Ricky Ponting says he played two years too much

[putrevus]

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.

Aussie toured full strength in 2001 and later before that it was guys like paul wilson who were their fast bowlers. In 2001 their pace bowlers did all right except they had to contend with an all time great innings I don't myself will not give too much weightage to averages and rate players based on averages alone. They are very flawed in rating any player they don't give an accurate depiction of quality of a player. A player playing match saving 100 and a player scoring 100 on last day on flat track in a meaningless draw get the same value stats wise. Ponting has his struggles in India but personally I don't rate any batsman based on his stats against Indian bowlers alone.

[undisputed chap]

I absolutely hate pointing even though he was a great batsman becoz he made pisshant look like a legend for which india has been plagued with this manhoos. If he had whacked pisshant all over then a lot of us would have been much happier.

[rkt.india]

I absolutely hate pointing even though he was a great batsman becoz he made pisshant look like a legend for which india has been plagued with this manhoos. If he had whacked pisshant all over then a lot of us would have been much happier.

because Pishant was good then.

[donks1]

to me tendulkar's greatest claim to fame was how good he was as a teenager and his consistency. he doesn't have any iconic test knocks. guys like ponting and lara matured late but played far more memorable, iconic knocks. tendulkar was steady without ever setting the world on fire. not sure if anybody can argue against that.

[vamos_rafa]

to me tendulkar's greatest claim to fame was how good he was as a teenager and his consistency. he doesn't have any iconic test knocks. guys like ponting and lara matured late but played far more memorable' date= iconic knocks. tendulkar was steady without ever setting the world on fire. not sure if anybody can argue against that.

He might not have a knock like 281, but how many batsmen actually have such knocks? Neither Ponting,nor Lara. Those are once in a generation knocks which can't be replicated. Apart from that he has as many memorable knocks as all others.

[rkt.india]

He might not have a knock like 281' date=' but how many batsmen actually have such knocks? Neither Ponting,nor Lara. Those are once in a generation knocks which can't be replicated. Apart from that he has as many memorable knocks as all others.[/quote'] Lara certainly has. 213 at jamaica against Aus, 153 vs Aus Barbados, 221 at Columbo and if people say SRT does not have any signature knocks then they are so wrong., 169 bs SA Capetown, 146 SA Capetown one of the best innings of the last decade, 114 at Perth, 136 at Chennai, his 100 at Bloemfontein against SA in Sehwag's debut test.

[vamos_rafa]

Lara certainly has. 213 at jamaica against Aus' date=' 153 vs Aus Barbados, 221 at Columbo and if people say SRT does not have any signature knocks then they are so wrong., 169 bs SA Capetown, 146 SA Capetown one of the best innings of the last decade, 114 at Perth, 136 at Chennai, his 100 at Bloemfontein against SA in Sehwag's debut test.[/quote'] 153 by Lara = 136 by Sachin irrespective of the result of the match. Rest Sachin has all these innings which Lara has. But, none of them can match upto the 281.

[rkt.india]

153 by Lara = 136 by Sachin irrespective of the result of the match. Rest Sachin has all these innings which Lara has. But' date=' none of them can match upto the 281.[/quote'] You cannot compare 281 to others. How many batsmen have such innings?

[donks1]

Lara certainly has. 213 at jamaica against Aus' date=' 153 vs Aus Barbados, 221 at Columbo and if people say SRT does not have any signature knocks then they are so wrong., 169 bs SA Capetown, 146 SA Capetown one of the best innings of the last decade, 114 at Perth, 136 at Chennai, his 100 at Bloemfontein against SA in Sehwag's debut test.[/quote'] come off it. sachin didn't have a single knock in wisden's list of 100 greatest knocks in test cricket which was published in 2001. sachin was a full 12 years into his career by then. maybe he might have 1 or 2 now but for most non indian cricket fans, he was an accumulator than an out and out winner. http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

[vamos_rafa]

You cannot compare 281 to others. How many batsmen have such innings?

That's what I originally said. Read my first post.

[vamos_rafa]

come off it. sachin didn't have a single knock in wisden's list of 100 greatest knocks in test cricket which was published in 2001. sachin was a full 12 years into his career by then. maybe he might have 1 or 2 now but for most non indian cricket fans, he was an accumulator than an out and out winner. http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2001/jul/30bat100.htm

This has been discussed in length over here. You believe this, good for you.

[donks1]

This has been discussed in length over here. You believe this' date=' good for you.[/quote'] u mean it's been discussed by sachin fan bois. i don't doubt that u lot probably think that 50 of those knocks should be replaced by sachin 'classics'.

[vamos_rafa]

u mean it's been discussed by sachin fan bois. i don't doubt that u lot probably think that 50 of those knocks should be replaced by sachin 'classics'.

:facepalm: Arre yaar fir se wahi discussion. :nervous:

[CG]

Lara certainly has. 213 at jamaica against Aus' date=' 153 vs Aus Barbados, 221 at Columbo and if people say SRT does not have any signature knocks then they are so wrong., 169 bs SA Capetown, 146 SA Capetown one of the best innings of the last decade, 114 at Perth, 136 at Chennai, his 100 at Bloemfontein against SA in Sehwag's debut test.[/quote'] Add the 55 on a minefield in mumbai in second innings in 2004 and he has had many such innings.Yes he does not have any big 300 like lara but he has made great contribution in each of indias wins.

[vamos_rafa]

Add the 55 on a minefield in mumbai in second innings in 2004 and he has had many such innings.Yes he does not have any big 300 like lara but he has made great contribution in each of indias wins.

+1. People tend to forget many of his innings.

[Muloghonto]

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.

Check SRT's big scores in the 90s and early 2000s. ( big scores back then were 70-80 to centuries. most team scores were in the 300-375 range FYI). They were usually in the 70s strike rate IIRC.

[Muloghonto]

to me tendulkar's greatest claim to fame was how good he was as a teenager and his consistency. he doesn't have any iconic test knocks. guys like ponting and lara matured late but played far more memorable' date=' iconic knocks. tendulkar was steady without ever setting the world on fire. not sure if anybody can argue against that.[/quote'] Wisden totally missed a trick by not including his 136 vs Pakistan in Chennai. IMO, that was a top 10 alltime knock. Guys like Ponting and Lara had a lot more higher rated knocks because at their peaks, they had the benefit of a bowling attack that could dismiss a side in 300 or less runs most of the time on most of the pitches they played on. Wisden gives extra points for scores that lead to a win. But that is a fallacy, because batsmen don't win a match, bowlers do. Tendulkar has plenty of knocks that were in the highest quality possible, both in terms of runs scored and dominance of the bowlers on tough conditions, that did not result in a win. If you think a test batsman, who at his peak averaged 50+ in an era where only three other batsmen had played 50+ tests and averaged 50+ ( Steve Waugh, Andy Flower and Lara) and usually ended up scoring at a rate of 60-70 runs per 100 balls when the rest of the team was doing 40-45, is not a destructive dominant batsman but an accumulator, then i don't think you know much about batting. PS: I agree that Tendulkar's greatest claim to fame is his precocious talent. To most who've played sports at a high level or been associated with it, precocity is usually a must-have in terms of considering them 'once in a lifetime' player. Its true in most sports: Greats such as Laver, Borg, Pele, Maradona, Ronaldo(the Brazilian), Schumacher, Senna, Gretsky, Jordan- they are all usually considered the best in their sports ever and they share one common trait: precocity. They were way, way ahead of their age group. Almost all of them were good enough to be considered elite players in their teens when the next teen who was a would-be-elite-in-future had 'decent' numbers in reality. Tendulkar absolutely annihilates this category. He still remains, by a Bradmansque difference, the best ever batsman at the age 18-22. Nobody, i repeat, nobody, in cricket batting accomplished as much by such a young age. I kind of marvel at Tendulkar more than any other cricketer because his peak was so early and so long too: If i were him, i honestly think I'd have hung up my shoes at 25 and gone and done something else with my life, already having excelled for the duration of most careers in a sport where careers aer usually just taking off for 99.9% players.

[putrevus]

how can 136 be an all time great innings when in the same match Afridi scored 141 out 286 for his team. As someone suggested sachin was consistent without ever being dominant and Indian team in early 90s was pathethic so he was ray of sunshine

[Muloghonto]

how can 136 be an all time great innings when in the same match Afridi scored 141 out 286 for his team. As someone suggested sachin was consistent without ever being dominant and Indian team in early 90s was pathethic so he was ray of sunshine

Because that 141 came against one and half bowlers. Kumble was all we got, who was excellent and Srinath never was much more than just good enough on most days. Plus that 141 was not in a 4th innings, which is the hardest innings to bat on when actually chasing a target. The 136 came against much better bowling ( Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain >>>>>Srinath+Kumble+2 other duffers. Heck, Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain are almost comparable to McGrath-Gillespie-Warne). It also came at the 4th innings, with rest of the side falling apart. I'd argue that the only difference between Lara's amazing 153* and tendulkar's 136 was that Lara got lucky, Tendulkar did not (both gave chances at the dying stages of the match. Tendulkar's was held, Lara's was spilled- a lollipop catch when he was at 141 or 142 or something) and that Lara's came against a slightly more challenging condition ( a decently pace-friendly wicket with 3 pacers - an ATG, 1 excellent and 1 competent one vs a super-spin friendly wicket with 2 spinners- one ATG, one competent).

[putrevus]

Because that 141 came against one and half bowlers. Kumble was all we got, who was excellent and Srinath never was much more than just good enough on most days. Plus that 141 was not in a 4th innings, which is the hardest innings to bat on when actually chasing a target. The 136 came against much better bowling ( Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain >>>>>Srinath+Kumble+2 other duffers. Heck, Wasim-Waqar-Saqlain are almost comparable to McGrath-Gillespie-Warne). It also came at the 4th innings, with rest of the side falling apart. I'd argue that the only difference between Lara's amazing 153* and tendulkar's 136 was that Lara got lucky, Tendulkar did not (both gave chances at the dying stages of the match. Tendulkar's was held, Lara's was spilled- a lollipop catch when he was at 141 or 142 or something) and that Lara's came against a slightly more challenging condition ( a decently pace-friendly wicket with 3 pacers - an ATG, 1 excellent and 1 competent one vs a super-spin friendly wicket with 2 spinners- one ATG, one competent).

if Afridi did not score those runs there would be no match like Sachin who got all the accolades rightly so for his 155 in third innings against Aussies a year earlier, if not for that innings there would be no match then also. Waqar was horrible in India that's why he was promptly dropped in last test of that series. Srinath was one of the main match winners for India winning matches in India and his record was very good in India and far better than Waqar which he proved later in that series in calcutta. They had very inexperienced spinners in Afridi and other guy. Lara's 153 was played on a pitch which had reputation of being very fast pitch against a very good attack so was Sachin's 136 but it did not result in win and that makes lot of difference.