The Greatest Cricketer Ever

[ankitj]

Interesting that Indian fans had no problem with Steve Waugh when he was Sachin's greatest rival.

Yeah, pretty silly reasons are given above for Ponting's unpopularity in India a few post earlier. Totally silly.

 

[Ikki]

Warne was the best legspinner and joiint best spinner in the world when batsmen and pacers were dominating the game. So his failure in india was ignored. Ponting is merely one of the 4 or 5 very fine batters of the era who almost got good enough to be compared with two all time greats better than him. So the chink in his armor is more pronounced.

Warne was voted as one of the greatest bowlers of all time by those same fans - not just legspinner. Similarly, Murali, who also has a crappy record in India was voted into that World XI by Indian fans. The above reasoning doesn't cut it. People can try to justify the rating but it makes little sense either way. Ponting's record deserved far more respect than given, and it's pretty obvious Sachin has gotten plenty of adulation for his. People don't stop respecting players because of their records in one country. If it was that way; few S.Africans would have rated Tendulkar throughout most of his career.

( he scored 44 in the other test hayden top scored with 119 )

2nd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Sharjah, Oct 11-12, 2002 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

It's pretty clear I am referring to this one. Ponting's 44 was almost the total of the whole Pakistan effort (59 in the first innings and 53 in the second). Hayden also had a great knock there - one of the best in the last decade in searing/unforgivable conditions.

 

[Sanz]

By that criteria, he is breaking a record with every new run. We get it, he is the leading run maker and century scorer. It does not need new coverage everytime he adds to those records. It's, frankly, getting tedious.

Firs of all, who is this "We" that you are speaking for ? Secondly, you do not decide what is needed a coverage or not. No one is forcing you to go to cricinfo, that you go there is a choice you make. If it really bothers you that much, do not go to the main webpage, bookmark the Australian page and that will give you access to the Aussie content.

And, yes, Ponting is getting lovely coverage for damaging a part of a TV screen.

And I guarantee you Tendulkar would have gotten more coverage if he had done the same thing.

Ponting has 1 inning in Zimbabwe...and you were saying 1 test in Pakistan is not enough. Those are double standards my friend.

There is no double standard on my part, I was merely reminnding you the simple fact that you continue to ignore when pointing out the 1 test match record in Pakistan. I am sure you assume and will argue that Had he played more in Zimbabwe, Pointing would have averaged higher.

The guy claimed Ponting did poorly in the subcontinent. The only poor record he has there is in India.

What you call "Only India", counts as 14 tests, 58% of test matches in Subcontinent.

The conditions in Sharjah were so harsh most players struggled to reach double figures. The heat killed most of the batsmen in that game.

OMG, so in the two innings the Aussie players batted, 3 batsmen scored 100s, another scored 89 and you are claiming what ? I don't want to laugh at you but it is really hard to stop myself for such a silly logic. Yes most Pakistani batsmen could not get to double figures, but it was not because of hear, there were simply incompetent. Taufeeq Umar, Imran Nazir, Faisal Iqbal, Misbah, Hasan Raza and Younis Khan that's the top 5 against arguably the greatest Test team of all time.

No one is saying take it out of his record...it merely skews his overall away record. But on a country by country basis, where you assess how he did in different conditions; it is completely relevant to start looking at them separately. His India record will always skew that.

No it does not skew his record, absence of it will though. His away record would be incomplete without India. I want to look at record in the countries where he played most of his cricket and not in Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh where he played 1,1, and 2 test matches.

 

[Sanz]

Ponting's record deserved far more respect than given, and it's pretty obvious Sachin has gotten plenty of adulation for his. People don't stop respecting players because of their records in one country. If it was that way; few S.Africans would have rated Tendulkar throughout most of his career.

But did you not bring up Tendulkar's record in SA everytime someone talked about Tendulkar's greatness, despite the fact that Tendulkar averaged 39-40 in SA ?

Ponting averaged 12 in India when he was at his peak. Please don't ask Indian fans to respect such a performance in India when you yourself have chastised Tendulkar for averaging 3 times higher in SA.

 

[Ikki]

Firs of all, who is this "We" that you are speaking for ? Secondly, you do not decide what is needed a coverage or not. No one is forcing you to go to cricinfo, that you go there is a choice you make. If it really bothers you that much, do not go to the main webpage, bookmark the Australian page and that will give you access to the Aussie content.

We, as in the general public. It only bothers me in the sense that it is disproportionate. I think even Tendulkar's biggest fan can acknowledge, at least to an extent, that everything the guy does becomes an event largely because of his fan base. Not to say that it is always exaggerated but he isn't consistently awesome like...Charlie Sheen.

And I guarantee you Tendulkar would have gotten more coverage if he had done the same thing.

I am not sure he would have or should have merely because it was such a small thing. Generally, it would be more out of character for Tendulkar to lose his cool and in that sense it would be more notable. That's not really my point though. It's one thing to criticise Ponting when he is genuinely in the wrong...it is another thing to make a mountain out of a molehill and further alienate him from other fans or further inflame fans that don't like him in the first place. If Tendulkar said he threw his box and it hit the screen by accident it would believed far more. I recall yourself in the thread actually making up stuff (or using made up evidence) about Ponting smashing the TV screen.

There is no double standard on my part, I was merely reminnding you the simple fact that you continue to ignore when pointing out the 1 test match record in Pakistan. I am sure you assume and will argue that Had he played more in Zimbabwe, Pointing would have averaged higher.

That's because I disregard a poor record against a minnow when the sample is 1 inning off principle. Nothing new there.

When I referred to Pakistan, I always refer to his neutral Tests too. Go back, read, and you'll see. No one was using a sample of 1 match to say he was a sure-fire champion.

What you call "Only India", counts as 14 tests, 58% of test matches in Subcontinent.

It doesn't really matter. It's only one country. When you refer to the subcontinent you are referring to a series of countries of which are situated there. India is only one country in the subcontinent. Saying Ponting does poorly in the subcontinent is disingenuous. Because the only place in the subcontinent he has any trouble is India. Whether that is 2 matches or 50 is besides the point. This is especially ironic considering how many fans from teams in the subcontinent detest the stigma and generalisation of pitches on the subcontinent - especially SL fans whose pitches are far more competitive than Pakistan or India.

OMG, so in the two innings the Aussie players batted, 3 batsmen scored 100s, another scored 89 and you are claiming what ? I don't want to laugh at you but it is really hard to stop myself for such a silly logic. Yes most Pakistani batsmen could not get to double figures, but it was not because of hear, there were simply incompetent. Taufeeq Umar, Imran Nazir, Faisal Iqbal, Misbah, Hasan Raza and Younis Khan that's the top 5 against arguably the greatest Test team of all time.

You're thinking of the wrong match. In the match I am talking about Ponting himself nearly got the Pakistani total in both innings. Getting bowled out for less than 60 in both innings is a stretch for being incompetent. Not even Bangladesh are that incompetant. Not even the Aussies in that match scored highly bar Hayden - who batted for 7 hours just for 119 in some of the hottest conditions on the planet. That Ponting's 44 was the second highest score of the match is relevant here.

Anyway, you claimed those conditions weren't tough. They clearly were, and if anything were much more similar to Pakistan's conditions than Australia's.

No it does not skew his record, absence of it will though. His away record would be incomplete without India. I want to look at record in the countries where he played most of his cricket and not in Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh where he played 1,1, and 2 test matches.

Not really, Ponting never had trouble against Pakistan home or away or neutral. B/Z were never going to cause Ponting a problem in the long run. Start making some decent points because this is just tedious - usual for you though.

But did you not bring up Tendulkar's record in SA everytime someone talked about Tendulkar's greatness, despite the fact that Tendulkar averaged 39-40 in SA ?

Ponting averaged 12 in India when he was at his peak. Please don't ask Indian fans to respect such a performance in India when you yourself have chastised Tendulkar for averaging 3 times higher in SA.

Tendulkar until this last year or so was averaging in the 20s against SA at home and 30s in SA against SA - which was actually worse than Ponting's record is now in/against India. So for most of his 20+ year career he had a **** record there. Again, no S.African considered him a poor batsman because of it. Again, another rubbish excuse for bias.

Or another example: Murali, who was crap in India as well. Yet is constantly touted by many Indian fans and, as aforesaid, was even voted for in the all-time team on a site majorly frequented by Indians.

Let's cut the crap. This isn't, or rather shouldn't, be a controversial point. Some players do not get the credit they deserve and some get a bit more than they do deserve. Tendulkar is the hero of Indians, who make up the large majority of cricket fans in the world, and he gets lots of headlines because his news sells.

 

[centurymaker]

Tendulkar until this last year or so was averaging in the 20s against SA at home and 30s in SA against SA - which was actually worse than Ponting's record is now in/against India. So for most of his 20+ year career he had a **** record there. Again, no S.African considered him a poor batsman because of it. Again, another rubbish excuse for bias.

An avg of 39 in SA is still probably better than, say, an avg of 49 in India because ind v sa series have virtually always been relatively low scoring.

 

[Jono]

And Jono, stop being a ****. I am not saying there is a conspiracy of any sort.

Your initial posts were saying it as much as you can without using the words.

The minute you said Indian fans praise Lara ahead of Ponting because they know he's statistically inferior to Sachin, wheras they're more threatened by Ponting, you lost all credibility in this argument.

 

[stephen]

@ Burgey

My rationale for rating Murali so highly is that when directly comparing McG of 95-05 with Murali of 98-08(picked Murali's best 11 year period as it's unfair on Murali to compare his longer career with a shorter one and the >40 average bowler Macca was in his first two years isn't anyway representative of the rest of his ATG career),

McG - 520 in 110 @ 20.63, 4.7 wpm
Murali - 631 in 90 @ 19.94, 7 wpm

While McG definitely has a more complete record and Murali being **** in Oz has to count against him, I'll still pick Murali for the reason that he took a significantly higher number of wickets a game than Macca while still averaging 20. I belong to the school of thought that it's a greater achievement and gets harder to maintain take wickets cheaply on average when you don't have much support. So while I think it's be more of an impossible split(It already is) if Murali actually took wickets at five runs more per wicket, At this stage, I'll take Murali.

The quality of Murali is something one cannot appreciate fully by seeing alone, IMHO. Because you obviously see he's ATG quality when he's bowling but you also see that in a few other bowlers(McG, for one) but his real effectiveness is in that he never stops bowling, I think it's remarkable how much better than anyone else for donkey's years he is at taking 10-fers. He has 22. That is just creepy. Obviously him not having someone seriously competing for wickets is a huge contributing factor but still it's amazing how often he was taking a majority of his team's wickets. Over his career he averages a five-fer every other game.

To put it extremely simply, I'd pick the bloke, for a career, who strikes every 50 balls and bowls 40 overs a match over a bloke who strikes every 50 balls and bowls 59 overs a match even though the first guy will be more consistent and get the best players out more often(which is the thing which makes it very close for me)

Obv, This entire post is based on my belief that the more you bowl per match, The less the chance of you maintaining a lower bowling average. If you disagree, that's fine.

And yet when Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are removed, Murali has 475 wickets at 21.86 in 70 tests striking at 53 and McGrath has 509 wickets at 20.65 in 107 tests striking at 49.

Bear in mind that McGrath took very few tail end wickets during this time. It's hard to make a case for Murali over McGrath, even selecting their peak performances unless you use the WPM value, but then you must acknowledge that this is a bit unfair to do when Murali bowled more overs than McGrath in 37 less tests.

This is why it's very difficult to compare spinners with pace bowlers. The spinners have very different strengths to the quicks and both types of bowler tend to complement each other.

And we have not even gotten started talking about the pitches that both bowlers played on yet.

 

[Jono]

Murali's record here is every bit the chink in his armor that Warne's in India is.

McGrath, IMO, is better than both, and by quite a bit

awta

 

[Ikki]

An avg of 39 in SA is still probably better than, say, an avg of 49 in India because ind v sa series have virtually always been relatively low scoring.

You're missing my point, but let's move on for the sake of argument. My objection was that the reasoning that Ponting's lack of standing amongst Indian fans is due to his record in India doesn't seem to stand to scrutiny. If you want, take Murali as an example - atrocious record in India, very good in SL.

Your initial posts were saying it as much as you can without using the words.

The minute you said Indian fans praise Lara ahead of Ponting because they know he's statistically inferior to Sachin, wheras they're more threatened by Ponting, you lost all credibility in this argument.

I'm sure some fans do. You have fans doing calculated voting in polls so their favourites get ahead. You'd have to be naive to think everything is straight-laced and honest. Heck, I remember Pele throughout the years has tried to downplay the comparison between him and Maradona. At one point he said even Ronaldinho was better than Maradona.

Anyway, the point in that post was to show that for some reason Lara is more palatable to them than Ponting. Whereas the irony is the same statistical reasoning they often use for Sachin being superior to Lara, Ponting can use a lot of that same reasoning to be superior to Lara and right with Sachin. Furthermore, you stated many Indian fans loved Lara. Which is true, but make a thread on a site with a lot of Indian fans, compare the two and see if that debate doesn't spiral down also. It's once you plug Ponting into the discussion that they start easing up on Lara. I've seen it too many times to ignore it merely because it sounds silly.

 

[Howe_zat]

Not to say that it is always exaggerated but he isn't consistently awesome like...Charlie Sheen.

All semblance of rational debate is now gone. Close this thread.

 

[abmk]

It's pretty clear I am referring to this one. Ponting's 44 was almost the total of the whole Pakistan effort (59 in the first innings and 53 in the second). Hayden also had a great knock there - one of the best in the last decade in searing/unforgivable conditions.

LOL, he scored 44, yes, 44 and that is supposed to prove his grateness vs a quality Pak attack ( mind you, the bowlers shoaib and waqar were more hindered by the heat than the batsman ). This is an absolute JOKE

 

[abmk]

Tendulkar until this last year or so was averaging in the 20s against SA at home and 30s in SA against SA - which was actually worse than Ponting's record is now in/against India. So for most of his 20+ year career he had a **** record there. Again, no S.African considered him a poor batsman because of it. Again, another rubbish excuse for bias.

LOL, ha ha ha. Sachin's average vs SA in Ind before last year was around 29 - still better than what ponting's is now. Ponting till 2008 averaged 12, yes twelve IN India . Funny how an average of near 40 is called by you as a record in the 30s ! Indian attacks in 99 and 2003-2004 series in Aus were downright medicore and sachin consistently faced quality SA attacks ( both home and away ) + Ind-SA were usually more low scoring than Ind-Aus

In SA, sachin averaged near 40 before the previous tour. If that is a sh*t record, then so was Ponting's Ashes in 2005.

Besides knocks like joburg 111, capetown 169 and blofmontein 155 and mumbai 97 - all absolutely brilliant knocks vs SA proved his ability vs SA attack everywhere beyond doubt. ( though he wasn't that consistent )


Ponting hasn't had a knock of real impact vs India in India. Gilchrist averages ~30 in India, but he's hit an absolutely brilliant ton in his first innings in India - 122 when Aus were down 99/5 on a turner.

I'll say this - part of the reason Ponting isn't rated that highly by Indian fans is not just that he failed in India, but the way in which he failed. He looked absolutely clueless in the 2001 series - I haven't seen a quality batsman look that clueless against either pace/spin as Ponting did in that series. ( of course he had failed in the previous tests in Indis as well ). That series was an excellent one, arguably the best of the decade and it remains/has remained etched in the memories of people

Another reason is he was somewhat lucky to hit his peak when the quality of bowling was going down and pitches were getting flatter ( Of course he didn't have to face warne/mcgrath/gillespie ) . Not that he can't score in tougher conditions/against quality bowling - just that he is/was a less effective when he did come against quality attack/tougher conditions than say Sachin/Lara

 

[Burgey]

@ Burgey

My rationale for rating Murali so highly is that when directly comparing McG of 95-05 with Murali of 98-08(picked Murali's best 11 year period as it's unfair on Murali to compare his longer career with a shorter one and the >40 average bowler Macca was in his first two years isn't anyway representative of the rest of his ATG career),

McG - 520 in 110 @ 20.63, 4.7 wpm
Murali - 631 in 90 @ 19.94, 7 wpm

While McG definitely has a more complete record and Murali being **** in Oz has to count against him, I'll still pick Murali for the reason that he took a significantly higher number of wickets a game than Macca while still averaging 20. I belong to the school of thought that it's a greater achievement and gets harder to maintain take wickets cheaply on average when you don't have much support. So while I think it's be more of an impossible split(It already is) if Murali actually took wickets at five runs more per wicket, At this stage, I'll take Murali.

The quality of Murali is something one cannot appreciate fully by seeing alone, IMHO. Because you obviously see he's ATG quality when he's bowling but you also see that in a few other bowlers(McG, for one) but his real effectiveness is in that he never stops bowling, I think it's remarkable how much better than anyone else for donkey's years he is at taking 10-fers. He has 22. That is just creepy. Obviously him not having someone seriously competing for wickets is a huge contributing factor but still it's amazing how often he was taking a majority of his team's wickets. Over his career he averages a five-fer every other game.

To put it extremely simply, I'd pick the bloke, for a career, who strikes every 50 balls and bowls 40 overs a match over a bloke who strikes every 50 balls and bowls 59 overs a match even though the first guy will be more consistent and get the best players out more often(which is the thing which makes it very close for me)

Obv, This entire post is based on my belief that the more you bowl per match, The less the chance of you maintaining a lower bowling average. If you disagree, that's fine.

Yeah, it's not an unreasonable point, for sure. You get to these levels, you're choosing between taking the Aston Martin or the Bentley for a drive.

 

[vcs]

You're missing my point, but let's move on for the sake of argument. My objection was that the reasoning that Ponting's lack of standing amongst Indian fans is due to his record in India doesn't seem to stand to scrutiny. If you want, take Murali as an example - atrocious record in India, very good in SL.



I'm sure some fans do. You have fans doing calculated voting in polls so their favourites get ahead. You'd have to be naive to think everything is straight-laced and honest. Heck, I remember Pele throughout the years has tried to downplay the comparison between him and Maradona. At one point he said even Ronaldinho was better than Maradona.

Anyway, the point in that post was to show that for some reason Lara is more palatable to them than Ponting. Whereas the irony is the same statistical reasoning they often use for Sachin being superior to Lara, Ponting can use a lot of that same reasoning to be superior to Lara and right with Sachin. Furthermore, you stated many Indian fans loved Lara. Which is true, but make a thread on a site with a lot of Indian fans, compare the two and see if that debate doesn't spiral down also. It's once you plug Ponting into the discussion that they start easing up on Lara. I've seen it too many times to ignore it merely because it sounds silly.

I find it hilarious that people have such elaborate theories on insignificant **** like this.

 

[Teja.]

I find it hilarious that people have such elaborate theories on insignificant **** like this.

Indeed.

 

[ankitj]

I'm sure some fans do. You have fans doing calculated voting in polls so their favourites get ahead. You'd have to be naive to think everything is straight-laced and honest.

How many Australians did you vote in the Cricinfo XI? Just curious.

I find it hilarious that people have such elaborate theories on insignificant **** like this.

 

[Sanz]

We, as in the general public. It only bothers me in the sense that it is disproportionate. I think even Tendulkar's biggest fan can acknowledge, at least to an extent, that everything the guy does becomes an event largely because of his fan base. Not to say that it is always exaggerated but he isn't consistently awesome like...Charlie Sheen.

No they wont. Only you, one single person in the entire world would first talk about a conspiracy theory and then compare Charlie Sheen's coverage with Tendulkar's on Cricinfo. It is ridiculous. So you represent one single person, yourself, not another 6 billion world population.

I am not sure he would have or should have merely because it was such a small thing. Generally, it would be more out of character for Tendulkar to lose his cool and in that sense it would be more notable. That's not really my point though. It's one thing to criticise Ponting when he is genuinely in the wrong...it is another thing to make a mountain out of a molehill and further alienate him from other fans or further inflame fans that don't like him in the first place. If Tendulkar said he threw his box and it hit the screen by accident it would believed far more. I recall yourself in the thread actually making up stuff (or using made up evidence) about Ponting smashing the TV screen.

I did not make up stuff, I posted what was written on newspaper website and I have posted enough on Tendulkar too when he has done wrong in my opinion (For example
when he claimed for tax benefit on his Ferrari). It does not matter if Ponting was genuinely wrong or not, what matters is his actions violated the "ICC CODE OF CONDUCT".

Now are you saying that the media should not have reported it ?

That's because I disregard a poor record against a minnow when the sample is 1 inning off principle. Nothing new there.

But you are disregarding his poor record in India too. Are you not ?

When I referred to Pakistan, I always refer to his neutral Tests too. Go back, read, and you'll see. No one was using a sample of 1 match to say he was a sure-fire champion.

You can call UAE/SL performance part of his record in Pakistan but I will not accept it because they are not.

It doesn't really matter. It's only one country. When you refer to the subcontinent you are referring to a series of countries of which are situated there. India is only one country in the subcontinent. Saying Ponting does poorly in the subcontinent is disingenuous. Because the only place in the subcontinent he has any trouble is India. Whether that is 2 matches or 50 is besides the point. This is especially ironic considering how many fans from teams in the subcontinent detest the stigma and generalisation of pitches on the subcontinent - especially SL fans whose pitches are far more competitive than Pakistan or India.

So what is his record in the subcontinent, including India ?

You're thinking of the wrong match. In the match I am talking about Ponting himself nearly got the Pakistani total in both innings. Getting bowled out for less than 60 in both innings is a stretch for being incompetent. Not even Bangladesh are that incompetant. Not even the Aussies in that match scored highly bar Hayden - who batted for 7 hours just for 119 in some of the hottest conditions on the planet. That Ponting's 44 was the second highest score of the match is relevant here.

Anyway, you claimed those conditions weren't tough. They clearly were, and if anything were much more similar to Pakistan's conditions than Australia's.



Not really, Ponting never had trouble against Pakistan home or away or neutral. B/Z were never going to cause Ponting a problem in the long run. Start making some decent points because this is just tedious - usual for you though.

Ponting rarely faced Wasim Waqar, together, when he did, he scored ducks in two innings in batted, so your assumptions are not convincing enough. Hopefully that counts as a valid argument.

Tendulkar until this last year or so was averaging in the 20s against SA at home and 30s in SA against SA - which was actually worse than Ponting's record is now in/against India. So for most of his 20+ year career he had a **** record there. Again, no S.African considered him a poor batsman because of it. Again, another rubbish excuse for bias.

So you want to include Tendulkar performance only till he was averaging in high twenties but want to exclude Ponting's record until he was averating in low 10s..and are accusing me of bias ? And so what cricinfo is biased, are you saying that you are not ? You are the most biased fan on this forum and beyond. You seem to have a different rule for yourself and different for others.

And If you are really interested, let's take a poll on this forum about who is more biased about his country's players, you or me. Let's see what the forum members think.

Or another example: Murali, who was crap in India as well. Yet is constantly touted by many Indian fans and, as aforesaid, was even voted for in the all-time team on a site majorly frequented by Indians.

Warne is a drug cheat, match fixer simple. Never going to gain as much respect as Murali.

Let's cut the crap. This isn't, or rather shouldn't, be a controversial point. Some players do not get the credit they deserve and some get a bit more than they do deserve. Tendulkar is the hero of Indians, who make up the large majority of cricket fans in the world, and he gets lots of headlines because his news sells.

If Ponting does not get that credit it is simply because he is not as good as Lara, Tendulkar as a batsman and his on/off field behaviour does not make him a candidate for great marketting either. There is no conspiracy theory as you have suggested.