Time for Ponting to concede to the Little Master
Roar Pro By Nicholashugo, 10 Jul 2012 Nicholashugo is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Cricket, Ricky Ponting, Shane Watson, Shaun Marsh, The Ashes, Usman Khawaja
Ricky Ponting axed from ODIs, but the door isn't closed, and Ponting isn't going anywhere just yet (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)
Related coverage
I feel un-Australian saying this, but may be it’s time for Ricky Ponting to concede that Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman ever not named Sir Donald Bradman and thus finally giving up his quest to outlast and out score the little master.
Although he is just a little over 2000 runs behind, the rivalry has become virtually a non-contest in recent years. It is time for Ponting to reconsider his somewhat irrational chase to match Sachin’s greatness.
It is okay to be number two among the living greats, as much as Australians love one of our own, we recognise and respect great player when we see one and what Tendulkar has done throughout his career has been remarkable, even up until now.
Ponting was struggling during his last outing at the Caribbean islands, scoring 25 runs from three innings before salvaging his batting average by scoring a half century. It is no longer a question of whether he can become the Ricky Ponting the devastating batsman again but whether it’s time to step down finally and let the others have a go at his job.
In all fairness, Ponting hasn’t been preventing his successors from coming through so much as these candidates haven’t done enough themselves to generate support for them to be on the Test side.
Shaun Marsh, Usman Khawaja and Callum Ferguson were once regarded as viable options to take over once Ponting decides to call it a day, but they have since show flaws in their games and haven’t performed when they were given the chance.
They have not done enough with their respective state teams this season to even start a debate, making it easy for selectors to reasonably overlook them, opting for the less risky selection by retaining Ponting, and rightfully so.
However with the Ashes series coming back, may be now is a time for a change. It pains me to say it, but the Poms have substantially better players and even if Australia fields the best team available, it will have to take a team-wide choking by the Poms for Australia to win.
Again, I feel un-Australian saying this, but may be we should adopt the alternative to the win now approach by giving these younger batsmen experiences that hopefully may develop them into solid players. Maybe they have earned the privilege, but that we desperately need a strong middle order for the future.
Another less radical option is to move Watson down the order, which would ease the workload the injury-prone alrounder carries as both a strike bowler and an opening batsman.
Australia does have more than a couple of competent openers that can at least justify their places on the test side, if the selectors adopts this approach, it will no doubt provide an upgrade to the batting line-up while extending Watson’s career.
As Australian cricket fans painfully find out, Ricky Ponting is truly an once in a generation talent. No current Australian players can say they are playing at a level remotely close to the man in his prime.
But past glory should not translate to future job security. I understand if the selectors decide to select him for the Ashes so fans can properly farewell the Punter and recognise his achievements, but isn’t it better if they select him in a match where he can deservingly bow out as a winner instead?
Why put him through the ferocious English bowling attack and the even more demoralising media backlashes?
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Ricky Ponting, Shane Watson, Shaun Marsh, The Ashes, Usman Khawaja
July 10th 2012 @ 1:39am
AndyMack said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:39am | Report comment
“time for Ponting to reconsider his somewhat irrational chase to match Sachin’s greatness”
I have said if before however if you discount “Tests” against Zim and Bangers, then Punters record is virtually identical to Sachins. Both players have had periods in their careers where it looked to be all over, the major difference being is that Punters period has been very recent and some may say he is still in that period. I guess time will tell.
I think Bailey and Forrest have proved they cannot bat, so not sure who you are picking in this middle order to replace Ponting????
July 10th 2012 @ 1:51pm
Al said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
I think the overall stats distort reality in favour of Ponting. Ponting had 4 really outstanding years in his career 2003-06 during which he averaged 73 and scored 38% of his total runs. Over the remaining of his 17 yr career he averages 45.
Coincidentally during this period several of the modern greats –Kallis, Dravid, even Lara (!!) etc also had their best patches. Whereas Tendulkar had his worst as injuries threatened his career.
During Tendulkars peak in the ‘90s he had fewer opportunities to cash in .For eg. in one of his signature years 1998 he played just 5 Tests.
During the ‘90s (and exc. Ban and Zim) Tendulkar averaged almost 60 through the entire decade.
Just 3 batsmen who played right through the ’90s avg. 50+ (Tendulkar, Steve -53, Lara -51).
Ponting has never had such a dominant decade over his peers.
The 2000s may be said to be Pontings decade vs. the 1990s to Tendulkar – but he wasnt as far ahead of the pack as Tendulkar was.
A deeper look at Tendulkar’s amazing consistency, against all bowlers, all over the world, in all conditions, for almost 23 years would put him on top of the modern game.
July 11th 2012 @ 9:11am
Disco said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Ponting’s era is not the 2010s that’s for sure, despite what some around here would like to believe.
July 12th 2012 @ 10:31pm
Brew said | July 12th 2012 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
Very interesting post, Al.
Interesting in that Ponting scored so many runs in those four seasons. That over the rest of his 17 year career, he has only averaged 45.
July 10th 2012 @ 8:52am
k77sujith said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Ponting may be going through a rot but he’s too good a player to be kept out of the Ashes series. I’m sure he’ll be fired up for the Ashes and would put up a good show…maybe that could be his farewell series.
As for Tendulkar, well, he’s a legend no doubt, but back home in India, there are several quarters forcing him to quit as well especially in ODIs. He’s achieved everything he’s had to (also recently bestowed the honor of becoming a paliamentarian!) and should now consider making way.
Like they say, all good things come to an end; but give Ricky one more Ashes. Thanks.
July 10th 2012 @ 9:28am
Nicholashugo said | July 10th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
but the point i was trying t make is that he should have a farewell series that wont harm his legacy, too much at stake for the ashes and cant you smell a load of media backlashing when he gets bowled out cheaply? he is gonna be remembered as the guy who lost three ashes in a row…
July 10th 2012 @ 2:42pm
Will said | July 10th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Because Ponting doesn’t want a fairytale. He wants a shot at the poms, and if he gets there, it will be on merit, nothing else.
Ponting is prepared to risk the backlash from the media, not that I think he is particularly concerned about that.
Deep down he backs himself to perform, and to be honest, at this point, Ponting firing is probably the only thing that can put us in with a chance of winning back the ashes, because when Ponting fires, the entire team stands taller.
July 10th 2012 @ 3:23pm
Nicholashugo said | July 10th 2012 @ 3:23pm | Report comment
Not sure if thriving hero,
Or just plain stubborn.
July 12th 2012 @ 11:00pm
Brew said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:00pm | Report comment
Often some stakeholders in the sports media feel the need to write stories about players retiring, because of lack of tactical and technical knowledge. They call for lots of change in teams, because it also generates more stories. Maybe some should learn more about the game they write about and attend nationally accredited coaching courses to improve knowledge?
It is the exception, not the norm, that former pro players and coaches write these sorts of articles. They have a high critical level. To evaluate a player they are aware of many more criteria than the average spectator. Exceptions to the norm are Jeff Thomson and Neil Harvey, who have provided the media with good copy.
It is certainly prevalent in the Australian football media, because so few writers can pontificate on tactics and technique. I have a higher critical level in football than cricket, because I coach football. I used to write about football in the media, but I have also been a coach who has attended many football courses. Many times media pundits have called for the omission of a number of senior footballers, but the data doesn’t support their feelings.
It was poignant when Ed Cowan, a very literate cricketer, described the nuances of facing Mitchell Johnston. Cowan raised issues the average cricket punter isn’t aware of. At that point in time many in the media were calling for Johnston’s omission from the national team. Yet Cowan still found him a very difficult bowler to face.
July 13th 2012 @ 4:08pm
Nicholashugo said | July 13th 2012 @ 4:08pm | Report comment
Cool story hansel.
July 16th 2012 @ 3:01pm
Bayman said | July 16th 2012 @ 3:01pm | Report comment
Brew,
With all due respect, the fact Cowan still found Johnson difficult may reflect more on Ed than Mitchell. Let’s be serious for a minute – Johnson does not deserve to be anywhere near the Australian team and everybody knows it.
Johnson’s time out of the game and the team culminated in his return to the ODI side at which time he promptly resumed bowling the ball on the next pitch. No doubt the Stats suggested it was hard to score off him.!!!!
In addition, I’m quietly confident we don’t all need to take a coaching course to qualify as a critic. I’m not sure about you but I don’t need to be a level three coach to know that Johnson has no idea where the ball is going to land. Perhaps this particular attribute is what confuses Ed since he clearly will have no idea either.
No doubt Ed’s main worry is the fact that Johnson may actually fluke one into a dangerous area at pace. After all, he does occasionally bowl a good one – it’s just that he doesn’t know how he did it and he cannot replicate it at will.
You also mention “data” as if that’s the most important criteria. I clearly take an opposite view to you on “data”. I agree it can be valuable but not as the overriding decision making tool. If you are going to select teams purely on statistics then I suggest you are heading down a very slippery path.
I admit this method is gaining currency but largely because of the rise of the “sports scientist” who is keen to justify his role. Glenn Turner, a former New Zealand opening bat and captain, was overlooked by John Buchanon for the role as national selection manager in favour of a guy who was high performance manager for (lawn) Bowls Australia.
The idea that an Australian bowls administrator would know more about cricket than Turner is, well, ludicrous but of course in this modern age our man is protected by statistics. So, no problem.
Turner envisages all future selections to be purely statistically based. Good luck with picking a team that can beat anyone. It might be nice, for old times sake, to have at least one person who does actually know who can, and cannot, really play. With this in mind, be careful about ridiculing the likes of Harvey and Thomson. It is possible they just might be right – even if the stats don’t support them.
I have no doubt that Australia, on the back of the Argus Report, is heading exactly the same way as New Zealand. As long as statistics are the criteria then no criticism can be aimed at you if the player doesn’t perform. After all, his “stats” were better than the other bloke. All care and no responsibility.
You know what they say, there’s lies, damn lies and statistics!
July 10th 2012 @ 3:53pm
Disco said | July 10th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
Absolute twaddle.
July 10th 2012 @ 8:53am
Disco said | July 10th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
It all comes down to the selectors and past players being in awe of Ponting, and taking the view that he’s undroppable. Such hero worship and sentimentality doesn’t help the team, as we’ve also witnessed through the blind faith shown in Mitchell Johnson. If Punter’s “too good a player to be kept out of the Ashes” where was this player in the past three years (the mauling of disinterested India aside)?
Based on his promising showings against England and South Africa, Khawaja should have been bedded into the Test side as a regular; not jettisoned after the Hobart collapse. As it is, the selectors were predictably short-sighted in denting the confidence of those in their mid 20s whilst backing an aging player in terminal decline. Great player that he was, when was the last time Ponting scored heavily against quality bowling?
July 12th 2012 @ 11:10pm
Brew said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
Disco, that is a pretty easy answer. When India came to Australia they arrived as the top team in the world. Many pundits called for Ponting’s sacking.
Ponting was the highest and most consistent score in the series against India. Still many called for his sacking. Geoff Lawson, a former player, and another anomaly, even a maverick, like Thommo and Harvey, still called for his omission whilst he scored so many runs.
Guys like Ponting and Hussey are still very capable fielders too. Some of the Indian veteran greats, showed signs of decline in the field.
Experienced guys can also lift inexperienced players around them, particularly if in a form slump. Regardless, Ponting scored heavily against quality bowling.
July 13th 2012 @ 9:29am
Disco said | July 13th 2012 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Are you saying that what India put up in England and in Australia was quality bowling?
July 13th 2012 @ 11:10am
Brew said | July 13th 2012 @ 11:10am | Report comment
I’m saying before India came to Australia they arrived with a much vaunted attack. It was perceived as quality before the series. India were ranked as the number one Test team.
Many Australian batters failed against the Indian attack. Whether that was due to quality bowling or poor batting performance is open to debate. Without any equivocation, Ponting succeeded against that attack more consistently than anybody else.
July 13th 2012 @ 11:54am
Disco said | July 13th 2012 @ 11:54am | Report comment
An attack which was severely exposed in England as second-rate, aside from Kumar who didn’t play in the Tests against Australia.
Who are these many ‘batters’ who failed against India? Marsh failed but has nowhere near the class that Arthur seems to think he has, and so did the Haddin who’s lost it completely it seems.
I’m not sure how that series convinces you about Ponting’s ongoing value.
July 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm
Brew said | July 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
There was a technical flaw when he played across the line early in in his innings with that leg side sin gnature shot of his.
Beyond that early innings flaw which ameliorated over the course of the series, he accumulated runs against India. I thought he was mediocre against the West Indies. All players have mediocre tours.
I’ve also seen a lot of batsman play at Bellerive Oval (Blundstone Arena) live. Few young players play well on that pitch – a measure of a batter’s technique.
Marsh was considered a fine prospect after one Sri Lankan tour. He still has time to have a resurgent test career.
I thought Kawaja looked good at times, but got out too easily. I’m sure he will be back.
I’ve seen Hughes bat a lot live. I’m concerned about his defence, although he is able to dispatch bad balls.
One of the most impressive batters at Bellerive has been the former Aussie, turned Kiwi, Royce Brownlie.
July 13th 2012 @ 1:58pm
Cricket Burble said | July 13th 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
Marsh, Haddin and Cowan all had less than ideal series and Warner was hardly an electrifying success (2 thirds of his runs in the series coming in one innings). Not only did Ponting and Clarke make huge runs in the series, but they also did it at important times when early wickets had fallen cheaply.
I’m not sure what more Ponting would have had to have done. If averaging 100+ wasn’t enough, would 200 have been acceptable?
July 13th 2012 @ 3:53pm
Disco said | July 13th 2012 @ 3:53pm | Report comment
But Warner and Cowan were bedded down as the openers for the West Indies and beyond based on what runs they did score against the Indians, and neither struggled like Shaun “Class is permanent” Marsh.. I’m not convinced by either.
July 10th 2012 @ 12:29pm
Cricket Burble said | July 10th 2012 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
Arthur has been talking about the ODI side lacking a bit of mongrel and being too submissive. That’s because there’s guys like Forrest and Bailey playing instead of Ponting. Australia just need to pick the best side and that includes Ponting in ODIs and Tests despite the fact that he’s nowhere near the player he once was. Khawaja should come through though….a great option for Tests behind Ponting, Clarke and Mike Hussey at 6.
July 10th 2012 @ 1:07pm
Pope Paul VII said | July 10th 2012 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Good luck prising the holy trinity from 4, 5, 6 but you are right, a new man needed a shot at six.
Interestingly Hussey was at no 5 in slow wicketed old Sri Lanka. As fate would have it the first test was a toughie, Huss thrived while Khawaja battled for a pair of 20s. Then with Punter off home for a test Marshy debuted at three for a ton, Huss picked up a ton at five on a pretty flat wicket and Khawaja only got a token bat as rain intervened. Khawaja dropped when Ponting came back at 4 and Huss goes no.6. 4 series later he’s still at no.6.
Australia will lose series anyway against superior SA and England whether Ponting or Hussey are there or not. The point is, the longer they are there, the longer the losing streak will last.
July 11th 2012 @ 5:01am
lolly said | July 11th 2012 @ 5:01am | Report comment
I hope that stuff about Punter and Sachin is meant as a joke. I have never felt that Punter is that interested in chasing anyone statistically. He just wants to play for Australia for as long as he’s allowed to as it’s a job he loves. It’s up to the selectors to drop him.
July 12th 2012 @ 1:00pm
Al said | July 12th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Replied the same to several similar posts in here:
Ricky Ponting :- “The number of innings of his (Tendulkar’s) I have been able to sit back and watch, I think he is an amazing player. Look at his stats and records and it’s quite incredible for someone to have stayed in the game for 20 years.. He has set benchmarks for guys like me to chase him and get as close as we can. If I had to last 20 years, I would probably be batting in a wheelchair!!”
NO, repeat NO, player is ever going to say he plays for his stats.
In reality, and actual fact, they don’t.
But , surely , when nearing a milestone – you would want to get it ?
A batsman in his 90s would love to get a Hundred – be it Bradman, Tendulkar ,Ponting or anyone.
I don’t believe anyone who says otherwise…
July 11th 2012 @ 2:57pm
Jason said | July 11th 2012 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
“but may be it’s time for Ricky Ponting to concede that Sachin Tendulkar is the best batsman ever not named Sir Donald Bradman”
This is a bit presumptuous. Tendulkar may not even be in the best 5 batsmen not named Sir Donald Bradman.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:35pm
Al said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
The vast majority of cricketers and obversers of the game , past and present ,would agree with nicholas’s assessment .
(We can ignore the teeming millions)
July 13th 2012 @ 5:06pm
Jason said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:06pm | Report comment
Sorry. Are you saying that the vast majority of cricketers and observers of the game think that Tendulkar is the second best batsman ever?
You wouldn’t even get a majority of Roarers agreeing with that.
July 13th 2012 @ 5:41pm
Al said | July 13th 2012 @ 5:41pm | Report comment
That is precisely what I am saying.
The “Roarers” I’m afraid would have to be classified among the “teeming millions”
By cricketers and observers – I mean serious cricketers and observers.
Just a lay example -http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/482936.html
I’m sure you will find other counter examples.
However,most cricketers past or present would have Tendulkar at No.2 (lately there has even been a case for No.1)
Infact most of the other slots for Top 5 -Viv , Lara , Ponting etc (at least of the modern era) would all pen down Tendulkar as the first pick in their batting lineup.
Cheers.
July 14th 2012 @ 2:56pm
Jason said | July 14th 2012 @ 2:56pm | Report comment
Well we might have to differ on the abilities and cricketing knowledge of the Roarers compared to those on sites like ESPN.
July 14th 2012 @ 3:10pm
Al said | July 14th 2012 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
It’s not about the “site”..It’s about “who” is making the decisions.
Infact a whole load of well know Aussie cricketers too, past and present , have a known preference for Tendulkar.
July 14th 2012 @ 3:25pm
Jason said | July 14th 2012 @ 3:25pm | Report comment
It is quite a bit about the site. Cricinfo is predominantly an Indian advertising vehicle. What gets published on that site tends towards being what the audience wants to hear and read.
But I wasn’t really talking about the site anyway. There is no reason why many of the writers on something like Cricinfo have a more valid opinion than many on this site (and a stack of others I can name). Just having played the game is only one element of the depth of insight a person can have.
In any case “a whole load” seems to be a long way short of “the vast majority” which was really my original point.
July 14th 2012 @ 3:54pm
Al said | July 14th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Oh well, we can go on forever.
You mean the same judges if picked on Roar would not have had Tendulkar -but say an Aussie in place of him? Ponting or Waugh?
Very much doubt it.
And we can go on about the difference between “whole load” and “vast majority”
Of the top of my head you could say Neil Harvey, Richie Benaud, Warne, Mcgrath, Lee, Steve,Mark, Ponting,Greg Chappel ,Ian etc etc would have Tendulkar at either one or two.
Most “knowledgeable” observers would – irrespective of the site.
I certainly would.
I simply don’t see any replacement – Richards certainly more explosive when on, Lara devastating on song, Ponting too, Dravid more solid, Gavakar/Boycott technically the best….But the closest to all these qualities in a single package would be Tendulkar.
But then,I too , am just one of the arm chair critics who played in school and then restricted my cricket viewing to TV and youtube .
July 14th 2012 @ 3:58pm
Al said | July 14th 2012 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
Oh yeah, Wisden had Tendulkar at No.2 as well – way back in 2002 that too.
July 16th 2012 @ 4:15pm
Bayman said | July 16th 2012 @ 4:15pm | Report comment
Al,
Let me get this right. If I want to be considered a serious cricket observer, rather than one of the “teeming millions”, then all I have to do is say Tendulkar is at least the second best batsman ever (after you know who).
That seems simple enough – if only it were that simple. Can I assume that Tendulkar achieves this ranking on the back of his longevity? I mean, I know he’s got 51 Test hundreds but then he’s played 188 Tests – and he does average 55.44 so it’s fair to assume he’s going to turn some of those digs into hundreds. A record, incidentally, that anyone – and I mean, anyone – would be proud of.
I said longevity before only because there are some players who average more than that (and I’m not talking now of “you know who”). So what makes Sachin number two – the Tests, the runs, the hundreds or the years? Or is it all of the above? Because it sure as hell isn’t the average though, to be fair, it’s a bit of a quibble to take exception to 55.44. If someone said I could average that for six months I’d take it.
I only mention it because if Garry Sobers had played as many Tests as Sachin then their records would be remarkably similar. Sachin has 188 Tests to Garry’s 93, 15470 runs to 8032, 51 hundreds to 26, 55.44 average to 57.78, 248no highest score to 365no, not to mention 45 wickets to 235 and 113 catches to 109.
Both played Test cricket for at least 20 years so longevity is an attribute of both great players. I’d also be quietly confident that Garry probably punished his body a fair bit more than Sachin because of a) the amount of bowling he did – and fast bowling at that as often as not and b) his social life (which was legendary).
Did I mention George Headley by the way? He only played 22 Tests but they were spread over 24 years and he averaged 60.83 in scoring 10 hundreds. His first class average, incidentally, was 69 plus.
I mention Sobers and Headley not to denigrate Sachin but to emphasise he may actually have some opposition as the second best of all time. I have no doubt that many of those who elevate Sachin do so in all good faith but then they never saw Sobers or Headley.
I’ve no doubt Tendulkar is the best Indian batsman of all time and, yes, I saw Gavaskar, but rate Tendulkar his superior (though I know some who do not). I also saw Sobers, and a lot of him, and on that front I’m just going to have to include myself among your “teeming millions”.
You’ll note that I did not mention Kallis (avge 56.78), until now, for fear you’d think me mischievous.
July 18th 2012 @ 1:21pm
Al said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:21pm | Report comment
Your last sentence, even in half jest, unfortunately reveals a fundamental lack of cricketing knowledge.
Nullified most of the rest of your comment.
As mentioned Tendulkar was ranked No.2 by Wisden in 2002, some 12 years into his career.
He was already considered an all-time Great by 1998.
Where does “longevity” come into the picture then?
This whole “longevity” thing is relatively recent – and is actually just the icing on top.
But ,strangely ,it is being used as a negative to negate Tendulkar’s achievements as merely being largely longevity based.
Sad.
July 19th 2012 @ 12:13pm
Bayman said | July 19th 2012 @ 12:13pm | Report comment
Al,
Anytime you want to compare cricket knowledge with me just let me know. And good luck.
I guess we can now say, since you have raised the issue that longevity is not a criteria, that Tendulkar’s average of 55.44 just leaves him in a pack of players several of whom have averaged more. Hardly a guarantee of the second best ever – and a long way from being the best ever!
July 19th 2012 @ 1:07pm
Jason said | July 19th 2012 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Sh1t. Now I’m confused.
So, on what basis is it now being argued that Tendulkar is the second best ever?
July 19th 2012 @ 1:26pm
Nicholashugo said | July 19th 2012 @ 1:26pm | Report comment
Bayman, one thing, when you supported your argument with Tendulkar’s average of 55.44, you used his career average over 22 years, thus implicitly taking advantage of his longevity and his slump after 2002, i think it would be fairer if you form your argument based on his average up to 2002 when he was ranked no.2 by Wisden. so yeh, find another guy who has averaged 55.44 over a 22 year career and we can talk about it further. this is almost a non-issue.
July 19th 2012 @ 2:27pm
Jason said | July 19th 2012 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
“so yeh, find another guy who has averaged 55.44 over a 22 year career and we can talk about it further.”
George Headley; Jack Hobbs; Wally Hammond; Gary Sobers…
July 19th 2012 @ 5:49pm
Bayman said | July 19th 2012 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
Nicholashugo,
It’s a non-issue alright and it has been for some time.
Incidentally, why would it be fairer to just stop after 2002? Presumably because that way you can let Wisden argue for you and you don’t have to actually think about it.
As Jason has kindly pointed out there’s been a few already averaging what Tendulkar has averaged over a twenty year period and dare I say that some of them average even more. So what’s your point, exactly?
You seem to want to include some sort of longevity (but not the last ten years) into the discussion. Al doesn’t seem to want longevity as a criteria. So which is it? You Tendulkar fans can’t have it both ways.
Either way, it’s 55.44 at the end of the day. Mind you, since Al thinks that my mentioning Kallis’ average of 56.78 over a decade and a half shows my “fundamental lack of cricketing knowledge” I’m not sure Al’s grip on logic is too secure. I do look forward to Al actually explaining his reasoning one day. Cricket is a game of numbers and last time I looked 56.78 was more than 55.44. I’m not saying Kallis is the second best batsman of all time but it does cast some doubt over Tendulkar’s automatic right to the ranking.
You guys do realise, don’t you, that there’s a few players who averaged more than Tendulkar and who played for over a decade e.g. Sutcliffe, Barrington – so it’s some sort of reasonable comparison given you both want to minimise longevity as the basic reason for Tendulkar’s current status.
So why, exactly, is Tendulkar the second best of all time if it’s not his longevity? I mean apart from you just liking the idea. As for Wisden’s 2002 ranking all I can say is that it’s not unheard of for Wisden to make mistakes. Well intentioned though they may be.
You’ll need a better argument than “Wisden said so”.
July 11th 2012 @ 3:34pm
Gremlin said | July 11th 2012 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
I’v never heard Ricky say or allude to anything concerning Tendulkars record v’s his own. Bradman’s surmation of Tendulkar speaks volumes.
I don’t think Ricky would put his hand up if he didn’t feel he was caplable of holding his own.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:34pm
Al said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
Ricky Ponting :- “The number of innings of his (Tendulkar’s) I have been able to sit back and watch, I think he is an amazing player. Look at his stats and records and it’s quite incredible for someone to have stayed in the game for 20 years.. He has set benchmarks for guys like me to chase him and get as close as we can. If I had to last 20 years, I would probably be batting in a wheelchair!!”
July 13th 2012 @ 7:58am
Gremlin said | July 13th 2012 @ 7:58am | Report comment
That comment by Ricky is him paying tribute to ST, remarking that he is head and shoulders above every one else interms of stats and longevity, not the comments of Ahab trying to get his whale.
July 13th 2012 @ 12:32pm
Al said | July 13th 2012 @ 12:32pm | Report comment
Agree. But then why harp on how apparently Tendulkar plays only for stats?
Absurd insinuation.
Posted a comment on that regard up above.
July 15th 2012 @ 6:55pm
lolly said | July 15th 2012 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
Who is harping on about Tendulkar playing only for his stats? I read around the cricket traps a fair bit and I’ve never felt that Punter is always pointing out Tendulkar’s ‘playing for stats’. I don’t think he’d be that disrespectful. Sachin is probably his favourite batsman (after Mike Hussey).
July 16th 2012 @ 4:37pm
Bayman said | July 16th 2012 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Al,
It’s drawing a long bow to suggest Ponting’s reference to stats can be interpreted as “Tendulkar plays only for stats”. If that’s your interpretation I can only say, “You’re wrong”.
But then, in recent years, you would not be the first Indian fan who gets irrationally sensitive at any comment which does not say, “Sachin is the greatest of all time”.
Gremlin has picked up the correct interpretation without a problem – why is it so hard for you?
July 18th 2012 @ 1:24pm
Al said | July 18th 2012 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Yup. Right.
Actually I was referring to what Dad’s army said below “ponting doesn’t care about records like sachin does”
I mean – how pathetic is that ?
July 11th 2012 @ 4:01pm
Aware said | July 11th 2012 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
I think Sunil Gavaskar was better than Sachin. Sunny played through the dominant West Indian period and succeeded where other batsmen failed. I don’t think Sachin has had to face that pressure.
July 11th 2012 @ 5:01pm
Jason said | July 11th 2012 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
Sunny’s record against the full strength West Indies side was pretty patchy. He plundered their early 70s attack and again during WSC. Even his 236 was in a dead rubber match.
July 11th 2012 @ 5:47pm
Aware said | July 11th 2012 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
And Sachin’s record against good fast bowling away from home is…. what?
July 12th 2012 @ 11:27am
Jason said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:27am | Report comment
Not sure what that has to do with Sunny but his record in Australia until last year was quite outstanding.
July 12th 2012 @ 11:17pm
Brew said | July 12th 2012 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
Aware.
I’ve always thought Sachin has looked very difficult to dislodge in Australia in every series he has played. He rarely looks like getting out until he does.
July 14th 2012 @ 8:04am
Disco said | July 14th 2012 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Very true.
July 12th 2012 @ 12:42pm
Al said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
Most of the real quicks of the era – Donald,Waqar,Ambrose,Lee (real quicks,not the medium pacers) etc place Tendulkar pretty high > if not right at the top.
July 11th 2012 @ 4:29pm
Dad's Army said | July 11th 2012 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
ponting doesn’t care about records like sachin does. he has never mentioned trying to get 100 100s. he has never mentioned trying to surpass tendulkar in the run tally. when the selfish sachin got his 100th 100 earlier this year all he talked about after the match was how relieved he was. rightfully so with 1 billion people behind you, but he and the indian team never mentioned that they lost that match. putting himself before his country. a joke, but then again it’s sachin, the god of cricket.
ponting is still one of the best batsmen in the country, along with the other over-30s: katich, (even though he doesnt play for australia anymore) the hussey brothers, michael clarke. all of them are head and shoulders above hughes, smith, forrest, bailey, khawaja etc. just compare the averages of the former players to the latter. the gulf between the two generations is vast. and pitches are getting flatter by the over!
keep punter and m huss, we’ll need them bring in david hussey, and bring back katich too. and best of all, players who can actually hook a short ball. who cares if the Uk media call us dad’s army? we can’t have our young crop of walking wickets putting cricket’s greatest prize on the line. we did in 2006 with warne and mcgrath. speaking of warney, bring him back too! he’s fitter than ever and we all know england cant play spin. as for other bowlers don’t waste young bodies like cummins who will break down like 20 year old cars. last summer proved experience works: siddle and hilfenhaus, 27 and 29 respectively. if siddle can learn swing and reverse swing, we’ll give them a real run for their money.
July 11th 2012 @ 9:54pm
Disco said | July 11th 2012 @ 9:54pm | Report comment
How flash are Australia’s current Test top six against spin bowling? That’s unclear because they usually don’t survive long enough to face much of it.
If Ponting was still as good as you make out, his spot wouldn’t even be up for discussion.
July 11th 2012 @ 10:40pm
Nicholashugo said | July 11th 2012 @ 10:40pm | Report comment
that’s cause you don’t talk about getting 100 100s when you are on 71…
July 12th 2012 @ 12:39pm
Al said | July 12th 2012 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
A couple of years back…..
Ricky Ponting :- “The number of innings of his (Tendulkar’s) I have been able to sit back and watch, I think he is an amazing player. Look at his stats and records and it’s quite incredible for someone to have stayed in the game for 20 years.. He has set benchmarks for guys like me to chase him and get as close as we can. If I had to last 20 years, I would probably be batting in a wheelchair!!”
July 13th 2012 @ 2:58pm
Dad's Army said | July 13th 2012 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Ponting past his prime, yeah, and no, he has no hope of surpassing sachin, he wasnt australia’s greatest captain, but compare ponting’s captaincy record against sachin. one of the best records ever vs one of the worst; they had to remove sachin because he was losing to many matches.
I challenge you all to name any aussie batsman of ponting or the husseys’ calibre not currently in the australian team. disco, who’s better at spin than our current top six? all the other youngsters have s**t techniques, apart from khawaja, but he’s a walking wicket at the moment. pitches are getting flatter, yet look at the averages of all the shield players. apart from ponting, the husseys, chris rogers, brad hodge and simon katich there are no batsmen averaging over 50. and all the above mentioned players are well into their 30s. there are only a handful of hopefuls that average above 40: khawaja, cowan, hughes while smith and bailey barely average 40. quiney, klinger, forrest, voges, davis etc. don’t make the cut. don’t get me wrong, it isn’t all about stats and saying that this guy is better because his batting average is 0.01 higher than this guy, (steve smith but in happier times these players would be struggling to make the states first XI. now all the states and inevitably national team are filled with B-grade players like cowan. we desperately hughes and khawaja to turn their form around otherwise as plan B dad’s army is the way to go.
July 14th 2012 @ 8:02am
Disco said | July 14th 2012 @ 8:02am | Report comment
“Walking wicket”? You mean like Ponting was against England and NZ and the West Indies and against India in his last ODI series?
July 14th 2012 @ 4:59pm
Dad's Army said | July 14th 2012 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
@disco you’re thicker than a brick wall. ponting was terrible, but he scored more runs than hughes and khawaja put together in all those series. i’m not here saying ponting is the best player ever or anything, but he’s one of the best we’ve got right now. i agree that ponting would not be in the team in an ideal situation but all of our “next generation” are seriously underachieving. you name a top six that does not include the hussey brothers or ponting that has any hope of not being whitewashed by england next year. be my guest put in all the second-rate players you want.
July 15th 2012 @ 10:44am
Disco said | July 15th 2012 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Aw, thank you.
Interestingly, Khawaja averaged more than Ponting during the time the former was in the side (both in high twenties). Don’t take my word for it – yours truly being thick and all – look it up in black and white.
As many others have acknowledged, Khawaja wasn’t really given the run he deserved after the promise he showed (top score in the winning run chase in Johannesburg, a solid 30-odd before being run out by Ponting in Brisbane) whereas Ponting went onto thrash a dreadful Indian attack causing some fans to wet their pants.
I never said anything about Hussey – Mike or Dave – but I don’t think Ponting should still be in the side.