Where does Ricky Ponting rank?

[Fiery]

Making yourself comfortable down there in the sarchasm?

Anyone would think I called you a chimpanzee...ya marmoset

 

[maxpower]

Ponting is more like Viv Richards clutch and ruthless..in order to get in the top elites he still has to score more runs like he is now.. In their prime among Sachin, Lara and Ricky..I'd take Lara for any situation....

 

[Ikki]

I guess I shouldn't have bothered trying any form of reasonable points with you - the yellow and green tint is pretty obvious.

But if you really think that Tendulkar's career hasn't been the most mentally exhausting of anyone then I'd like to know who has had a career which is worse.

I am biased, but this isn't about the green and gold as it is about some people's misgivings.

Tendulkar has had a tough career, but that isn't an excuse really. You insult a player of his stature with that reasoning - especially when the guy comes out himself saying he loves the sport; loves to train; loves to play.

 

[archie mac]

It would be amusing if Ponting played for another 9 years and scored 20,000 test/ odi runs

*Ducks*

I don't think that would make him better then GSC, depends when and how he gets them

 

[Craig]

@ Voltmand and Fiery.

 

[C_C]

Then say he is the longest playing cricketer, he certainly isn't the oldest. If it is about Mileage, Ponting has only played 25 less tests. If it it's about age, he is only 1 year younger. Now how much do you think their overall record is incomparable? You mention Viv, I'm sorry to say, it was his decision to play further therefore it is his decision that reflects. For someone so hyped up on "overall" career stats when it suits you, this is a funny suggestion.

The way you are thinking shows a remarkable lack of common sense. It is certainly about mileage and about age as well. Its a LOT harder to play sports as a pro when you are a teenager than when you are in your mid 20s. Tendulkar was holding the same 'job' and responsibility at 18 that Ponting held at 28. That kind of pressure on a growing body leads to burnout. This is a reason why prodigies like Tendulkar usually burn out a lot sooner than the 'honed, paced and life-made-easy-for-you' curve taken by Ponting.

You mean like the Ashes? I mention that because it's fresh. We saw how pitiful the bowling was from the Aussies in 05, his Batting wasn't good. Did you happen to see a test in OT, and more specifically, his knock? You talk about performance, Ponting is one of the best batsmen/strokesmen around. He makes scoring runs look easy.

Ponting is one of the best strokesmen around but still some ways short of top notch. Shot-making is not just about hitting boundaries.

He made the 2nd best side in test cricket look pitiful not too long ago. How many centuries did he score in that series?

The second best side with the fifth or sixth best bowling - which is bottom-tier compared to average bowling units from the 90s. As i said, Ponting has scored a lot of runs when making runs was easy and Tendulkar mainly due to injury reasons has had the skids put on his career. It still doesn't change the fact that Ponting has made his runs against some of the worst bowling attacks ever assembled on some of the easiest batting conditions ever provided.

Yes, let's say they are. How much do you think said scores are influencing Ponting's record? How much more does he have to do, compared to Brian and Sachin, to be considered? Because right now, regardless, he is unstoppable and blitzing it. With 25 tests less, he is only a few centuries off and about 1k off Sachin's record. Coincidently, it was a bit more than 25 tests that Sachin had played before Ponting arrived.

Again, an oversimplistic attitude lacking commonsense. This is not about 'how much more of this would compensate for the lack of that' kind of comparisons between various circumstances. Most people who've played sports competetively know that simply because you can say bash amatuers far better than me makes you more likely to deal at the higher level than me. To most casual observers it might seem so but its not so. In other words, Ponting can score 300 in a day or sport a 60+ avreage against no-name bowlers. His performance still won't be given the same weight by me compared to a good performance against a good bowling attack. There is simply no substitute or 'making up for' that aspect. You either prove you got it or you don't.

Again, ahead. So much how does playing 38 test matches REALLY drain on a player?

Playing 38 extra matches and seven extra years at the top level while being 16 really is 'such a drain' on a player.
A Tendulkar will always command more respect to me than a Ponting simply because Tendulkar was doing what Ponting is doing today against substandard bowling at an age ( 18-19 years old) so young that Ponting or anybody else for that matter at that age were next-to-nobodys. As i said, Tendulkar was averaging 50+ in tests at the age of 21 and already experienced with only THREE batsmen in the whole world at that time averaging 50+ : Border, VIv and Miandad- all of whom were well over 30 and heading towards retirement. For a 21 year old to do that is about as classic a stamp of quality as it gets.
If you are doing something at the age of 21 what practically nobody (not Gavaskar, Viv, Ponting, Dravid, Chappell, Sobers- literally, NOBODY) did, you are better. Period. So far i'd rate only Bradman as better because of Bradman's far far higher overall production compared to his peers but as far as i am concerned, Tendulkar established himself greater than Ponting, Lara, Waugh, etc. when he scaled levels that these guys did at an age where these guys were nobodys.
Ie, for the same reason i would rank a Mozart ahead of Bach or Gauss ahead of practically any other mathemtician save Ramanujan in the last 400 years - prodigal talent.
Besides the prodigal talent factor, as i said, Tendulkar has proved a lot more than Ponting has against better bowling attacks and harder surfaces to bat on.

Take the superb post by Evermind in the previous page as example : it demonstrates that at the pinnacle of their peaks, Tendulkar and Ponting sported identical figures. And this is what makes Tendulkar so much better than Ponting because during Tendulkar's whole peak period, he had to contend with Donald, Pollock, deVilliers, Wasim,Waqar,Saqlain,Mushie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Gough,Fraser, Caddick, Vaas, Murali, Carins,McGrath,Warne,Gillespie and Streak. Bowlers of that quality in Ponting's peak are : Pollock,Ntini, Flintoff, Murali, Vaas, Bond, Akhtar and Asif. Ie, no comparison with the first group whatsoever. Throw in the fact that pitches too were harder to bat on and the gap between Tendulkar and Ponting widens further. I cannot help but notice the fact that Ponting's (much like Lara's second peak, Hayden, Dravid, Inzy, Youhana, etc. ) second peak picked up pretty much when the pitch quality went to the sh!tter and bowling quality dropped enormously. Somehow Ponting with his 40-45 average after playing for 4-5 years 'hit top form' when bowling quality and pitches around the world died. Sorry, too much of a coincidence for me.

Which is why, unless the quality of bowling improves or Ponting ends up with a far better average than Tendy ( unlikely- everybody declines and Ponting will, too. RIght now the gap is at its highest since Pontin is at pinnacle and Tendulkar is winding down.), i will rate Tendulkar ahead. Period.
I know this doesn't sit well with your 'aussie-worship' but i don't want to comment further on this matter- for i cannot explain this any better than i have in this post and if you still don't get it, you are never going to get it via me.

 

[C_C]

And that's why I qualified it with reference to "Australian"

Greg Chappell, Alan Border, Steve Waugh - all magnificent players but Pontings record is so superior to all of them that he has to be regarded as being at least as good.

Nope.
I dont think a 10 run average difference between a player at his peak( Ponting) and the final career record of Chappell, Border, Waugh, etc ( all of whom played beyond their peaks) is significant at the best of times. And especially when we take into consideration that Waugh, Chappell, Border, etc. made those runs against bowling and on wickets that were far far more challenging, it still puts Ponting below Waugh/Chappell/Border.

 

[social]

Nope.
I dont think a 10 run average difference between a player at his peak( Ponting) and the final career record of Chappell, Border, Waugh, etc ( all of whom played beyond their peaks) is significant at the best of times. And especially when we take into consideration that Waugh, Chappell, Border, etc. made those runs against bowling and on wickets that were far far more challenging, it still puts Ponting below Waugh/Chappell/Border.

So your saying that Ponting, indisputably one of the greatest players of pace ever and whose only weakness is against spin in India (years ago I might add), would've suffered a decline in his average of nearly 20% because he was going to be playing in an era dominated by pace and with virtually no quality spin - sorry but that's nonsense

If that argument holds, then Dravid would've struggled to average 40

 

[Richard]

TBH, I'm beginning to understand what people were on about with myself and tec when we get these repeated C_C-vs-social\KaZo threads...

Can't be bovvered wiv 'em any more.

 

[C_C]

indisputably one of the greatest players of pace ever

Again, you know nothing of cricket if you think that. Ponting's pace-play is about as overrated as it gets. Unlike you, I've seen Ponting's so-called 'pace-play' when great pace bowlers were still around and operating. Not very impressive i might add. 44-odd average until 2002 against the pace-oriented nations(Eng-Nz-RSA-WI-PAK) - and all this with the luxury of not facing McGrath-Gillespie-Fleming. His average till the very end of quality pace bowling and good pitches was ordinary and Ponting was 27-28 by then. Just 'happened' to turn into a great player of pace as soon as the pitches flattened out and pacemen around the world dropped like flies. Yeah, one of the 'greatest' players of pace allright.

(years ago I might add)

Valid to this day nonetheless.

 

[Ikki]

The way you are thinking shows a remarkable lack of common sense. It is certainly about mileage and about age as well. Its a LOT harder to play sports as a pro when you are a teenager than when you are in your mid 20s. Tendulkar was holding the same 'job' and responsibility at 18 that Ponting held at 28. That kind of pressure on a growing body leads to burnout. This is a reason why prodigies like Tendulkar usually burn out a lot sooner than the 'honed, paced and life-made-easy-for-you' curve taken by Ponting.

You're hilarious. Okay, Tendi had pressure, where was the captaincy pressure? The expectation that Tendulkar has had is mirrored by sportsmen throughout the world (yes, countries don't match the population of India, of course). Yet about at age 30 hardly any of them dipped in that manner. It's one thing to say Tendulkar has faced a lot of pressure, it's another thing to excuse his dip in form. Tendulkar is not god, he will have a dip - even though it may be influenced by his long run playing.

Ponting is one of the best strokesmen around but still some ways short of top notch. Shot-making is not just about hitting boundaries.

Yada yada yada.

The second best side with the fifth or sixth best bowling - which is bottom-tier compared to average bowling units from the 90s. As i said, Ponting has scored a lot of runs when making runs was easy and Tendulkar mainly due to injury reasons has had the skids put on his career. It still doesn't change the fact that Ponting has made his runs against some of the worst bowling attacks ever assembled on some of the easiest batting conditions ever provided.

Well when they beat Australia they had the best side, when they got creamed they had one of the worst. I see. I saw enough at OT to tell me it kinda showed that Ponting definitely has the class.

Again, an oversimplistic attitude lacking commonsense. This is not about 'how much more of this would compensate for the lack of that' kind of comparisons between various circumstances. Most people who've played sports competetively know that simply because you can say bash amatuers far better than me makes you more likely to deal at the higher level than me. To most casual observers it might seem so but its not so. In other words, Ponting can score 300 in a day or sport a 60+ avreage against no-name bowlers. His performance still won't be given the same weight by me compared to a good performance against a good bowling attack. There is simply no substitute or 'making up for' that aspect. You either prove you got it or you don't.

It is oversimplified because your complex argument is mixing in with itself.

If Ponting cannot be allowed his first few years to warm into test Cricket (which happened to be the mid 90s) still averaging a very respectful 44 and then why should anyone excuse Tendulkar for his drop in form. Simply because of pressure? Yeah, that's what all players have to live by to varying degrees. But at such a young age - prime age for Cricketers - you're having a laugh.

Playing 38 extra matches and seven extra years at the top level while being 16 really is 'such a drain' on a player.
A Tendulkar will always command more respect to me than a Ponting simply because Tendulkar was doing what Ponting is doing today against substandard bowling at an age ( 18-19 years old) so young that Ponting or anybody else for that matter at that age were next-to-nobodys. As i said, Tendulkar was averaging 50+ in tests at the age of 21 and already experienced with only THREE batsmen in the whole world at that time averaging 50+ : Border, VIv and Miandad- all of whom were well over 30 and heading towards retirement. For a 21 year old to do that is about as classic a stamp of quality as it gets.
If you are doing something at the age of 21 what practically nobody (not Gavaskar, Viv, Ponting, Dravid, Chappell, Sobers- literally, NOBODY) did, you are better. Period. So far i'd rate only Bradman as better because of Bradman's far far higher overall production compared to his peers but as far as i am concerned, Tendulkar established himself greater than Ponting, Lara, Waugh, etc. when he scaled levels that these guys did at an age where these guys were nobodys.

Tendulkar test debuted on 5 years earlier than Ponting and has only played 25 more tests. Before Ponting arrived he had played 38 more tests. Now that's about 7-8 test matches a year. You're trying to tell me that those years took so much of a toll that from about 29-30 onwards it's enough to say "Tendy did it all, no need to keep judging him now". While I hold that while he is playing, he will be judged. And from the moment Ponting came and onwards - that's 12 years - Ponting has had the superior record. You can mish mash it 20 ways, say Tendulkar faced some better bowlers, but you're not going to take anything away from Ponting.

Tendulkar started off better than ponting averaging in the low 50's, Ponting in his first years averaged in the mid 40's. Whilst Ponting's is very good, Tendulkar is exceptional - yet that doesn't mean that Tendulkar has remained of the same standard.

Ie, for the same reason i would rank a Mozart ahead of Bach or Gauss ahead of practically any other mathemtician save Ramanujan in the last 400 years - prodigal talent.
Besides the prodigal talent factor, as i said, Tendulkar has proved a lot more than Ponting has against better bowling attacks and harder surfaces to bat on.

Dude, you bring this bull**** Mozart comparison everytime we talk about Tendulkar. You talk prodigical factor - which really I don't care for much at all. I bring you fielding factor - an actual component of cricket. Ponting is one of the best fielders - if not THE best - and one of the best batsmen. But it seems Ponting will need to finish with a test average of about 10+ to make up for that prodigal factor.

Take the superb post by Evermind in the previous page as example : it demonstrates that at the pinnacle of their peaks, Tendulkar and Ponting sported identical figures. And this is what makes Tendulkar so much better than Ponting because during Tendulkar's whole peak period, he had to contend with Donald, Pollock, deVilliers, Wasim,Waqar,Saqlain,Mushie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Gough,Fraser, Caddick, Vaas, Murali, Carins,McGrath,Warne,Gillespie and Streak. Bowlers of that quality in Ponting's peak are : Pollock,Ntini, Flintoff, Murali, Vaas, Bond, Akhtar and Asif. Ie, no comparison with the first group whatsoever. Throw in the fact that pitches too were harder to bat on and the gap between Tendulkar and Ponting widens further. I cannot help but notice the fact that Ponting's (much like Lara's second peak, Hayden, Dravid, Inzy, Youhana, etc. ) second peak picked up pretty much when the pitch quality went to the sh!tter and bowling quality dropped enormously. Somehow Ponting with his 40-45 average after playing for 4-5 years 'hit top form' when bowling quality and pitches around the world died. Sorry, too much of a coincidence for me.

What do you want Ponting to do mate? Take a time Machine? As I said, you can't have it both ways. If you praise Tendulkar extra for his efforts against those bowlers and those pitches you have to criticise him even more for being inferior on these pitches and with these bowlers. You can't excuse his form because he is burnt out while he still holds enjoying the game and wanting to play. And if you do, you should excuse Ponting's earlier record - which is really not poor at all, bar India - for having time to adjust into the test arena.

You can't excuse every blight for Tendulkar and try to expose Ponting's.

Which is why, unless the quality of bowling improves or Ponting ends up with a far better average than Tendy ( unlikely- everybody declines and Ponting will, too. RIght now the gap is at its highest since Pontin is at pinnacle and Tendulkar is winding down.), i will rate Tendulkar ahead. Period.
I know this doesn't sit well with your 'aussie-worship' but i don't want to comment further on this matter- for i cannot explain this any better than i have in this post and if you still don't get it, you are never going to get it via me.

Ponting will probably come down, but it will probably be the end of his career and his trough won't factor as much. Ponting will, as seems likely, smash all Tendulkar's records and probably finish with a higher average. Some think he'll need in the 60's, let's see if it will actually factor.

 

[Ikki]

So your saying that Ponting, indisputably one of the greatest players of pace ever and whose only weakness is against spin in India (years ago I might add), would've suffered a decline in his average of nearly 20% because he was going to be playing in an era dominated by pace and with virtually no quality spin - sorry but that's nonsense

If that argument holds, then Dravid would've struggled to average 40

Couldn't say it's indisputable but he is an excellent player of pace and as you pointed out really his weakness is spin in India. I think if he goes there now, with this form, he would turn that, too, around.

 

[Ikki]

Valid to this day nonetheless.

Oh goodie, then so is Tendulkar's form now.

 

[C_C]

The expectation that Tendulkar has had is mirrored by sportsmen throughout the world (yes, countries don't match the population of India, of course).

??
This makes zero sense. The fact that countries don't match the population of India makes it a ridiculous statement to think that Tendulkar's type of pressure, where his success/failure literally meant success/failure of the team ( true till about 1998) and demi-god status is matched elsewhere.

Yet about at age 30 hardly any of them dipped in that manner.

So ? hardly any of them were established international players when Tendulkar was a worldclass one.

Well when they beat Australia they had the best side, when they got creamed they had one of the worst. I see. I saw enough at OT to tell me it kinda showed that Ponting definitely has the class.

When did i say that India had the best side when they beat Australia ?
Yet again, you are either confused or deliberately putting words in my mouth.

If Ponting cannot be allowed his first few years to warm into test Cricket (which happened to be the mid 90s) still averaging a very respectful 44 and then why should anyone excuse Tendulkar for his drop in form.

Unrelated and further highlights your confusion. I allowed Ponting to have a couple of years to warm into test cricket without holding it against him - just as i hold similar views to Tendulkar's first couple of years.

why should anyone excuse Tendulkar for his drop in form. Simply because of pressure?

No. Mileage. i already explained the factors of mileage and age to you.

Tendulkar test debuted on 5 years earlier than Ponting and has only played 25 more tests. Before Ponting arrived he had played 38 more tests. Now that's about 7-8 test matches a year. You're trying to tell me that those years took so much of a toll that from about 29-30 onwards it's enough to say "Tendy did it all, no need to keep judging him now". While I hold that while he is playing, he will be judged. And from the moment Ponting came and onwards - that's 12 years - Ponting has had the superior record. You can mish mash it 20 ways, say Tendulkar faced some better bowlers, but you're not going to take anything away from Ponting.

I am only highlighting the portion of your post that makes sense - and yes, Ponting has a superior record from the moment he's come in because for one, Tendulkar has been declining for a significant portion of those twelve years, for two, Tendulkar carried a lot more pressure, for three, Tendulkar didnt just happen to 'cash in' on easy runs due to numerous injury problems.

Whilst Ponting's is very good, Tendulkar is exceptional - yet that doesn't mean that Tendulkar has remained of the same standard.

Didnt say Tendulkar is as good as he once was. Dunno where you are getting it from.

You talk prodigical factor - which really I don't care for much at all

You don't. I do.
And most people with some commonsense do too.
It is pretty special when someone can be proficient at something well before he/she is supposed to age-wise.

Ponting is one of the best fielders - if not THE best

Usual hyperbole in the highlighted part.

ut it seems Ponting will need to finish with a test average of about 10+ to make up for that prodigal factor.

If you praise Tendulkar extra for his efforts against those bowlers and those pitches you have to criticise him even more for being inferior on these pitches and with these bowlers

Not really. I am excusing much of this portion because he's been hit by incessant injuries throughout this period. If anything, Tendulkar should've missed a few more matches in the past 4 years than he did.
But i dont hold injuries to be something that can be allowed to tarnish a career that is already established as one of the best ever.



Yes. Besides, you don't make up for prodigal factors. Prodigies are simply better than you or i, its just that simple.

You can't excuse his form because he is burnt out while he still holds enjoying the game and wanting to play.

Burning out is not always to do with feeling jaded as it is commonly steriotyped.
Its also the ability to focus continuously that can be damaged due to unnatural overuse at a very young age. There are other mental faculties than interest or desire that get affected by burnt-out factor.

And if you do, you should excuse Ponting's earlier record - which is really not poor at all, bar India - for having time to adjust into the test arena.

Err you are right - his record is not poor at all and i don't think he is a poor batsman- he is quite good. Just not nearly as good as people think he is and that, to an extent is valid for Dravid as well though Dravid has proven himself to be far more experienced at delivering under pressure.

What do you want Ponting to do mate? Take a time Machine?

Well if bowling attack doesnt improve worldwide to atleast the 90s level, not much Ponting CAN do to get inside Lara-Tendulkar-Viv-Chappell category barring sporting a 60+ average. Without it,he has ZERO chance as far as i am concerned and yes, it is a fact that you are only as good as your opposition are. So if Ponting doesnt get a chance to bat and succeed at similarly stunning fashion, regularly at that, against 90s-level bowling and pitches, he will remain a lesser player in my books.

Ponting will, as seems likely, smash all Tendulkar's records and probably finish with a higher average.

We don't know- we'll see.I highly doubt Ponting will be able to remotely touch Tendulkar's record in the ODIs.

Some think he'll need in the 60's, let's see if it will actually factor.

Unless Aussies become brittle like the Indian batting of the 90s, pitches improve exponentially and bowling attacks get magnificiently better, he will need an average in the 60s to be even worth debated on whether he is at the same plane as Viv,Lara, Chappell, etc. let alone Tendulkar.

 

[social]

Again, you know nothing of cricket if you think that. Ponting's pace-play is about as overrated as it gets. Unlike you, I've seen Ponting's so-called 'pace-play' when great pace bowlers were still around and operating. Not very impressive i might add. 44-odd average until 2002 against the pace-oriented nations(Eng-Nz-RSA-WI-PAK) - and all this with the luxury of not facing McGrath-Gillespie-Fleming. His average till the very end of quality pace bowling and good pitches was ordinary and Ponting was 27-28 by then. Just 'happened' to turn into a great player of pace as soon as the pitches flattened out and pacemen around the world dropped like flies. Yeah, one of the 'greatest' players of pace allright.



Valid to this day nonetheless.

So Ponting is:

a. overrated against pace;

b. average against spin; and

c. not a top-notch stroke - player

All this whilst maintaining the 6th best average in the history of the game over a period of 110 tests

I repeat - where does this leave your favourite player, Rahul Dravid?

Distinctly average, I'd say.

By denigrating Ponting's performance as being nothing more than accumulating runs against poor attacks then you have to make reference to Dravid's performance against McGrath (not that good, btw) as being representative of how he'd perform in the 90s

That argument makes about as much sense as your underrating of Ponting

You can rate Tendy higher than Ponting if you like BUT

Like it or not, Ponting will probably break all the batting records, he has already played more important ODI innings than Tendulkar and he will go down as one of the all-time greats

Unfortunately, we're not really debating Ponting's standing. With you, it's always sub-continent vs the rest and bugger the logic in making your point

 

[Ikki]

??
This makes zero sense. The fact that countries don't match the population of India makes it a ridiculous statement to think that Tendulkar's type of pressure, where his success/failure literally meant success/failure of the team ( true till about 1998) and demi-god status is matched elsewhere.

Uh, because certain people apply more pressure? Despite the population. Talk about the population of England and Netherlands. The former has about 4 times as many people, do you think the pressure on the national team is any less in Netherlands? I get what you're saying, but it's a total exaggeration to apply a country's population to the pressure he gets.

Also compare sports stars who are loved by the whole world, not just their own country. They don't compare? This is silly, and certainly not a real excuse to Tendulkar's drop in form. This is really not going to factor for most neutrals, because just as you seem to think Tendulkar has extreme pressure, I tend to think so do ours. We are involved in their private lives as well as their on-field lives. If I were in Shane Warne's shoes I probably would have had a mental break-down. In fact, he did. It was reported in the middle of Ashes games he was crying due to his divorce. I'm not sure if the media reports were helping or not though...

So ? hardly any of them were established international players when Tendulkar was a worldclass one.

Like who? Ponting, Warne, Lara - and these are just in cricketers. Talk about football players and anybody who all the past Fifa of the year players were Established by 30. Most got the award before then.

When did i say that India had the best side when they beat Australia ?
Yet again, you are either confused or deliberately putting words in my mouth.

Or you are confused. I was talking about England. You said Ponting never faced pressure or a good bowling attack - I exemplfied OT just as a recent current example. Then I mentioned that he had hammered that same team just recently. Now when England beat the Ashes, these bunch were the best quartet since the Windies, now that Ponting has scored against them they're piss? Funny that.

Unrelated and further highlights your confusion. I allowed Ponting to have a couple of years to warm into test cricket without holding it against him - just as i hold similar views to Tendulkar's first couple of years.

What about Ponting batting at #6? Wouldn't factor? avg. of 44 is decent . 2k runs just from #6 (thanks StatsSpider )

No. Mileage. i already explained the factors of mileage and age to you.

Sorry, that is ridiculous. Mileage? He has only played 25 tests more than Ponting. LOL, Mileage? Lara is even older than both of them and has only played 4 tests less than Sachin. What is Lara then? Solar powered? I'm sure he doesn't face pressure then because he is apart of a few small islands.

I am only highlighting the portion of your post that makes sense - and yes, Ponting has a superior record from the moment he's come in because for one, Tendulkar has been declining for a significant portion of those twelve years, for two, Tendulkar carried a lot more pressure, for three, Tendulkar didnt just happen to 'cash in' on easy runs due to numerous injury problems.

It all makes sense, but yeh, highlight the things you can argue.

So from 21 onwards Tendulkar started to decline? See, you insult the player himself with these lame excuses. Let's say Tendulkar dropped in the last 5 years. That means when he was 28. So that means at about age 28 and having played 89 matches, that was it? That's it for Tendi? Mileage my behind.

Didnt say Tendulkar is as good as he once was. Dunno where you are getting it from.

No, but you're trying to spread his earlier successes across the board simply because it happened 38 tests before Ponting. As I said, if those success are enough to hold his name to unattainable levels, then his failure to take advantage of "easier conditions" are even more unflattering.

You don't. I do.
And most people with some commonsense do too.
It is pretty special when someone can be proficient at something well before he/she is supposed to age-wise.

Sorry, it's only a factor WHEN he is young. Unless that prodigy-like run continues then it's meaningless in this kind of debate where we're discussing their whole career. "Most commonsense" people would attest to that. Someone who shows such prodigal talent, and wants to be recognised for the same thing has to really lift his game up higher than he started off and sustain that class. He started off well and young, that's about it. He's rivalled by at least 2 players in his own era. I remind you, Ponting started young too, he just wasn't ushered to the front of the line. See that's another thing about Australian cricket, while it takes you to climb mountains to get into the team, it takes you slipping up over a rock to get dropped. That's pressure too.

Usual hyperbole in the highlighted part.

So Ponting couldn't be considered the best fielder today in test cricket? I'd like to know who you think is that much better that you quote my statement as hyperbole. I said he is one of the best, if not the best. Implying it is certainly fine to call him the best.

Not really. I am excusing much of this portion because he's been hit by incessant injuries throughout this period. If anything, Tendulkar should've missed a few more matches in the past 4 years than he did.
But i dont hold injuries to be something that can be allowed to tarnish a career that is already established as one of the best ever.

But Warne seems to be okay to tarnish?

Anyway, a few matches or not, we are talking about 7 years (2000+).

Yes. Besides, you don't make up for prodigal factors. Prodigies are simply better than you or i, its just that simple.

Uh, Ponting is kind of a prodigy too btw. And you don't have to make it up, you just make more runs than him, more often than him and score more centuries than him and more consistently. Reminds me of someone?

Burning out is not always to do with feeling jaded as it is commonly steriotyped.
Its also the ability to focus continuously that can be damaged due to unnatural overuse at a very young age. There are other mental faculties than interest or desire that get affected by burnt-out factor.

Yeah, I guess Ponting is burning out too, just in a different way.

Don't worry, I get it, the problem is MENTAL.

Err you are right - his record is not poor at all and i don't think he is a poor batsman- he is quite good. Just not nearly as good as people think he is and that, to an extent is valid for Dravid as well though Dravid has proven himself to be far more experienced at delivering under pressure.

Of course, Ponting can't touch Dravid. He is the captain of the 1 billion population team.

Well if bowling attack doesnt improve worldwide to atleast the 90s level, not much Ponting CAN do to get inside Lara-Tendulkar-Viv-Chappell category barring sporting a 60+ average. Without it,he has ZERO chance as far as i am concerned and yes, it is a fact that you are only as good as your opposition are. So if Ponting doesnt get a chance to bat and succeed at similarly stunning fashion, regularly at that, against 90s-level bowling and pitches, he will remain a lesser player in my books.

LOL, we'll see. In a few years names like Ntini and Clark will come to the fore and some others too. Maybe history will reflect a bit kinder. Regardless, if this is the case it makes Tendulkar from at least 2000 even poorer if "the opposition isn't as good". Because whatever Ponting has to face, bar his own team, so does Sachin. And understanding that, I think Ponting is already in that category.

We don't know- we'll see.I highly doubt Ponting will be able to remotely touch Tendulkar's record in the ODIs.

Haha, and why not? Ponting has 100+ less matches yet is posting the same kind of numbers. You're ridiculous C_C. He's definitely won more, and I can tell you that Tendulkar won't be able to touch those.

Ponting:

Tendulkar:

Unless Aussies become brittle like the Indian batting of the 90s, pitches improve exponentially and bowling attacks get magnificiently better, he will need an average in the 60s to be even worth debated on whether he is at the same plane as Viv,Lara, Chappell, etc. let alone Tendulkar.

Whatever you reckon sunshine.

 

[silentstriker]

So Ponting is:

a. overrated against pace;

b. average against spin; and

c. not a top-notch stroke - player

All this whilst maintaining the 6th best average in the history of the game over a period of 110 tests

I repeat - where does this leave your favourite player, Rahul Dravid?

Distinctly average, I'd say.

I don't really want to get into this again, but Ponting is better than Dravid clearly IMO (even though their averages are similar). Just as clearly Lara and Tendulkar are better than Ponting.

The former has about 4 times as many people, do you think the pressure on the national team is any less in Netherlands?

Umm..it is less. Why do a lot of US players shy away from playing in places like New York and Philadelphia and prefer to go to Minnesota? The media and the public pressure is overwhelming, and many people crumble under it. If you think the pressure that Leverock has playing for Bermuda (with 65k people) is anyway similar to the pressures that Ponting, or Flintoff face, let alone someone like Tendulkar, you are being completely ridiculous.

 

[silentstriker]

And for the record, Ponting is not overrated against pace. He is the best batsman in the world by a fair margin, and I think if the keeps it up for another two years (and improves his dire record in India), then I have no problem with rating him as high or higher than than duo of Tendy and Lara.

Right now, he isn't there.

 

[R_D]

Kazaholic you make some valid points but if you think the England team that played in 05 and the one that just played in England are same than you are living in lala land.
Look at the bowling lineup in 05 and the one that was in Aus. James Anerson as 3rd seamer, thats all thats need to be said really.

 

[Ikki]

Umm..it is less. Why do a lot of US players shy away from playing in places like New York and Philadelphia and prefer to go to Minnesota? The media and the public pressure is overwhelming, and many people crumble under it. If you think the pressure that Leverock has playing for Bermuda (with 65k people) is anyway similar to the pressures that Ponting, or Flintoff face, let alone someone like Tendulkar, you are being completely ridiculous.

I'm sorry, your example is not apt. We're talking about playing for countries, you do not have a choice in that really. Picking a club side is much different. And it is absolutely ridiculous to talk about pressure and try to denigrate on Ponting's side when he does face a tonne of pressure everytime he opens his mouth or goes to the crease. Ok, Tendulkar is a superstar, I just disagree with over-analysing or over-exaggerating this point in this context.

And for the record, Ponting is not overrated against pace. He is the best batsman in the world by a fair margin, and I think if the keeps it up for another two years (and improves his dire record in India), then I have no problem with rating him as high or higher than than duo of Tendy and Lara.

Right now, he isn't there.

Glad to hear you give some credit and I agree with most of your sentiments. I, too, have to agree that Ponting has to continue his success to be considered better, but how much improvement I guess we disagree.