Ricky Ponting vs Herbert Sutcliffe vs Sunil Gavaskar

[Johan]

better test Batsmen? Yeah I've ran outta ideas

 

[DrWolverine]

 

[Johan]

Two great hookers

 

[Coronis]

 

[Johan]

Who'd do better?

Sutcliffe at WACA

Ponting on a wet pitch

 

[shortpitched713]

It's not so much where and on what they played, but rather on who they faced.

That's why Punter pretty handily for me here.

 

[Coronis]

Who'd do better?

Sutcliffe at WACA

Ponting on a wet pitch

Sutcliffe at the WACA

 

[Johan]

It's not so much where and on what they played, but rather on who they faced.

That's why Punter pretty handily for me here.

Ponting made most of his runs against dreadful attacks at flat home in games that weren't necessarily competitive, it's definitely not a point for him, it's kind of extra sus that his "prime" only began when all the attacks diminished.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Punter

 

[Johan]

their average in lower scoring games (sub average RPI)

Sutcliffe 47.11
Ponting 39.39

interesting

 

[Johan]

made a change

 

[shortpitched713]

made a change

As have I.

 

[capt_Luffy]

@Johan I will remember this mate

 

[Johan]

@Johan I will remember this mate

Sunny is literally about to win

 

[kyear2]

It's not so much where and on what they played, but rather on who they faced.

That's why Punter pretty handily for me here.

It's like this for me, what did you overcome. For Sutcliffe...

ATG attacks and bowlers? - No

Tough conditions? - flattest period of test cricket, so No

Modern rules? - played his entire career before the lbw rule changed, all but eliminating one possible way of getting out so again, No

One man army? - opened with the greatest batsman of all times, No

Had the ability to dominate bowlers? - scored at a underwhelming s/ r in the low 30's.

So basically he batted in the flattest of eras and conditions known to the game, in one of the weakest eras for fast bowling, played his entire career under the old lbw rule, in a strong batting line up, mostly between Hobbs (late 30's) and Hammond, and still couldn't dominate, trundling along at the low 30's while still not being seen as a match for either of the two H's he played with nor, subsequently the one that came after.

He was never rated alongside Hobbs, Hammond nor Hutton.

Can't be rated ahead of any of these two for me.

 

[Coronis]

Nice article on my boy.

Pudsey St Lawrence CC

pudseystlawrencecc.co.uk

 

[Johan]

It's like this for me, what did you overcome. For Sutcliffe...

ATG attacks and bowlers? - No

Tough conditions? - flattest period of test cricket, so No

Modern rules? - played his entire career before the lbw rule changed, all but eliminating one possible way of getting out so again, No

One man army? - opened with the greatest batsman of all times, No

Had the ability to dominate bowlers? - scored at a underwhelming s/ r in the low 30's.

So basically he batted in the flattest of eras and conditions known to the game, in one of the weakest eras for fast bowling, played his entire career under the old lbw rule, in a strong batting line up, mostly between Hobbs (late 30's) and Hammond, and still couldn't dominate, trundling along at the low 30's while still not being seen as a match for either of the two H's he played with nor, subsequently the one that came after.

He was never rated alongside Hobbs, Hammond nor Hutton.

Can't be rated ahead of any of these two for me.

You're overdoing it really

You're making it seem like he was just average all around and had nothing to seprate himself from a Hussey or a Hayden, but one can easily argue that Sutcliffe being one of the greatest masters of bad wickets is as big of an advantage as Ponting's ability to dominate attacks.

He was a slow Batsmen, but that also arguably helped Hammond and those around him, tiring out the bowlers and fighting off the early swing spam is usually a good thing

 

[Johan]

Nice article on my boy.

Pudsey St Lawrence CC

pudseystlawrencecc.co.uk

"Although he was a wonderful hooker" probably my favourite Cricket terminology

 

[kyear2]

Ponting made most of his runs against dreadful attacks at flat home in games that weren't necessarily competitive, it's definitely not a point for him, it's kind of extra sus that his "prime" only began when all the attacks diminished.

This is something that I don't understand and would love to have explained to me.

Everyone shits on Punter and (especially) Hayden, basically they only came good when the good bowlers left and the pitches flattened out.

Haydos opened and Punter came in at 3 and get no respect. But Gilchrist hit his peak (in a shorter career) during the same period, while batting at 7 behind the strongest batting line up of all time and he gets none of the same criticism.

Somehow Ponting is a fraud, but Gilchrist is the 3rd name on an AT sheet. Sure.......

 

[Johan]

This is something that I don't understand and would love to have explained to me.

Everyone shits on Punter and (especially) Hayden, basically they only came good when the good bowlers left and the pitches flattened out.

Haydos opened and Punter came in at 3 and get no respect. But Gilchrist hit his peak (in a shorter career) during the same period, while batting at 7 behind the strongest batting line up of all time and he gets none of the same criticism.

Somehow Ponting is a fraud, but Gilchrist is the 3rd name on an AT sheet. Sure.......

Well Gilchrist's inclusion is simply a resultant of him being the only one in history to be a ATVG bat while also being a great keeper proven to both an ATG pacer and a spinner, and is the perfect #7 wicket keeper, the only spot where realistically a WK can make the All Time XI.

I don't think anyone thinks Gilchrist is a great Batsmen, I doubt he'd beat someone like Kohli in a batting poll even.