Who is better Lara or Pointing?

[Dhondy]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

Like it or not we have to accept Ponting is a great and a genius. He is easliy the best batsman in test cricket at the moment. Anyone who disputes that is in denail.

Nobody is "denailing" it. But a moment in time does not constitute a career.

[Dhondy]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? As for somebody calling somebody else the best batsman, we've been through that before, haven't we? Remember when Imran called Aloo the best batsman?

[Predator_05]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

dsr, can we confine our discussions to Test cricket here, please. I don't give a damn for the pyjama version. Ponting has been Dravid's serf for pretty much his whole career. Dravid overtook Ponting in terms of Test batting average in his 9th Test and didn't let go until the first innings of the 101st Test, except for a decimal point slip in the 72nd. The lead lasted for exactly half-a-Test. Dravid was back ahead at the completion of the 2nd innings! Not just that, Dravid has never averaged below 50 since his 39th Test. It took Ponting 66 Tests to achieve this. I hear Ponting being described as the best since Bradman, and makes my blood boil. For most of his career, he has only been good enough to be Dravid's orderly. The guy is a quintessential poor bowler-flat track bully. For the first 2/3rd of his career, with some of the great bowlers still around, he was struggling to get out of the 40s.

Dhondy, purely for argument's sake - allow me to defend that filthy, Bush-lookalike, convict b@stard. I seriously think that the reasoning behind your pro-Dravid stance is severely flawed. Let's explore your arguments and examine some of the facts. My point (thesis, if you like) is that a lot of your statements could be used to undermine Dravid as well. The impression you have created for Ponting is also somewhat misleading and only shows one side of the story. Consider the following... Dravid's career ONLY took off after the '01 season, and specifically - after his magnificent 180 vs Australia @ Kolkata. That was a watershed in his career, as he went on to enjoy a gluttonous run-fest over the next few years - beginning with his 144 vs WI @ Georgetown and the 4 consecutive hundreds to round off the season. He has never looked back since. It was primarily during this period when he finally established himself as one of the very best in the business, and he didn't earn entry into the pantheon of Indian batting legends until his performance against Australia back in '04. Now, prior to his golden run, he was also batsman who was struggling to get out of the 40's. In fact, at one point his form had deteriorated to such an extent that he was on the very brink of expulsion from the Indian team. Remember that horrific '99 tour of Australia ? 13 consecutive innings without a 50 ? Ponting clearly wasn't the only one failing in his attempt to carve out a niche for himself. Dravid was just as much of a mortal in his formative years. In actuality, the two batsmen's career progressions bear a striking resemblance to one another. Prior to that ground-breaking series against Australia, Rahul Dravid had scored 2890 runs @ 47.37 in 38 matches played ('96-00 Bangladesh test). He had scored just 6 centuries. For a bit of perspective, he has scored 17 hundreds since then. Ricky Ponting during that same time period ('95-00 WI series) had 2410 runs @ 46.34. He had scored a mere 7 hundreds. He currently has 32. So not much difference there ? Judging by the FACTS which i have presented, the first 2/3rd of Dravid's career was hardly on another plane as you make it out to be, seeing as how both were neck-and-neck in comparison. You also imply that Ponting failed to prove his mettle against the great bowlers of the '90's. I suppose you have conveniently chosen to overlook the hundreds he scored against SA (vs Donald and Pollock) in '98, Pakistan (vs Wasim and Saqlain) in '99, and vs WI in '99 (Ambrose and Walsh). So that argument of yours can be ruled out as pure conjecture. There is also one more factor you should give some thought. Dravid invariably, has batted in the #3 position for the entire course of his career - bar a few aberrations here and there. Ponting, since making his debut in '95 and up until the '01 BG Series - was primarily a lower order batsman, usually fixed at #6. Now you tell me, which is the more impressive feat - averaging 46 @ #6 or averaging 47 @ #3 ? Given the frailty of the Indian top order Dravid would undoubtedly get two innings in each match, whereas Ponting had to bat with the tail on occasions, and play according to set situations. We revered Gilchrist for averaging a colossal 50+ as a #7, so surely Ponting is worthy of the same praise for scoring at a similar average during that period of his career ? One final note - once Ponting was moved up the order to #3 and given the responsibility of anchoring the innings he took his game to the next level. In 65 matches played since the '01 Ashes (the first full series in which he batted in the top 3) he has amassed 6294 runs at a mindblowing average of 66.25. In the same position, Dravid has played 15 tests and 15 innings more and scored 6818 runs @ 61.42. Draw your own conclusions.

[Guest BossBhai]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? -- Removed on request of the user --

[Gambit]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Why do people bicker over who the best batsman is and never as passionately over who the best bowler is? Anyway, for me, SRT will always be the greatest. The top batsman in the 90s, with SRW #2 and BCL #3. :wtg: I just hope he blazes away in his last 4-5 years and reminds the noobs these days who he used to be. No place like RSA to begin his renaissance. The same place he played the glorious 169 and the audacious 155.

[Dhondy]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Predator, Greg Chappell batted throughout his career at number 5 and averaged 53, so I don't see how batting down the order stops you from racking up the big scores. You have mentioned Gilly's example yourself. In fact, you could argue that for the first half of his career, Punter was shielded from the new ball by his more illustrious colleagues. It's difficult to pass off the notion that he would have averaged higher, batting up the order, without inviting considerable dissent. I just think monkey face has been incredibly lucky in the way things have panned out. I have always thought of him as a bit of a home bully. He didn't play in SA until 2001-2. Allan Donald was missing in that series. Sure enough, when SA toured Australia with Donald in their ranks shortly before that series, Punter's average didn't even hit 30. Similarly, by the time his first tour to the WI came around, about the same time, there was no Ambrose, and I think, no Walsh. Ponting had to contend with the likes of Dillon and Collins, and of course, made hay, as he always does in such conditions. 2001-2... rewind to the Ashes...Australia in England. While Dravid was stringing together ton upon ton against the same opposition, Ponting struggled to get past the 20s against Harmison, Hoggard and a nascent Freddie. I have already pointed out the fact that he never had to play the two best bowlers of the genre. Not his fault, but can anybody in the right mind deny that his average would have been several pips lower had he been born the other side of the trans-Tasman border?

[Bumper]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

Well, Ponting doesn't cut it for me, I am sorry. There's no way I can place him ahead of Dravid, Lara, and Sachin. The guy is a quintessential poor bowler-flat track bully. For the first 2/3rd of his career, with some of the great bowlers still around, he was struggling to get out of the 40s. Noow that the tracks have flattened out, the great quicks are gone, the fella is King? Sorry, don't buy it.

Same can be said about Dravid though, whose purple patch started post 2000. Infact every great batsmen including SRT hit a patch for a few years in a row. Dravid is still my personal favorite match winning batsman, but since the debate if about Punter & Lara, let me keep Dravid out of this, for now. Ponting may have hit his patch quite late, but it it has been a sustained one (4 years). Atleast statistically, there is no way u can call him a poor bowler bully or a FTB. If anyone deserves that tag, it is Lara, who has never failed to kill mediocre bowlers, but promptly succumbed to the great fast bowlers of his generation. Here is their head to head avg against each major opponent: 1) vs Pak: Ponting averages 82 in 10 tests Lara 56 in 10 tests(which was boosted by his recent centuries against an Akhtar-Asif-Akram-Waqar less attacks) 2) vs SA: Ponting averages 64 in 15 tests. Lara averages 49 in 18 tests 3) vs NZ: Ponting averages 73 from 11 tests Lara averages 41 from 11 tests 4) vs Ind: Ponting 15 testsat 52.20 Lara 17 tests at 35 5) vs SL: Ponting 10 tests at 48 Lara 18 tests at 86 6) vs Eng: Ponting 21 tests at 41 Lara 30 tests at 62 Ponting IMO, will close the gap vs Eng after this series. As u can see very CLEARLY, against most of the TOUGHER opponents, Ponting is STREETS ahead of Lara. Sure Punter's 10 odd tests in India, is a shame on his resume, but Lara hasnt fared too well against India either. Overall Punter is no less than Lara as a batsman and on current form, is in a different plane altogether

[Sooda]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Aye but whats Laras record vs the Aussies- the best bowlers of his time 31 2856 277 51.00 9 11 0 - - 0 34 0 Some of the best innings ever he has played vs Aus Please dont compare Ponts to BCL or SRT..its an insult to two great players And seeing that BCL is coming off a double hundred..including a 100 off 77 balls...I doubt hes on a 'different plane'

[Anakin]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Said it before and gonna briefly say it again, SRT and Lara will always be a notch above Ponting and RD simply because they faced far superior bowling and were more successful against them for much longer period. And among those two my fav is obviously SRT, mostly because Lara's away average is much lower than his.

[yoda]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Dhondy, it goes to show that flair and style wins over substance. I will just go by average. Bradman over others by a mile. Dravid over others for now (unless RP has overtaken RD of late).

[Bumper]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

Said it before and gonna briefly say it again' date=' SRT and Lara will always be a notch above Ponting and RD simply because they faced far superior bowling and were more successful against them for much longer period. And among those two my fav is obviously SRT, mostly because Lara's away average is much lower than his.[/quote'] Anakin, thats the usual blanket statement people use to dismiss punter. The numbers above definitely dont say so. Infact it suggests the opposite

[Predator_05]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

It's difficult to pass off the notion that he would have averaged higher' date=' batting up the order, without inviting considerable dissent. [/quote'] Are you sure ? His transistion from #6 to #3 was simply astounding, as i proved in the final paragraph of my last post. It's difficult to pass off the notion that he WOULDN'T have averaged higher had he been given the responsibility of batting in the top 4. Unfortunately, his formative years as a batsman coincided with the peak years of the Waugh brothers. His average as a #3 is higher than Dravid's.

Sure enough, when SA toured Australia with Donald in their ranks shortly before that series, Punter's average didn't even hit 30.

He hasn't faced Donald that often, but on the few occasions when he has, he managed to hold his own. Scored a 100 against a Donald-led attack @ Melbourne in '98.

Similarly, by the time his first tour to the WI came around, about the same time, there was no Ambrose, and I think, no Walsh. Ponting had to contend with the likes of Dillon and Collins, and of course, made hay, as he always does in such conditions.

Ambrose and Walsh played in the '99 Barbados test (Lara's match) and Ponting knocked a 100 off them in the first innings. He also scored an 80 odd against them in Brisbane back in '96 IIRC. Walsh was there in the '00 series.

2001-2... rewind to the Ashes...Australia in England. While Dravid was stringing together ton upon ton against the same opposition, Ponting struggled to get past the 20s against Harmison, Hoggard and a nascent Freddie.

In the '01 Ashes he scored 338 runs @ 42 and a SR of 83 ? Not as good as Dravid's performance in England in the summer of '02, but it's still quite respectable. For what it's worth, he scored sh*tloads of runs in England during the '97 Ashes series.

I have already pointed out the fact that he never had to play the two best bowlers of the genre. Not his fault, but can anybody in the right mind deny that his average would have been several pips lower had he been born the other side of the trans-Tasman border?

Come on Dhondy, you can't really hold that against him. Viv Richards never faced the fearsome four-prong, yet he is regarded as one of the greatest batsmen of his generation. You only beat what is in front of you. I notice you didn't respond to my points regarding the first 2/3rds of their respective careers ? Ponting was no different than Dravid, and the latter only became the man he is today for the very same reasons you have stated to denigrate Ponting - ie; markedly flatter pitches, weaker bowling attacks, etc. Dravid benefitted from such factors as well, and scored against the same bowling attacks. This is why i will never rank the likes of Ponting, Dravid, Inzamam, etc. ahead of a Lara or a Tendulkar.

[Anakin]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? First of all, the recent best bowling is the OZ one which Ponting doesn't have to face. Not sure but someone said he scored 20+ 100s in last 4 years says it all. He's been playing for around 10 years, so that'd mean he scored around 12 in his first 6 years.

[Bumper]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

I have already pointed out the fact that he never had to play the two best bowlers of the genre. Not his fault' date=' but can anybody in the right mind deny that his average would have been several pips lower had he been born the other side of the trans-Tasman border?[/quote'] I don think u can hold that against him. Lara too never had to face the music from Ambrose & Walsh. Given his distinct discomfort against McGrath (Ambrose is a faster & perhaps a more bouncier version of McGrath), he'd only have averaged poorer, had he faced him.

[Bumper]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

First of all' date=' the recent best bowling is the OZ one which Ponting doesn't have to face. Not sure but someone said he scored 20+ 100s in last 4 years says it all. He's been playing for around 10 years, so that'd mean he scored around 12 in his first 6 years.[/quote'] But u are missing the point. I have compared Lara's & Punter's records against the COMMON attacks they have faced. Care to research Lara's avg against Pakistan, before 2004 (against Akram-Waqar led attacks). Care for his dismal averages, against Donald led SA attacks ? Or even something as recent as a Bond led NZ attack ? Why is he better ?

[Anakin]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

But u are missing the point. I have compared Lara's & Punter's records against the COMMON attacks they have faced. Care to research Lara's avg against Pakistan, before 2004 (against Akram-Waqar led attacks). Care for his dismal averages, against Donald led SA attacks ? Or even something as recent as a Bond led NZ attack ? Why is he better ?

Yeah I see your point. Just wondering how they performed from 96-97 to 2002, any stats guru here? My point was though Lara played and had good average since early 90s when overall bowling was far better. Although it might be that he like his usual self beat up weaker bowling to keep a good avg. Agree with you about Lara's dismal performance against strong SA or Pak bowling. Another reason why SRT is better than him.

[Gambit]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Lara never made a ton against Donald or the two Ws but one ton against Umar Gul,Razzaq and Kaneria and the world goes gaga over him.

[Anakin]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing?

Lara never made a ton against Donald or the two Ws but one ton against Umar Gul' date='Razzaq and Kaneria and the world goes gaga over him.[/quote']Tell me about it

[Predator_05]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Like i give a damn about what he scored on dead pitches in Pakistan. Lara's performances vs Australia are simply legendary. That 153* @ Bridgetown, the THREE (count 'em !) double hundreds and numerous other centuries he has scored against them solidify his position as arguably the greatest batsmen of his era. Any batsman who has repeatedly owned McGrath and Warne has my respect. When it comes to bowling attacks, it's hard to think of a better combination than those two. He has also scored double hundreds in South Africa and in the spear-chucker's backyard in Sri Lanka. The man is genius, simple as that. Mentioning Dravid and Ponting's names in the same breath as Lara's is almost blasphemous.

[Anakin]

Re: Who is better Lara or Pointing? Oh and Lara too has benefited immensely from the recent weak bowling, he scored something like 16 100s in the last few years. Predator, most of Lara's 100s came on dead tracks edit: ====>>>> real kiddie bashers are these dudes