Ricky Ponting vs Hashim Amla – Who was the superior Test batter?

[atreus]

as taught to us by our dear friend @Buffet by the Joe Root vs Hashirama Amla comparision thread, the way to compare elite Batsmen is by simply focusing on the Big 3 + SA, and I'm going to do just that, ofcourse the logic is baffling when it comes from someone who rates Ricky Ponting but hey, it goes both ways.

for a moment let's ignore their records at home and their work against all the other teams


Hashim Amla: [ in Ind/Aus/Eng ]

54 innings - Avg 56 and 9 tons. Every 6 innings Amla scored a ton.


Ricky Ponting: [in Ind/Eng/SA]

80 Innings – Avg 38 and 8 tons. Every 10 Innings Ponting scored a ton

-------------------------------------------------

not to mention, most of his career Ponting was shielded by Hayden and Langer, his average falls by 7 points when they retired and Ponting has a shameful record against most even half decent seamers.

In his prime, Ponting had to be shielded from a Waqar at the end of his career on dead UAE wickets, and when Waqar bowled to him he still got him twice, Ponting was also dismantled by Anderson in his own home in 2009, same Anderson Amla averages like 200 against.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's clear that when it comes to tough runs, Ponting is far ahead of Root. Even with Hayden and Langer, Ponting is not able to outperfrom Amla. I could have picked Kallis or Graeme Smith to make the same point but let's stick to Amla because I have not seen many players playing spin better than him while Ponting was Ponting against spin.


I am familiar with Ponting's volume of runs, but is there any strong argument to rate Ponting above Amla or Graeme Smith in the test format based on actual performance? I won't go to Kallis here. It's another case of Anderson getting pushed as some top tier bowler due to volume.


Think another way, based on actual performances if you have to pick one batsman out of Ponting and Amla for world XI spot in the last 25 years, who will you pick? For me it's not even close, Amla was just better

 

[atreus]

credit to the inspiration of the thread.

Joe Root versus Hashim Amla in the Test format

I literally fell off my chair reading some of the claims made in Root vs Ponting thread. He is better than Kallis. He is the best test batsman to tour India. He is the best test batsman after Steven Smith in the last 20 years and what not. Let's leave the bottom 4 teams aside and let's leave...

ppforum.pakpassion.net

 

[atreus]

Another guy Amla clears – Brian Charles Lara

Brian Lara: [in Ind/Aus/SA/Eng]

86 innings – 44 avg and 8 tons. Every 8.6 Innings Lara scored a century.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

 

[Buffet]

as taught to us by our dear friend @Buffet by the Joe Root vs Hashirama Amla comparision thread, the way to compare elite Batsmen is by simply focusing on the Big 3 + SA, and I'm going to do just that, ofcourse the logic is baffling when it comes from someone who rates Ricky Ponting but hey, it goes both ways.

I don't rate Ponting that high in test. He was not that great when playing away in test. Root has been lacking big series in tough tours as well.

Combining both formats , yes I rate Ponting high because you need to have more skills to do well in all formats. You can see the case in current generation. Root and Smith both are not good in shorter formats despite being good in the test format.

As a batsman, Ponting is far greater than Root. As a test bastman, Root can make a case of going ahead when his career is over. Let Root finish his career.

If you want to mainly rate batsmen based on easier tours or at home performance then it's your preference. I will put highest emphasis on tough away tours if batsman is comparable to distinguish really top tier vs very good. Reason is simple, that's the hardest job in cricket. Sure, home runs and softer runs against easier oppositions is not useless, but we are making a list of best of history then tough tours coutns a lot more.

May be we can have a thread about King of soft runs. That will counter my views about tough runs.

 

[atreus]

I don't rate Ponting that high in test. He was not that great when playing away in test. Root has been lacking big series in tough tours as well.

Combining both formats , yes I rate Ponting high because you need to have more skills to do well in all formats. You can see the case in current generation. Root and Smith both are not good in shorter formats despite being good in the test format.

As a batsman, Ponting is far greater than Root. As a test bastman, Root can make a case of going ahead when his career is over. Let Root finish his career.

If you want to mainly rate batsmen based on easier tours or at home performance then it's your preference. I will put highest emphasis on tough away tours if batsman is comparable to distinguish really top tier vs very good. Reason is simple, that's the hardest job in cricket. Sure, home runs and softer runs against easier oppositions is not useless, but we are making a list of best of history then tough tours coutns a lot more.

May be we can have a thread about King of soft runs. That will counter my views about tough runs.

I don't really care for One Days...and Root doesn't either considering he won the worldcup as a 50+ averaging one day Batsmen and stopped playing the format long ago, I don't put it into any weight in comparisions.

but regardless, I don't know how many would hold the view of Amla>Ponting in test cricket, tho Amla is also > Lara in test cricket by the same logic for Ponting so if you don't rate Root or Ponting you shouldn't rate Lara above Amla either.

but hey, be my guest, by your own logic Amla >> Ponting/Lara/Root/Sangakkara in test cricket, If you find that take acceptable I will credit your ability to stand by the most outrageous stances

 

[atreus]

also, Amla is the king of easy runs, put half decent bowlers and give them a decent deck and bro would dissapear instantly.

 

[Buffet]

Another guy Amla clears – Brian Charles Lara

Brian Lara: [in Ind/Aus/SA/Eng]

86 innings – 44 avg and 8 tons. Every 8.6 Innings Lara scored a century.

Tsk Tsk Ts

Eng in those days had no great bowlers even for home grounds. SL had Murali who averaged below 25 in SL. You can see impact of Murali ,



Lara has 9 tons in 66 innings - Stood out along side SRT in his playing days when compared to his peers.

 

[The Bald Eagle]

Poll added Guys

 

[Mamoon]

Great thread by a great poster. I’m very impressed with the analysis of @atreus and the education value that he provides which is very rare to find on PP these days.

 

[Buffet]

Great batsmen have always stood out among peers in tough tours. That's what gets them fame.

Now look at Root,




Adding NZ to make it top 5 sides. Leaving only Pak, WI and SL.




Most number of innings here by a large margin and yet he has around half number of tons comapred to Smith/Kohli. So many other batsmen have better Tons per innign ratio than Root. Not sure draggin Lara helps to elevate Root's case.


Lara stood out in his era. Forget about comparing with across era. You got to stand out during your career when comapred to your peers.

Every one admits that it's a fantastic achievement to score large volume of runs and play for that long. We all appreciate Anderson for the same reason.

 

[atreus]

Eng in those days had no great bowlers even for home grounds. SL had Murali who averaged below 25 in SL. You can see impact of Murali ,

View attachment 146867

Lara has 9 tons in 66 innings - Stood out along side SRT in his playing days when compared to his peers.

View attachment 146868

nah, NZ/SL/Eng had similar overall aggregate bowling averages

all three also have similar overall batting averages, plus England had many capable pacers during Lara's tours, Gough/Caddick/Hoggard/Cork are all decent bowlers even if not greats like Murali, contextually I'll add in that the Dukes also provide a big advantage to seamers/swingers, even with lesser skill, an example:

even though WI attack is good but inferior to SA and NZ attacks, the dukes provide an insane advantage in terms of movement, and thus I think the English attack was still formidable enough to be considered a part of the top three.

 

[atreus]

Great batsmen have always stood out among peers in tough tours. That's what gets them fame.

Now look at Root,

View attachment 146869


Adding NZ to make it top 5 sides. Leaving only Pak, WI and SL.

View attachment 146870


Most number of innings here by a large margin and yet he has around half number of tons comapred to Smith/Kohli. So many other batsmen have better Tons per innign ratio than Root. Not sure draggin Lara helps to elevate Root's case.


Lara stood out in his era. Forget about comparing with across era. You got to stand out during your career when comapred to your peers.

Every one admits that it's a fantastic achievement to score large volume of runs and play for that long. We all appreciate Anderson for the same reason.

Personally I think you're being very enough with your analysis, because you're simply fusing Root's stats with his Australia woes to get to this conclusion, if you want to talk about standing out from the rest, here is an example, Root and Smith stand a league above everyone else against Modern India bar Cook, who had that ATG 2012 tour and is one of the finest players of spin, against the full ATG attack? Root and Smith are in a class of their own.

now I've Smith>Root in India but that doesn't change the fact these two are the only two players to hand India defeat, and honestly Root probably is ~ Smith if we ignore the games in india where he overbowled and played as an all rounder.

now I know the Indian Batsmen outperform the other batsmen in india, but what makes India such a fortress is their bowlers and the rest of the world not having a good spinner bar Lyon, so imagine if Greenidge and Gavaskar are batting in the same tour in the Carribean, both averaging 50.....one is significantly more impressive than the other due to the attack, and Root being the second highest scorerer and the highest scorerer in his trips to India has to take that context into mind.

now for SA, not only has he played a decisive inning there, his numbers are better than Smith (Stokes is an analomy, he cashed in on a flat track) and easily top three and above everyone else from touring Batsmen, I think Virat is better but again, it's not a struggling stat at all, especially since he toured SA in a career slump and before his prime entirely.

he is also the number one touring Batsmen to Newzealand, look at the RPI compared to everyone else

also has outperformed the rest of the fab 4 in Lanka, and I know you don't rate Lanka as important but see how far he is of Smith and Kohli there, he singlehandely won us a tour there when SL at home tied Australia and demolished NZ.

his away record is fine, he is in top 2-3 of this career in every country bar NZ and SL where he is number one, only Smith outperforms him in India (narrowly tbh) and only Kohli (and maybe Warner, don't remember the context of that tour) in SA.

his Aus record is a problem, nothing else.

Great thread by a great poster. I’m very impressed with the analysis of @atreus and the education value that he provides which is very rare to find on PP these days.

Thank You.

 

[Buffet]

nah, NZ/SL/Eng had similar overall aggregate bowling averages


,,,,,

You are mixing home teams batting and away teams batting. More appropriate will be seeing how home bowling teams did in Lara's career.

When Lara played ( 1990 - 2007 ),

SL bowling avg at home : 28
Eng bowling avg at home : 33
NZ bowling avg at home : 33

NZ and Eng were not at similar level as SL bowling unit at home during Lara playing days.

Let me ask you and if you want to answer, you can answer. Did you see cricket Lara's career? If you don't want to answer it's fine.

 

[Buffet]

also, Amla is the king of easy runs, put half decent bowlers and give them a decent deck and bro would dissapear instantly.

We can start a thread about kind of easy runs starting with Amla's career and see if he stands out among his peers in that.

 

[atreus]

You are mixing home teams batting and away teams batting. More appropriate will be seeing how home bowling teams did in Lara's career.

When Lara played ( 1990 - 2007 ),

SL bowling avg at home : 28
Eng bowling avg at home : 33
NZ bowling avg at home : 33

NZ and Eng were not at similar level as SL bowling unit at home during Lara playing days.

Let me ask you and if you want to answer, you can answer. Did you see cricket Lara's career? If you don't want to answer it's fine.

Yeah, why?

also, Sri Lanka played a tons of tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

Sri Lanka Bowling avg against Zim/Ban– 18.36
Sri Lanka home bowling avg without them – 31.18
England – 34 in same context

I don't know, I won't pick England out of the top 3.

 

[atreus]

We can start a thread about kind of easy runs starting with Amla's career and see if he stands out among his peers in that.

I mean, Forgetting Root/Amla/Ponting/Lara for a moment, none of them are in the conversation with guys like Yousuf or Abbas and I've no interest discussing them

 

[Buffet]

Yeah, why?

also, Sri Lanka played a tons of tests against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh

Sri Lanka Bowling avg against Zim/Ban– 18.36
Sri Lanka home bowling avg without them – 31.18
England – 34 in same context

I don't know, I won't pick England out of the top 3.

Good point,

All teams agasint top 8 sides during Lara's career.

NZ/Eng were the bottom two teams.

 

[Buffet]

I mean, Forgetting Root/Amla/Ponting/Lara for a moment, none of them are in the conversation with guys like Yousuf or Abbas and I've no interest discussing them

Well, we can see some one will come in top. It will be flip side of tough runs.

 

[Hawkeye]

You can pay me a 1000 bucks.

And I will still refuse to watch Hashim Amla play cricket.

Extremely monotonous and boring batsman with zero impact. In most cases at least.

 

[atreus]

Good point,

All teams agasint top 8 sides during Lara's career.

NZ/Eng were the bottom two teams.

View attachment 146872

Hey this puts one thing into perspective, home bowling has been in a different LEAGUE during Root's career

like look at the bowling averages of Sri Lanka at home venues even without Bangladesh or Zimbabwe stat pad

Well, we can see some one will come in top. It will be flip side of tough runs.

well, maybe in a few weeks when I'm more free man

 

[Mamoon]

I find over fixation with subjective metrics such as tough runs etc. a convenient cover up for the fact that with less than 10k runs, less than 50 average overall and less than 50 average both home and away, Amla has no business being counted amongst the Test greats and Root has clearly entered that league now based on his post 2020 dominance.

The fundamental flaw in the “tough runs” argument, apart from the fact that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation, is the faulty assumption that every innings played in ABC countries should count as “tough” runs and everything innings played in XYZ countries should count as “easy” runs.

Depending on the conditions on the day, the pitch behavior, the match situation, the opposition bowling on the day, you can score “tough” runs at home to Bangladesh and also score “easy” runs in Australia.

 

[atreus]

well the reason I say Amla is a soft run scorer is because on face value he avarages 60 in India which gives the vibe he was prolific in India, but...it was built on scoring a 253* against Zaheer (averages 36 in india), a Harbhajan who was way past his prime, a Young Ishant (who averaged 35) and Amit Mishra...and then another 114 and 123* against the same awful attack the next test, averaging 490 in the series that was pure and utter stat pad.

same thing in the 2007 series, he scored 240 in that flat track draw where 1500 runs were made for 25 wickets and Sehwag hit that triple hundred, and then next two games the ball actually moved and there were results and he went missing.

he faced the strong India in 2015 and averaged 17, playing at 10 SR against Jadeja.

same for his English record, his 311 came on the flattest track in England in decades where SA genuinely scored 637/2 dec, otherwise he was a 40 odd averaging Batsmen in NZ/Eng.

like certainly he was a very good batsmen, but it's kind of clear that he capitalized a lot on flat tracks and weak attacks whenever he could and had trouble with good bowlers.

 

[Buffet]

The fundamental flaw in the “tough runs” argument, apart from the fact that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation, is the faulty assumption that every innings played in ABC countries should count as “tough” runs and everything innings played in XYZ countries should count as “easy” runs.

Over a large sample size, it should even out. With small sample size, yes it will be hard to conclude anything about tough tons or easy tons. You can get lucky or unlucky with surface, bowling conditions etc.

Now if we can take the top 4-5 home teams in any era and you struggle to score tons there as visiting batsman then we are only left with home + bottom 3 home teams. Somewhere you can objectively draw a line and see. Not across era because teams are different but among your peers, it should be obvious if you scored tough runs/tons or not.


Yes, I agree that you can score one tough ton even against minnows at home grounds depending on situation but over a large sample size, tough runs/tons should stand out and you shouldn't have to make an argument about runs/tons against minnows to claim greatness.

Over a large sample size, easiest objective way to see if you scored tough runs/tons is to see if you score runs/tons against the top 4-5 home sides.

 

[Mamoon]

Over a large sample size, it should even out. With small sample size, yes it will be hard to conclude anything about tough tons or easy tons. You can get lucky or unlucky with surface, bowling conditions etc.

Now if we can take the top 4-5 home teams in any era and you struggle to score tons there as visiting batsman then we are only left with home + bottom 3 home teams. Somewhere you can objectively draw a line and see. Not across era because teams are different but among your peers, it should be obvious if you scored tough runs/tons or not.


Yes, I agree that you can score one tough ton even against minnows at home grounds depending on situation but over a large sample size, tough runs/tons should stand out and you shouldn't have to make an argument about runs/tons against minnows to claim greatness.

Over a large sample size, easiest objective way to see if you scored tough runs/tons is to see if you score runs/tons against the top 4-5 home sides.

Less than 10k runs, less than 50 average both home and away and therefore overall. Shambolic record at home vs India and SL, two ordinary attacks for the better part of his career. There are too many flaws in Amla's record for him to be considered a Test great and merit comparisons with players like Smith and Root.

Amla's bowling equivalent would be a bowler who took less than 300 wickets at a 30+ average but had a few series in his career where he took lots of wickets at a low average. Such a bowler cannot be considered a legend and neither can Amla be.

 

[Buffet]

well the reason I say Amla is a soft run scorer is because on face value he avarages 60 in India which gives the vibe he was prolific in India, but...it was built on scoring a 253* against Zaheer (averages 36 in india), a Harbhajan who was way past his prime, a Young Ishant (who averaged 35) and Amit Mishra...and then another 114 and 123* against the same awful attack the next test, averaging 490 in the series that was pure and utter stat pad.

same thing in the 2007 series, he scored 240 in that flat track draw where 1500 runs were made for 25 wickets and Sehwag hit that triple hundred, and then next two games the ball actually moved and there were results and he went missing.

he faced the strong India in 2015 and averaged 17, playing at 10 SR against Jadeja.

same for his English record, his 311 came on the flattest track in England in decades where SA genuinely scored 637/2 dec, otherwise he was a 40 odd averaging Batsmen in NZ/Eng.

like certainly he was a very good batsmen, but it's kind of clear that he capitalized a lot on flat tracks and weak attacks whenever he could and had trouble with good bowlers.

Same time some other batsmen also played. You are expected to capitalize whenever conditions are easier to score during tough tours. If you play long enough you get fair share of easy and not easy conditions in tough tours.

Indian tours are considered tough for visiting batsmen and yet,

One Eng tour of India we saw scores of 477, 759, 537, 488, 455, 417, 400, 631 - 8 really big scores by teams in that series.

Same time in India, Eng has faced harder pitches as well where low scores were common.

 

[Ab Fan]

Away performance vs top teams plays a crucial role in rating players but conditions and strength of opposition do play a crucial role.

ORourke and Matt Henry have got their numbers in India spot on due to their performance today in overcast conditions. This performance might well ensure that they have better stats than say, Anderson, Cummins or Rabada in India all three not having really great record in India. Same goes for Ashwin in Australia.

But when their career ends, the standout bowlers of this era would be Cummins, Rabada and Ashwin along with Bumrah.

Now coming to Ponting, he is rated very highly for one major reason- he was averaging 60 at his peak. His peak was insane and he along with McGrath, Warne and Hayden was the major reason why Australia didn’t lost a single home series between 1995-2007. However, he is certainly a bit overrated batsman due to his poor record in India especially the 2001 series which he single handedly costed them by averaging 3.4 with bat. Additionally, there was no resurgence of form in his batting after the dip from 2008 onwards which we notice in Tendulkar’s career post 2007.

Root doesn’t have a peak that is as insane and the difference in top teams away from home is bigger than it was during Ponting era as Sri Lanka were a very formidable home side in 2000s and Pakistan were sometimes very good and sometimes bad in 2000s.

In Root’s case, his inability to perform vs Australia away does go big time against him but apart from that, I don’t see any reason to devalue his career performance which is exceptional.

 

[Ab Fan]

Amla had a great peak in Test too but his peak basically coincided with other SA players peak and his decline also coincided with retirement of Smith and Kallis. His peak also coincided with flat pitches and his decline looked even worse due to some tough batting pitches being served during his decline.

Nevertheless , Amla is still a better batsman than what his career average ended up at due to his superb record in Australia, India and England. He is as good as a 47-48 averaging test batsman in my opinion.

 

[Ab Fan]

What was Amla’s home record vs Australia?

Here are home averages of SA batsman vs Australia:-

AB de Villiers- 51
Kallis - 40
Amla - 41
Smith - 34

Except ABD, everyone was poor vs Australia at home which is why SA even at their peak couldn’t win a home series vs Australia. They finally won one in 2018, ball tampering overshadowed the
high quality of cricket which we saw in first three tests but de Villiers performance in first three test was major reason for SA’s home test win vs Australia which came after 1970.

 

[Buffet]

Away performance vs top teams plays a crucial role in rating players but conditions and strength of opposition do play a crucial role.

ORourke and Matt Henry have got their numbers in India spot on due to their performance today in overcast conditions. This performance might well ensure that they have better stats than say, Anderson, Cummins or Rabada in India all three not having really great record in India.

ORourke and Matt Henry won't get same conditions if they play long enough. If they get poor bowling conditions and give lots of runs then it will avearge out. That's why in stats, you need to have large enough sample size. A player with certain average in 3 tests is not comparable to some one with 30 tests.

Let Matt Henry and ORourke play in Aus, SA, Eng, Ind around 30 tests and if they still come on top then it won't be due to them getting favourable conditions in one test. It will be due to their skill and they will be among the best bowlers of their generation.

Same way if a batsman has played 30-40 tests in Aus, SA, Eng and Ind as visitor and has los of runs/tons and comes around top then it means batsman has scored tough runs and not simply cashed on one flat deck. That may only work for one venue due to low smaple size but combinning 3-4 away venue with 30 plus gives a pretty decent idea of capability of player. Avg or tons/test is meanigful with a large enough sample size. Like for Root, We can see that he has 4 tons in Ind, Aus, SA after playing 72 innings.

Lots of players struggle in one place, but they score heavily in some other tough tours to show their caliber. You got to score somewhere heavily. It can be few ATG series or consitently heavy scores across many series. I think Root has chance to score couple of tons in Aus to rectify it. Just putting one ton by huffing and puffing won't do it. That's just tickmark. I don't think you get rated as top tier without having lots of tons in tough tours.

Not saying that tons at Home + Bottom 3-4 sides does not count. It just counts for a lot less when it comes to greatness. Hoem track bullies or weak team bullies are dime and dozen in history of cricket.

 

[Ab Fan]

ORourke and Matt Henry won't get same conditions if they play long enough. If they get poor bowling conditions and give lots of runs then it will avearge out. That's why in stats, you need to have large enough sample size. A player with certain average in 3 tests is not comparable to some one with 30 tests.

Let Matt Henry and ORourke play in Aus, SA, Eng, Ind around 30 tests and if they still come on top then it won't be due to them getting favourable conditions in one test. It will be due to their skill and they will be among the best bowlers of their generation.

Same way if a batsman has played 30-40 tests in Aus, SA, Eng and Ind as visitor and has los of runs/tons and comes around top then it means batsman has scored tough runs and not simply cashed on one flat deck. That may only work for one venue due to low smaple size but combinning 3-4 away venue with 30 plus gives a pretty decent idea of capability of player. Avg or tons/test is meanigful with a large enough sample size. Like for Root, We can see that he has 4 tons in Ind, Aus, SA after playing 72 innings.

Lots of players struggle in one place, but they score heavily in some other tough tours to show their caliber. You got to score somewhere heavily. It can be few ATG series or consitently heavy scores across many series. I think Root has chance to score couple of tons in Aus to rectify it. Just putting one ton by huffing and puffing won't do it. That's just tickmark. I don't think you get rated as top tier without having lots of tons in tough tours.

Not saying that tons at Home + Bottom 3-4 sides does not count. It just counts for a lot less when it comes to greatness. Hoem track bullies or weak team bullies are dime and dozen in history of cricket.

It’s down to the team they play for. Most New Zealand players won’t play even 10 tests in India over their career but Anderson or Root would go on and play a lot more. Hence, when you compare, you will find Tim Southee having better record than most overseas pacers in India simply because he has bowled in conditions more favourable to his bowling than what Anderson, Rabada or Cummins have got.Another example is Rabada has done better than Philander in Asia but his stats are much worse than Philander because latter player and bowled much lesser as he was deemed ineffective in those conditions.

 

[Buffet]

It’s down to the team they play for. Most New Zealand players won’t play even 10 tests in India over their career but Anderson or Root would go on and play a lot more.

That's why you will have minimum sample size cut off.

Longer you play more reliably your performance can be judged.

I won't really judge some one from NZ with 7 tests combined in INdia/SA/Aus. but I will judge a player if he has 15-20 tests combined and judment has even more merit with 20-25 tests.

Exactly for this reaosn, I don't think check box approach works better in comapring players that so and so did bare minimum to pass some filter in one venue. Many players don't get to play lots of tests in one venue. Case in point Sanga. But over a large enogh sample size , you can see what palyer has done in many venues taken together. Across era comparison is still problemtic due to teams changing but the same era comparison ususally gives you a very clear answer.

 

[mominsaigol]

Pointing plain and simple and please don't say India again. Topic was done to death in another thread.

 

[Mas-LFC]

Ponting easily.
Ponting was one of my favourite cricket batsman, growing up. Loved his aggressive style and technique.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Ponting has to be the one to get picked most of the time. He scored runs but the runs that mattered as well. Amla was a soft run scorer.

 

[Buffet]

Ponting has to be the one to get picked most of the time. He scored runs but the runs that mattered as well. Amla was a soft run scorer.

Picking Ponting is fine but not for runs that mattered.

Ponting was a very good home track bully. Look at his average against the top 6 teams when playing away and see how he compares to his peers. Some one like Sehwag , who struggled in few away venues, has a better away record than Ponting. Don't focus on Amla's average or tons etc here. Just focus on Ponting. Contrast with Amla is very obvious if you examine where Amla scored runs during his career.

Home tracks bullies are plenty, but away track bullies? Rare.

Here is Ponting away from home against the top 6 teams during his career.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ponting has to be the one to get picked most of the time. He scored runs but the runs that mattered as well. Amla was a soft run scorer.

Dont mix formats buddy. Always take formats separately.

 

[atreus]

Now, just to be clear, anyone who actually thinks Amla is a better test Batsmen than Ponting never watched either play.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Now, just to be clear, anyone who actually thinks Amla is a better test Batsmen than Ponting never watched either play.

I have seen both of them play and I will pick Amla any day if there is life in the pitch and the batsman need to fight it out and score runs.
I will pick Ponting if conditions are relatively easier ( which is mostly the case).

Ponting better for me but not by a large amount also he is nowhere in Sachin, Lara league.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Dont mix formats buddy. Always take formats separately.

Lol, whats with people saying Amla scored soft runs, its true for Odis maybe but in tests he was a clutch performer.

Was their best batsman in most of their away conquests and success.

 

[atreus]

I have seen both of them play and I will pick Amla any day if there is life in the pitch and the batsman need to fight it out and score runs.
I will pick Ponting if conditions are relatively easier ( which is mostly the case).

Ponting better for me but not by a large amount also he is nowhere in Sachin, Lara league.

Eh, Ponting was more of a fighter, his 127 at Headingley and 197 at perth I find more impressive than any of Amla's knocks against spin and lateral movement. Amla was more impressive against spin constantly.