The Importance of Ponting and Hayden

[vic_orthdox]

Personally think that it's no coincidence that India's become a lot more formidable since the Sehwag-Gambhir combination has become so settled. Always felt a much bigger chance when you could get a look at Dravid and maybe Tendulkar in the first 20 overs, but rarely get the chance now.

 

[SJS]

Of course bowlers win matches but a poor batting side can lose them for you even if your bowlers are better.

 

[SJS]

Personally think that it's no coincidence that India's become a lot more formidable since the Sehwag-Gambhir combination has become so settled. Always felt a much bigger chance when you could get a look at Dravid and maybe Tendulkar in the first 20 overs, but rarely get the chance now.

Absolutely.

I would go further. Sehwag and Gambhir came in very handy at a time when Dravid was out of form. So far he has been acting as a buffer between the new ball and the middle order (as any top class one drop is supposed to).

 

[honestbharani]

Good article, thanks. Great stat that: 30 games, 25 wins, 5 draws and 0 losses when Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Hayden played together.

I could have sworn those 4 played together in India when they lost successive tests...

 

[PhoenixFire]

Yep, this game and the one after.

 

[Flem274*]

^^^^^^ WHAT????^^^^^^

That has to be one of the dumbest things ive ever heard. Yes i know people are entitled to their opinion but come on.

You are quite possibly talking about the greatest batsman ever here and whilst Waugh was fantastic as well when Pontings record is all said and done it will never be beaten

Conspiracy theory here: Tendulkar will keep playing as long as he can so that Ponting will not take the centuries/most runs records off him

It does irk me that Ponting doesnt get the respect he deserves purely/possibly because he acts like a chop on the field at times

Er...Bradman?

u need 2 pull ur hed in mate

 

[trapol]

I never said Definitely the best ever

I personally dont place much stock in the actual ability of early 'game' players. eg Bradman, Babe Ruth, Cy Young, Nepia and the like compared to todays players but that is just my personal opinion and i have no doubt the majority dont think this way

Just saying to some he MAY well be the best there's been nothing more than that

 

[Pothas]

yeah cause there was no cricket before Bradman....

 

[Jono]

Good article, thanks. Great stat that: 30 games, 25 wins, 5 draws and 0 losses when Warne, McGrath, Ponting and Hayden played together.

Do you enjoy making up 'great stats'?

 

[_Chandan]

Absolutely.

I would go further. Sehwag and Gambhir came in very handy at a time when Dravid was out of form. So far he has been acting as a buffer between the new ball and the middle order (as any top class one drop is supposed to).

Sehwag and Gambhir came together in July 2008. India had been doing well before that too. And I still can't say that they are a formidable team. They have done well at home and against weak oppositions away. England was the only worthwhile team which they beat away from home, and neither Sehwag nor Gambhir played in that series.

 

[silentstriker]

Still wating for your explanation of how Australia could possibly have lost at The Oval given we had 4 quicks, they played a specialist spinner and pace is always > spin .

I've actually never said that. I said you play your four best bowlers, and most of the time that'll be pace bowlers unless you have a Warne or someone like that. Or if its completely crumbling. Was the spinner better than the worst bowler in that game? I'm not sure. He may have been, or may not. I might very well have gone with four pace bowlers though. And it's not like you can never lose, but I'd still back Australia to win more than they lose with four fast bowlers vs. three fast bowlers and one spinner.

 

[Ikki]

Do you enjoy making up 'great stats'?

Do you enjoy being a ****? It was a mistake.

 

[GIMH]

I've actually never said that. I said you play your four best bowlers, and most of the time that'll be pace bowlers unless you have a Warne or someone like that. Or if its completely crumbling. Was the spinner better than the worst bowler in that game? I'm not sure. He may have been, or may not. I might very well have gone with four pace bowlers though. And it's not like you can never lose, but I'd still back Australia to win more than they lose with four fast bowlers vs. three fast bowlers and one spinner.

That's so ridiculous, though. It implies that unless you have a once in a generation spinner than an average pace bowler is a better option, wtf

 

[silentstriker]

That's so ridiculous, though. It implies that unless you have a once in a generation spinner than an average pace bowler is a better option, wtf

Or your pace bowlers suck enough so that a spinner is better than them, or you know you're playing on an absolute crumbler. Many times, your fourth pace bowler will suck, so a good spinner may find a place.

For Australia, I don't rate what I've seen of their spinners particularly high, and not higher than their fourth pace bowler (especially if they think Stuart Clark is 4th), so I would say that over the long term, they will win more games with a four man pace attack than a three man pace attack + a Hauritz.

 

[Jono]

Well that 'over the long term' view ****ed them up in the decider didn't it?

The one test match where they needed a spinner they chose 4 fast bowlers who traditionally are 'better' than Hauritz. It did not help their cause at all.

 

[silentstriker]

Nope, it didn't. But it was misreading the pitch, which both sides did. My point is not that they would never do better with a spinner, but that over the long term, they'll be more successful with four pace bowlers.

 

[Jono]

Its such a useless point, because obviously over the long term a playing your four better bowlers will result in better results.

And if two of those four best bowlers are spinners, you play them.

So if your point isn't you play four fast bowlers all the time, but rather you play your four best bowlers unless conditions ask for a spinner, then you're not really saying anything new at all.

 

[silentstriker]

Its such a useless point, because obviously over the long term a playing your four better bowlers will result in better results.

And if two of those four best bowlers are spinners, you play them.

So if your point isn't you play four fast bowlers all the time, but rather you play your four best bowlers unless conditions ask for a spinner, then you're not really saying anything new at all.

You'd think so, but Aussie selectors have ignored that before (i.e in India). Usually the difference is, conditions are often over played, and second, the spinners are very often overrated.

 

[Jono]

Which spinners have been overrated? Spinners are lambasted most of the time, being made to look worse than they are.

And what situation are you actually talking about in India? When did they play a frontline spinner and suffer? If anything they suffered by not playing spinners, and rather White!