The league of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara | Does any other modern era batsman belong in it?

[Bhaijaan]

Two of the most highly regarded batsmen in cricket since the 90s. Regardless of what ** is posted on online forums, 99% of cricket experts and ex cricketers only mention these two while ever rating batsmen since 90s and for obvious reasons. Tendulkar and Lara had all the attributes. Apart from their sheer numbers and genius, the aura around them was hard to ignore.


Though comparisons are inevitable and every now and then both are compared to newer batsmen, i personally never quite felt any of these other batsmen were ever in their league except for one Ricky Ponting who was unarguably the best overall batsman in the world from 2002-2007, again not just in terms of numbers but through impact and genius. Mumbers alone are a ridiculously delusional way of rating batsmen, Chanderpaul, Ponting have roughly the same numbers and one who hasn't watched cricket could never imagine there was galaxies of difference between the two.


So, yeah its always been Tendulkar & Lara for me as well and if i puish myself a bit i am very comfortable in incudling Ponting in the league and expand it to 3 but thats all i am afraid. None of Dravid, Kallis, Sanga, Smith, Hayden, Sehwag, Pieterson belongs in this highest quality league. Personally i have hated Ponting for his bad attitude but i can't let my hatred cloud my judgement of his cricketing abilities, was a heck of a dangerous and heroic batsman.


So whom would you nominate 'if at all' for an expanded league of extraordinary batsman since 90s?


Mods please add the options:

1) None, Tendulkar & Lara are way ahead of the rest
2) Ricky Ponting
3) Kumar Sangakkara
4) Rahul Dravid
5) Jaques Kallis
6) Kevin Pieterson

 

[ChachaCricket]

AB and Ponting.

 

[zabalestmsm]

Kevin Pietersen and Ricky Ponting.

 

[Enforcer]

Ricky ponting and kumar sangakara. while AB, and Amla will join them soon.

 

[Haroon786]

Ponting is alongside them and AB will also be if he gets to 10,000 runs in both formats at a healthy average.

The other batsmen whilst being prolific either lack the natural ability of the triumvirate of Lara, Sachin and Ponting or simply haven't been rated highly by spectators, commentators, analysts and peers etc.

 

[ChachaCricket]

Ricky ponting and kumar sangakara. while AB, and Amla will join them soon.

Amla will fall in the Dravid, Sanga, Kallis category.

 

[Stallion__]

Ponting and Hayden roughly from early to mid 2000s were better. Could demolish bowling attacks consistently.

Sanga in later half of his career could match them. AB and KP do have ability to play highest quality knocks.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Ponting and Hayden roughly from early to mid 2000s were better. Could demolish bowling attacks consistently.

No doubt about that. Hayden and Ponting were bullies. I think Hayden's bullying peak somewhat ended in 2005 Ashes and he turned more into a reliable scorer after that rather than the ultimate bully he was post 2001 Indian test series but for Ponting, things were just beginning even after Ashes 05. He was phenomenal in the ROW vs Australia matches, Ashes 06, world cup etc. You could put the Ponting of 2002-07 in any team ever in cricket. Bloody dangerous batsman.

Sanga in later half of his career could match them. AB and KP do have ability to play highest quality knocks.

 

[Convict]

Most people put Ponting in that category but not Hayden.

Sangakkra also deserves series contention.

Kallis and Dravid are close and are clearly better than Hayden but in my view short of Ponting and Sangakkara.

AB is as good but he's from a later generation so I at least don't consider him a peer.

 

[Cricfan4eva]

Rp, kp & ab

 

[Bhaijaan]

Kallis and Dravid are close and are clearly better than Hayden but in my view short of Ponting and Sangakkara.
.

How is Kallis not a better test batsman than Sangakkara. In case you do not know, Sangakkara averages in the 30s in as many as 4 major nations.

 

[Enforcer]

Amla will fall in the Dravid, Sanga, Kallis category.

yes, some what. But Amla is still playing, so you never know.

 

[Enforcer]

Most people put Ponting in that category but not Hayden.

Sangakkra also deserves series contention.

Kallis and Dravid are close and are clearly better than Hayden but in my view short of Ponting and Sangakkara.

AB is as good but he's from a later generation so I at least don't consider him a peer.

kallis as a cricketer belongs to sachin- lara league or even higher than them. But as a batsman he was tad lower than them, probably in the league of Dravid.

 

[OS_89]

Ponting and Sangakkara are at their level for me. I would still rate Lara and Sachin slightly higher, but Punter and Sanga are the closest ones and a level above the rest (ie) Dravid, Kallis, etc.

Also, I might be alone but I rate Steve Waugh right up there at the top. Sachin-Lara-Waugh was the undisputed big 3 for a long time.

 

[OS_89]

How is Kallis not a better test batsman than Sangakkara. In case you do not know, Sangakkara averages in the 30s in as many as 4 major nations.

Sanga has a gear Kallis cannot match. And it's not like Kallis has a spotless record. Sucked in England whenever the bowlers got traditional English swing and in SL. Never played Murali well.

 

[anuk]

all of them?

 

[as-95]

Mods, please add AB De Villers to this thread as he is a superior ODI bat to Tendulkar,Lara and the rest of the poll options.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Sanga has a gear Kallis cannot match. And it's not like Kallis has a spotless record. Sucked in England whenever the bowlers got traditional English swing and in SL. Never played Murali well.

Must have been an invisible gear because i haven't seen any Kallis and Sangakkara are literally enantiomers belonging to the 2nd tier of batting greats.


Kallis was no show stopper but you could rely more on his batting than Kumar's against good test opponments abroad. Kumar was as good as Azhar Ali outside Sri Lanka.

 

[OS_89]

Must have been an invisible gear because i haven't seen any Kallis and Sangakkara are literally enantiomers belonging to the 2nd tier of batting greats.


Kallis was no show stopper but you could rely more on his batting than Kumar's against good test opponments abroad. Kumar was as good as Azhar Ali outside Sri Lanka.

Rubbish. Sanga's performances in NZ against top class bowlers (Bond in 06, Boult, Southee in 2014, all 3 hundreds on green pitches )were brilliant. He does not have as good a record as Kallis overseas, but Kallis as I said has holes in his resume too. Awful record in SL and England.

And Sanga's gear was pretty apparent. The way he could accelerate and score runs very quickly (eg 192 in Hobart, 203 vs NZ, and many more) is not something Kallis was capable of. The few times Kallis could truly take apart an attack it was against rubbish attacks like India and SL. He was a great batsman no doubt, but not someone who could take the game away from the opposition like Sanga could.

 

[SL_Fan]

How is Kallis not a better test batsman than Sangakkara. In case you do not know, Sangakkara averages in the 30s in as many as 4 major nations.

And those 4 are?

 

[Bhaijaan]

And those 4 are?

In India - 36
In RSA - 35
In WI - 34
iN England - 41


Combined average in these 4 nations - 37

 

[OS_89]

In India - 36
In RSA - 35
In WI - 34
iN England - 41


Combined average in these 4 nations - 37

Nothing unusual. let's take Kallis' 4 worst countries:

Kallis:

In SL: 35
In England: 35
In Bangladesh: 31
In Aus: 48

Average in these 4 countries: 40

I don't see the massive difference.

 

[SL_Fan]

In India - 36
In RSA - 35
In WI - 34
iN England - 41


Combined average in these 4 nations - 37

So I take it you can't even count to 3 then?

If you think 35 runs less in India, 42 runs less in WI and 68 runs less in SA matters a whole lot then good luck to ya.

 

[SL_Fan]

What does Lara ave in India and NZ btw. Makes no difference.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Nothing unusual. let's take Kallis' 4 worst countries:

Kallis:

In SL: 35
In England: 35
In Bangladesh: 31
In Aus: 48

Average in these 4 countries: 40

I don't see the massive difference.

So I take it you can't even count to 3 then?

If you think 35 runs less in India, 42 runs less in WI and 68 runs less in SA matters a whole lot then good luck to ya.

Well i was pretty close and it only shows i don't actually rely on statsguru but on what i have seen and know as a cricket watching person. You have it in front of you, 37 in 4 major nations does not put you in the top league, i am sorry.

 

[IndianWillow]

To me, achievement and impact wise - Ponting, Dravid, Sanga, AB and Kallis are in the same class (or very close) as Sachin and Lara. KP isn't because he was not as consistent. Sehwag wasn't because he didn't do well outside Asia. Hayden wasn't, because like Sehwag he wasn't top class outside Australia. Numbers don't lie when we take entire careers into account. If Sachin and Lara were so far ahead of their peers, it would reflect in their numbers. Why aren't they averaging 60+? Where are those numbers that distinguish them from the rest?

Skill, talent and potential wise, it may be different story. But performance and match context wise, I find it very difficult to distinguish between Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Sanga and Kallis. Lara obviously had more natural talent than anybody else in the list, but then his numbers don't prove he was a cut above the rest.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Nothing unusual. let's take Kallis' 4 worst countries:

Kallis:

In SL: 35
In England: 35
In Bangladesh: 31
In Aus: 48

Average in these 4 countries: 40

I don't see the massive difference.

Exactly, he doesn't belong either. Which is why you group Kallis, Dravid, Sangakkara all in one bracket given their common limitations.

 

[SL_Fan]

Well i was pretty close and it only shows i don't actually rely on statsguru but on what i have seen and know as a cricket watching person. You have it in front of you, 37 in 4 major nations does not put you in the top league, i am sorry.

According to who exactly? Going on about what less than 150 measly runs in a 12k+ runs Test career lol

 

[Scrolln]

How is Kallis not a better test batsman than Sangakkara. In case you do not know, Sangakkara averages in the 30s in as many as 4 major nations.

Sangakkara's overseas performance is at par with Lara.

Sangakkara's performance against Shane Bond in 2006 NZ is massively under-rated. 2 tons in 2 matches facing Bond averaging 100+ at at an SR of 73. How often do you hear about that?

I would rate Ponting/Sangakkara as the batsman closest to that bracket.

 

[Stallion__]

To me, achievement and impact wise - Ponting, Dravid, Sanga, AB and Kallis are in the same class (or very close) as Sachin and Lara. KP isn't because he was not as consistent. Sehwag wasn't because he didn't do well outside Asia. Hayden wasn't, because like Sehwag he wasn't top class outside Australia. Numbers don't lie when we take entire careers into account. If Sachin and Lara were so far ahead of their peers, it would reflect in their numbers. Why aren't they averaging 60+? Where are those numbers that distinguish them from the rest?

Skill, talent and potential wise, it may be different story. But performance and match context wise, I find it very difficult to distinguish between Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Dravid, Sanga and Kallis. Lara obviously had more natural talent than anybody else in the list, but then his numbers don't prove he was a cut above the rest.

Sachin and Lara (Ponting as well) had an aura with them. The aura opposition would feel, that they are playing against one of the best and greatest batsman of all times. A bowler would take pride in getting them out even even make them play and miss. In that regard, only AB among modern generation comes closer.

As far on-field performance and impact is concerned, yeah, its difficult to separate all of them.

 

[OS_89]

Exactly, he doesn't belong either. Which is why you group Kallis, Dravid, Sangakkara all in one bracket given their common limitations.

But Lara had overseas problems too.

Anyway, it comes down to what you value more. I value the ability to change gears and score runs to transfer pressure back to the bowler slightly more than overseas performance (which of course are very important).

Also, I only commented because you compared Sanga's overseas record with Azhar Ali, which is ridiculous.

 

[IndianWillow]

Two of the most highly regarded batsmen in cricket since the 90s. Regardless of what BS is posted on online forums, 99% of cricket experts and ex cricketers only mention these two while ever rating batsmen since 90s and for obvious reasons. Tendulkar and Lara had all the attributes. Apart from their sheer numbers and genius, the aura around them was hard to ignore.


Though comparisons are inevitable and every now and then both are compared to newer batsmen, i personally never quite felt any of these other batsmen were ever in their league except for one Ricky Ponting who was unarguably the best overall batsman in the world from 2002-2007, again not just in terms of numbers but through impact and genius. Mumbers alone are a ridiculously delusional way of rating batsmen, Chanderpaul, Ponting have roughly the same numbers and one who hasn't watched cricket could never imagine there was galaxies of difference between the two.


So, yeah its always been Tendulkar & Lara for me as well and if i puish myself a bit i am very comfortable in incudling Ponting in the league and expand it to 3 but thats all i am afraid. None of Dravid, Kallis, Sanga, Smith, Hayden, Sehwag, Pieterson belongs in this highest quality league. Personally i have hated Ponting for his bad attitude but i can't let my hatred cloud my judgement of his cricketing abilities, was a heck of a dangerous and heroic batsman.


So whom would you nominate 'if at all' for an expanded league of extraordinary batsman since 90s?


Mods please add the options:

1) None, Tendulkar & Lara are way ahead of the rest
2) Ricky Ponting
3) Kumar Sangakkara
4) Rahul Dravid
5) Jaques Kallis
6) Kevin Pieterson

Chanders numbers are good enough for the elite category. But Chanders was a coward and a home bully as well, he hid behind other batsmen and made all those runs. Which is why he isn't in the elite league.

 

[Hawkeye]

AB is above SRT in ODIs already lol. How come he don't belong there?!

He's in the King Viv category now.

And others like Ponting, Sangakkara and now Amla belong in Lara/Tendulkar category.

 

[Mamoon]

Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara

Tier 1.5: Ponting

Tier 2: Kallis, Sangakkara, Dravid, Pietersen

de Villiers is Tier 1 potentially, Kohli Tier 1.5 at the moment (but can go up to Tier 1) while Amla is Tier 2 material for me along with Graeme Smith and Hayden, simply because he does not impose himself much on the opposition and has a soft personality, along with very few meaningful knock in ODIs in spite of brilliant statistics.

Younis will be a tier 3 batsman along with Inzamam and MoYo because of his rubbish performances in ODIs, but he has been brilliant in Tests and Tier 2 material in that format only.

Michael Clarke is Tier 3 as well, and in the future Cook will end up in this tier as well.

However, players shouldn't be categorized into these tiers until they are done.

Many will put Ponting in Tier 1 but for me, he was inferior to Tendulkar and Lara but superior to Sangakkara, Kallis, Dravid and Pietersen.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara

Tier 1.5: Ponting

Tier 2: Kallis, Sangakkara, Dravid, Pietersen

de Villiers is Tier 1 potentially, Kohli Tier 1.5 at the moment (but can go up to Tier 1) while Amla is Tier 2 material for me along with Graeme Smith and Hayden, simply because he does not impose himself much on the opposition and has a soft personality, along with very few meaningful knock in ODIs in spite of brilliant statistics.

Younis will be a tier 3 batsman along with Inzamam and MoYo because of his rubbish performances in ODIs, but he has been brilliant in Tests and Tier 2 material in that format only.

Michael Clarke is Tier 3 as well, and in the future Cook will end up in this tier as well.

However, players shouldn't be categorized into these tiers until they are done.

Many will put Ponting in Tier 1 but for me, he was inferior to Tendulkar and Lara but superior to Sangakkara, Kallis, Dravid and Pietersen.

I think you got it pretty much spot on.

Where would you put Sehwag?

 

[TestMatch]

I voted "other" because there is no ABDV on the list. ABDV, like Lara, has lots of flare and lots of audacious shots; he seems able to do things others can't. I've always viewed Ponting, Dravid, Sanga and Kallis as being tier two batsmen, with Ponting being the best of the lot.

Pietersen, like Kanhai, is a joy to watch, but never hit that lauded 50 run career average. I reckon he'd have averaged in the 50s if he were allowed to play for 2 or 3 more years.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Tier 1: Tendulkar, Lara

Tier 1.5: Ponting

What a tragedy. Before the start of his massive dip in form, he was without question Tier-1, he most probably still is but that fall was pretty epic. Ponting averaged 59 something around 2007-07 with nearly 30 hundreds.

 

[UpInTheAir]

Yes of course, Younis Khan

 

[Mamoon]

I think you got it pretty much spot on.

Where would you put Sehwag?

Tier-3, but he had the potential be Tier-1. Massive underachiever in my opinion, but still is the most brutal Test batsman ever on subcontinent pitches. Complete match-winner and someone who put fear into the hearts of the opposition.

He should have done better overseas in the second half of his career and in spite of being a dangerous ODI opener, he didn't do justice to his talent. Someone like him should have scored 30+ ODI hundreds.

 

[Sachin136]

The players who have already retired should be considered for this. No point in speculating how de Villiers performs for the rest of his test career. As of now he is in the league of Sachin, Ponting etc as an ODI batsman but behind by a good distance in tests. Judgement should be held off until he finishes his career.

 

[TheNightWatchman]

People underrate Ponting too much

 

[TheNightWatchman]

What a tragedy. Before the start of his massive dip in form, he was without question Tier-1, he most probably still is but that fall was pretty epic. Ponting averaged 59 something around 2007-07 with nearly 30 hundreds.

It wasn't a MASSIVE dip. I think he still averaged around 40 n his last 2 years in cricket. While Tendulkar averaged 20

 

[Sachin136]

It wasn't a MASSIVE dip. I think he still averaged around 40 n his last 2 years in cricket. While Tendulkar averaged 20

Tendulkar's last two years were worse than Ponting. However Ponting's dip started in 2007 (to 2012) while Tendulkar's started in 2012 (to 2013).

 

[Buffet]

Sachin/Lara > Ponting > Kallis/Dravid > Sanga > KP [ This will be my order among the listed one in Poll ]

 

[Indian_Supporter]

Don't you guys get bored of discussing the same topic every day? I mean even as an Indian and a Sachin fan, I get bored of these random Tendulkar threads. He has retired now more than 2 years, move on.

 

[ChachaCricket]

KP is not a tier 2 great. He's had some great performances but wasn't consistent enough to be considered an ATG.

 

[IndianWillow]

It wasn't a MASSIVE dip. I think he still averaged around 40 n his last 2 years in cricket. While Tendulkar averaged 20

Ponting did very well as long he stayed in a great team. As soon as ATGs started leaving his team one by one, he too felt the pressure and his performances went down. Ponting's career tail was longer than both Lara and Sachin.

 

[IndianWillow]

Don't you guys get bored of discussing the same topic every day? I mean even as an Indian and a Sachin fan, I get bored of these random Tendulkar threads. He has retired now more than 2 years, move on.

Insecurity of Sachin fans = one new Sachin thread a day.

 

[Mamoon]

It is unanimously agreed that Ponting had one of the greatest peak ever where he averaged 70+ in Tests for nearly 5-6 years, but a lot of people do say that his rise coincided with the retirement/decline of all-time great bowlers.

During Ponting's peak - 2002-2007, who were the legendary bowlers?

The following are the top 15 wicket-takers in that period:

Muralitharan
Warne
Ntini
Kumble
Hoggard
Harmison
McGrath
Flintoff
Kaneria
Dartbhajan
Lee
Pollock
Gillespie
Vaas
MacGill

Basically, 4/15 leading wicket-takers during his absolute peak were his teammates, and other than that, only Muralitharan is universally considered as an all-time great. The likes of Kumble were legendary at home and Ponting has a poor record in India.

In my personal opinion, it is a strong argument but a little fallacious as well, since Ponting's peak doesn't have everything to do with the decline of great bowlers but also his individual rise as a batsman.

Like most batsmen, he peaked in his late 20's and early 30's, and was quite young and not fully mature as a batsman when he faced the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald etc. in late 90's and early 2000's.

However in spite of this, I'd say that he wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar and Lara.

 

[Slog]

In terms of domination and pulverizing opposition bowling not even Tendulkar and Lara can hold a candle to Ponting and KP Yes. KP!!

 

[Indian_Supporter]

In terms of domination and pulverizing opposition bowling not even Tendulkar and Lara can hold a candle to Ponting and KP Yes. KP!!

Agreed. And Punter and KP can hold a candle to Sehwag. Never seen any batsman dominating test match bowling like Sehwag did.

P.S - I have not seen Viv play.

 

[ChachaCricket]

In terms of domination and pulverizing opposition bowling not even Tendulkar and Lara can hold a candle to Ponting and KP Yes. KP!!

Lol what?

 

[Bhaijaan]

In terms of domination and pulverizing opposition bowling not even Tendulkar and Lara can hold a candle to Ponting and KP Yes. KP!!

Then my dear friend you haven't watched enough cricket. Tendulkar and Lara have dished out epic beatings to some of the best bowlers out there. Please check Tendulkar at Chennai vs Warne, and Pakistan in 1998 and 1999 respectively and his hundred at Bloemfontein in 2001 for a few evidences to begin with.

 

[Mamoon]

Tendulkar was brutal before his tennis elbow and back injury in 1998, after which he became an accumulator while India found Sehwag to play the 90's Tendulkar role albeit with less consistency.

Lara was as brutal as Ponting and Pietersen though, he was a like a superior version of both.

 

[IndianWillow]

Tendulkar was brutal before his tennis elbow and back injury in 1998, after which he became an accumulator while India found Sehwag to play the 90's Tendulkar role albeit with less consistency.

Lara was as brutal as Ponting and Pietersen though, he was a like a superior version of both.

Tendulkar was never as brutal as Lara, even in the 90s. Tendulkar could not afford to, especially outside India, because India had a weak bowling as well as average batting strength outside home (check India's away record for the 90s), and India's fortunes depended heavily on Tendulkar. Lara could afford to bat more freely because he had classy bowlers in Ambrose and Walsh who could be expected to roll out the opposition fairly frequently.

 

[SL_Fan]

It is unanimously agreed that Ponting had one of the greatest peak ever where he averaged 70+ in Tests for nearly 5-6 years, but a lot of people do say that his rise coincided with the retirement/decline of all-time great bowlers.

During Ponting's peak - 2002-2007, who were the legendary bowlers?

The following are the top 15 wicket-takers in that period:

Muralitharan
Warne
Ntini
Kumble
Hoggard
Harmison
McGrath
Flintoff
Kaneria
Dartbhajan
Lee
Pollock
Gillespie
Vaas
MacGill

Basically, 4/15 leading wicket-takers during his absolute peak were his teammates, and other than that, only Muralitharan is universally considered as an all-time great. The likes of Kumble were legendary at home and Ponting has a poor record in India.

In my personal opinion, it is a strong argument but a little fallacious as well, since Ponting's peak doesn't have everything to do with the decline of great bowlers but also his individual rise as a batsman.

Like most batsmen, he peaked in his late 20's and early 30's, and was quite young and not fully mature as a batsman when he faced the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald etc. in late 90's and early 2000's.

However in spite of this, I'd say that he wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar and Lara.

Ponting scored 14 tons in 90 innings (8 away 6 at home) against strong/above median attacks. That's up there with the best of em. In comparison Kallis for example scored just 9 tons in 93 innings (4 away 5 at home). Not to mention Ponting was far more destructive. I think that's a fair indication of how good he was against quality attacks.

 

[jusarrived]

In terms of domination and pulverizing opposition dbowling not even Tendulkar and Lara can hold a candle to Ponting and KP Yes. KP!!

Lol what ? Then you haven't watched lara and Tendulkar at their best .

 

[Mamoon]

Tendulkar was never as brutal as Lara, even in the 90s. Tendulkar could not afford to, especially outside India, because India had a weak bowling as well as average batting strength outside home (check India's away record for the 90s), and India's fortunes depended heavily on Tendulkar. Lara could afford to bat more freely because he had classy bowlers in Ambrose and Walsh who could be expected to roll out the opposition fairly frequently.

He wasn't, but it is incorrect to say that he wasn't dominant. People make conclusions based on his batting style in the 2000's, which isn't correct in my opinion.

 

[SL_Fan]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/718821.html

*this was done early 2014 so not fully up to date for some

Against strong/above median attacks:

Sachin scored 19 tons in 126 innings (12 away 7 at home)
Lara scored 16 tons in 121 innings (9 away 7 at home)
Ponting scored 14 tons in 90 innings (8 away 6 at home)
Sanga scored 12* tons in 76 innings (8 away 4 at home)
Dravid scored 11 tons in 109 innings (6 away 5 at home)
Kallis scored 9 tons in 93 innings (4 away 5 at home)

 

[Mamoon]

Ponting scored 14 tons in 90 innings (8 away 6 at home) against strong/above median attacks. That's up there with the best of em. In comparison Kallis for example scored just 9 tons in 93 innings (4 away 5 at home). Not to mention Ponting was far more destructive. I think that's a fair indication of how good he was against quality attacks.

I agree, he really flayed bowling attacks like Kallis never could and that's why I rate him higher, but I will argue that his critics make a reasonable point as well. He really didn't have to compete with a genuine all-time great bowler barring Muralitharan in his peak years, but that isn't a fault if his.

Him against Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, peak Steyn etc. would have been a brilliant contest.

 

[SL_Fan]

I agree, he really flayed bowling attacks like Kallis never could and that's why I rate him higher, but I will argue that his critics make a reasonable point as well. He really didn't have to compete with a genuine all-time great bowler barring Muralitharan in his peak years, but that isn't a fault if his.

Him against Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald, peak Steyn etc. would have been a brilliant contest.

Out of the 3 he was easily the best player of pace tho so I just don't see him struggling much against top quicks.

 

[IndianWillow]

He wasn't, but it is incorrect to say that he wasn't dominant. People make conclusions based on his batting style in the 2000's, which isn't correct in my opinion.

He was dominant in some years, like 1994 and 1998. During the 90s, 36 out of 42 Lara fifties were scored at a strike rate exceeding 60. In comparison, only 20 out of 43 Sachin fifties were scored at a S/R of 60. Lara was far more aggressive than Sachin in the 90s. Lara was the kind of player who would blaze away as soon as he came into bat. Sachin was a lot more watchful and attacked only intermittently.

 

[Mamoon]

He was dominant in some years, like 1994 and 1998. During the 90s, 36 out of 42 Lara fifties were scored at a strike rate exceeding 60. In comparison, only 20 out of 43 Sachin fifties were scored at a S/R of 60. Lara was far more aggressive than Sachin in the 90s. Lara was the kind of player who would blaze away as soon as he came into bat. Sachin was a lot more watchful and attacked only intermittently.

Lara is one of the most brutal batsman in history, and of course Tendulkar isn't at that level, but he was brutal in his own right and more than just an accumulator like Amla.

 

[Bhaijaan]

He was dominant in some years, like 1994 and 1998. During the 90s, 36 out of 42 Lara fifties were scored at a strike rate exceeding 60. In comparison, only 20 out of 43 Sachin fifties were scored at a S/R of 60. Lara was far more aggressive than Sachin in the 90s. Lara was the kind of player who would blaze away as soon as he came into bat. Sachin was a lot more watchful and attacked only intermittently.

.. which only made him a slightly better test batsman than Lara. While Lara could hurt you more when going was going right for him, Tendulkar was more likely to resist tough patches. Tendulkar hit 241 not out at Sydney when he was out of form totally based on his ability to put the head down and respect the bowler. Lara would have been stumped out for a flashy 20 in such a situation.

 

[Stallion__]

It is unanimously agreed that Ponting had one of the greatest peak ever where he averaged 70+ in Tests for nearly 5-6 years, but a lot of people do say that his rise coincided with the retirement/decline of all-time great bowlers.

During Ponting's peak - 2002-2007, who were the legendary bowlers?

The following are the top 15 wicket-takers in that period:

Muralitharan
Warne
Ntini
Kumble
Hoggard
Harmison
McGrath
Flintoff
Kaneria
Dartbhajan
Lee
Pollock
Gillespie
Vaas
MacGill

Basically, 4/15 leading wicket-takers during his absolute peak were his teammates, and other than that, only Muralitharan is universally considered as an all-time great. The likes of Kumble were legendary at home and Ponting has a poor record in India.

In my personal opinion, it is a strong argument but a little fallacious as well, since Ponting's peak doesn't have everything to do with the decline of great bowlers but also his individual rise as a batsman.

Like most batsmen, he peaked in his late 20's and early 30's, and was quite young and not fully mature as a batsman when he faced the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Donald etc. in late 90's and early 2000's.

However in spite of this, I'd say that he wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar and Lara.

I think its a bit unfair to see it from that angle.

Ponting had an amazing ability to demoralize the bowling attacks out of the game even in the first innings of the match.

Yes, the some quality bowlers have been retired by then and couple of them were playing in his team, but he could only play whats put infront of him. Murali, Pollock, Kumble and Ntini were the ones apart from McGrath and Warne who were ruling the ICC rankings during that time, and Ponting hasn't treated any of them with any respect. He dominated the best bowlers of the team the way he dominated others.

The ones making there debut earlier like Lara, Sachin, Waugh did peak in 90s while those who made their debut in same period with Ponting like Kallis, Dravid, Yousuf, Hayden etc all peaked during early to mid 2000s. So its more of the getting mature with age factor than decline in quality of bowling.

Statistically, the closest anyone has got to Bradman is Ponting at his peak.

I do rate him slightly lower than Sachin and Lara, not because of this reason though.

 

[Mamoon]

I think its a bit unfair to see it from that angle.

Ponting had an amazing ability to demoralize the bowling attacks out of the game even in the first innings of the match.

Yes, the some quality bowlers have been retired by then and couple of them were playing in his team, but he could only play whats put infront of him. Murali, Pollock, Kumble and Ntini were the ones apart from McGrath and Warne who were ruling the ICC rankings during that time, and Ponting hasn't treated any of them with any respect. He dominated the best bowlers of the team the way he dominated others.

The ones making there debut earlier like Lara, Sachin, Waugh did peak in 90s while those who made their debut in same period with Ponting like Kallis, Dravid, Yousuf, Hayden etc all peaked during early to mid 2000s. So its more of the getting mature with age factor than decline in quality of bowling.

Statistically, the closest anyone has got to Bradman is Ponting at his peak.

I do rate him slightly lower than Sachin and Lara, not because of this reason though.

Personally I totally agree with your assessment, but I was posting the contrarian point of view for the sake of discussion.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Statistically, the closest anyone has got to Bradman is Ponting at his peak.

I do rate him slightly lower than Sachin and Lara, not because of this reason though.

Please elaborate.

He averaged 59.9 at his peak i understand. So did Tendulkar but.

 

[Stallion__]

Please elaborate.

He averaged 59.9 at his peak i understand. So did Tendulkar but.

Its time to learn that every honour by default don't go to Sachin.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/668351.html

 

[SL_Fan]

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/539728.html

 

[Bhaijaan]

So, in terms of random statistical batting peaks you meant. Should have mentioned before i took it seriously.

 

[SL_Fan]

70 consecutive dismissals/52 consecutive Tests

Nothing random about that. If you know what random actually means.

 

[IndianWillow]

70/52 numbers are quite random. Those peaks don't necessarily mean something, other than what we know already, that these players were awesome.

 

[IndianWillow]

.. which only made him a slightly better test batsman than Lara. While Lara could hurt you more when going was going right for him, Tendulkar was more likely to resist tough patches. Tendulkar hit 241 not out at Sydney when he was out of form totally based on his ability to put the head down and respect the bowler. Lara would have been stumped out for a flashy 20 in such a situation.

Tendulkar would probably have batted like Lara, had he played in a better team. Tendulkar's dismissal usually triggered an Indian collapse in the 90s, and our bowlers weren't likely to make up for that. So he had to be a bit watchful.

 

[Hitman]

Inzamam?

 

[SL_Fan]

70/52 numbers are quite random. Those peaks don't necessarily mean something, other than what we know already, that these players were awesome.

We are talking about peaks tho and 70 consecutive dismissals/52 consecutive Tests is not some random sample.

 

[SL_Fan]

Btw congrats on the POTW [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] Only just saw that

 

[IndianWillow]

We are talking about peaks tho and 70 consecutive dismissals/52 consecutive Tests is not some random sample.

Why? How is it different from say 90 consecutive dismissals? 100 dismissals?

 

[SL_Fan]

Btw should mention that 52 Tests/70 dismissals relates to Bradman. Hence The Bradman standard

 

[Stallion__]

Why? How is it different from say 90 consecutive dismissals? 100 dismissals?

The context was players' peak comparison with Bradman so naturally 70/52 are used for scaling.

 

[IndianWillow]

Bradman's 52 tests were over a 20 year span. For modern players it is only four or five years of cricket. A minimum of 100 tests (assuming the player has played so many matches) can be considered as a legitimate sample for modern players.