The better batsman the bettter #3 Ponting vs Dravid

[luckyeddie]

The point is not the validity of the argument. The point is that it's not a "just based on selective stats" argument. Saying that he averages just averages XX in India is just another way of saying he's not done well in India. It may or may not be a relevant argument, but it's not one that can be brushed away on the basis of being purely statistical.

The problem is, with many people, it has to be taken a stage further and an extrapolation beyond the frame of reference has to be then made.

It then ceases to be a logical analysis and then becomes a leap of faith.

 

[Sanz]

What I find interesting is the idea that Ponting -cannot- be an all-time great while he has a poor statistical record in India. This point has been made before in this debate, but I'll make it again.

Let's say Ponting plays another 6 or 7 years and performs just as he has since 2003, exactly, repeating it twice more... meaning he averages 71.44 for the rest of his career, but suffers an injury before his next tour of India and never improves his record there (while still performing in the rest of the subcontinent and against India in Australia).

Ponting's end-of-career record:

174 tests, 300 innings, 45 not outs, 16267 runs @ 63.79, 62 50s, 56 100s

And... he's not an all-time great, because he averages 12 in India.

Obviously he's going to drop off and he's not going to finish with a record like that, but it really does show how silly the idea of writing him off because of his record in one country is.

Well Said.

 

[aussie]

word, very good point.

 

[Anil]

What I find interesting is the idea that Ponting -cannot- be an all-time great while he has a poor statistical record in India. This point has been made before in this debate, but I'll make it again.

Let's say Ponting plays another 6 or 7 years and performs just as he has since 2003, exactly, repeating it twice more... meaning he averages 71.44 for the rest of his career, but suffers an injury before his next tour of India and never improves his record there (while still performing in the rest of the subcontinent and against India in Australia).

Ponting's end-of-career record:

174 tests, 300 innings, 45 not outs, 16267 runs @ 63.79, 62 50s, 56 100s

And... he's not an all-time great, because he averages 12 in India.

Obviously he's going to drop off and he's not going to finish with a record like that, it really does show how silly the idea of writing him off because of his record in one country is

1. you don't have to extrapolate to make his record impressive, it is very impressive as it is...

2. it is a fact and a distinct blot on his record whether you like it or not that he has failed in india....obviously if he was an ordinary player, this would not have been discussed at all, but he has proven himself to be brilliant and those kind of blemishes are what separates brilliant players from each era from the handful of legit all-time greats....

3. not calling him an all-time great is in no way equivalent to writing him off...which you seem to be implying with your last sentence....and i am not suggesting that he will not become one...just that it will always be an arguable assertion as long as he fails in this particular scenario.....

 

[marc71178]

your problem is that you making an irrelevant point to what i'm arguing.

So which is it?

Is it a good average or a poor one?

 

[Sanz]

........ but he has proven himself to be brilliant and those kind of blemishes are what separates brilliant players from each era from the handful of legit all-time greats....

3. not calling him an all-time great is in no way equivalent to writing him off....

Do you think having similar blemishes stops Warnie from being an alltime great ??

 

[Top_Cat]

Just wondering - if Ponting has a good/awesome series in India next time around, yet because of his career record so far there he still averages less than 40, does that mean that he gets marked as a useless player of spin by the stats merchants?

No, I reckon it'll be more along the lines of a "So he had one good series in India; big deal" argument.

I still say the bowlers and not the conditions were what wrecked him. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, of his 10 dismissals in the two full series he played, 8 of them were nabbed by Kmble or Harbi. To say he is just susceptible to spin alone really does the excellent bowling of both those two in those series' a disservice and gives those who say that India load the pitches in their favour (i.e. just can't bring themselves to accept their batsmen were outdone by decent bowlers) more ammunition.

Let's give credit where credit is due, eh? Both Kumble and Harbi know Ponting is vulnerable early in his innings, especially to spin so they bowled accordingly. I just can't believe that his failure in India is just simply a systemic weakness against spin full-stop because he's succeeded in spin-friendly conditions in other countries against both types of spinner. I reckon the bowlers were just too good for him and had very little to do with the conditions at all. The fact that he got out in very similar ways in quite a few innings (popping up the close catchers) shows that the bowlers knew where to bowl to him early on and executed it, well, flawlessly. Both bowlers were in excellent form too.

 

[C_C]

No, I reckon it'll be more along the lines of a "So he had one good series in India; big deal" argument.

I still say the bowlers and not the conditions were what wrecked him. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, of his 10 dismissals in the two full series he played, 8 of them were nabbed by Kmble or Harbi. To say he is just susceptible to spin alone really does the excellent bowling of both those two in those series' a disservice and gives those who say that India load the pitches in their favour (i.e. just can't bring themselves to accept their batsmen were outdone by decent bowlers) more ammunition.

Let's give credit where credit is due, eh? Both Kumble and Harbi know Ponting is vulnerable early in his innings, especially to spin so they bowled accordingly. I just can't believe that his failure in India is just simply a systemic weakness against spin full-stop because he's succeeded in spin-friendly conditions in other countries against both types of spinner. I reckon the bowlers were just too good for him and had very little to do with the conditions at all. The fact that he got out in very similar ways in quite a few innings (popping up the close catchers) shows that the bowlers knew where to bowl to him early on and executed it, well, flawlessly. Both bowlers were in excellent form too.

I wouldnt say he has a glaring weakness against spin but i would venture on to say that his playing of spin is ordinary and distinctly behind such greats of the modern era as Tendulkar, Steve Waugh, Lara, Dravid, etc.

Ponting is an very good player of pace ( i still think that Steve Waugh and Sachin are better against pace), better than Lara and Dravid IMO but his pace-play isnt much better than those two compared to how much he lags behind in playing spin.

IMO, he is a great batsman but still a bit short of alltime great batsmen or allmost-alltime great batsmen such as Sobers, Viv, Kanhai, Bradman,Greg Chappell,Gavaskar,Lara,Tendulkar, Steve Waugh,Border, Dravid, etc.

 

[Top_Cat]

Ponting is an very good player of pace ( i still think that Steve Waugh and Sachin are better against pace), better than Lara and Dravid IMO but his pace-play isnt much better than those two compared to how much he lags behind in playing spin.

Agree with the rest but Steve Waugh better against pace? Only because he put just about every leg-side shot in the cupboard other than the flick off his pads and worked at nailing everything short outside off. Other than that, his primary focus was survival and he always looked distinctly awkward against pace and pretty uncertain against extreme pace. I ain't never saw Steve Waugh hook a 156km/h bumper or straight drive anyone for six, nor look contemptuous of pace bowling the way Ponting does. Steve Waugh had a huge ticker but his technique was always suspect and the question marks against him against pace bowling never went away no matter how many runs he scored whereas Ponting just makes it look so damn easy against the quickest of bowlers other than early in his digs where he's vulnerable against J. Random Part-timer sometimes........

As for Sachin, he certainly used to be a fantastic player of pace but of late, I've seen him flinch occasionally. To be expected; the body doesn't last forever.

 

[C_C]

Agree with the rest but Steve Waugh better against pace? Only because he put just about every leg-side shot in the cupboard other than the flick off his pads and worked at nailing everything short outside off. Other than that, his primary focus was survival and he always looked distinctly awkward against pace and pretty uncertain against extreme pace. I ain't never saw Steve Waugh hook a 156km/h bumper or straight drive anyone for six, nor look contemptuous of pace bowling the way Ponting does. Steve Waugh had a huge ticker but his technique was always suspect and the question marks against him against pace bowling never went away no matter how many runs he scored whereas Ponting just makes it look so damn easy against the quickest of bowlers other than early in his digs where he's vulnerable against J. Random Part-timer sometimes........

As for Sachin, he certainly used to be a fantastic player of pace but of late, I've seen him flinch occasionally. To be expected; the body doesn't last forever.

I agree with your analysis of Tugga but the primary reason i would rate him ahead of Ponting when it came to playing pace is because the way he handled Ambrose and Walsh.
Sure, he was never really at ease, but he survived very well against them and scored the runs. Ponting, while contemptuous of pace bowling, IMO is vulnerable against lift and bounce early in his innings.

 

[marc71178]

Let's give credit where credit is due, eh? Both Kumble and Harbi know Ponting is vulnerable early in his innings, especially to spin so they bowled accordingly. I just can't believe that his failure in India is just simply a systemic weakness against spin full-stop because he's succeeded in spin-friendly conditions in other countries against both types of spinner.

But in other series has he had to face top quality spin from both ends in tandem?

 

[Anil]

Do you think having similar blemishes stops Warnie from being an alltime great ??

1. brilliant batsmen are many, many more than brilliant bowlers, especially in this decade when the bowling standards have dipped alarmingly and the wickets are becoming flatter and flatter...at some stage, hayden, dravid, kallis have all been as consistent or almost as consistent as ponting is now, however with the mediocre bowling that he is able to feast on nowadays, in my opinion it's more like he is cashing in much better than the other good players in the past 3 years or so....

2. warne is on a different plane as a performer overall compared to ponting....ponting's recent form no doubt inspires a serious debate on whether he is already an all-time great or whether he will go on to become one....warne has been performing on a consistent basis for far longer than that(although an accurate one-on-one comparison of a bowler and a batsman is not possible, warne has had some good spells in india over the years in the midst of getting hit around and has foxed/dismissed some classy players of spin on occasion, his performance as a bowler has certainly been far less clueless than ponting's as a batsman in these conditions)....

in my opinion, shane warne has achieved enough in his career to be acknowledged an all-time great but

i. his comparatively poor record against india and

ii. the fact that a huge number of his wickets have come against players utterly leaden-footed against spin especially in s.a and england works against him when they take out a list of the greatest ever bowlers(or even the greatest ever spinners)....for example, i am against having warne as one of the 5 wisden cricketers of the century, i don't think he deserves to be anywhere near that list...

 

[PY]

for example, i am against having warne as one of the 5 wisden cricketers of the century, i don't think he deserves to be anywhere near that list...

Big call though very interesting (as it comes from someone who knows what they are talking about) or is that exaggeration?

 

[Anil]

Big call though very interesting (as it comes from someone who knows what they are talking about) or is that exaggeration?

no i meant it...and i don't really think it is a big call on my end....rather, i see it as a huge call on wisden's end to include him ahead of so many more deserving(in my opinion of course) but probably less glamorous luminaries of the game in the past century....

 

[Anil]

But in other series has he had to face top quality spin from both ends in tandem?

good point...

 

[social]

no i meant it...and i don't really think it is a big call on my end....rather, i see it as a huge call on wisden's end to include him ahead of so many more deserving(in my opinion of course) but probably less glamorous luminaries of the game in the past century....

Ridiculous

generally accepted as one of the best few bowlers ever

changed the nature of the game after decades dominated by pace

larger than life personality in media-centric era

Probably would have made the list if it had been limited to 3

 

[Anil]

Ridiculous

why because anything that you disagree with automatically has to be?...or because i criticized an australian icon?...or maybe both?

generally accepted as one of the best few bowlers ever

a few people do consider him so and i guess you are in that category, but most are willing to see his drawbacks/limitations while acknowledging his greatness...

changed the nature of the game after decades dominated by pace

how? there are still far more pace bowlers than spinners....how many quality spinners have followed in warne's footsteps in australia? other countries have produced good-to-great spinners in around the same time period, are you asserting that each and everyone of them were inspired by warne...? he along with qadir and saqlain and mushtaq and kumble and murali and a few others have certainly brought greater respectability to the art of spin bowling but "changed the nature of the game" is a melodramatic declaration that doesn't have much basis in reality.....

larger than life personality in media-centric era

now that i totally agree with...and in my opinion that had a lot to do with his selection as well....

Probably would have made the list if it had been limited to 3

might have....i don't know....but the question is does he really belong there?...and the answer isn't as dismissively simple as you think it is...

 

[aussie]

So which is it?

Is it a good average or a poor one?

you aint gonna drag me into this arguement all over again, because it seems like you aint getting what i'm trying to say, so for my own good i'm done with you...

 

[aussie]

good point...

well in these circumstaces is his record poor?

 

[tooextracool]

well if u read one of my post on page 20 you would have seen that i rethought that argument. But the fact that he averaged 84 vs Murali in 99, failed in India twice & was decent in SRI 2 years ago shows he can play spin on turner but just is very inconsistent & not as mad as you are making him out.

if hes inconsistent hes still weak against spin. however his record in india has been consistently disgraceful without excuse.