Ricky Ponting vs Steve Waugh

[aussie]

Waugh in both area's for sure

Thats was my answer at that point in time but i think this next phase of Australian cricket where Ponting true test as a skipper will come a challenge that Waugh never had. Also maybe Ponting the batsman will never face bowlers at their peaks i.e Akram, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock etc in the latter half of his career but i reckon potentially Ponting has the tools the be classed as a better batsman that Waugh by the time he retires.

 

[aussie]

Put Punter against some good bowling on a fair pitch, and he'd struggle, whereas Waugh would gut it out and come out with a 100.

I suggest you go have a look at the Old Trafford test of 2005, Hobart 99, Melboure 2005 & Durban 2006 again.

 

[Johnners]

nah, i wouldn't look at Hobart 99 if you want a ponting "tought it out" innings, he was dismissed for a duck in both innings

 

[Perm]

Melbourne 2005 and Durban 2006 weren't that special either.

 

[deeps]

I suggest you go have a look at the Old Trafford test of 2005, Hobart 99, Melboure 2005 & Durban 2006 again.

Who was bowling in 05 and 06 of that good quality? and apparently duck in both innings in 99... Even in 99 the bowlers were well past their prime...but better than any of the crap bowled today

 

[pup11]

Every era throws up its own set of challenges and for every player to do well he needs to overcome those challenges, and its not Ponting's fault that there aren't too many good attacks around in world cricket atm.


He still has to go out there and score all those runs he scores, he still needs to concentrate hard and thats only way how he has been able to retain such mind-boggling form over the last 3 years in both forms of the game.

 

[pup11]

As far talent is concerned, talent varies from one batsman to another. If Tugga's talent was his power of concentration through which he use to grind an opposition and wait for lose balls to score of, then Ponting's or Tendulkar's talent is their naturally gifted ability to even score of good balls due to which they can beat a bowling attack into submission.


But then for a bowler dismissing Tugga is more difficult than Sachin or Ricky.

 

[Matt79]

Exactly what I was suggesting. Talent isn't the same thing from one player to another, and I'd say Waugh was just as talented as Ponting in his own way. He wasn't a player who grafted and was forced to play in a conservative way because he didn't have the talent to succeed otherwise. He CHOSE to play the way he did, and scored at a very good rate doing so.

 

[shehanwije]

As a captain Taylor greater than Ponting and Waugh. Dont rate either too highly.

Gotto agree here.

Taylor and Border would be way ahead of Ponting and Waugh. Both also played the game hard and got good results with a lesser team, but did not take the "mental disintegration" path that Ponting and Waugh have taken...hence largely avoided the "ugly Australians" tag during their tenure.

 

[Hadlee]

Batsman: Ponting
Captain: Steve Waugh
All rounder: Steve Waugh

 

[Anil]

Next time someone implies that batting slowly means not having talent, I'm going to go insane.

Dravid is not necessarily less talented than Tendulkar just because he scores slower. Talent is different from your mentality. Different style does not mean less talented. I don't believe for a second Waugh was less talented than Ponting. Yes Ponting is more aggressive, but that does not somehow equate to talent.

i am not trying to accelerate your descent into insanity and it's not really a question of batting quickly or slowly but tendulkar and ponting are much, much more talented batsmen than dravid and waugh respectively, there's really no doubt about it whatsoever, mind you i am not talking about their greatness as batsmen here, just their natural talent...

 

[Fiery]

Batsman: Ponting
Captain: Steve Waugh
All rounder: Steve Waugh

Welcome to CricketWeb Hadlee. Top name but what's with the avatar?

 

[aussie]

nah, i wouldn't look at Hobart 99 if you want a ponting "tought it out" innings, he was dismissed for a duck in both innings

my bad perth 99 rather i think where he made 199..

 

[aussie]

Melbourne 2005 and Durban 2006 weren't that special either.

The man argument is that ``Put Punter against some good bowling on a fair pitch, and he'd struggle``. Old Trafford plus those two test matches vs SA had some good bowling on some very helpful pitches.

 

[aussie]

Who was bowling in 05 and 06 of that good quality? and apparently duck in both innings in 99... Even in 99 the bowlers were well past their prime...but better than any of the crap bowled today

Ntini, Nel, Pollock (even though he was past his peak but was still accurate enough). Plus i expected you to mention that Akram, Waqar were past their prime etc, i personally have never accepted that argument since regardless of the fact they were still quality bowlers at the time & were capable of causing batsmen problem(i.e Akram was still able to take a 10 wicket vs WI a year on from that series & Waqar was still good enoug to take 13 wickets in 2 ODI's in 2001) so the batsmen surely didn't go out to bat with a mindset to relax when facing them.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Gotto agree here.

Taylor and Border would be way ahead of Ponting and Waugh. Both also played the game hard and got good results with a lesser team, but did not take the "mental disintegration" path that Ponting and Waugh have taken...hence largely avoided the "ugly Australians" tag during their tenure.

By not winning as much?

 

[silentstriker]

i am not trying to accelerate your descent into insanity and it's not really a question of batting quickly or slowly but tendulkar and ponting are much, much more talented batsmen than dravid and waugh respectively, there's really no doubt about it whatsoever, mind you i am not talking about their greatness as batsmen here, just their natural talent...

Are they really? So why do slow scoring batsmen automatically get classed as having less talent then? It's a different type of talent, not having 'less' of it.

 

[Johnners]

By not winning as much?

so true

 

[Jono]

Are they really? So why do slow scoring batsmen automatically get classed as having less talent then? It's a different type of talent, not having 'less' of it.

Dravid is debateable, because when he hits a scoring shot its absolutely sublime, and perfectly done.

But the fact that Steve Waugh had to remove an array of shots in his arsenal to be a successful batsman, whereas Ponting and Tendulkar play them all around the ground suggests that they are the more talented batsman. Not the better batsman, because there's more to it than that, but in terms of talent in the strictest sense of batting, I find it hard for anyone to argue that Ponting and Tendulkar aren't more talented than S Waugh. Its obvious just by watching them throughout their careers.

I'd like to stress again that doesn't make them better.

 

[Gloucefan]

I wasn't really interested in cricket when Waugh was playing so I cna;t really say.

I am surprised at the sheer quantity of people who rate Waugh as a better batsman alone though.

Not surprised by the captaincy part though.