Time for Ponting to concede to the Little Master

Have a look at Ponting's record in India. If you say Sachin scored on batting paradises then why did Ponting fail so many times? Also Ponting scored most of his runs in the 2000s when Tendulkar was injured for a major period and batting was easy. Ponting's record in the 1990s was average. Also Sachin performed well when he toured Australia. Even in South Africa he performed well on all tours except the one in 2006. And he performed well in England in 4 of the 5 tours he has had. So get your facts rights before you say that Sachin gets lot of his runs on easy wickets.

Jacques Kallis and Brian Lara also better than Punter.

I say it again and again but people never agree with it. See sachin scored lots of runs on batting paradises. And against minnows. Although he had hundreds but his hundreds were mostly ones which did not reap any benefir. I mean lara n punter scored and scored well. Take lara for instance he punished aussies on their backyard with mcgrath and warne in their prime. But sachin even if he scored it ldidnt matter that much. If lara played that much tests as sachin played against the same standard of opposition then he would have scored more than sachin. Whether to play punter is a good decision or a blunder, well on papers and if we think rationally then he should not be selected but i thought and felt same about him when he was picked against india my mind was against it but with my heart i thought that he is going to fire. So against England I know that deep in his heart he wants to score runs against them and he really wants it, he is willing to put everything on stake for getting a shot at them. So I think yes he should be picked Regards

So this writer thinks that ricky pontings sole reason in playing cricket is to chase sachin tendulkars record? Sachin is prob the best since Bradman but there's plenty of other greats such as ponting, lara, kallis and others but they're playing to win test series and help their younger counterparts become good test players.

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".

"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...

Sh1t. Now I'm confused. So, on what basis is it now being argued that Tendulkar is the second best ever?

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!

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 ?

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.

Your first sentence and the last two are contradictory! Ponting not as good as he used to be but he's comfortably in the top 6 Australian batsman, and that's before you take fielding into account.

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?

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.

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!

I do think it is time for Punter to step aside, as he just isn't producing top class results anymore. But I'm wary of the whole 'giving youngsters experience' argument. You pick the best eleven players in the country at any given time. Not the eleven players who may be the best five years from now.

it's me your good friend lokes

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).

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.

Nope. But why ask -you getting a "hammering" there as well ?