Ponting better than Sachin : Ian Chappell

[honestbharani]

Is there a point to this or did you just find this out and wanted to share it.

Is there a point to your posting (funny that u choose LBW, was it because including other modes of dismissals, Ponting came out on top??? ) or you just realized you know nothing reg. cricket and wanted to share it with the rest of CW????

 

[honestbharani]

I dont know if you were old enough to watch the 00-01 series but Ponting was lucky even to play after food posioning and in 04-05 he had a broken thumb which prevented him playing any matches except one. Is that the best you can do.

Are you stupid? Food poisoning for 3 tests??? Is there an excuse for every one of his failures?


BTW, Sachin and Lara have played through much tougher injuries than Ponting....

 

[honestbharani]

What kind of wacko are you, thats exactaly what I have been saying all along and you keep trying to prove me wrong and now you say what I have been saying is correct.

A more sensible wacko than yourself, I would suggest.


Point is: There is merit in those who consider Ponting to be better than Sachin or Lara for an argument. Doesn't necessarily mean Ponting is better than both and doesn't necessarily mean anyone can say anything either way conclusively... Sooner you learn this about cricket, the better.

 

[honestbharani]

Although i'm not of the view than Ponting is better than Tendy or ever will be regarded as better than the little master, when they both retire. The points here on Punter are very flawed.



No it was AUS decades old achillies heel of not being able to play spin well on turners from Lance Gibbs to Harbhajan. Ponting's batting woes in IND had nothing to do with it.



If Ponting was not injured in 04/05 based the form he has been in since 2001 (although in 2004 he was in a bit of iffy form given it was the first year of his test captaincy). He would have made runs & put away his IND demons since then & not 2008.



As i said before Ponting failures had nothing to do with AUS losing in IND 98 & 01. It was AUS historical achillies heel of playing spin.

Plus you cant compare Ponting the batsman from the SRI 95/96 to IND 01 to the Ponting of 2001 (the trent bridge Ashes test) to 2009 - its two different players.

Ponting will indeed have the statistical glitch with his away record in IND. But its just as stat. Ponting before he made that hundred in IND last year to put rest the "myth" that he couldn't play spin, had long since gone past the demons of IND 2001. He aint no Lara againts playing spin on a turner, but he is solid enough.

Look.. having watched all 3 greats at their peaks, against a really tough attack in tough conditions, I would choose them in the order I mentioned earlier. I consider ability to score big and to destroy or at least dominate "good" bowling attacks just as much important as any other factor. If A or B are more likely to give me solid 20s and 30s every time but never a big 150 compared to a C who could get out for two ducks and still give me a 150+ at a SR of 60+, I would take him every time... The position I am looking for is of a batsman who can win or at least set up a win for me more often.. You are just as likely to lose when your premier batsman gets 30 and out than when he gets 10 and out... It is how much you make it count when you are in good form that matters and that is why these 3 stand out amongst the rest of the batsmen of the last two decades... Between them, there is little to choose but within that little, I rate Lara higher than Sachin higher than Ponting... In ODIs of course, it is different as I have already stated and may impact how you rate the players overall. But I prefer rating them seperately for these two formats of the game...

 

[Ikki]

Yet in the same period Tendulkar averaged 61.45 and Ponting averaged 46.34 Wow that is a difference of 15. Since Ponting did as well as Tendulkar/Lara against Quality bowling he must have done horrible against inferior bowling so have that difference in overall average during that period, No ?

True, that's in fact what did happen. However, as pointed out, Ponting then beats the living crap out of those teams post 2000. So, the arguments made that Ponting did not face quality bowling is fallacious - in fact, he did better than Tendulkar against the best bowling sides of the 90s.

I do agree with you however that all 3 (Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar) are ultimately on the same plain and personal preference may sway people here and there. But that's an important acknowledgment since on this site, and many others, people are so quick to dismiss Ponting as a rung below.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is there a point to your posting (funny that u choose LBW, was it because including other modes of dismissals, Ponting came out on top??? ) or you just realized you know nothing reg. cricket and wanted to share it with the rest of CW????

Even though it's not all that relevant to the argument, I was actually quite surprised by that statistic, and I think that is what Uppercut alluded to. Everyone associates Ponting with being vulnerable to the full ball early and playing across his pad, and I remember him going out a fair bit that way.

 

[honestbharani]

Even though it's not all that relevant to the argument, I was actually quite surprised by that statistic, and I think that is what Uppercut alluded to. Everyone associates Ponting with being vulnerable to the full ball early and playing across his pad, and I remember him going out a fair bit that way.

Well, falling over to the offside doesn't mean you are prone to be out LBW alone, is it? It means you will try to reach for balls that others would normally leave more often, therefore increasing your chances of being caught behind (either by the keeper or the slips and gullies) and also leaving yourself more prone to being squared up even off ordinary outswingers... So I am not surprised at all... Plus the validity of the stats have to be questioned given the tone and posts of the poster...

 

[Richard]

Even though it's not all that relevant to the argument, I was actually quite surprised by that statistic, and I think that is what Uppercut alluded to. Everyone associates Ponting with being vulnerable to the full ball early and playing across his pad, and I remember him going out a fair bit that way.

He looks like he should be, same as most\all batsmen who play to their own massive on-side strengths by walking a long way accross (eg, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mark Waugh, Viv Richards) and taking balls from pretty much anywhere on the stumps (sometimes even outside off) to leg-side.

But like most batmsen whose strength off the pads is so considerable, he isn't actually anywhere near as vulnerable as the instinctive reaction would suggest.

An interesting statistic indeed, even though it's, well, completely irrelevant to which of Ponting or Tendulkar is\was better.

 

[Richard]

Plus the validity of the stats have to be questioned given the tone and posts of the poster...

Can be checked-up without great difficulty. I can't be arsed, I've better things to do with my time, but anyone who fancies it and knows their way around StatsGuru could (and I'm sure will) do.

 

[Migara]

True, that's in fact what did happen. However, as pointed out, Ponting then beats the living crap out of those teams post 2000. So, the arguments made that Ponting did not face quality bowling is fallacious - in fact, he did better than Tendulkar against the best bowling sides of the 90s.

Why you always keep forgetting Indian bowling in India is one of the best?

 

[R_D]

Why you always keep forgetting Indian bowling in India is one of the best?

Yeah very valid point... Indian spinners at home are very formidable.

 

[Ikki]

Why you always keep forgetting Indian bowling in India is one of the best?

I am not forgetting it; Sachin never faced Indian bowlers in India.

 

[Jono]

He did in the IPL

 

[Pratters]

I am not forgetting it; Sachin never faced Indian bowlers in India.

Tendulkar averages above 90 when he turns up to play for his domestic team, Mumbai.

 

[Uppercut]

Even though it's not all that relevant to the argument, I was actually quite surprised by that statistic, and I think that is what Uppercut alluded to. Everyone associates Ponting with being vulnerable to the full ball early and playing across his pad, and I remember him going out a fair bit that way.

Yeah, that's why I found it interesting. It's often said- you could call it conventional wisdom- that Ponting is vulnerable early on to the full ball on his pads as his exaggerated front-foot movement causes him to overbalance. It seemed that the international cricketing community had agreed, that was the place to bowl at Ponting. But as far as I'm concerned, the figures show it was just an illusion. Maybe that's a reason why he was so successful- bowlers repeatedly bowling to his strengths, mistaking them for weaknesses.

During the Ashes, Michael Holding told an anecdote about how Ponting had hit a big one against the West Indies and he'd gone into their dressing room afterwards to tell them they had Ponting all wrong- the place to bowl to him was outside off stump at all times. Forcing him to play isn't a concern- Ponting will generally play of his own accord- and he gets out caught behind the wicket on the off-side much more often than he gets out lbw. Ever since, he'd had a somewhat mediocre run of scores against the West Indies. England seemed to be listening, as Stuart Broad successfully executed the plan in the second innings of the next match at Lord's.

For use in a "Ponting vs. Tendulkar vs. Lara" debate, it's a useless statistic. Contrary to what those more interested in the technical side of batting than myself will say, getting out repeatedly in the same way is no worse than getting out in a thrilling variety of different ways. But it's still very interesting to know.

 

[0RI0N]

Tendulkar averages above 90 when he turns up to play for his domestic team, Mumbai.

I am sure Ikki meant never facing Indian Test bowlers in Tests in India.If that's what he meant then great job misinterperating his post.
Ikki is that what you meant?

 

[bagapath]

But it's still very interesting to know.

TAWTA. very interesting post uppercut

 

[Pratters]

I am sure Ikki meant never facing Indian Test bowlers in Tests in India.If that's what he meant then great job misinterperating his post.
Ikki is that what you meant?

I am just joking around.

 

[Pratters]

Uppercut, you are a fine young man.

 

[The Sean]

Yeah, that's why I found it interesting. It's often said- you could call it conventional wisdom- that Ponting is vulnerable early on to the full ball on his pads as his exaggerated front-foot movement causes him to overbalance. It seemed that the international cricketing community had agreed, that was the place to bowl at Ponting. But as far as I'm concerned, the figures show it was just an illusion. Maybe that's a reason why he was so successful- bowlers repeatedly bowling to his strengths, mistaking them for weaknesses.

During the Ashes, Michael Holding told an anecdote about how Ponting had hit a big one against the West Indies and he'd gone into their dressing room afterwards to tell them they had Ponting all wrong- the place to bowl to him was outside off stump at all times. Forcing him to play isn't a concern- Ponting will generally play of his own accord- and he gets out caught behind the wicket on the off-side much more often than he gets out lbw. Ever since, he'd had a somewhat mediocre run of scores against the West Indies. England seemed to be listening, as Stuart Broad successfully executed the plan in the second innings of the next match at Lord's.

For use in a "Ponting vs. Tendulkar vs. Lara" debate, it's a useless statistic. Contrary to what those more interested in the technical side of batting than myself will say, getting out repeatedly in the same way is no worse than getting out in a thrilling variety of different ways. But it's still very interesting to know.

Every word of this. Great post.

For a little 'un.