumb IMO.

I knew what you meant... Lara never played a test series against us in India except once....

 

[honestbharani]

If Hayden played for anyone else but Australia, he would have gotten more tests. And whether he would have continued poorly is a stretch. I hold the opinion that all-time greats in one era will be an all-time great in another. The main difference between the 90s and the 00s were the bowlers; the pitches were merely complimentary to that.



Sorry, I meant India's home. Made a mess of that; but should've kinda been obvious since we were talking about how good India's attack was at home.



I have an open mind about it and these reasons could of course have been very relevant. I didn't raise the point to critique Lara, but to show Richard's inane double standards. How can one give so much leeway to one player, and then absolutely shut out another based on a handful of tests? Dumb IMO.

I agree with you reg. Hayden.. There is no reason why a Hayden or Sehwag could not have been successful in another era, or any other player as a matter of fact... But when you are judging them AGAINST other such all time greats, these failures (even though just a handful) would tell against them... And he struggled even in the Ashes in 2005 and only did well at the Oval which was flatter than the other decks and when they didn't have Simon Jones... I guess he could have well overhauled his game in such a way as to be suitable for the era in any era but the failures still remain.

 

[Ikki]

I knew what you meant... Lara never played a test series against us in India except once....

Correct, he played 1 series; 3 tests, and averaged 33. If you consider that not enough, how about amending the original statement: failed against SA and PAK, succeeded against Australia and although not doing well against India hadn't played there enough. I think that still makes his record the worst out of the 3.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with you reg. Hayden.. There is no reason why a Hayden or Sehwag could not have been successful in another era, or any other player as a matter of fact... But when you are judging them AGAINST other such all time greats, these failures (even though just a handful) would tell against them... And he struggled even in the Ashes in 2005 and only did well at the Oval which was flatter than the other decks and when they didn't have Simon Jones... I guess he could have well overhauled his game in such a way as to be suitable for the era in any era but the failures still remain.

Yes, thank you. That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and one that many people here have tried to get through to Richard. There is nothing to be taken about Hayden from the 90s other than he wasn't ready and didn't start well. It's ironic since Richard is usually one who will point out when a player was picked too early, etc, yet he gives absolutely 0 leeway to Hayden.

 

[honestbharani]

Correct, he played 1 series; 3 tests, and averaged 33. If you consider that not enough, how about amending the original statement: failed against SA and PAK, succeeded against Australia and although not doing well against India hadn't played there enough. I think that still makes his record the worst out of the 3.

Point is, as Richard pointed out, the series you are talking about are juz one away series and maybe 1 home series respectively... That is an amazingly small sample size because Windies always seemed to play Australia or England every other year and only fit in these other sides in the gaps. So there is no way you can conclude anything from that. I will take the fact that he did very well against the best and most varied attack of the time period in the most varied conditions you could face (Australia and the swing bowlers of England in England)... There is a reason why I rate him the best of the 3, you know..

 

[bagapath]

In 2005 he didn't mainly because the bowling was so good. But his 156 @ OT showed he was still in good form.

that is my point. he did well in one innings and australia saved the test. when he didnt do well, whether he was bad or whether the eng bowling was too good, his team struggled. all i am trying to say is that the team's talisman, ponting, should perform well for a test team to win series. he did not, and the team lost. that is the case with his indian adventures as well.

australia have always had the bowling fire power in the mcwarne combo during ricky's time. when the batters fired they would win the matches without trouble. you will see sachin or lara scoring a lot more centuries in losing causes or drawn games than ricky and hayden and gilly or richards and greenidge from the earlier era. it is simply because these guys played for teams with good bowling units. if they scored runs, matches could be won for sure. if they failed, it was difficult for bowlers to win matches. sachin and lara played with bowlers who were inconsistent. so despite some masterly performences (lara in SL, sachin in aus 99-00) when they batted as close to perfection as possible they still ended up on the losing side.

when a team with such classy wicket taking bowlers (mcwarne) and good strong second line bowlers (gillykaspermcgill) fails, it is to do with the batters not supporting them with enough runs. ponting has failed his team in india again and again. there is no doubt in my mind australia would have won at least two of the three series it lost in india had ponting performed better. the 98 series would have gone india's way any which way. his failure to fire has been a huge reason for the ashes losses as well. remember who won the man of the series when aus beat eng 5-0 three years ago? and compare the same man's numbers in the 2005 and 2009 campaigns with his numbers from the 06-07 series down under. u will see the difference. between a tiger at home conditions and a, well, may be a rottweiler abroad.

 

[Migara]

I see what your saying, but its futile argument yo. Would you want to say G Chappell was better than Richards because he never had to face his own WI attack?. I dont think so.

Thankfully cricket is more than stats, thus we can judge from watching cats bat. So if their is a case where batsman 1 is part of a team where its a strong bowling attack & you want to compare him with batsman 2 from another country - who has in most cases has a similar record againts most nations - but has trouble againts batsman 1 team of great bowlers.

The best & only thing you can do is judge them based on what you have seen of them in bowler friendly conditons - to conclude whether batsman 1 is really lucky that he doesn't have to face his own bowling. Since stats won't tell you that.

You can always compare the performance against common oppositions

 

[Richard]

And you know this based on? The handful of tests Hayden played in the 90s?

No, the more than reasonable number he played before the 2001/02 season begun.

The only thing that was remarkably different between the eras was the bowling. The pitches were/are never going to cover mediocre bowling. Hayden would have tonked the poor ones regardless of the era.

Hayden just didn't get any chance to face any mediocre bowlers until 2001/02, after which he faced such things on the vast majority of occasions. That doesn't mean that Australia never faced any poor attacks until 2001/02, just that when they did Hayden wasn't playing because he'd been exposed as inadaquete by the several outstanding attacks around.

Anyway, I don't want to get into a whole Hayden-fest. It just shows the extent of your unbelievable double-standards. Who knows what your problem with him is; is it personal? So sad.

No, it's your inability to read a person. I don't hate players, nor apply any double-standards. The fact that you are incapable of realising this says nothing about me.

 

[Richard]

The main difference between the 90s and the 00s were the bowlers; the pitches were merely complimentary to that.

Most people who try to argue that there wasn't really much of a difference between pre-2001/02 and 2001/02 onwards say the opposite - that the pitches is the big difference and the bowlers haven't actually degraded much.

In reality of course the truth is plenty of both.