Fine captain, technically sound batsman....and a liar??

[King]

MV was the reason England lost. Batting at the top he pretty much failed to provide decent starts and whey they did have decent starts they didn't do too badly. MV is the worst ODI batter out there leading the team.

[Donny]

Yes I very much disagree. Sachin does not have such a weakness as otherwise he would not average 55 in tests with 37 TONS!

No batsman has ever been perfect, not even The Don. Wonderful player that SRT is/was, he still has quite a large percentage of failures in his Test career. He has played 220 innings and, taking under 25 as a failure, his failure rate is 43.18%. It may surprise some to realise Sach has 95 scores under 25 including 52 under 10. He has scored 0 or 1 nineteen times. To lend those figures some perspective, Ponting has a 31.7% failure rate and, interestingly, Lara's is amost the same as SRT's, at 43.5. Vaughan's is 49%.

[CC1981]

Donny, such statistics is meaningless- Lara& Tendulkar played 10+ years in a time when pitch wasnt hopelessly stacked in batsmen's favour and great bowlers were in every team..sometimes more than 1 great bowler per team. Ponting's runfests have come at a time when there is literally no quality bowling unit outside of Australia save for Sri Lanka. I find it no coincidence that for the first six years of his career, when great bowlers were in WI,PAK, RSA and the English attack was a lot more consistent, Punter was averaging 45, 5 years later, with flat pitches & no bowling, he averages nearly 60. I rate Ponting as a great batsman but outside my top 15 for sure. Only ones i rate today as 'allweather' batsmen fit to average 50+ in any era would be Tendulkar, Dravid & Lara.

[Predator_05]

It's not difficult to look like a good captain when your team is destroying weak oppositions like the Windies. It's when the pressure is applied that I rate a captain. .

I think you being very harsh on Vaughan on this count. At the end of the day, he is the most successful captain England has ever had since Brearley. If you don't think much of Vaughan, compare him to his predecessors - messrs Hussain, Stewart, and Atherton. Comparitively they were all failures, while Vaughan took over the English side and established it as the 2nd best Test team in the world. Under him, England have comprehensively beaten SA, PAK, NZ, and won back the Ashes after more than two decades. He has a win % of 59 is which is good by any measure. Captains need to get the best out of their players, and in this regard, Vaughan is a marvellous captain. Mark Taylor was supposedly a great tactical captain, but his results with Australia were just average and his overall win % doesn't even compare to Vaughan's.

[Guest dada_rocks]

He is talking Michael vaughn at peak.. I am not sure anyone could see any chink in tendulkar at his peak..

[Donny]

Donny, such statistics is meaningless- Lara& Tendulkar played 10+ years in a time when pitch wasnt hopelessly stacked in batsmen's favour and great bowlers were in every team..sometimes more than 1 great bowler per team. Ponting's runfests have come at a time when there is literally no quality bowling unit outside of Australia save for Sri Lanka. I find it no coincidence that for the first six years of his career, when great bowlers were in WI,PAK, RSA and the English attack was a lot more consistent, Punter was averaging 45, 5 years later, with flat pitches & no bowling, he averages nearly 60. I rate Ponting as a great batsman but outside my top 15 for sure. Only ones i rate today as 'allweather' batsmen fit to average 50+ in any era would be Tendulkar, Dravid & Lara.

I realise stats aren't everything and you make good points. However, to say Ponting is 'outside your top 15' is a shocker. Let's look at the comparative stats over the last 5 years - a period which you describe as having 'flat pitches & no bowling'. Tendulkar: 72 innings with a failure rate of 49%. 10 scores of 0 or 1. 8 centuries. Lara: 84 innings. Failure rate of 40%. 11 scores of 0 or 1. 16 centuries. Ponting: 94 innings. Failure rate of 29%. 4 scores of 0 or 1. 23 centuries. Dravid: 89 innings. Failure rate of 35%. 6 scores of 0 or 1. 13 centuries. Sandro, there are some BIG differences there - all clearly in favour of RT Ponting - and you rate him outside your top 15 and the other 3 up the top?? :hmmmm:

[varun]

I believe CC is saying that all countries EXCEPT Australia have no bowling thereby nullifying any chance you might have of comparing Punter to any other contemporary cricketer :P

[Donny]

A reasonable point - to a degree. Sure, Punter doesn't bat against Pigeon and Warney but he has had to face Pollock/Ntini, Vaas/Murali, Hoggard/Flintoff, Akhtar, Bhajji/Kumble, Bond/Vettori etc. These are not bowling bunnies. Also: Dravid, Sach and Lara have been playing against all the other Test nations as well. Not just Australia

[CC1981]

Sandro, there are some BIG differences there - all clearly in favour of RT Ponting - and you rate him outside your top 15 and the other 3 up the top??

Its all a question about when one peaks, Donny. For eg, at their 'peak form', all of Tendulkar, Dravid, Steve Waugh,Viv,Sunny,Border, Lara, Ponting, etc. hover between 60-65 average for their 8-9 years of 'golden age'. Miandad is the only exception to this rule i find because he started off with a 50 average (ie, never averaged below 50 in test cricket) yet he never averaged over 60 for any meaningful stretch. But anyways, for this 8-9 year golden period phase of great batsmen, Ponting & Dravid come out losers because the bowling they've faced and the pitches they've batted on is nowhere as challenging as done by the other names up there. I think that much you can see- when Tendy/Lara/Viv were doing their golden phase, the bowling attack wasnt as thin as in the last 6-7 years outside Australia. This is the only reason i rate Dravid ahead of Ponting - he's had to face McWarne which Ponting hasn't while Ponting's faced Kumble-Srinath which Dravid hasn't. Its clear which bowling pair will bring down your average more. But having said that, i would reconsider putting Dravid in the top 10 and he barely sneaks into top 15 while Ponting barely misses the cut. These are the following test batsmen i rate better than Ponting ( 15 batsmen): Bradman,Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh, Alan Border, Geoff Boycott, Ken Barrington, Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Dravid, Miandad, Graeme Pollock, Viv, Sobers,Lara. I might be forgetting a couple of names - but thats 14 ahead of Ponting right there. :wink_smile:

[Donny]

I must question what criteria you use to 'rate' batsmen when you put Boycs and Dravid ahead of Ponting. Have you checked their relative strike rates in Test cricket? RD crawls along on 42% whatever the situation. Ponting's is 59%. When did either Boycs or RD actually risk their wicket for the chance of a win? It's a fair question.

[CC1981]

Have you checked their relative strike rates in Test cricket? RD crawls along on 42% whatever the situation. Ponting's is 59%.

Strike rate is mostly irrelevant in test cricket unless you are way too slow ( ie, Chris Tavare slow).

When did either Boycs or RD actually risk their wicket for the chance of a win? It's a fair question.

When were they in a position to do so and how often ?

I must question what criteria you use to 'rate' batsmen when you put Boycs and Dravid ahead of Ponting.

My criterias to rate a batsman are as such(no particular order) : 1) Peer reputation 2) Overall performance 3) Performance in the India & SL 4) performance in Eng/Aus/WI(pre-2001)/NZ/RSA 5. Overall batting lineup's strength(determines importance of a player) 6. Performance vs AUS,RSA,PAK,WI (pre-2001) 7. Ability to play spin & pace 8. Consistency in getting 50+ scores 9. Qulity of bowling attack faced 10. Pitches batted on 11. Overall strength of one's own bowling attack ( makes a difference- that determines if you chase 600 or 300 and thus affects the batsman) 12. Overseas performance 13. If Opener, i am willing to overlook a 3-4 pts difference in average with a middle order bat (pre 2001 era) 14. if ODIs, strike rate comes in 15. If ODIs, ability to hit over the top comes in Dravid only marginally ahead and that is down to three factors: 1.Dravid is a real stand-up batsman overseas (where he averages nearly 64!) while Ponting is a bit of home bully - his overseas performance drops to just over 50 average. I rate batsmen who've done better oveseas higher (provided they are more or less close overall). 2. Dravid's faced better bowling attack overall than Ponting who's never had to face McWarne. Try to look at it not as penalizing Punter but rather rewarding Dravid for having played McWarne (while Ponting played Kumble). If you face better attack than me and do just as good, you deserve to be rewarded as such. 3. Dravid managed to average 50 in the pre 2000/01 days. Ie, days when Ambrose-Walsh-Donald-Wasim-Waqar-Donald- Saqlain were around and not in their declined state (Amby & Walsh never really declined, Wasim-Waqar-Donald started to decline around 2000/01, Saqlain was soon to be history after 2000/01) Those were also the times when pitches were far less tilted in batsmen's favour - 350 used to be a winning 1st innings total. I find it interesting that both Dravid & Ponting made their debuts around the same time yet Ponting couldnt average 50 till the pitches flattened out massively and almost all the good bowlers from the opposition either retired or declined shortly before retiring. As for Boycs - well for one, he was an opener. Opening is a tougher job than middle order and as such, we cant just directly compare numbers. For two, Boycs had to face much better quality bowling on pitches far harder to bat on and for three, Boycs had to carry the batting which Ponting has never had to do. Ponting is attractive to watch as a batsman but i have to question his record. In the last two years where he's averaged around 75, scoring nearly 3000 runs and 13 centuries, who are the bowlers he's faced ? Sorry but such a weak lot for bowling has perhaps not been collectively assembled since pre-WWII. PS: Why the singling out of Boycs & Dravid ? With your followup, i am led to believe that it is to do with how slow those batsmen are/were and how scintillating Ponting can be. If i am right, i then find your omission of Border & Barrington a bit perplexing - they were definitely not free-flowing ball bashers but much more nuggety batsmen. And worst of all, they wernt just slow like Boycs/Dravid- they were more in the nurdler mould- atleast Boycs & Dravid hit crisp mindboggling shots for their scoring shots than just nurdling it past cover for a couple or pokin it to square leg for single etc.

[Donny]

Happy to answer your question: Hoggard, Flintoff, Jones, Ntini, Pollock, Vettori and Murali. Five of those are in the ratings top ten. "As for Boycs - well for one, he was an opener. Opening is a tougher job than middle order and as such, we cant just directly compare numbers." Er, excuse me, Ponting is a #3 and is often in early. "Strike rate is mostly irrelevant in test cricket unless you are way too slow" Maybe you should reassess that statement mate. It is the hallmark of a lot of Australian Test wins - fast scoring.

[King]

I think Ponting is no less than the best batsmen world has seen. His career has been on put on fast forward over the years in all forms of cricket. He's done well as a captain too. I would place Ponting along side Rahul Dravid. That said the mention of run rate in test cricket is a farce. Most often than not it wouldn't matter how fast or slow you bat. We don't need to remind you what costed you folks the Adelaide test match against India in 2003-04 season Donny :tounge_smile: I can quote 20 top innings from Rahul Dravid that sealed the game for India irrespective of how slow or fast he was. The latest was the 2 50s he scored against West Indies where including Lara couldn't counter the minefield of a pitch.

[CC1981]

Five of those are in the ratings top ten.

Top 10 today maybe. But seriously, can you compare any but Murali & Pollock to any of the 'top 10 list' for the decade of the 70s/80s/90s ? 'Top 10' only tells you who is the top 10 in the current field. Not how good the field is. If tomorrow nuclear war happens and top 10 cricketers happen to be Japanese cricketers, well they too will have a top-10 rating. But it would be just as ridiculous comparing that top 10 to the current one as it is to compare the current one with 90s/80s/70s. 90s had Ambrose, Akram,Walsh,McGrath,Donald,Pollock,Wasim,Waqar...80s had Marshall, Hadlee, Imran, Holding, Garner, Kapil, Wasim, Walsh. 70s had Roberts, Holding, Croft,Lillee, Thommo, Snow, etc. 60s had Davidson, Hall, Trueman,Statham...50s had Bedser,lindwall,Miller,Davidson, Fazal, Tyson.

Er, excuse me, Ponting is a #3 and is often in early.

Still, it makes a huge difference- i am sure you know as a player (if you were a batsman) that going in completely blind (as to how the pitch will play) is far harder than having immediate assessment (as the #3 has). Why else do you think its so rare to find opening batsmen averaging 50 but #3s averaging 50+ is practically a requirement for most #3s ?

It is the hallmark of a lot of Australian Test wins - fast scoring.

I think this plays a very small part- most Aussie victories are wrapped up with plenty of time to spare- how many Aussie victories have lingered on to the tea session of 5th day and how many were won by Aussies with atleast a session to spare on the 5th day ? If matches are ending by 5th day morning or before tea on the 5th day, then all the 'strike rate' for batsmen mean naught - it wouldnt have mattered if Ponting took 50 more balls for his ton.

[Predator_05]

Michael Vaughan has landed himself in hot soup after he suggested Feddie Flintoff could have been largely responsible for creating a situation that ensured England had a lousy World Cup. We arrived at the World Cup in a positive frame of mind," Vaughan told The Guardian. "But unfortunately incidents happened which affected the team. You have to be honest, the 'Fredalo' incident did affect the team. It did affect morale. Suddenly you've got players who have no freedom left. I like to see players enjoy themselves but no one would dare go out after that incident - and you can't create any spirit then." As soon as criticism started pouring in, Vaughan suggested he had been "misqouted". Guardian put the actual interview online and now the egg's on Vaughan's face.

...and just when you thought it couldn't get any worse... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400342-details/Is+it+Michael+Vaughan%27s+turn+to+be+caught+legless+before+wicket/article.do :hysterical:

[Lurker]

:hysterical:damn!:hysterical: