The better batsman the bettter #3 Ponting vs Dravid

[viktor]

IMO, the only way it can be decided is by flipping a COIN. Flip one, Heads Ponting, Tails Dravid. If you get Heads, Keep flipping until you get Tails.

works for me...

 

[honestbharani]

In Australia Vs. Mcgrath/Warne. His avg is <15.

You are right, Sanz, but he has had only shot, while Ponting has had plenty in his waterloo.

 

[Sanz]

You are right, Sanz, but he has had only shot, while Ponting has had plenty in his waterloo.

I know some of you dont count Super Series, but I do.

 

[Robertinho]

yes there maybe less risk involved with playing defensively but that doesnt mean it is easier to do so. otherwise we'd see a lot more players being capable of batting for an entire day to save games for their country these days. ask me and i'll tell you that Pontings 156 was far far harder for him than any of his fast scoring centuries or double centuries hes scored in his entire career.

So? That wasn't even my point. The fact is, there's less risk involved, so a moderate player will be more likely to go out if he's playing aggressively. Therefore your point - that Ponting would've been out earlier if he had gone for the draw - isn't true, because he was taking more risks playing aggressively.

well whatever you want to call it, the point is that any sensible captain would play for a draw if the likelyhood of his team managing a draw is far greater than the likelyhood of his team winning.

Yes, so? That's only in situations where teams are chasing in the 4th innings and don't have a batting lineup capable of chasing the target they've been set. In all other situations, teams are playing to win - because drawing game after game will get you nowhere. Teams don't often find themselves in a position where they need some gritty innings to draw - the recent ones I can think of are Rudolph 102* at Perth, and Ponting's 156 at Old Trafford. I can certainly recall more attacking innings to set up wins - Ponting's 143*, Pietersen's 158, Hussey's 122 etc etc.

Anyway, that's besides my point. Success requires winning. That's one thing you seem to be forgetting. You'd honestly rather have a player in your lineup who can stay in for 200 balls to save a draw than someone who can hit a quick, aggressive 100-150 to win? Obviously your ideal team is one that draws a heck of a lot

indeed and if you watched the England-Pakistan series, you'd realise that players with such a mindset are also quite likely to end up losing plenty of games in the process.

...
Hmm, one series that England were bound to lose anyway. What's your point? There's always going to be some risk, and I'm sure you'll find that "defensive, draw saving" batsmen fail, too.

err the super series was nothing but an exhibition game. and any game where players dont play for their country is hardly worth any value to anybody on the field. and please, 4 tests as opposed to 8 tests is a significant difference, it is twice as many tests. 4 tests is effectively as much as one series. 8 tests spread over 8 years is completely different.

I've just checked up Ponting's performances against India. Averages 52, though, as I'm sure you've pointed out, helped greatly by 2 double centuries in Australia. You can't just erase them.

Sure, his record isn't that great, but the fact he struggled in 96/97 doesn't support your argument that he's not a good player against spin now. He's improved MASSIVELY in the past few years, in his last 50 tests he average 66 or so. You're using outdated statistics (highly selective ones at that). So he averages 12 against India, in India, in 8 tests. 4 of which were over 8 years ago - 3 which were 3 years ago - and one that was on a shocking pitch where 11 & 12 were reasonable scores. (His 12 was the third top score in Australia's innings).

 

[tooextracool]

So? That wasn't even my point. The fact is, there's less risk involved, so a moderate player will be more likely to go out if he's playing aggressively. Therefore your point - that Ponting would've been out earlier if he had gone for the draw - isn't true, because he was taking more risks playing aggressively.

so you're saying that if ponting had played defensively in that innings he would have scored just as many runs then? somehow i highly doubt that, because it would have required him to have bat far far more balls to do so. the road to saving a game may involve less risk, but it doesnt change the fact that it is a very very long road to get there.

Yes, so? That's only in situations where teams are chasing in the 4th innings and don't have a batting lineup capable of chasing the target they've been set. In all other situations, teams are playing to win - because drawing game after game will get you nowhere. Teams don't often find themselves in a position where they need some gritty innings to draw - the recent ones I can think of are Rudolph 102* at Perth, and Ponting's 156 at Old Trafford. I can certainly recall more attacking innings to set up wins - Ponting's 143*, Pietersen's 158, Hussey's 122 etc etc..

actually teams find themselves in such situations quite often, and just because there arent that many players around in the modern era capable of saving a game, it doesnt mean that its any less important. and you seem to be narrowing the definition down quite a bit when you say 'playing for a draw'. one must remember that what we are talking about is playing defensively vs playing aggressively. playing defensively not only allows a team to go for a draw, but as you have noted it also has the advantage of involving less risk and the advantage of building greater partnerships. a 100 off 200 balls in a partnership of about 250 is better in most situations than a 100 off 130 balls in a partnership of 175.

Anyway, that's besides my point. Success requires winning. That's one thing you seem to be forgetting. You'd honestly rather have a player in your lineup who can stay in for 200 balls to save a draw than someone who can hit a quick, aggressive 100-150 to win? Obviously your ideal team is one that draws a heck of a lot

no you've once again managed to miss the crux of the matter. a 100 off 200 balls isnt exactly playing for a draw, because incase you havent noticed, dravid has won plenty of games for his country. as explained above, it all depends on the situation, and theres no way anyone can categorically state that a slower innings is any less or better than a faster one.

...
Hmm, one series that England were bound to lose anyway. What's your point? There's always going to be some risk, and I'm sure you'll find that "defensive, draw saving" batsmen fail, too.

no any side must consist of a balance between players who can score aggressively and players who can score defensively. please note that a defensive innings is not always a draw saving innings(in fact far more often it turns out to be the other way around, especially in dravids case because he isnt a snail).

I've just checked up Ponting's performances against India. Averages 52, though, as I'm sure you've pointed out, helped greatly by 2 double centuries in Australia. You can't just erase them.

err i havent erased anything. i have said that ponting is useless in India, not in Australia.

Sure, his record isn't that great, but the fact he struggled in 96/97 doesn't support your argument that he's not a good player against spin now. He's improved MASSIVELY in the past few years, in his last 50 tests he average 66 or so. You're using outdated statistics (highly selective ones at that). So he averages 12 against India, in India, in 8 tests. 4 of which were over 8 years ago - 3 which were 3 years ago - and one that was on a shocking pitch where 11 & 12 were reasonable scores. (His 12 was the third top score in Australia's innings).

wow third top scorer, give him a medal.
i maybe using outdated stats, and ponting may indeed be capable of scoring in India, but where is the conclusive evidence that he can? Dravid has shown that he can score against Mcgrath and warne(one series or not), and everyone else, Ponting has never once shown that he can score in India, and until he does im not going to change my view about the matter. you cannot compare a proven player vs an unproven one, that my friend is a about as close to a fact as you will get.

 

[tooextracool]

and has Dravid proven himself in every country ?

Dravid has, and please mcgrath and warne in Australia dont count as a country, especially when it consists of a whole 1 series.

 

[tooextracool]

Indian wickets offer much more to spinenrs than Australia, granted.

Australia offers more to seamers (bounce is quite important to seamers, naturally).

im not sure i understand this argument: "There's 6 runs difference in their averages in the last two years. Considering India generally has flatter pitches than Australia too (seam-wise) Ponting wins quite easily."

you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that pitches in India turn a fair bit and therefore offer more help to the bowlers than australian wickets. or can only seamer friendly wickets be considered as helpful wickets?
and as has been said a million times, bounce without lateral movement is almost always useless, and as such i dont think either Australia or Indian conditions have offered more to the pace bowlers. if anything reverse swing is far more prominent in India than it is in Australia.

 

[tooextracool]

Lastly, Do we ever take Warnie's success away from him (and say that he is not as good as any spinner ever to play the game) because of the fact that he has consistently struggled against India on any kind of pitches for full 14-15 years ?? Does that make Warnie any less of a great bowler ?

to blame shane warne for not being able to take wickets in India when almost no other spinner in the last decade(not even murali) has managed to come out with any sort of success in India is absurd to say the least. nor has Shane Warne managed to disgrace himself to such a degree in India as Ponting has done so.

 

[tooextracool]

Are you crazy or what ? Ponting played only one test in 2004 on a mine field like pitch in Mumbai. Where everyone including Dravid, SRT etc struggled against the likes of Hauritz and Clark.

your point is? it was not completely impossible to score on that wicket as martyn and hayden both showed in the first innings. i dont blame him for failing in 2004, but i certainly dont see any reason why his failure in India should be completely ignored simply because the pitch wasnt in his favor.

 

[tooextracool]

And obviously Dravid has had no support from the likes of Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly, Sehwag, Azhar, Srinath, Kumble etc.

im not sure what this is supposed to prove? ponting has not faced the best attack in the world. ironically, during the times that he came against the 2 best bowling attacks in his career, India in india & England in the Ashes 2005, he failed miserably in one while had considerably less success than usual in the other.

 

[Top_Cat]

and as has been said a million times, bounce without lateral movement is almost always useless

Geez, you exaggerate.

What? Who has said that? If there's anyone who's said that 'a million times', it's you. Even when you're used to it, bounce is a very useful weapon for pace bowlers. If anything, lateral movement on a slow pitch isn't anywhere near as useless as bounce without movement because batsmen have time to adjust to it. There was enough lateral movement in the WACA pitch, for example, to interest anyone but without the usual bounce, well we saw how easy it was to bat on. Any half-reasonable pace bowler can make extra bounce work for them with some smarts but even excellent bowlers on pitches which are moving in the air or off the deck, without some bounce or pace, will struggle for wickets. Adelaide Oval always has movement off the pitch to interest bowlers but without pace/bounce, big scores still result. Sydney's pitch had plenty of lateral movement but, again, because it was so slow, it was excellent to bat on as Ricky Ponting's near run-a-ball ton and Matt Hayden's 90 showed.

 

[Sanz]

i maybe using outdated stats, and ponting may indeed be capable of scoring in India, but where is the conclusive evidence that he can? Dravid has shown that he can score against Mcgrath and warne(one series or not), and everyone else

When did he prove that he can score against Mcgrath/Warne in Australia ? I guess you are talking about Kolkata test, Yes that's one innings add chennai test helf century - so a total of 2 innings out of 22 dont make a series.

It's funny that you count Dravid's performance in one inning to prove that he can bat against Mcgrath/Warne yet dismiss his failure against them in 15 innings in Australia and India as just ONE series failure when in reality it is much more than that and one can say that pretty equivalent to Ponting's failures(13 innings) against Kumble and Harbhajan.

It is also a fact that Ponting has scored more runs against Murali, Saqlain etc than Dravid has.

Ponting has never once shown that he can score in India, and until he does im not going to change my view about the matter. you cannot compare a proven player vs an unproven one, that my friend is a about as close to a fact as you will get.

RT Ponting b Kumble 60 149 127 7 0
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T2_18-22MAR1998.html

 

[Top_Cat]

im not sure what this is supposed to prove? ponting has not faced the best attack in the world. ironically, during the times that he came against the 2 best bowling attacks in his career, India in india & England in the Ashes 2005, he failed miserably in one while had considerably less success than usual in the other.

Unfair example. Ponting may have had a bit less success against England but he was still head-and-shoulders above the rest of the Aussie batsmen and still batted relatively well. The fact is, England's bowling attack bowled out-of-its skin for the whole series which even Australia's bowling attack only does occasionally. Seriously, think of the last series where almost all of Australia's bowlers were laying on the pressure and working so well as a unit. The last time I can think of was WI 1995, in fact. Possibly the 1999/2000 home series. When one bowler was struggling, one of the others picked up the slack. When they reverted to more 'mortal' bowling, guys like Harmi and even Freddie found themselves a little more exposed in Pakistan. Australia didn't bat THAT badly in England; England were just awesome with the ball. You may criticise Ponting for not doing as well but I would back barely any batsman to score consistently well against England's attack in that series. Dravid included.

 

[Top_Cat]

RT Ponting b Kumble 60 149 127 7 0
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/...-22MAR1998.html

Coming in at 4/29 no less. And, got a shocker in the second-dig.

 

[tooextracool]

Geez, you exaggerate.

What? Who has said that? If there's anyone who's said that 'a million times', it's you. Even when you're used to it, bounce is a very useful weapon for pace bowlers. If anything, lateral movement on a slow pitch isn't anywhere near as useless as bounce without movement because batsmen have time to adjust to it.

as opposed to bounce(consistent bounce) with no movement? come now spend some time in the nets and in warm up games and you shouldnt have any real problems being able to adjust to the bounce in Australia

There was enough lateral movement in the WACA pitch, for example, to interest anyone but without the usual bounce, well we saw how easy it was to bat on. Any half-reasonable pace bowler can make extra bounce work for them with some smarts but even excellent bowlers on pitches which are moving in the air or off the deck, without some bounce or pace, will struggle for wickets.

oh come off it, how often have we seen bowlers genuinely bowl well on wickets with bounce but no movement whatsoever? i'd say any half decent batsman should have too many problems being able to handle extra bounce on a wicket. and if you pitch the ball in the right areas on a wicket with a bit of seam movement it shouldnt be too hard to get wickets.

 

[Top_Cat]

as opposed to bounce(consistent bounce) with no movement? come now spend some time in the nets and in warm up games and you shouldnt have any real problems being able to adjust to the bounce in Australia

Yet I've seen so many times over the years on the WACA (a pitch which, historically, had almost nothing but bounce. Otherwise, it had little inconsistency even on the 5th day, fast outfields, no cloud cover etc. i.e. ideal for batting) we've seen visiting players fending off deliveries which have bounced more than they expected like they've never played on bouncy pitches in their lives. Any batsman will tell you, adjusting to pitches which bounce less than you're used to is far easier than those which bounce more.

To ram home the point, why do you think bowlers are cautioned specifically every year to not get too excited by the bounce on the WACA and just continue to bowl line-and-length as usual? Because just about every time, if you bowl short, you get spanked. Use the bounce properly and you'll get wickets.

oh come off it, how often have we seen bowlers genuinely bowl well on wickets with bounce but no movement whatsoever? i'd say any half decent batsman should have too many problems being able to handle extra bounce on a wicket. and if you pitch the ball in the right areas on a wicket with a bit of seam movement it shouldnt be too hard to get wickets.

Again, explain why visiting batsmen continue to struggle on the WACA then. And, explain why a pitch which is slow but with so much movement in it (Sydney) generally produces big scores.

 

[tooextracool]

When did he prove that he can score against Mcgrath/Warne in Australia ? I guess you are talking about Kolkata test, Yes that's one innings add chennai test helf century - so a total of 2 innings out of 22 dont make a series.

for the millionth time the super series doesnt count. remove that and its 19 innings. considering that one was a not out its 18 innings.and hes actually scored 2 half centuries against mcgrath and warne. this at an average of 33 which is nearly 3 times as good as pontings. enough said.

It's funny that you count Dravid's performance in one inning to prove that he can bat against Mcgrath/Warne yet dismiss his failure against them in 15 innings in Australia and India as just ONE series failure when in reality it is much more than that and one can say that pretty equivalent to Ponting's failures(13 innings) against Kumble and Harbhajan.

your argument lacks any real substance. ponting has failed in india not just in the presence of both harbhajan and kumble. hes failed with the combination of raju/kumble, ashish kapur/kumble, harbhajan/kumble, harbhajan/raju etc. you say that dravid cant play warne or Mcgrath yet you conveniently only include series in which both have played, even though it makes absolutely 0% sense. at least Dravid has had 1 successful series against mcgrath and warne together, ponting has had none in India.

It is also a fact that Ponting has scored more runs against Murali, Saqlain etc than Dravid has..

which again is hardly relevant. Dravid has not made a joke of himself against any bowler in the world, while Ponting clearly has.

RT Ponting b Kumble 60 149 127 7 0
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T2_18-22MAR1998.html

ok then, let me make it clearer for you to understand, when i say once i dont refer to one off games, i refer to entire series.

 

[tooextracool]

Unfair example. Ponting may have had a bit less success against England but he was still head-and-shoulders above the rest of the Aussie batsmen and still batted relatively well. The fact is, England's bowling attack bowled out-of-its skin for the whole series which even Australia's bowling attack only does occasionally. Seriously, think of the last series where almost all of Australia's bowlers were laying on the pressure and working so well as a unit. The last time I can think of was WI 1995, in fact. Possibly the 1999/2000 home series. When one bowler was struggling, one of the others picked up the slack. When they reverted to more 'mortal' bowling, guys like Harmi and even Freddie found themselves a little more exposed in Pakistan. Australia didn't bat THAT badly in England; England were just awesome with the ball. You may criticise Ponting for not doing as well but I would back barely any batsman to score consistently well against England's attack in that series. Dravid included.

that England bowling attack couldnt really have bowled too much better than the combination of gillespie/mcgrath/kaspa/warne that Dravid has come up against. ponting may have been better than the rest of the aussie players(although i seriously doubt that he was head and shoulders above everyone), but the fact is that he wasnt brilliant, which is much the same way as Dravid has struggled against Australia.

 

[Slats4ever]

stop talking too extra cool. Save your breath. Your point is laughable and believed only by yourself.

 

[Sanz]

to blame shane warne for not being able to take wickets in India when almost no other spinner in the last decade(not even murali) has managed to come out with any sort of success in India is absurd to say the least.

Ever heard the name NICKY BOJE or How about Saqlain Mushtaq, Danish Kaneria, Shahid Afridi, Ray Price ??

Nicky Boje avg in India 15.71
Shahid Afridi avg. in India - 25.36
Saqlain Mushtaq avg. in India - 20.95
Danish Kaneria avg. India - 31.52
Ray Price avg. in India - 31.40

And you know what I have just started...There coule be more...Even Murali averages 39.6 despite playing in one of the flattest series ever in 1997-98.

nor has Shane Warne managed to disgrace himself to such a degree in India as Ponting has done so.

That's debatable @ best. One saw him get thrashed all over by local mumbai boys (Ask him who Rajesh Sutar is, he will remember it)