Some stats about Ponting

Zat wrote:

taipan wrote:I haven't always agreed with Rob I but on the other hand haven't viewed him as a troll either

Yeah, but I said it was a shame he was still alive before Zimi said anything...

So your point is?

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:

taipan wrote:I haven't always agreed with Rob I but on the other hand haven't viewed him as a troll either

Yeah, but I said it was a shame he was still alive before Zimi said anything...

So your point is?

That I was ahead of the game, unlike what boofhead alleged three or four posts up...

Rob I wrote:

Zat wrote:No, I think he was blowing your spurious argument out of the water. Probably because the rest of us realised you're a troll.

I'd say Zim said so and the rest jumped on the bandwagon.

FFS, who's a paranoid dickhead now? Oh, that would be you!

Zat wrote:

taipan wrote:

Zat wrote:

taipan wrote:I haven't always agreed with Rob I but on the other hand haven't viewed him as a troll either

Yeah, but I said it was a shame he was still alive before Zimi said anything...

So your point is?

That I was ahead of the game, unlike what boofhead alleged three or four posts up...

And wtf has that got to do with my comment?

skully wrote:Punter's grouse. End of.

Give the man who said that a beer.

embee wrote:Donald never dismissed Punter
Walsh dismissed him 4 times
Waqar has dismissed Punter 3 times ( at the ave score of 97!!!!!)
Wasim Akram one time
Ambrose one time

Anyone questioning Punter's greatness is surely having a larf.

But here's a serious question. Ponting against Waqar, was that skewed by the 197 in Perth or did Waqar not play that game?

Pretty sure Waqar played that game.


Until this summer, Ponting had only been dismissed by Murali once in 12+ tests.

So, have there been heaps of other players averaging 70+ over the period in question?

please don't yell wrote:So basically what you're saying rob is that if you average less than 70 after 2002 you can't be much of a batsman?

Aye, tell us all how Ponting's the big daddy because he faced quality bowlers all the time 'back in the day' - a 'fact' ineptly put together so much so that I highlighted in depth as to how wrong it was.

A fact which makes Rob I's initial post look stupid as well.

Good point.

And wasn't Robi posting stuff about how Thicko was a better opener than Gooch a few months back? Yet Thicko never played against blah blah blah sook sook sook whine whine whine...you get the picture.

What has Tendulkar done since 2002, remembering he only faced Ambose in one series as Ambrose did not play in India and Tendulkar has not done very well against the SA's and he also has a lower average against the Pakistanis.

So in reality Tendulkar did not fare well against any of the great bowlers you talk of.

To give you idea Tendulkar played the SA's in

96/97 in India and averaged 27.66

96/97 in SA and averaged 40.16

99/00 in India and averaged 36.5

01/02 in SA and averaged 64.33 but no Donald

Tendulkar did not face Amrose until 96/07

Tendulkar faced the Pakistanis in 89/90 and averaged 35.8
By the time he faced Pakistan again it was 1999 and he averaged 42 but after Wasim amd Waqar he did very well.

Tendulkar is one of the great batsmen and without a doubt so is Ponting.

embee wrote:Donald never dismissed Punter
Walsh dismissed him 4 times
Waqar has dismissed Punter 3 times ( at the ave score of 97!!!!!)
Wasim Akram one time
Ambrose one time

I'm not disputing his greatness, but they are utter sh!t stats that're totally out of whack due to when he played these greats. They were mainly all on the decline, some were on the comeback from injury. Barely played any of them in their pomp.

But hey, beat yourself off massive-style about Riggy Ponning moite, he's a damn fine player and a true great.

Doesn't SRT have a poor record against Murali as well (not that they have played all that often)?

Batfink Begins wrote:

embee wrote:Donald never dismissed Punter
Walsh dismissed him 4 times
Waqar has dismissed Punter 3 times ( at the ave score of 97!!!!!)
Wasim Akram one time
Ambrose one time

I'm not disputing his greatness, but they are utter sh!t stats that're totally out of whack due to when he played these greats. They were mainly all on the decline, some were on the comeback from injury. Barely played any of them in their pomp.

But hey, beat yourself off massive-style about Riggy Ponning moite, he's a damn fine player and a true great.

Ponting faced Ambose Waqar and Wasim for the first time in the same year as Tendulkar.

When Ponting came onto the scene in 1996 Tendulkar had the following

AUS 11innings ave 37
NZ 10innings ave 32
PAK 6innings ave 35
SA 14innings ave 27

I just think the idea of picking one players stats apart from this decade is silly.

It's a batting decade on flat pitches and yes an average of 60 in this decade is probably more like the old 50.

Ponting's cashing in but so are plenty of players, although at least in one area players are tested like few times in the past and that is facing high quality spin something which was almost forgotten in the 80's.

In defence of Rob against one accusation on this thread, he certainly believes Gooch was better than Trescothick.

As to his original point - this is a long-running debate, not so? Kallis, Hayden and others have had their credentials for 'greatness' questioned due to the time period in which they've scored their runs, so it's not unfair to ask the question about Ponting as well.

Punter has definitely earned his place as one of the four best bats we've had since Bradman, alongside GSC, AB and SRW. There has in the past been a fair consensus on here that GSC and AB are a step above the other two. To state the obvious, I don't think we'll be able to make a proper assessment of where exactly Ponting fits until he finishes his career - Steve Waugh would probably have been more respected by many people in 1999 than he was by 2004, for example. AB's record tailed off in his final years. The same will probably be true of Ponting when he hangs up the boots.

Leo wrote:As to his original point - this is a long-running debate, not so? Kallis, Hayden and others have had their credentials for 'greatness' questioned due to the time period in which they've scored their runs, so it's not unfair to ask the question about Ponting as well.

Leo:

Good one - I have been waiting for an Australian to make a considered response such as this.

please don't yell:

Quite so. For the record, I think that average-inflation has affected England batsmen too. Just not as much as it has the Australians, because they never had to face McGrath and Warne.

Leo again:

How do you think Chappell and AB would have done in this century?

That argument about Ponting never having to face Warne and McGrath will lose all its water-retention ability the moment anybody tries to have it the other way as well: 'Warne benefitted from never having to bowl to Ponting etc etc'

I think GSC would have murdered the bowling that's around today. May well have averaged a fair bit more than Ponting. His demolition of popgun attacks from India, New Zealand and Pakistan in the early 80s a case in point. If you take out the West Indies and England, he averaged about 67 in 15 tests from 1981 to 1984 against those weaker attacks.

AB wasn't as aggressive a player as Ponting and GSC. Whether he would have stamped himself on weak attacks like these in that way I don't know. I suspect the era of great bowling (and weak Australian batting) in which he played was probably the era in which his natural strengths were most valuable and therefore left the most lasting impression. Pretty sure he would have averaged 60+ though.

Fred

Warne did bowl to the best players of spin in his era though.

"If you take out the West Indies and England, he averaged about 67 in 15 tests from 1981 to 1984 against those weaker attacks."

Must admit that stat surprised me. My impression of GSC after the first summer after World Series was that he went into a slow decline (from a very lofty summit):

In 80-81, the summer of the underarm, he had a good Cent test, a mediocre, ill-tempered series against NZ and then a far better one against India. He missed Ashes 81.

In 81-82, the year of the ducks, he passed 50 only once each against Pak and the Windies (201 in Bris v Pak, and 61 in Adel v WI, with a broken finger and after Aust were 4-20-something), then had a good tour of NZ where he had a lot of fences to mend after their previous meeting.

In 82-83, after missing the Pak tour, he scored two centuries in his first four innings then seemed to lose application and motivation. His captaincy in this series, however, remained outstanding throughout.

In 83-84, he made a ton in Brisbane, and another in Sydney after amnnouncing his retirement and demanding to be put back to No 4 after batting 6 all summer. They were the only times he reached 20.

In summary, it all suggests he might not have feasted on bad bowling as much as you might expect. There's a pattern of responding to particular challenges and moments, but in their absence struggling for motivation and losing the consistency that was his strength pre and during WSC.

He may well have murdered Murali, but struggled to make real impact against Harmison and company.

Okay. 1980-1 v India, 1981-2 v Pakistan, 1981-2 v NZ, and 1983-4 v Sri Lanka and Pakistan were the series I included.

He was pretty inconsistent, yep. But he also averaged 67.6 over those series. Go back in include 1980-1 v NZ, it drops a bit, but include 1979-80 in Pakistan it goes back up again.

I reckon my thesis he would have a huge record against the feeble bowling around today stands up to scrutiny. Whether you do it by getting a double ton and 2 0s, or a ton and 2 50s, an average of 70 is... an average of 70. In fact, if your theory about him being demotivated in the early 80s is right, maybe a fully motivated GSC would have been Bradmanesque in the 2000s.

When you consider that Matt Hayden in HIS bored and lazy phase still averaged 40 between his Townsville and Oval tons, and that he he's never had anywhere near the shot range Chappell had, if we're talking GC mid-career you are almost unarguably right - he would match Hayden v the Zimbos, and take the Windies and the Shaoibs and Andre Nels of this world for 80-100 a pop.

I wonder what Viv would have done in this era, or even Gooch.