Ponting to break all batting Records

[silentstriker]

In particular Lara's ability to dominate spinners has been one thing that puts him far ahead of Ponting.

14, 13, 18, 2, 60, 9, 16, 0, 6, 0, 0, 11, 11, 12.

Those are his scores in India. Its not like he has been 'below his usual best'...he has simply been absolutely horrendous. Its one thing to average 35-40, which can be excusable, but that record above, after having played 14 innings in India, really has to count against him.

A lot of people have one country they do bad against, but the other greats don't have a country that they average 12 in, and its not like he's only played one test. Eight tests...thats a lot.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting post 2001 isn't the same player he was beforehand, and he's played one test in India since then.

After the 2001 tour of India, Ponting had played 42 tests and had 2492 runs @ 42.97. Since then he's played 65 more and has 6747 runs @ 70.28 in them. He played 7 of his 8 tests in India in that first period. I really don't see how you can argue that it's a major blemish on Ponting's record that he failed in India in that first period. The simple fact is that Ponting's overall record wasn't that good at that stage in his career either, and he failed in lots of places and against lots of teams, albeit not to the same degree. Ponting averaged 32 against England at that stage in his career for instance, and now averages 50 against them.

With any luck, Ponting will get a chance to tour India and actually play before the end of his career.

 

[silentstriker]

The simple fact is that Ponting's overall record wasn't that good at that stage in his career either, and he failed in lots of places and against lots of teams, albeit not to the same degree. Ponting averaged 32 against England at that stage in his career for instance, and now averages 50 against them.

With any luck, Ponting will get a chance to tour India and actually play before the end of his career.

Oh, I completely agree. I would fully expect Ponting to do well. But the point is, whether its fair or not, the record is there and unless he corrects it, it will remain a major blemish, in comparison with other greats. He's clearly the best in the world right now, but if you want to compare him with all time greats, then every failure must be counted and since most greats don't have a country that they do so badly against, it must be counted against him.

I'm sure a couple of them have substandard records in one country or another because of various reasons too - but averaging 12 is way below simply 'substandard'. It being early in his career is not really an excuse, as I'm sure other greats toured countries when they were early in their careers or were out of form too. He will always fall short unless he brings it up to a more respectable level (say around 30).

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I still don't see it as relevant, I'm afraid. Certainly it's relevant to what sort of player Ponting was early in his career, and if you value consistency from a young age as a great trait in a player then yes, it would be a blemish on Ponting's record. It has no bearing on his abilities as a player since he became a world class batsman however, at least until he tours India again and has some record of note there.

And really, I very much doubt anyone who wants to hold Ponting's record in India against him would stop doing it if he averaged 30 there. They'd simply say it's well below his career average, or even "he averaged 12 there until he inflated it on his last tour". Just look at Warne in India. His last tour there was fine and improved his record, but his overall average in India is still around 40, and that's more than enough to indicate that he didn't generally bowl particularly well there.

 

[silentstriker]

I still don't see it as relevant, I'm afraid. Certainly it's relevant to what sort of player Ponting was early in his career, and if you value consistency from a young age as a great trait in a player then yes, it would be a blemish on Ponting's record. It has no bearing on his abilities as a player since he became a world class batsman however, at least until he tours India again and has some record of note there.

And really, I very much doubt anyone who wants to hold Ponting's record in India against him would stop doing it if he averaged 30 there. They'd simply say it's well below his career average, or even "he averaged 12 there until he inflated it on his last tour". Just look at Warne in India. His last tour there was fine and improved his record, but his overall average in India is still around 40, and that's more than enough to indicate that he didn't generally bowl particularly well there.

And it works against Warne too. I don't think there has ever been a great (that's played in more than 2-3 countries) that doesn't have a 'bad' country, where he does badly. Ponting doesn't simply have a 'bad' country, he has a horrendous one. I realize it was early in his career, but he has to show that he has remedied that by doing well. Until he does, its a blight.

Same as Warne, but the issue with Warne is that even if India works against him, he's still the best spinner of all time. But to say it doesn't go against him is ludicrous IMO.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Same as Warne, but the issue with Warne is that even if India works against him, he's still the best spinner of all time. But to say it doesn't go against him is ludicrous IMO.

You missed my point I think. I'm saying if Ponting goes to India in 2008 and averages say 50 and his career average there goes up to 30, it won't stop people from criticising him for his poor record in India, as you said earlier. Hence the Warne example, he had an atrocious record in India based on two tours in 1998 and 2001, which is now merely a pretty bad record because he had a pretty decent tour there in 2004. Went down from 50+ to about 41 IIRC. It doesn't stop people from suggesting that Warne is overrated because his record in India is poor, just like it won't stop people from saying such things about Ponting.

 

[silentstriker]

You missed my point I think. I'm saying if Ponting goes to India in 2008 and averages say 50 and his career average there goes up to 30, it won't stop people from criticising him for his poor record in India, as you said earlier.

I don't know what 'people' you are talking about - I certainly would put the India thing to rest if that happened.

Hence the Warne example, he had an atrocious record in India based on two tours in 1998 and 2001, which is now merely a pretty bad record because he had a pretty decent tour there in 2004. Went down from 50+ to about 41 IIRC.

He still averaged 30.00, hardly decent by Warne standards. So he has answered it a little bit, but its not like he completely righted it. With that said, Warne gets away with it because he's so much better than his next closest competitor that it doesn't matter what he averages in one place.


I am not claiming Ponting is not a great player. He is. But if you want to compare him with all time greats, greats who do not have records in specific countries as bad as Ponting, then you have to count it against Ponting.

 

[Jono]

It's quite remarkable that two players have had such amazing years at the same time.

Is it really?

 

[silentstriker]

Is it really?

Yea, don't think its quite a coincidence.

 

[Jono]

http://www1.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/1000_RUNS_IN_CALENDAR_YEAR.html

Look at the top 20 amount of runs that have been scored in a calendar year, 14 of them have been made from 2000 onwards.

I'd like someone to seriously try and argue that batting isn't easier nowadays, and that all batting accomplishments needs to be put into context.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

http://www1.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/1000_RUNS_IN_CALENDAR_YEAR.html

Look at the top 20 amount of runs that have been scored in a calendar year, 14 of them have been made from 2000 onwards.

I'd like someone to seriously try and argue that batting isn't easier nowadays, and that all batting accomplishments needs to be put into context.

Of course batting is easier nowadays. That's why we have so many batsmen averaging 50+ in the modern era, while it was reasonably uncommon in the 90s. The question is how much easier batting is. Certainly wickets are flatter and there's fewer quality seamers, but I don't subscrube to the theory that this makes all batting achievements since 2001 irrelevant and that any idiot can average 60 or 70 in this period. I also think batting is stronger worldwide at the moment than it was in the 90s, and we've got more great batsmen, which also contributes to the high scores. I'm not sure how relevant this is to either Ponting or Yousuf this year either. Wickets have been flat in the subcontinent for a long time, and if anything they are bit more sporting right now than they usually have been, and Yousuf has also toured England who have a decent pace attack right now. Ponting's played half his tests on seaming wickets against decent attacks, and still has 150 runs a test and 7 centuries. It's easy to generalise, but I think both the players in question have absolutely phenomenal years by any standards, not just in terms of the number of runs they have scored. And yes, it is remarkable that two players have played so incredibly well in the same year.

I don't really think your example is that relevant anyway. Batting was incredibly easy in the 30s and many batsmen averaged 55+ or even 60+, with one guy averaging 100 odd. Nobody from that era is on that list, because of the number of tests played. That's the main reason why so many of those high scoring years have come since 2000. Obviously the higher scores in general have an impact, but only three guys have made 1200+ with under 10 tests, and 10 or more tests in a year is much more common today than it ever has been before.

 

[marc71178]

Partly it's due to a greater number of Tests being played to be fair Jono.

 

[Jono]

Of course batting is easier nowadays. That's why we have so many batsmen averaging 50+ in the modern era, while it was reasonably uncommon in the 90s. The question is how much easier batting is. Certainly wickets are flatter and there's fewer quality seamers, but I don't subscrube to the theory that this makes all batting achievements since 2001 irrelevant and that any idiot can average 60 or 70 in this period.

Glad you don't subscribe to that theory, because no one does. What's your point? People are saying let's stop the hoo-hah that Ponting, Hussey and Yousuf are comparable to Sachin, Lara, Waugh until their career is over, or at least until they are past 33-34 when one's physical abilities fall.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to either Ponting or Yousuf this year either. Wickets have been flat in the subcontinent for a long time, and if anything they are bit more sporting right now than they usually have been, and Yousuf has also toured England who have a decent pace attack right now. Ponting's played half his tests on seaming wickets against decent attacks, and still has 150 runs a test and 7 centuries.

Few things wrong here.

Why do you continue to assume that SL wickets are the same as Pak wickets which are the same as India's? I know some commentators like to use the term "flat sub-continent wickets" but really, its just stupid and I'd hardly expect people who have watched a lot of cricket to stereotype a whole area's wickets. I guess NZ and Aus wickets are the same too?

India's wickets are more sporting than most worldwide atm, but Pakistan's aren't, and guess where Yousuf has played a lot of his cricket? What about those 2 tests he played against India on some of the worst wickets of all time?

I'd also like to know which wickets Ponting played on have been greentops. Half of his tests? That's ridiculous. SA wickets during the test series was, and Melbourne's first innings was tough. The SCG wasn't a greentop, just aided swing and that pitch was as flat as anything come day 5. It was a disgrace.

He also played Bangladesh.

Nobody from that era is on that list, because of the number of tests played. That's the main reason why so many of those high scoring years have come since 2000. Obviously the higher scores in general have an impact, but only three guys have made 1200+ with under 10 tests, and 10 or more tests in a year is much more common today than it ever has been before.

No its not, I knew that'd be your argument too. Fairly predictable response. If you look at some of the years where those scores have been made, players have played close to 15 tests. Its far from the main reason.

 

[Jono]

Partly it's due to a greater number of Tests being played to be fair Jono.

Yousuf did in 11 tests what Gavaskar couldn't do in 18 in 1983 and 17 in 1989. What Taylor couldn't do in 15 tests in 1993 etc. etc.

There aren't that many more tests being played, its more ODI cricket.

 

[mohammad16]

Glad you don't subscribe to that theory, because no one does. What's your point? People are saying let's stop the hoo-hah that Ponting, Hussey and Yousuf are comparable to Sachin, Lara, Waugh until their career is over, or at least until they are past 33-34 when one's physical abilities fall.

Few things wrong here.

Why do you continue to assume that SL wickets are the same as Pak wickets which are the same as India's? I know some commentators like to use the term "flat sub-continent wickets" but really, its just stupid and I'd hardly expect people who have watched a lot of cricket to stereotype a whole area's wickets. I guess NZ and Aus wickets are the same too?

India's wickets are more sporting than most worldwide atm, but Pakistan's aren't, and guess where Yousuf has played a lot of his cricket? What about those 2 tests he played against India on some of the worst wickets of all time?

I'd also like to know which wickets Ponting played on have been greentops. Half of his tests? That's ridiculous. SA wickets during the test series was, and Melbourne's first innings was tough. The SCG wasn't a greentop, just aided swing and that pitch was as flat as anything come day 5. It was a disgrace.

He also played Bangladesh.

No its not, I knew that'd be your argument too. Fairly predictable response. If you look at some of the years where those scores have been made, players have played close to 15 tests. Its far from the main reason.

indian wickets are not more sporting then pakistani wickets dude
its just that the icc champions trophy turned out that way

also for some reason the lsat test series between india and pak was messed up by the curators

but if u look at the pak vs england series, most other odis that take place in pakistan

u find more bounce, more movement in pakistan pitches compared to india where all u ever find is dusty spinner freindly tracks at best

that seemed to have changed though in the champions trphy but who can say it will last??

overall through out the history, pakistan pitches have been a little more sporting then indian wickets

 

[Jono]

You're talking historically. I'm not even referring to the CT by the way. I'm talking test cricket in the last 2-3 years.

Pak's wickets during the Pak vs. Eng series were very flat. It was England's ineptitude that resulted in them screwing up the 1st test, and they should have been able to draw the 3rd test too. God knows how they lost that one. Akhtar's awesome bowling had a lot to do with it too, but he barely got anything from those pitches which made his series that much better.

Indian test wickets in the last few years have generally been more sporting, but they are still often flat like most wickets worldwide except NZ. Look at the 2004 test series vs. Aus, you had a slow wicket in the 1st test, perfect wicket in the 2nd which offered spin but also movement, 3rd test wicket was a greentop with the ball exploding by day 4 off the wicket as well, and the 4th test was a silly minefield made for spinners. All different, hardly all dustbowls, and all were result wickets (the first was probably one that should have been a draw but India were horrid).

The 04/05 test series vs. Eng had wickets which offered plenty of bounce. Just ask Hoggard and Anderson.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Glad you don't subscribe to that theory, because no one does. What's your point? People are saying let's stop the hoo-hah that Ponting, Hussey and Yousuf are comparable to Sachin, Lara, Waugh until their career is over, or at least until they are past 33-34 when one's physical abilities fall.

There's certainly an argument for reserving judgement, but you know as well as I do that that's not what most people do on the subject on this board. The general concensus is that Ponting and Dravid aren't as good as Tendulkar and Lara and never will be because batting is so easy, which is a pretty silly argument IMO. There's every chance that they will decline and their record won't be so impressive when they retire, and that's why I don't rate someone like Ponting ahead of Steve Waugh yet, but he's certainly closing in pretty fast.

Why do you continue to assume that SL wickets are the same as Pak wickets which are the same as India's? I know some commentators like to use the term "flat sub-continent wickets" but really, its just stupid and I'd hardly expect people who have watched a lot of cricket to stereotype a whole area's wickets. I guess NZ and Aus wickets are the same too?

India's wickets are more sporting than most worldwide atm, but Pakistan's aren't, and guess where Yousuf has played a lot of his cricket? What about those 2 tests he played against India on some of the worst wickets of all time?

I'm not assuming anything of the sort. Obviously Pakistan wickets are usually very flat, but they haven't all been this year. The last pitch in the India series was seam-friendly, right? I didn't see it, but that's what I gathered. And the last wicket against the West Indies wasn't exactly a road either. Obviously Yousuf has played on plenty of flat pitches this year, but he scored a century in each innings in the last test where runs were hard to come by, so I hardly think you can attribute his heavy scoring to easy pitches.

I'd also like to know which wickets Ponting played on have been greentops. Half of his tests? That's ridiculous. SA wickets during the test series was, and Melbourne's first innings was tough. The SCG wasn't a greentop, just aided swing and that pitch was as flat as anything come day 5. It was a disgrace.

He also played Bangladesh.

You answered your own question there. I said half of his tests, and you've just listed them. Ponting has only played 8 tests this year. Not all greentops necessarily, but certainly bowling-friendly and surfaces where few batsmen made runs. One of the wickets in Bangladesh was pretty tricky as well, especially for a player of Ponting's style. After day one when the bounce began to become uneven, only three batsmen passed 50 for the rest of the test. Obviously the opposition wasn't the greatest, but I've seen many players make far, far easier runs than that century.

No its not, I knew that'd be your argument too. Fairly predictable response. If you look at some of the years where those scores have been made, players have played close to 15 tests. Its far from the main reason.

Of course it's predictable, it's correct. I never said that nobody played 15 tests in a year in the past, although obviously they didn't really before a certain point, but it was far less common. Players would have a big year with several tours and then play less than 10 tests for the next year or two. These days, most test teams play 10 or more tests every year, unless it's a World Cup year or they are New Zealand, whereas in the past that was a big year, and 15 tests was rare but did happen from time to time.

Take a look at Sunil Gavaskar for example. 17 years in test cricket and 125 tests, and he played over 10 tests three times. Those years he played 11, 17 and 18, and in each of them he scored over 1,000 test runs, including 1400 in 17 in 1979 and 1300 in 18 in 1983. He was an opener and had lots of scoring opportunities, but only passed 1000 in one year other than those three. The same goes for other players form the same era. Greg Chappell played 10+ tests three times in 15 years, Ricky Ponting has done it six times in 12. Obviously Ponting has scored runs more heavily than Chappell did, but that's not the only reason he breaks the 1,000 barrier consistently and Chappell didn't.

 

[Dasa]

One of the wickets in Bangladesh was pretty tricky as well, especially for a player of Ponting's style.

Difficult for a player of his style?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Difficult for a player of his style?

A player who tends to struggle a bit on slow, turning tracks with uneven bounce, yeah. Didn't mean anything by it beyond that it was a different sort of challenging pitch to the kind that Ponting usually succeeds on.

 

[Jono]

Of course it's predictable, it's correct. I never said that nobody played 15 tests in a year in the past, although obviously they didn't really before a certain point, but it was far less common. Players would have a big year with several tours and then play less than 10 tests for the next year or two. These days, most test teams play 10 or more tests every year, unless it's a World Cup year or they are New Zealand, whereas in the past that was a big year, and 15 tests was rare but did happen from time to time.

In general more test cricket is played, but that's predominantly Australia and England teams.

Look at Yousuf's past few years. 6 tests in 2003, 7 in 2004, 7 in 2005. He's only played more than 10 twice in his whole career.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerYears.asp?PlayerID=2129

You answered your own question there. I said half of his tests, and you've just listed them. Ponting has only played 8 tests this year. Not all greentops necessarily, but certainly bowling-friendly and surfaces where few batsmen made runs. One of the wickets in Bangladesh was pretty tricky as well, especially for a player of Ponting's style. After day one when the bounce began to become uneven, only three batsmen passed 50 for the rest of the test. Obviously the opposition wasn't the greatest, but I've seen many players make far, far easier runs than that century.

You're using the term 'greentop' very graciously because its seen so rarely in today's cricket. A tough pitch to bat on isn't a greentop.

He's played 8 tests this year, and since we're talking 2006 then we discard the MCG Boxing Day test in 2005 I mentioned earlier which was tricky to bat on for a while, he's only faced tough conditions against one team in one series.

The Sydney test wasn't green, just had some swinging conditions early. By the end of it, it was one of the most disgraceful wickets I've seen, with batting as easy as anything I've ever seen on the 5th day.

The three SA tests involved a green wicket in the first test, and the second was very tough to bat on as well (in which he failed). The second test was far from a greentop, but it was a relatively sporting cricket pitch, far from a flat one. Ponting was excellent in the first test and his tons in the second test were pretty good as well, particularly the first innings. By the second innings the pitch was quite flat, and it took some Warne magic to force a result.

Bangladesh pitches weren't green obviously, and neither was the Gabba or Adelaide.

Two tests had seaming conditions, and one test was quite tough to bat on (which he only got starts). Even if I do give you the Bangladesh 1st test match, Bangladesh still scored 400+ in the first innings, and were cruising in the second until they started to collapse. Hardly tough, and just because it'd generally be tough for a batsmen like Ponting (i.e. prefers faster tracks) doesn't make it a great achievement.

The sad thing is, the wickets Ponting have faced this year have probably been the most challenging that some batsmen have faced recently, and it still only includes a tough SA tour really and a slow turner.

With regards to Yousuf, the first two tests vs. India need not be mentioned, and in the third test the first couple of days did indeed involve seaming conditions. In the first innings Yousuf was out for a golden duck. By the time Pakistan batted in the 2nd innings the pitch well and truly flattened out, evident through Pakistan's score of 7/599 declared. There's no chance that Pakistan team would score almost 600 runs on a greentop, especially when you have Razzaq scoring 90, Afridi 60 off 46 balls and Faisal Iqbal scoring 139 on debut. India's collapse in the 2nd innings was more due to some inspired new ball bowling and pathetic batting.

First test vs. Eng was a flat track, second test was the Harmison show and he failed (though that was due to Monty rather than quicks on a bouncy wicket), third test was a flat track, fourth test was a wicket doing a little and he played a gem of an innings.

His series vs. WI was sublime, particularly the third test however it wasn't the best of bowling attacks let's be fair.

It sounds like I'm trying to denigrate their achievements, when really all I'm trying to do is put them into context. By the end of Ponting's year he'd have played 10 tests, Yousuf would have played 11, yet they would have mounted more runs than Sunil Gavaskar could do in 17 tests in 1979 and 18 tests in 1983. I hardly think these guys achieved such huge amount of runs on greentops, the pitches have been relatively easy with the touch one here and there. Combine that with the mediocre to downright weak bowling attacks, and I know who I think has batted better.

Compare Yousuf and Ponting's 2006 (and Ponting's 2003 and 2005 while you're at it) to Gavaskar's 1983 when he faced attacks such as WI's Holding, Garner, Marshall, Roberts and Pakistan's Imran, Nawaz and Qadir.

http://www.howstat.com.au/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerProgressBat.asp?PlayerId=0595&Year=1983

I know which one I reckon was a bit tougher. Definitely easier than facing Ntini, Nel and a sliding Pollock, a Flintoff, Hoggard, Harmison and Anderson, and let's not forget the deadly attack of Mortaza, Hossain, Rafique and Enamul Haque Jr.

And in response to your