Ricky Ponting says he played two years too much

[Muloghonto]

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.

And thats where i disagree. As a batsman, whether your innings ultimately was in a winning,losing or drawing cause is ultimately, meaningless. Many a great innings were played hanging on for dear life in draws or losses too. To evaluate batsmen by whether they won or lost in their big scores in test cricket is silly. Its results are entirely bowler-oriented. Srinath was good that series, Waqar didn't bowl very well. But in that Lara match, Warne bowled terribly, so it doesnt really matter. Barbados pitch was fast back then but very little seam. In that match,McGrath bowled well & Gillespie bowled well. Fleming was mostly neutralized because of very little swing & seam in Bimshire pitch. Anyways, you are missing the point of that comparison. I am not, for a minute arguing that Tendulkar;s inning was better. Heck no. Lara's innings was aganist- as i noted- against a higher quality seam attack on bounce & pace friendly wicket as opposed to a very good spin & very good seam attack on a spin friendly wicket. So by default of composition ( 3 pacer +1 spinner on pace wicket vs 2+2 on spin), Lara had to face a harder time. Plus, he did score more ( 153 > 136). My point is, Tendulkar's innings is comparable (if inferior) to Lara's, which gets rated at #1 ever. Well, by the parameters used to guage batting in declaring 153* to be the best, its simply unacceptable to not have the 136 in the next 99 positions! That can be only explained by only two things- that Lara remained not out and that Lara's knock was in a winning cause. The first one is significant, but not all that much in batting IMO on individual innings basis but the latter is complete garbage. I can bat the better than God and Bradman put together but if my side's best bowler is Pishant, well i am gonna lose way more than I win. So how the feck am i any less a BATSMAN when i play the best ever batting knocks possible ?? skipping out to dale steyn and driving him over his head like he was madan lal or pulling him with the contempt of sehwag as if he were pulling a spinner, merrily scoring 200 not outs like candy. Only problem, my best bowler is Ishant, 2nd best is Ishant's handicapped clone, 3rd best is Ishant's handicapped clone who decieded to be a spinner and the 4th bowler is Ishant's midget clone who didn't grow. So while I score 200* like candy, the opposition scores 706/3(declared) every time. You are telling me, that coz I didn't win, my Godly treatment to Dale Steyn- the likes of which even Viv at his pomp couldnt dream of- is not good enough for the best ever knocks because my career win-loss record (minus Bangladesh/Zimbabwe) reads won-5, lost 100, drawn 50 ? Thats just not a fair or relevant guage to batting, i am sorry.