By Spiro Zavos
December 25th 2007 @ 1:10am
Ricky Ponting is the best Australian batsman after Bradman
After watching Ricky Ponting score 135 not out against New Zealand at Hobart on a wicket that everyone else found difficult, it struck me that we are watching every time the Australian captain bats the best Australian batsman after Sir Donald Bradman.
Ponting has succeeded at every level of the game, Twenty/20 Cricket, the one-day game, first class cricket and test cricket.
He is a run machine. In 112 tests he has scored 9,508 runs at an average of 59.42, with 33 centuries and 38 half-centuries, a fantastic conversion rate. In ODI cricket he has scored 10,835 runs, at an average of 44.40, with 25 centuries and 63 half centuries.
In Ponting first 30 tests he averaged 39. After 45 tests he had moved his average to 40. Since then he has averaged 70. To put this into context only George Headley (’the Black Bradman’) , Herbert Sutcliffe and Graeme Pollack have averaged over 60 in test cricket for players with more than 20 innings. In 2006 Ponting averaged 89, a Bradmanlike figure and in 2005 he scored 1,544 runs in test cricket, the most of any Australian batsmen in a calendar year.
Ricky Ponting does not bat with the uplifting elegance of a Victor Trumper. He doesn’t ‘dismiss the ball from his presence’ (Neville Cardus’ phrase) like Charlie Macartney who liked to smash the first ball from a fast bowler back at his face to alert him to who was in charge. There is nothing of the bottom-handed efficiency of a Bill Ponsford in Ponting’s batting, either. Nor the swashbuckling penchant for cross-bat shots of Stan McCabe and Ian Chappell, or Greg Chappell’s straight-back hauteur.
Ponting bats as Bradman was supposed to have batted, efficiently, quickly, occasionally brutally, forever milking runs with well-judged placements and rabbit-quick running between the wickets and always playing the inevitably correct shot to each ball.
When Bradman came off the field after a massive innings it was invariably noted that he was not sweating or panting or in any way fatigued. Ponting is the same. He always looks as if he could go straight back out on to the field and score another century.
Often with greatness, familiarity breeds not so much contempt as a certain lack of awareness. It is often only when a player is finished that we realise just how great he was. Because his game is so simple and efficient, Ponting’s achievements are in danger of being taken for granted. But they shouldn’t be.
So while he’s still in his prime, with years to go before his career needs to end, let’s salute Ricky Ponting as the Australian batsman who is next in line (but some distance back, of course) to the best batsman ever - in the past, now and in the future - the one and only Don Bradman.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(27)
There are certain sentences a rugby writer believes he will never write and one them was (notice the past tense): 'Al Baxter monsters Andrew Sheridan...'
Stoffy said | December 25th 2007 @ 8:13am | Report comment
Ponting is a technically correct batsman i believe thats what brings him in distance of Don, as goood no, but still one of the best batsman the game has seen.Kepler Wessels was also a very correct batsman and if not for the Rebel Tour of South Africa debarkle, he may have gone down as a batting great. Ponting to me sits second behind Bradman, which is a big call considering im passing up the likes of Greg Chappell, Steve Waugh, Lindsay Hassett, Vic Richardson and many more, but i believe Punter will go down in history on sitting behind the great Sir Donald Bradman
sheek said | December 25th 2007 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Spiro,
Agree Ponting is the best Australian batsman after Bradman. Satistically, stylistically & scoring tempo-wise, there’s no doubt. If you were picking an all-time test middle order, Bradman, Ponting & Greg Chappell would be automatic selections at 3, 4 & 5.
Choice of number 6 would depend on team’s structure (do you play Miller as batting all-rounder?). The it comes down to one of 3 - Steve waugh, Border or Harvey.
Stoffy,
Wessels was a favourite of mine, I admired his courage, but a batting stylist he wasn’t. Batted like he was stuck in a closet, all cramped up. Nor can you say he even came close to being a great. Wessels got everything out of his limited technique, which is admirable.
But he was far from an Australian or South African batting great.
sheek said | December 25th 2007 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I also would pick Harvey ahead of Border & Waugh. His batting fell away a bit in his last 3-4 series. Before that he was averaging above 50.
Interesting articles by Phil Derriman in the SMH, in the leadup to the selection of Australia’s ‘team of the century’ in early 2000. He talked about looking at a player’s career during his ‘peak period’, which is sort of the middle of his career. Generally, at the beginning of a career, a player is still evolving, while towards the end, he is waning.
The balance of the middle part of his career generally tells us how good he is. For the record, the team selected in January 2000, was: Morris, Ponsford, Bradman(c), Harvey, G.Chappell, Miller(vc), Healy(k), Lindwall, Warne, Lillee, O’Reilly, Border(12th man).
The team was selected by 20 eminent ex-test cricketers - 16 Australians & 4 non-Australians (Bedser, Cowdrey, Sobers & Gavaskar). SMH readers differed from the 20 ex-test cricketers by selecting Trumper at opener ahead of Ponsford; Tallon at keeper ahead of Healy; Border in the XI at the expense of 2nd spinner O’Reilly; & S.Waugh as 12th man.
SMH voting gives an insight to fans thoughts back in 1999-2000. Bradman & Lillee made 100% of readers submissions; Lindwall 85%; Miller 77%; G.Chappell 73%; Warne 69%; Morris 65%; Harvey 62%; Border 58%; S.Waugh 50%; Trumper & Tallon 46%; O’Reilly 42%; Ponsford 35%; Davidson & Healy 31%; McGrath & Barnes 19%; Benaud 15%; Simpson 12%.
Of particular interest was a lack of support for Grimmett, who until Warne came along, was usually bracketed with O’Reilly as our two greatest spinners.
Another interesting contrast was the different structure of the team selected by SMH readers to the ex-test cricketers. The SMH readers favoured a 6 batsmen-1 keeper/batsman-3 pacemen- 1spinner approach, while the ex-test cricketers preferred the 5 batsmen-1 keeper/batsman-1 batting allrounder-2 pacemen-2 spinners approach.
In the past 7 years Ponting, Hayden & Gilchrist have probably earned places in the all-time team at the expense of Morris, Harvey & Healy, while McGrath is close, but no cigar.
Spiro Zavos said | December 26th 2007 @ 1:30am | Report comment
I agree with Sheek about Kepler Wessels. He had a faulty stance with his bat behind his back heel. This meant that he had to play around any ball on his leg stump. He was gritty and determined and fashioned a fine career as an opening batsman proving once again that the character of a player is more important than technique. The technical flaws, though, in batting prevented him from becoming more than a good, stalwart test player.
As for the best XI matter and Keith Miller’s place in it, I was struck reading his biography just how good a batsman he was. His batting fell away as Don Bradman put more and more pressure on him as an fast bowler. But for charisma and effectiveness and big match temperament, a place for Miller has to be found.
Of Neil Harvey, Allan Border and Steve Waugh, I would rate Harvey the best of this talented group. Border and Waugh have the averages on their side but Harvey at his best was one of the game’s greatest batsman, something that Border and Waugh, despite their records, never were.
ulysses said | December 28th 2007 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
Spiro
you say “only George Headley (’the Black Bradman’) , Herbert Sutcliffe and Graeme Pollack have averaged over 60 in test cricket for players with more than 20 innings”
Well you have to add M Hussey to that list as well now. Over 30 innings now and an average well over 60 - more like 80.
Where does he rate?
cheers.
Spiro Zavos said | December 28th 2007 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
Ulysses, you are right. I meant to say in over 20 tests, not 20 innings. Michael Hussey is a phenomenon and if he can keep up his run-scoring even somewhere near his current average it will be among the highest ever recorded. George Headley, Graeme Pollack and Don Bradman batted at number 3, and Herbert Sutcliffe was an opener. I always think that there should be some weighting consideration given to batsmen who score their runs at the top of the batting order. The batting is harder with the new ball challenge, and there are fewer not outs.
john smith said | January 6th 2008 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
ricky ponting is a cheating fraud and i’m ashamed of him being australian. needs to sort it out
Stoffy said | January 7th 2008 @ 8:02am | Report comment
John Smith,
Why do you say that? Ponting has had a few problems in the past, but he is not a cheating fraud, i think you are overreacting
Karan said | January 7th 2008 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
Ricky ponting may good batsman but he is no way near to batsman likes bradman and Sachin. As a cricketer, he don’t have sportmanship and intigrety. That is shown in sydney test and also other test he played in past. If captain is cheater than what you can expect from his team. The way they won the sydney test, it is really shamful victory, we can say they won the match by murdering game of cricket…. Wining is everything for every country but not this way……
Sanmukheswar said | January 7th 2008 @ 8:17pm | Report comment
(1) Ricky Ponting – (THE TRULY GENUINE CRICKETER OF THE CRICKET ERA AND WHOSE INTEGRITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED) should be considered as the FOURTH UMPIRE. As per the new rules, FOURTH UMPIRE decision is final and will over ride any decisions taken by any other umpires. ON-FIELD umpires can seek the assistance of RICKY PONTING even if he is not on the field. This rule is to be made, so that every team should understand the importance of the FOURTH UMPIRE.
(2) While AUSTRALIAN TEAM is bowling, If the ball flies anywhere close to the AUSTRALIAN FIELDER(WITHIN 5 metre distance), the batsman is to be considered OUT irrelevant of whether the catch was taken cleanly or grassed. Any decision for further clarification should be seeked from the FOURTH UMPIRE. This is made to ensure that the cricket is played with SPORTIVE SPIRIT by all the teams.
(3) While BATTING, AUSTRALIAN players will wait for the ON-FIELD UMPIRE decisions only (even if the catch goes to the FIFTH SLIP as the ball might not have touched the bat). Each AUSTRALIAN batsman has to be out FOUR TIMES (minimum) before he can return to the pavilion. In case of THE CRICKETER WITH INTEGRITY, this can be higher.
(4) UMPIRES should consider a huge bonus if an AUSTRALIAN player scores a century. Any wrong decisions can be ignored as they will be paid huge bonus and will receive the backing of the AUSTRALIAN team and board.
(5) All AUSTRALIAN players are eligible to keep commenting about all players on the field and the OPPONENT TEAM should never comment as they will be spoiling the spirit of the AUSTRALIAN team. Any comments made in any other language are to be considered as RACISM only.
(6) MATCH REFREE decisions will be taken purely on the AUSTRALIAN TEAM advice only. Player views from the other teams decisions will not be considered for hearing. MATCH REFREES are to be given huge bonus if this rule is implemented.
(7) NO VISITING TEAM should plan to win in AUSTRALIA. This is to ensure that the sportive spirit of CRICKET is maintained.
(8) THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE: If any bowler gets RICKY PONTING - “THE UNDISPUTED CRICKETER WITH INTEGTIRY IN THE GAME OF CRICKET” more than twice in a series, he will be banned for the REST OF THE SERIES. This is to ensure that the best batsman/Captain will be played to break records and create history in the game of CRICKET.
Mike Turnbull said | January 8th 2008 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Ponting appears at least as good as any BATSMAN as Australia has ever produced, with the proviso that there really aren’t all that many great bowlers around these days, and of course with the one noted exception, who’s head and shoulders above all others.
However, he’s consistently shown he’s a very unimaginative CAPTAIN (at best ordinary), and that when he’s rattled in any way he’s really not a great MAN in any way shape or form.
He shouldn’t worry too much - the last one applies to most of us - but then we don’t occupy the Australian Test Cricket Captain position.
David said | January 30th 2008 @ 1:48pm | Report comment
Lets treasure him while we can. He is often overlooked by pundits in handing out plaudits - Sachin and Lara are usually rated the best. Yet his record is better than these two batsman. I often think the tall poppy syndrome should be left behind as Australia moves forwards.
sydney Simon said | March 22nd 2008 @ 11:25pm | Report comment
I agree, Ponting is probably the best after Bradman,but he has ledgendary weakness exploited beautifully by smart bowlers.
When he goes after balls wide of off stump, he over reaches and drops his head, then gets out.
He is also a very bad sport, and simply cannot bring himself to understand why the crowd booed him after the one day series.He will not smile at opposing teams after the game, and holds his mouth in a grimace when shaking hands, that is extremely poor and weak.He is over focused on money, and what he can earn.That is his primary focus and thats why he is the punter, all about money.
Johnno said | April 30th 2008 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
Ricky Ponting is the best batsmen AUSTRALIA have ever had since bradman but he is not the second best batsman in the history of the game. Lara and Tendulker were 2 players that had the class and poise to fight out an innings and the match, but Ponting usually cracks under pressure and he does’nt have that legendary status about him. Lara and Tendulker were consistently great performers throughout their career for over 15years, but ponting has’nt played for as long and has’nt had the burden of pressure to bare as Australia hve had several outstanding players throughout pontings time. He is a nice bloke but agree about the point that punter is all about the money and bling. He technically has a weakness wereas the 2 other champs did’nt,as ponting tends to be vulnerable against spin and is troubled by balls on the off stump as usually pushes or glides and almost leans on the ball which dissmisses him more often then not.Two perfect exaples to back my theory is the fact Harbajan Singh got Ponting out 4 times in the test series this summer and in the 2001 series he was dismissed 5 times in 18 deleiveries. Young Indian rising star Ishant Sharma got ponting twice in Perth with the exact ball i was talking about on the off stump. Ponting is troubled with the uneven bounce and because of his height he finds it difficult to adjust quickly to unexpecting high bounce. Theres no doubting his ability and what he has acheived and also he astute captaincy but the expectation that is expected has made winning a mental battle in his head.Ponting will go down in history as a great, but his attitude and other bad habits will ultimately tarnish his repuation and therefore drop out of contention as one of the games immortals.
prafull said | May 13th 2008 @ 5:58am | Report comment
he cant play spin,,,,tats my biggest arguement,,,,
look at his record in indian conditions..
Jameswm said | June 10th 2008 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Geez there are some bigoted and cowardly comments on here. We don’t normally get this at the Roar.
I have an 8yo son who is learning cricket and when I want him to watch someone bat, I get him to watch Ponting. Ponting would be the best batsman I’ve ever seen - bearing in mind I was born in 1969. Tough as nails and normally very sporting. Yes he’s had his downs but so has everyone.
I was overseas at the time of the infamous Sydney test, but having watched replays, I don’t get what the fuss was about. Yes the Aussies appealed for everything, but in all honesty how can an Indian criticise the Aussies for that with a straight face? Anyone remember Harbajhan’s “hat-trick”, the one where Gilly’s LBW pitched a foot outside leg and Warnie’s caught was a bump ball? Any team will appeal a lot with a test on the line and if there were dodgy umpiring decisions, that’s not Ponting’s fault. Then they celebrated hard, but it was a miraculous win, so who wouldn’t? Maybe it was a bit over the top, but I’ve seen worse.
Lara did play a couple of wonderful match winning innings, but don’t tell me he didn’t have technical weaknesses. Glenn McGrath could write an essay on them. And Tendulkar was wonderful on flat and low Indian wickets, but since his golden time he has struggled overall. And he struggled with the short ball throughout his career - except of course on low, slow and flat Indian wickets.
those two were wonderful batsmen and the argument was that Ponting was Australian’s 2nd best, not the world’s. But he’d be close.
prafull said | June 17th 2008 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Hi James,
I agree a lot of gungho was created by indian media after the sydney test match.
But my point is look at his record in sub continent. He just cannot play quality spin bowling.
then,how can u call me a complete batsman?? Plus his on field behaviour in the past has been unexcpetables sometimes to say the least
He is a good batsmen…but no where near lara & tendulkar.
Aaron Doherty said | June 20th 2008 @ 10:27am | Report comment
Hi James
i agree with most of what you said except i think sachin has a better record away from india then when he actually plays there.
For those who doesn’t think Ponting doesn’t have staying power, to play tough innings i’d like to point out the 152 (i think) he scored in the 3rd Ashes test when everything was falling apart around him and we were trying for a draw.
It was hailed by nearly everyone as his best innings ever played, a true captains knock.
He has had a rough time against India, but other than Singh i haven’t really seen him struggle against other spinners, maybe Murrili, but there aren’t many batsmen that can say they are truely comfortable playing him.
Besides Lara and sachin who are so highly regarded have there technical weaknesses too, as has been noted.
I find it hilarious that Ponting gets grilled in the media about his actions when Singh is arguably the worst player in cricket.
His actions against Symonds, Slapping sreesanth, and the wonderfully written comment by Sanmukheswar, completely glossing over the fact India threatened to pull out and go home, because they banned singh, when in fact the aussies were quite in their rights to complain and then he was found guilty. I find pulling the pin on a test series in pretty bad sportsman ship too.
But in the case of Ponting, since being elevated to Australian captain he has been a run machine with the indian test series and the IPL being his only real run drought.
I think he has clearly surpassed Sachin and Lara, who are brilliant batsmen in their own right 2 of the very best to have ever graced our game, but Ponting has moved past them and will no doubt go down as Australia’s 2nd best batsmen and is looking good at the moment to possibly be 2nd best outright
prafull said | June 23rd 2008 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
Hi Aaron,
Nice to see your comments
But the point is ,i dint find any sound counter arguement from your side !!!
How can you say that he has surpasssed lara & tendulkar??
pls enlighten us
Midfielder said | June 23rd 2008 @ 8:51pm | Report comment
Cannot agree with Ricky being number two behind the Don.
For me its AB, ………… he played when every country around the world had good boweling sides, WI with the four quickes, all sides just look up who AB faced, then compare who Ricky has faced.
AB IMO is a stand out number two, the plus 50 average against the people he faced is IMO a 70’s average compared to most other times.
Spiro Zavos said | June 23rd 2008 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Allan Border batted at number six in the batting order, a much easier position to score runs and get not outs than number 3, Ricky Pontings position. Number 3 is the key position. If a wicket falls early the number 3 has to consolidate. If the opening pair put on a good partnerships, the number 3 hmammers home the advantage. Also, while Border scored his runs quite slowly, Ponting scores quickly. Quick runs win Tests. Border saved Tests but never won Tests.
MrB said | June 23rd 2008 @ 10:02pm | Report comment
I was asked the other day wether I thought Ponting or Bradman was Australia’s best ever batsman and I decided that no one will ever really know.
I think they batted in two completey different eras of cricket. Different bowling styles and strategies and visa versa.
So I don’t belive anyone can really judge who is the better of the two batsman although the stats do point to Bradman who knows? Ponting may have had and average of 12 or 100 in the time Bradman played his cricket, the same as Bradman if he had batted when Ponting has been batting.
kenneth mortimer said | August 26th 2008 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
I agree with most of the respondents. Ponting is a wizard but is fortunate never to have been up against the opponents of AB or Waugh nor without the depth of player abilities enjoyed by Ponting. He inherited a team in the top one-third of the bell curve of accomplishment and largely has continued to dominate world cricket with largely ineffective opponents. AB’s courage, determination, and persistance was up there with the Don. Who can forget Waugh’s superhuman innings at the SCG. All comparisons in my opinion need to be taken into the context of the capabilities and track records of the Aussies and there opponents.
Muralidaran Ramesh Somasunderam said | September 19th 2008 @ 8:02pm | Report comment
Dear Sir,
I believe that the best batsman Australia has had since the late Sir Donald Bradman was the late Norman O Neil, followed by Greg Chappell. These two players were very talented, and were technically more correct players than Ricky Pointing. But, if one views runs as the key aspect, R. Pointing has to be judged as the best batsman Australia has had, since the days of the late Sir Donald Bradman.
Yours Sincerely,
M. R. Somasunderam.
djdj9798 said | October 1st 2008 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Your havin a laugh aint ya? best batsman after its Sir Bradman actually. You are kiddin!
He wouldnt know the word sportsman or gracious winner, The Australian Captian cought in King Cross
few years back…..he will be etstes again! in India and fail, he should have been dropped after the Harbisha incident.
Ponting = Arrogance.
Is Ponting playing for a draw, already? » The Roar - Your Sports Opinion said | October 18th 2008 @ 3:18am | Report comment
[...] most of the first day of the second India-Australia Test was the extremely defensive fields set by Ricky Ponting virtually from the first ball of the day. It was as if, on losing the toss on an even-paced pitch, [...]
R Sathyamurthy said | January 3rd 2009 @ 2:48pm (3 days ago) | Report comment
There have been several great batsmen representing Australia post Cricket God Sir Don Bradman. The Chappell brothers, Allan Border, David Boon, Mathew Hayden and so on and includes Ricky Ponting.
While I will acknowledge Ricky Ponting as one of the best post Sir Bradman, I will not say he is THE BEST.
Best Regards
R Sathyamurthy
http://www.sathyamurthy.com/2008/12/31/ponting-the-batsman-par-excellence/
http://www.sathyamurthy.com/2008/12/21/is-ponting-a-good-captain/