Ricky Ponting says he played two years too much

[vamos_rafa]

He waited for his best chance to get that 100 which was against Bangladesh on the flattest of tracks. He would've never scored a century with that form in tests in South Africa or even against Aussies at home.

He came pretty close in England and Oz on multiple occasions in that form.

[putrevus]

How did it cost India big time and which matches we would have won if he was not there? This crunch matches thing is the biggest pile of nonsense posted usually by complete trolls and I thought you were better than it People like to simply discard the fact that Tendulkar and Dravid lingering led a long way to groom players like Kohli and Pujara and even Rohit. We are so used to take our wonderful batting assembly for granted that we do not stop for a moment to consider how much behind the scenes actions go to make them transition smoothly from domestic to internationals. Take a look at how even the most skillful of our bowlers fall away because of lack of mentoring and guidance. Pujara and Kohli are on record accepting the contribution of players like Sachin in their development and how they learned by being with them on the pitch If we had lost Sachin too just after Dravid and Laxman, there was a good chance these youngsters might have lost their way. Just wait and watch for a few more years

wow what a load of nonsense, who guided Sachin, when he was 16, he turned out all right.If he was and is so interested in guiding let him become coach.The fact he was denying a young player a chance to prove himself and his way of preparing England tour watching Wimbledon in 2011 set such a wrong precedent. Even in his prime Sachin rarely showed up in away matches where are the away series with more than 500 runs which every ATG has at least one, Sachin has none either away or home. These things have got nothing to do with Indian bowling. what worse than 0-8 can Indian team with youngsters do. when their all time batting greats lost more matches in two series than the total matches they won in their careers. Punter may have worse decline and he might have stunk in his last 50 tests. Sachin may be 100 times better as batsmen technically than punter but if I am starting a team to win matches I will choose punter in his prime over sachin in his prime every time. you need not agree with these views.

[Sachin=GOD]

this thread has potential

[Sidhoni]

He came pretty close in England and Oz on multiple occasions in that form.

He wanted the 200 tests milestone so he would have continued even if he scored that century.

[Muloghonto]

wow what a load of nonsense, who guided Sachin, when he was 16, he turned out all right.If he was and is so interested in guiding let him become coach.The fact he was denying a young player a chance to prove himself and his way of preparing England tour watching Wimbledon in 2011 set such a wrong precedent. Even in his prime Sachin rarely showed up in away matches where are the away series with more than 500 runs which every ATG has at least one, Sachin has none either away or home. These things have got nothing to do with Indian bowling. what worse than 0-8 can Indian team with youngsters do. when their all time batting greats lost more matches in two series than the total matches they won in their careers. Punter may have worse decline and he might have stunk in his last 50 tests. Sachin may be 100 times better as batsmen technically than punter but if I am starting a team to win matches I will choose punter in his prime over sachin in his prime every time. you need not agree with these views.

Err, when Sachin was 16, we had Azhar in the team- not an ATG but a very classy batsman who is in contention for a middle order spot for alltime India XI and a veteran of several seasons by then. There is a big,big difference between being lead by the coach ( ideas) and learning from a veteran ( seeing the process actually put to work and the pros/cons being visible right there). Those two roles ( coaches and veterans mentoring the young ones) are not the same. It seems like you've never actually played or been intimately familiar with a team sport. Look around you, in every team sport, veterans are not just discarded for some foolish quest to get a 20 year old with potential in the team or some even more foolish idea of preserving stats. ( If Viv is better than Azhar, Viv doesnt become worse than Azhar if Viv decieded to come back now, made 100 runs in 20 innings and dropped his average below Azhars. That would be totally illogical). If you say that in his prime Sachin rarely ever showed up in away matches- that is complete nonsense. Sachin's prime (those who actually saw all of Sachins career- that would be me for eg- would say that his prime was from 1994 to 2004) he averaged 62.71 away from home, scoring 14 centuries and 16 fifties in just 75 innings ( thats 30 scores of 50+ in 75 innings). How the feck is that 'not showing up at his prime' ? Against who ? His lowest average 'in his prime, away from home' is 47.62 vs New Zealand. Great bowling side, were they ? His next lowest is against the mighty west indies bowling ( till 2004, WI bowling = great bowling side) at 47.69. Against Australia ? a cool 60.09, against the monstrous Saffie bowling of the 90s and early 2000s, he ended up averaging 48.24. Yes, he didnt score 500+ runs in a series. TBH, its understandable- sachin played so few 4 or more test series in his prime. from 94 to 2004, IIRC, India played a 4 test series only 4 times in that ten year period. Contrast that to Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England, who played each other mostly in 5 test series every time ( OZ-WI-ENG played each other only in 5 test series, RSA-ENG and RSA-WI were 5 test affairs too). Now look deeper- while the likes of Lara got like a dozen series with 8+ innings they batted in, Tendulkar only ever batted 8 times in a series six times- 4 times in his later career (which was not quite his absolute best IMO but very consistent and prolific) and only once in his peak. Sure, tendulkar didnt pull off a once-in-a-lifetime 3-test series pounding like Lara did vs Murali and the Lankans. But he didnt have much opportunity to bat enough in a series to compile 500 runs either. In the 90s, you didnt get to compile 200s at will, you had to be very lucky to keep batting past the 150s even if you were in great form because pitches were made to make 300 first innings score a competetive one and the bowling was around too. PS: I would not choose Punter in his prime over Sachin in his prime. In his prime, Punter was nowhere close to being as devastating against quality spin and quality pace on quality wickets like Tendulkar was. In the 90s, it didnt matter if it were Warne, Murali, Saqlain, Wasim,Waqar, McGrath or Ambrose- Tndulkar was always scoring at 65-70 strike rate, when the rest of the team were struggling to score at 45 and ending up with tons. Punter was devastating and scored bigger runs than Tendulkar ( factor of pitches becoming easier and bowling becoming easier) in his prime but not against spin. He was always ordinary vs top class spin on spinning tracks.

[velu]

would be fun if sachin says that he played 6 or 7 years more :fishing:

[putrevus]

Err, when Sachin was 16, we had Azhar in the team- not an ATG but a very classy batsman who is in contention for a middle order spot for alltime India XI and a veteran of several seasons by then. There is a big,big difference between being lead by the coach ( ideas) and learning from a veteran ( seeing the process actually put to work and the pros/cons being visible right there). Those two roles ( coaches and veterans mentoring the young ones) are not the same. It seems like you've never actually played or been intimately familiar with a team sport. Look around you, in every team sport, veterans are not just discarded for some foolish quest to get a 20 year old with potential in the team or some even more foolish idea of preserving stats. ( If Viv is better than Azhar, Viv doesnt become worse than Azhar if Viv decieded to come back now, made 100 runs in 20 innings and dropped his average below Azhars. That would be totally illogical). If you say that in his prime Sachin rarely ever showed up in away matches- that is complete nonsense. Sachin's prime (those who actually saw all of Sachins career- that would be me for eg- would say that his prime was from 1994 to 2004) he averaged 62.71 away from home, scoring 14 centuries and 16 fifties in just 75 innings ( thats 30 scores of 50+ in 75 innings). How the feck is that 'not showing up at his prime' ? Against who ? His lowest average 'in his prime, away from home' is 47.62 vs New Zealand. Great bowling side, were they ? His next lowest is against the mighty west indies bowling ( till 2004, WI bowling = great bowling side) at 47.69. Against Australia ? a cool 60.09, against the monstrous Saffie bowling of the 90s and early 2000s, he ended up averaging 48.24. Yes, he didnt score 500+ runs in a series. TBH, its understandable- sachin played so few 4 or more test series in his prime. from 94 to 2004, IIRC, India played a 4 test series only 4 times in that ten year period. Contrast that to Australia, West Indies, South Africa and England, who played each other mostly in 5 test series every time ( OZ-WI-ENG played each other only in 5 test series, RSA-ENG and RSA-WI were 5 test affairs too). Now look deeper- while the likes of Lara got like a dozen series with 8+ innings they batted in, Tendulkar only ever batted 8 times in a series six times- 4 times in his later career (which was not quite his absolute best IMO but very consistent and prolific) and only once in his peak. Sure, tendulkar didnt pull off a once-in-a-lifetime 3-test series pounding like Lara did vs Murali and the Lankans. But he didnt have much opportunity to bat enough in a series to compile 500 runs either. In the 90s, you didnt get to compile 200s at will, you had to be very lucky to keep batting past the 150s even if you were in great form because pitches were made to make 300 first innings score a competetive one and the bowling was around too. PS: I would not choose Punter in his prime over Sachin in his prime. In his prime, Punter was nowhere close to being as devastating against quality spin and quality pace on quality wickets like Tendulkar was. In the 90s, it didnt matter if it were Warne, Murali, Saqlain, Wasim,Waqar, McGrath or Ambrose- Tndulkar was always scoring at 65-70 strike rate, when the rest of the team were struggling to score at 45 and ending up with tons. Punter was devastating and scored bigger runs than Tendulkar ( factor of pitches becoming easier and bowling becoming easier) in his prime but not against spin. He was always ordinary vs top class spin on spinning tracks.

Veterans who don't perform and are in the team based on their past performances alone are bane to any team, as there is saying in any team sport it is better to get rid of a great player a year or two early than year late. India had Rahul Dravid, Laxman Ganguly and Sehwag so you mean say these gentleman were crap and could not offer any support to Sachin and these are guys who stopped Sachin from scoring big away hundreds. Or these guys stopped Sachin from scoring 100s in both innings of a test at least once which he was allowed to do so like many other great player did it past. I rather have a batsman who scores 150 and two ducks than a batsmen who scores 3 fifties in three innings. P.S how many tests did sachin play against Wasim and Waqar in their prime, 3 tests that too at home , I don't think his away record against Mcgrath is that flattering too, Ambrose also it is pretty small sample and not that great. I would choose Punter in his prime over Sachin any day.

[vamos_rafa]

Veterans who don't perform and are in the team based on their past performances alone are bane to any team, as there is saying in any team sport it is better to get rid of a great player a year or two early than year late. India had Rahul Dravid, Laxman Ganguly and Sehwag so you mean say these gentleman were crap and could not offer any support to Sachin and these are guys who stopped Sachin from scoring big away hundreds. Or these guys stopped Sachin from scoring 100s in both innings of a test at least once which he was allowed to do so like many other great player did it past. I rather have a batsman who scores 150 and two ducks than a batsmen who scores 3 fifties in three innings. P.S how many tests did sachin play against Wasim and Waqar in their prime, 3 tests that too at home , I don't think his away record against Mcgrath is that flattering too, Ambrose also it is pretty small sample and not that great. I would choose Punter in his prime over Sachin any day.

He was the MoS in the only away series he played against McGrath and quite clearly showed up in almost each inning. Umpiring decisions(horrendous one's), poor bowling attack and no batting support led to the dismal show in that series. Against Ambrose he played 5 tests and he didn't get him out even once. Again in that series, him and Dravid were the best batters and Sachin got out thrice on no-balls. He averaged around 48 I think. You can choose punter but don't give open ended sentences which don't mean much.

[Muloghonto]

Veterans who don't perform and are in the team based on their past performances alone are bane to any team' date=' as there is saying in any team sport it is better to get rid of a great player a year or two early than year late. [/quote'] I've never, ever heard of that saying in any team sport. The norm is, the veteran player is around till his performance dips below the minimum acceptable in the team because as i said, learning new things from the vet/mentored by them in a playing capacity is invaluable. Its ridiculous to think that a Tendulkar is worth his weight in the team only if he plays like Tendulkar and not like a Collingwood. IMO, you are building a strawman. Nobody said that when clearly past it, the player should still play on or be kept on. But by that benchmark, Tendulkar was clearly past it, only in the last 3 series he played. His post World cup form was obviously diminished and no longer great but averaging 37-40 in Australia and England while being the 2nd/3rd highest run-getter is quite easily justifying his place in the team. If anything, its indicative of the newer players failing to step up to the plate than the old veteran who is supposed to be only good but not great at this ripe stage of his career. ? He's scored big away hundreds...the 241 in Sydney was a pretty big away hundred. in the 90s and early 2000s, no, Indian batting was not good enough to give him support till he got a 200. Used to be he'd get to 120s before the last batsman was out, then it was Mongia/Saba Karim + the tail, he'd get to 150s then perish hitting and be the 8th or 9th wicket down. How is that failing ?! Yay, his record is not perfect. So what ? Scoring two hundreds in a test is nice but not doing so means nothing either. Depends on how much the team scores. if the team scores in those three innings are all in the 300-400 zone, sure. Gimme 150 and 2 ducks than 3 fifties. If the team scores 300,150,150 i'd happily take the 3 fifties guy. These are not set-in stone judgemnts, they are situational. Err, IIRC his away record with mcGrath stood at something like 50 average till well past his prime. Sachin didnt face McGrath for sustained time like Lara did, mostly because India played less vs Australia back then. But it is fact that Sachin has played more against high ranking bowling units and great bowlers than any other batsman in history. Way, way more than Ponting. If you chose Ponting at his peak over Tendulkar's, sure, but then again, IMO that has nothing to do with allround batting excellence. Because as i said, it is a fact that at his peak, Tendulkar had the measure of every single bowler on every single surface. From dustbowls of India vs Warne or Saqlain to corkers against McGrath,Donald, Pollock, etc. Ponting, IMO came close to matching Tendulkar on the fast bowler friendly wickets (IMO Ponting was a bit better on the bouncier wickets, Tendulkar on the seamier wickets by a bit) but was quite easily and clear-cut way, way behind Tendulkar against spinners on spinning wickets. And there was the difference. At their peaks, Tendulkar and Lara were the only two ultimate batsmen in terms of their ability to utterly dominate and destroy attacks of all sorts on all sorts of wickets- batsmen friendly and bowler friendly. Tendulkar was more consistent, Lara pulled a few more monster innings out of his hat. That was pretty much, it. Ponting, IMO is easily a step below.

[rkt.india]

PS: I would not choose Punter in his prime over Sachin in his prime. In his prime, Punter was nowhere close to being as devastating against quality spin and quality pace on quality wickets like Tendulkar was. In the 90s, it didnt matter if it were Warne, Murali, Saqlain, Wasim,Waqar, McGrath or Ambrose- Tndulkar was always scoring at 65-70 strike rate, when the rest of the team were struggling to score at 45 and ending up with tons. Punter was devastating and scored bigger runs than Tendulkar ( factor of pitches becoming easier and bowling becoming easier) in his prime but not against spin. He was always ordinary vs top class spin on spinning tracks.

Punter was certainly better in his prime than anyone else around. His prime was 2002-2006 and he averaged 70 plus in those 5 years and was raking 100s for fun. He did not have to face their own bowling though but still he was the best player of pace of his era, struggled against spin in India.

[saneindian]

When exactly did Sachin score at a SR of 65-70 vs Wasim, Waqar and Saqlain? At his peak in 1999, playing at home, in the 6 innings he played vs them, his scores read - 0, 136, 6, 29, 0, 9 total 180 runs @30 at a SR of 50

[Cricket_Hacker]

Thread going on as expected :giggle:

[moniker]

I won't blame the senior players at all. It's the job of the selectors to pick the squad. If they feel a player is not good enough, drop him, be it Tendulkar or Ponting or whoever. It's the hero worshipping culture at fault here, they wouldn't dare do something like that fearing a public backlash. There are many people who still want to go to work on reaching 60 as they can't bear to see their daily routines followed for the past n number of years come to a standstill, though knowing fully that they won't be capable of putting in their 100%. Thankfully there's a retirement age in offices. In cricket it's got to be left to the selectors.

[velu]

Thread going on as expected :giggle:

i think we need to add a little more fuel :winky:

[Muloghonto]

Punter was certainly better in his prime than anyone else around. His prime was 2002-2006 and he averaged 70 plus in those 5 years and was raking 100s for fun. He did not have to face their own bowling though but still he was the best player of pace of his era' date=' struggled against spin in India.[/quote'] I'd take the guy who scores 60+ average with 60-70+ strike rates for their big scores against BOTH pace and spin at their prime, over the guy who scores at 80+ average against pace but struggles to get to 40+ average against spin on spin-friendly conditions. Ponting had some of the easiest bowling to deal with in his peak period. Ironically, Ponting played some of his best innings before his peak period, when he took apart Donald, Wasim & Waqar in the late 90s (though they were fading by then).

[rkt.india]

I'd take the guy who scores 60+ average with 60-70+ strike rates for their big scores against BOTH pace and spin at their prime, over the guy who scores at 80+ average against pace but struggles to get to 40+ average against spin on spin-friendly conditions. Ponting had some of the easiest bowling to deal with in his peak period. Ironically, Ponting played some of his best innings before his peak period, when he took apart Donald, Wasim & Waqar in the late 90s (though they were fading by then).

When did SRT had 70 SR. Ponting might have had higher SR than him at his peak but his inability play spin well in India is the reason I dont rate him as good as SRT.

[putrevus]

Ponting at his peak was fearless and dominating which i only saw that from two other batsmen Lara in early 1990s and the king himself Richards. Like Richards he had a dominating team but he was the best player on his team .unlike other batsmen who usually made merry when the result of match was already decided to pad their stats this guy led his team from front. Yes he had failings in india but that does not mean he was feeble against spin he dominated the same indian spinners in Australia. There is reason why this guy has 3rd highest all time batting rating ,some may not agree but to me he was the best since Lara of early 1990s .

[rkt.india]

Ponting at his peak was fearless and dominating which i only saw that from two other batsmen Lara in early 1990s and the king himself Richards. Like Richards he had a dominating team but he was the best player on his team .unlike other batsmen who usually made merry when the result of match was already decided to pad their stats this guy led his team from front. Yes he had failings in india but that does not mean he was feeble against spin he dominated the same indian spinners in Australia. There is reason why this guy has 3rd highest all time batting rating ,some may not agree but to me he was the best since Lara of early 1990s .

Playing spinners well in Australia, really? Playing spin is always examined in SC, mostly in India. Regarding Ponting better than SRT, no way. His poor record in India and then his peak was for 5 years between 2002-2006. Rest of the period, he was not that great. He averaged in low 40s till 2002 and averaged less than 38 in his last 43 tests. He was fearless in his peak and a great player of pace but that isnt alone enough to say he was better than SRT overall who had all basis covered and certainly played better bowling than Ponting.

[putrevus]

Playing spinners well in Australia' date=' really? Playing spin is always examined in SC, mostly in India. Regarding Ponting better than SRT, no way. His poor record in India and then his peak was for 5 years between 2002-2006. Rest of the period, he was not that great. He averaged in low 40s till 2002 and averaged less than 38 in his last 43 tests. He was fearless in his peak and a great player of pace but that isnt alone enough to say he was better than SRT overall who had all basis covered and certainly played better bowling than Ponting.[/quote'] Shane warne had awful record in india but awesome record in Australia does it make him worse spinner than bhajji who has great record in india. I never said punter was better batsman than sachin but what i said i would choose Ponting in his peak over Sachin.

[rkt.india]

Shane warne had awful record in india but awesome record in Australia does it make him worse spinner than bhajji who has great record in india. I never said punter was better batsman than sachin but what i said i would choose Ponting in his peak over Sachin.

Because he had to bowl a lot against Indian batsmen who were good against spin in India. In Australia, he other than India, he also got to bowl to SA, WI, England, NZ batsmen who were poor against spin. Other than that, how other bowlers are doing also favors you. Like Australian pacers were not that effective in India bar 2004 and as a result, he too was poor in India bar 2004. If fast bowlers give early breakthroughs, it becomes easy for a spinner to bowl well anywhere in the world, especially, if he is someone like Warne or Kumble, etc. This fact has also helped him around the world, even in Australia. Imagine if SRT had been avetaging in low 30s for that length of time in Australia, he would have been dismissed by all and sundry.