Successors to Bradman
Mike Holmans
Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
anyone?
Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
Cheers,
Mike
--
vigne...@hotmail.com
Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago. Even, the Great Don
thought so. What distubrs me is that some people think Don should not
be compared with someone like Tendulkar (boy from sub-continent), but
when it comes to Ricky Ponting, they are all happy.
Ponting seems to have all shots in the conventional cricket, with a fe
unconventional ones. He has played well on all kinds of surfaces
against all kinds of bowlers well. There is a huge gap between Don
and him, But, I would say, Ponting deserves the #2 spot.
Vicky:
irn...@email.com
wrote:
>
> Ponting seems to have all shots in the conventional cricket, with a fe
> unconventional ones. He has played well on all kinds of surfaces
> against all kinds of bowlers well. There is a huge gap between Don
> and him, But, I would say, Ponting deserves the #2 spot.
Tendulkar: Undisputed #1 Shivaji Park Bradman until such time his son
Arjun Tendulkar grows up to challenge him.
cricd...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> I would be happy to give that label to Ricky Ponting. But, certainly
> Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago.
The title of "Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman"?
BenjaminFranklin
<vigne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177282503.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>I would be happy to give that label to Ricky Ponting. But, certainly
> Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago. Even, the Great Don
> thought so. What distubrs me is that some people think Don should not
> be compared with someone like Tendulkar (boy from sub-continent), but
> when it comes to Ricky Ponting, they are all happy.
>
> Ponting seems to have all shots in the conventional cricket, with a fe
> unconventional ones. He has played well on all kinds of surfaces
> against all kinds of bowlers well. There is a huge gap between Don
> and him, But, I would say, Ponting deserves the #2 spot.
>
> Vicky:
All kinds of surfaces against all kinds of bowlers ???????
Ponting vs India in India is a PATHETIC 12.28 avg in 8 matches of 3
different series.
ONE half century in 14 INNINGS.......
Sachin averaged > 50 vs Aus "IN Aus"........
NO EXCUSES for Ponting..........In my book, Sachin is still #2 to Don......
Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
unfiltered 110 183 25 9368 257 242 207 59.29 33 36 8
filtered 8 14 0 172 60 18 16 12.28 0 1 3
BenjaminFranklin
<irn...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1177283246.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Mohammad Kaif is UNDISPUTED #1 in RESTLESSLY DANCING and JUMPING UP and DOWN
while fielding and batting......
will s
> Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago. Even, the Great Don
> thought so. What distubrs me is that some people think Don should not
> be compared with someone like Tendulkar (boy from sub-continent), but
> when it comes to Ricky Ponting, they are all happy.
Some people ?? I guess thats a great get out of gaol clause . The only time
I have ever heard this shit is when I read your post. You just cant help
yourself, you really are a peice of shit
Andrew Dunford
> Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago. Even, the Great Don
> thought so. What distubrs me is that some people think Don should not
> be compared with someone like Tendulkar (boy from sub-continent), but
> when it comes to Ricky Ponting, they are all happy.
The reason people get annoyed about the Bradman/Tendulkar comparisons is
because we get a steady supply of over-enthusiastic Indians telling us that
Tendulkar was as good as, if not better than Bradman. Nobody is claiming
that about Ponting.
<snip>
Andrew
JPD
> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> anyone?
When editing the Wikipedia article on Ponting I cited a couple of
earlier references which suggested that status for Ponting - and
curiously, there were murmurs of discontent.
That Ponting can average nearly 60 in both Test and first-class
cricket, in the modern era where he gets much less rest and must play
in all corners of the world under intense media scrutiny, when bowling
and fielding are much more refined sciences and the wicket is larger,
are all evidence to support a conclusion in Ponting's favour. The
counter-arguments are that there were high-averaging batsmen in past
decades when pitches were less favourable to batting, when the bats
were thinner and less forgiving of minor error and when the boundaries
of the fields - especially for Australian batsmen - were bigger. And
before the 1980s there was no such thing as a full-time professional
Australian player. Ponting can devote most of his time to improving
his game, whereas Chappell or Chappell or Walters or Lawry or Harvey
had to earn a living whilst practising on the side.
Still, Ponting's yield is higher than any of those guys. You can't
give the title to someone with a short career, because Bradman's
achievement was not merely to average 100 but to also to score more
total runs and centuries than any other Australian and to prevail for
20 years. Ponting has a way to go to match that career, but as
previously discussed on this group, he will likely reach 15000 Test
runs. One will struggle to argue for a different candidate.
> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
Craig did not have the mental nor physical tools. He started well,
but that is all. Many are called but few are chosen.
--
JPD
vigne...@hotmail.com
> <vignes1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Look at what you have written, You are picking the term 'some
people'. Then you go on to trash me.
Occasionally I wonder whether to 'waste' my time with you. But, I
have this naturally developed think called empathy.
I have been around here for a long time. I have seen a lot of
people. But, I never had a killfile. I thought everyone would have a
point to make, and I should give him that chance to be heard. So, I
continue to keep wasting my time on you.
Just go to read Andrew's response. He used the term 'people' as
well. I would feel good of you trash him too (smiley smiley).
Vicky:
Cicero
<vigne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177289310.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
But your answer is ridiculous- how can Tendulkar be Australia's best batsman
since Bradman.
I also have never heard of any complaint by anyone about comparisons being
made between Bradman and Tendulkar. It would be difficult since Bradman
himself said Tendulkar was similar in style.
To go back to the original question, I would still have to go for Greg
Chappell. Batsmen have to much in their favour these days for a meaningful
statistical comparison.
Voice of Reason
before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
greats batted.
For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
a Tendulkar.
Mike Holmans
<will...@optusnet.com.au> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Indeed.
To recap following the unwelcome interruption from a moron who has
nothing better to do than parade his dimwittedness, the questions
were:
1 Has there been a better Australian batsman than Ricky Ponting since
1948? (For clarity, this neither includes Tendulkar nor any of the
succession of West Indians who were the best batsman in the world for
fifty years until yesterday.)
2 Why was Ian Craig thought of as a possible next Bradman and why
didn't it come true?
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>> anyone?
>>
>> --
>I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
>before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
Who's putting him on the same level? The question is simply who has
been the best Australian batsman since 1948. It makes no assertion
that the nominated individual is fit to lick Macartney's or Trumper's
boots, let alone Bradman's.
>Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
>somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
>greats batted.
>
>For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
>same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
>Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
>at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
>lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
>a Tendulkar.
It's hard to love Ponting's batting. As you say, it rarely touches the
sublime. In a way, perhaps that makes him a worthy second to Bradman,
for much the same was said of him.
It also doesn't help that he has played for such a dominant team.
Perhaps his achievements get less recognition than they might because
there's usually been another batsman or a couple of bowlers sharing
the limelight. He would have been a lot more obvious as an outstanding
player if he'd been a Kiwi.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Salil
> Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
Jack Fingleton's "The Ashes Crown the Year" - a diary of the 53 Ashes
- covered this in a little detail. Craig was sent on this tour at an
incredibly young age - think 19 or 20, which was well below the normal
age for any player to undertake such a significant tour.
With his lack of experience and self-awareness as a batsman, he
struggled a fair bit in the tour matches particularly early on against
some good attacks in tough conditions. Fingleton wrote several times
about him being a very promising player, referencing a couple of huge
scores he had made in the Shield back in Australia and writing that he
was an incredibly attractive player, but his opinion seemed to be that
Craig was too inexperienced and young to be sent on such a tour, and
was showing his rawness with some of his failures.
I wouldn't be surprised if the flood of expectations that came so
early in his career after a few impressive showings in his first few
games. Craig began with a 91 on debut for NSW, had a few struggles but
then impressed with some runs against the touring South African side
in 51-52, making an unbeaten 213 for NSW (I think it was his first f/c
hundred) against them.
Salil
[Of course, it may have just been the NSV mafia's bias.]
David W
news:1177291017.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>> anyone?
>>
>> Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
>> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
>> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
>> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
>> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
> I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
'greatest since Bradman' does not necessarily mean that he's on the same
echelon.
> Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> greats batted.
Then it comes down to your criteria for greatness: style vs. getting the job
done, i.e., style vs. substance. As a spectator, style is usually the more
important to me, but it's highly subjective. I gather that Mike had in mind more
objective criteria, such as batting average, speed of scoring, scoring runs when
they're needed most etc.
> For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
> same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> Ponting.
Mark Waugh was a bit _too_ laconic for my liking. He made batting look easy, but
to me he lacked the grace of David Gower, another laconic batsman.
> Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> a Tendulkar.
Well, he does lack the flair of those players, but they are excluded by
nationality anyway.
ants...@xtra.co.nz
> and fielding are much more refined sciences and the wicket is larger,
Thats all well and good, but the bowling standards these days are
absolute rubbish to what players in the late 70s and 80s had to deal
with. Ponting is a class player, no doubt, but he would not have the
figures he has today if he was playing in that era.
Bowling may be more of a science now, but in terms of actual talent,
world cricket is a desert compared to the era above.
Voice of Reason
> "Voice of Reason" <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1177291017.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> >> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> >> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> >> anyone?
>
> >> Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> >> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> >> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> >> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> >> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
> >> --
> > I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> > before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> 'greatest since Bradman' does not necessarily mean that he's on the same
> echelon.
>
That's true.. I was just finding it hard to put them together in the
same sentence I guess :)
> > Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> > somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> > greats batted.
>
> Then it comes down to your criteria for greatness: style vs. getting the job
> done, i.e., style vs. substance. As a spectator, style is usually the more
> important to me, but it's highly subjective. I gather that Mike had in mind more
> objective criteria, such as batting average, speed of scoring, scoring runs when
> they're needed most etc.
>
Yes.. I agree... which is why I found it hard to disagree with Mike.
I was just pointing out that though Ponting may be second to Bradman
in achievements -- I won't put him second in terms of style.
> > For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
> > same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> > Ponting.
>
> Mark Waugh was a bit _too_ laconic for my liking. He made batting look easy, but
> to me he lacked the grace of David Gower, another laconic batsman.
>
I didn't get a chance to watch much of Gower unfortunately -- so I
won't know too much about that.
But, Waugh was sublime at his best -- his main flaw was that he was a
bit too casual at times.
> > Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> > at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> > lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> > a Tendulkar.
>
> Well, he does lack the flair of those players, but they are excluded by
> nationality anyway.
True.. I wasn't talking about them as contenders for the honour. I
was merely supporting my original point about Ponting's style being
not up to mark.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Then it comes down to your criteria for greatness: style vs. getting the job
>done, i.e., style vs. substance. As a spectator, style is usually the more
>important to me, but it's highly subjective. I gather that Mike had in mind more
>objective criteria, such as batting average, speed of scoring, scoring runs when
>they're needed most etc.
You would be well advised to desist from reading my mind, as you are
not very well acquainted with it. I am one of the least likely people
to be seduced by reams of figures: my contempt for the use of career
batting average as some kind of answer to "how good was he?" knows few
bounds, as is well-attested by my posting history.
"Greatest Australian batsman since 1948" is a title which can be
bestowed on anyone who meets the individual judge's criteria.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Voice of Reason
> On 22 Apr 2007 18:16:57 -0700, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> >> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> >> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> >> anyone?
>
> >> --
> >I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> >before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> Who's putting him on the same level? The question is simply who has
> been the best Australian batsman since 1948. It makes no assertion
> that the nominated individual is fit to lick Macartney's or Trumper's
> boots, let alone Bradman's.
>
I didn't mean to say that you did -- I was merely responding to the
hype surrounding him recently.
> >Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> >somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> >greats batted.
>
> >For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
> >same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> >Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> >at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> >lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> >a Tendulkar.
>
> It's hard to love Ponting's batting. As you say, it rarely touches the
> sublime. In a way, perhaps that makes him a worthy second to Bradman,
> for much the same was said of him.
> It also doesn't help that he has played for such a dominant team.
> Perhaps his achievements get less recognition than they might because
> there's usually been another batsman or a couple of bowlers sharing
> the limelight. He would have been a lot more obvious as an outstanding
> player if he'd been a Kiwi.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
Precisely.. that is my point. Although Ponting may be second to
Bradman among the Australian greats in terms of achievements, I don't
consider him second to Bradman in terms of style. Though, as you say,
Bradman himself wasn't a sublime stylist.
Voice of Reason
I wouldn't go as far as saying that at all -- there were always class
bowlers and there still will be.
I don't know how you forgot greats like Akram and Waqar who dominated
the early 90s.
Then came the era of the spinners with Warne and Muralitharan.
And, even in this era, the pacemen weren't lacking. Pollock, McGrath,
and Vaas aren't as fearsome as some of the West Indian giants but
their impeccable line and length more than compensates for their lack
of pace. And, for however transient a period, Akthar showed us a
glimpse of true pace and swing.
The new generation of Flintoff, Bond, Bracken, and Lee seem promising
-- I am especially impressed by the first. Freddie is a very talented
bloke and can achieve a lot if he could just get his head together.
Ian Galbraith
> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> anyone?
I'm sure there are some but I think at the end of his career that he will
go down as the second best. Some of course will (and have done) argue the
aesthetic side of his game is lacking but of course they say the same
thing about Bradman.
> Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
His career was cut short by ether injury or illness IIRC. He was made
captain at a young age when people wanted either Miller or Benaud,
because he was a golden boy of the establishment although he didn't seem
to conduct himself like that from what I've seen in the cricket in the
50s doco.
--
"Politicians are a lot like diapers. They should be changed frequently,
and for the same reasons." - Man of the Year
irn...@email.com
wrote:
> Mohammad Kaif is UNDISPUTED #1 in RESTLESSLY DANCING and JUMPING UP and DOWN
> while fielding and batting......
Behan Janeman, did Mhad Kaif rape you by any chance? Why are you
concerned about him anyways?
David W
news:oi5o2350o94qeltcn...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:58:51 +1000, "David W" <n...@email.provided>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>Then it comes down to your criteria for greatness: style vs. getting the job
>>done, i.e., style vs. substance. As a spectator, style is usually the more
>>important to me, but it's highly subjective. I gather that Mike had in mind
>>more
>>objective criteria, such as batting average, speed of scoring, scoring runs
>>when
>>they're needed most etc.
>
> You would be well advised to desist from reading my mind, as you are
> not very well acquainted with it.
I based my supposition on logic, not an attempt to read your mind. If you were
after purely subjective opinions on batting style, then:
1) It didn't make sense, since Bradman is not reputed to have been a
particularly stylish batsman, and it was unlikely that respondents would have
seen him bat anyway.
2) It's like asking which is the most beautiful flower, or which is the best red
wine, i.e., all manner of useless opinions that add up to a complete waste of
time.
3) You found it hard to disagree that Ricky Ponting is the greatest Australian
batsman since Bradman. Does that mean that you consider Ponting the second-most
stylish Australian batsman, with Bradman the most stylish? I didn't think so. I
apologize _profusely_ if I was being rudely presumptuous there.
> I am one of the least likely people
> to be seduced by reams of figures: my contempt for the use of career
> batting average as some kind of answer to "how good was he?" knows few
> bounds, as is well-attested by my posting history.
What do you know of Bradman other than his figures, and what did you believe
respondents would know?
> "Greatest Australian batsman since 1948" is a title which can be
> bestowed on anyone who meets the individual judge's criteria.
So I gave you credit for not having started a useless,
what's-your-favourite-colour kind of thread. Sorry.
David
BenjaminFranklin
<irn...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1177298613.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Eunuch Irnmdn,
Did Sachin Tendulkar FUCK your wife, sisters and mom in a threesome like I
did while you watched ???
Why do you hate Sachin so much anyways ??
eusebius
> On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> > Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> > quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> > anyone?
>
> > Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> > in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> > Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> > necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> > of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Mike
>
> > --
>
> I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
I don't put anybody in the same 'echelon' as Bradman. At best, Mike
and others give Ponting the status of 'next echelon down' from
Bradman. I don't think anybody can make a strong case for Ponting
being in the same class as Bradman. I don't think that Ponting is the
best batsman since Bradman. But one could make a good case for him
being the best Australian bat since Bradman.
>
> Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> greats batted.
Have you ever seen Bradman bat? Bradman had a fairly rough style.
That's why some of the 'in my day' brigade were reluctant to
acknowledge the merit of Bradman. Bradman certainly lacked the grace
of Trumper or Hobbs. Ponting's muscularity is part of his greatness.
His technique isn't copybook always, but highly effective. It is
churlish and unsupportable to describe him lacking in brilliance and
to suggest he lacks 'ease'. He seems to score runs with a great deal
of ease.
>
> For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
> same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> a Tendulkar.
Looks and results are 2 entirely different things. Despite the
somewhat worthless nature of ODOs, Hayden has recently proved that he
is a giant in both forms, due to various factors, including massive
self belief and mental resilience. He aint always pretty at the
crease. Ponting has many attractive shots, but his strength (like
Bradman) lays less in the pure aesthetics of his play than results.
In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing. This
is related to the similarity perceived by the Don viz. his and SRT's
batting style, I would suggest. I mean, SRT often doesn't do things by
the book. A lot of heaves across the line, often lifts the ball
whereas classical style dictates that the ball should be kept along
the ground as much as possible, often rather minimal foot movement. I
don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
straight drive. And he is more of a FWB than Lara (or Ponting).
Rod
<vigne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But, certainly Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago.
Tough to give the title of Australia's greatest batsmen since
Bradman to an Indian, that's stretching it a bit far.
As far as natural talent, there's probably no better than Ponting.
However, he's plundered attacks during a very dominant era of
Australian cricket during a period of time where the bat has
ruled over the ball. He's at a significant advantage.
Cheers,
Rod.
BenjaminFranklin
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177309089.9...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
May be you are confusing SRT's OD batting with test batting......
>I
> don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
> straight drive.
SRT has a text book classis straight drive as good as dravid's..........
Rod
>Thats all well and good, but the bowling standards these days are
>absolute rubbish to what players in the late 70s and 80s had to deal
>with. Ponting is a class player, no doubt, but he would not have the
>figures he has today if he was playing in that era.
Absolutely!
The wide use of protective wear, the flattening of pitches, the law
changes to stifle quick bowlers have all benefitted the batsmen
greatly.
I'm sure Ponting would still have the courage to hook and pull the
WI bowling attack, but would he have been anywhere near as effective
armed with a bat and his baggy green?
Cheers,
Rod.
Rod
wrote:
>Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than Ponting.
Because he made batting look effortless? So did Gower. But the
biggest critisism of Waugh was because he made it look so effortless
he also looked like he didn't value his wicket (unlike Gower).
Cheers,
Rod.
eusebius
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:08:20 +1000, "will s"
>
>
>
> ><vignes1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1177282503.1...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> >>I would be happy to give that label to Ricky Ponting. But, certainly
> >> Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago. Even, the Great Don
> >> thought so. What distubrs me is that some people think Don should not
> >> be compared with someone like Tendulkar (boy from sub-continent), but
> >> when it comes to Ricky Ponting, they are all happy.
>
> >Some people ?? I guess thats a great get out of gaol clause . The only time
> >I have ever heard this shit is when I read your post. You just cant help
> >yourself, you really are a peice of shit
>
> Indeed.
>
> To recap following the unwelcome interruption from a moron who has
> nothing better to do than parade his dimwittedness, the questions
> were:
>
> 1 Has there been a better Australian batsman than Ricky Ponting since
> 1948?
No, I don't think so, although Greg Chappell and Border may be
preferable in certain circs. Perhaps Harvey against spinners. Or even
Yallop :)
I do think that Chappello was a more rounded player, and certainly
Ponting hasn't had much success in India (not that Chappello ever
played there- but my strong gut feeling is, had his slightly
vulnerable constitution been able to cope with a few weeks of cricket,
he would have been outstandingly successful there. Except perhaps in
dustbowl conditions). Ponting has grown considerably in stature since
2001, though. Ponting lives in an era with bowling machines,
scientific fitness regimes, ultra heavy bats, and no WIPQ. Still, his
level of dominance and the longevity of this is unique amongst
Australian bats since Bradman. I think he has to be acknowledged best
since DGB. Even if I would prefer Border in a really tight spot.
> (For clarity, this neither includes Tendulkar nor any of the
> succession of West Indians who were the best batsman in the world for
> fifty years until yesterday.)
What about Inzi?
>
> 2 Why was Ian Craig thought of as a possible next Bradman and why
> didn't it come true?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
He was from NSW?
He started playing FCC at a very young age (by Aust. standards) 16y
249d after great success as a schoolboy. He started well in FCC
including a 213* against the touring South Africans, which catapulted
him into the test team. It wasn't merely the amount of runs he scored
(or the state for which he played) which attracted notice, it was the
manner and the composure he displayed, evidently the selectors felt he
was a player of the Future. So much so he was persevered with, on and
off, for 5 years including a stint as captain, depite Brearley like
results with the willow. Craig eventually contracted hepatitis and
retired, which was a boon undoubtedly for the Aust. selectors, who
gleefully installed Benaud.
Craig's case is apparently one in which style was hailed over
substance, although he no doubt showed great early promise. Lately,
someboy called Moises Henriques was described as 'the next big thing'
because he excelled in Sydney schools cricket. He may yet be, but he
hasn't been vaulted into the national side just yet.
There have been other coming Bradmans; Dougie Walters and David Hookes
were both described as such on the basis of domestic success,
including several consecutive hundreds, and certainly never matched
the Don at test level although both were far from complete failures
(Dougie was indeed a great success outside England).
eusebius
Sorry, should have read your post first before sending mine. Much
similar detail.
eusebius
> On Apr 22, 9:42 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Who's putting him on the same level? The question is simply who has
> > been the best Australian batsman since 1948. It makes no assertion
> > that the nominated individual is fit to lick Macartney's or Trumper's
> > boots, let alone Bradman's.
>
> I didn't mean to say that you did -- I was merely responding to the
> hype surrounding him recently.
>
There is no 'hype' surrounding Ponting. His results speak for
themselves. Although some sagacious judges don't put great stock in
numbers, Ponting's numbers 'mean' something. Ponting's numbers don't
lie. Ponting has been staggeringly successful, saying that is not
'hype', merely accurate.
Rod
>Mark Waugh was a bit _too_ laconic for my liking. He made batting look easy, but
>to me he lacked the grace of David Gower, another laconic batsman.
Damn, should read the whole thread before replying.
We may have to agree to disagree here. If I was given a choice between
Gower or MEW in my side, it would be Gower every time but there was
just something about MEW's stroke play where he could gently caress
the ball with a deft wave of the bat and it would go rocketing through
the covers that I never really saw from Gower.
But, in a way I'm probably agreeing with you suggesting that he made
it look effortless and confusing that with grace. I was astonished
that a similar stroke I would have to play through the covers would
look like someone hacking a tree with an axe was executed by MEW by
casually and gently waving the bat with so little effort.
Cheers,
Rod.
eusebius
wrote:
> "eusebius" <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing. This
> > is related to the similarity perceived by the Don viz. his and SRT's
> > batting style, I would suggest. I mean, SRT often doesn't do things by
> > the book. A lot of heaves across the line, often lifts the ball
> > whereas classical style dictates that the ball should be kept along
> > the ground as much as possible, often rather minimal foot movement.
>
> May be you are confusing SRT's OD batting with test batting......
He hits the ball in the air a lot off the spinners even at test level,
and therein exhibits relatively minimal foot movement as well,
especially against pace. Not always, but enough to be not classical,
which is the point, not that he isn't an outstanding player, which he
is (was?)
>
> >I
> > don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
> > straight drive.
>
> SRT has a text book classis straight drive as good as dravid's
So, are you a SRT fan or not?
eusebius
> On 22 Apr 2007 18:16:57 -0700, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than Ponting.
>
> Because he made batting look effortless? So did Gower. But the
> biggest critisism of Waugh was because he made it look so effortless
> he also looked like he didn't value his wicket (unlike Gower).
>
> Cheers,
> Rod.
You must be joking.
Rod
I must? Explain.
Cheers,
Rod.
sdavmor
> On Apr 23, 8:04 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>> anyone?
>
> earlier references which suggested that status for Ponting - and
> curiously, there were murmurs of discontent.
>
> That Ponting can average nearly 60 in both Test and first-class
> cricket, in the modern era where he gets much less rest and must play
> in all corners of the world under intense media scrutiny, when bowling
> and fielding are much more refined sciences and the wicket is larger,
> counter-arguments are that there were high-averaging batsmen in past
> decades when pitches were less favourable to batting, when the bats
> were thinner and less forgiving of minor error and when the boundaries
> of the fields - especially for Australian batsmen - were bigger. And
> before the 1980s there was no such thing as a full-time professional
> Australian player. Ponting can devote most of his time to improving
> his game, whereas Chappell or Chappell or Walters or Lawry or Harvey
> had to earn a living whilst practising on the side.
>
> Still, Ponting's yield is higher than any of those guys. You can't
> give the title to someone with a short career, because Bradman's
> achievement was not merely to average 100 but to also to score more
> total runs and centuries than any other Australian and to prevail for
> 20 years. Ponting has a way to go to match that career, but as
> previously discussed on this group, he will likely reach 15000 Test
> runs. One will struggle to argue for a different candidate.
>
>> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
>
> Craig did not have the mental nor physical tools. He started well,
> but that is all. Many are called but few are chosen.
Many are called but few are chosen and only one was Bradman.
That notwithstanding, Ponting is an A++ batsman who will surely rank
at the end of the day as one of the ATGs.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon
NP: nothing
sdavmor
> On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>> anyone?
>>
>> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
>> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
>> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> --
> I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> greats batted.
>
> same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> a Tendulkar.
Speaking as a Brit, who'd like to be viewing Pointing through
crosshairs, I think you're selling him short. In fact I think you're
speaking nonsense. When he comes to the crease there is an expectancy
that he will systematically take it to the bowlers and do exactly what
the situation requires. I wouldn't hesitate for one second to say
Tendulakar...Lara...Ponting and "brilliant" in the same rush of breath.
sdavmor
Style is all well and good, but I'll take substance and results any
day of the week.
eusebius
Well, the one player who contrived to get out in soft fashion more
than Mark Waugh is Gower (honourable mention, C.L. Hooper)
alvey
> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> anyone?
Hmmmm. I'd opine that his only rival would be GSC. GSC probably faced a
better quality bowler, and on bigger grounds, but Punter has got the
ability to play the Captain's Knock better than anyone I can recall.
>
> Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> of course) think that,
He was young, he was from NSW.
> and why didn't it happen?
Poor technique and health.
Someone who got bigger wraps than Craig as 'The Next Bradman' was Norm
O'Neill. His scratchy starts soon put an end to that and gave him the
inevitable nick of 'Nervous Norm'. Parky writes a good anecdote about a day
at the cricket 'down south' with his old man, a traditional Yorkshire
purist, watching an O'Neill innings unfold. It went something like...
O'Neill's first forcing shot was a tentative cover drive that streaked off
the outside edge and finished up at the 3rd man fence. The man behind the
Parkinsons applauded and got a glare from Old Parky for his ignorance.
Shortly afterwards another edge for another boundary and again the applause
from t'Southerner earnt a glare and mutter from the non-clapping elder
Parkinson. Shortly later a ball fractionally short of a length was crashed
through the covers by O'Neill with a sumptuous back-foot drive. This time
the southerner leant forward and sarcastically asked, "Do you mind if I
applaud that one then?" Parky senior turned and said; "If tha knew anythin
about this game then you'd be on thy bluddy feet cheering."
alvey
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>What do you know of Bradman other than his figures,
What people who saw him and played against him have told me (I admit
I've never talked to anyone who played for the same team as he did),
as well as what I have read in works of history and contemporaneous
reports.
>and what did you believe
>respondents would know?
Whatever they know.
>> "Greatest Australian batsman since 1948" is a title which can be
>> bestowed on anyone who meets the individual judge's criteria.
>
>So I gave you credit for not having started a useless,
>what's-your-favourite-colour kind of thread. Sorry.
It is impossible to answer "Who's the greatest?" without saying what
"greatest" means, or at least having an idea. Since there is no
absolute definition of greatness, it is down to each individual judge
to make up his or her own mind what greatness is.
From what you say, you deem it impossible for anyone to have a more
rational set of criteria for judging greatness than they have for
choosing a favourite colour. From this you apparently conclude that
any discussion of "who's the greatest?" is useless. Tell me, why do
you bother posting to a cricket discussion group?
Cheers,
Mike
--
Salil
> Hmmmm. I'd opine that his only rival would be GSC. GSC probably faced a
> better quality bowler, and on bigger grounds, but Punter has got the
> ability to play the Captain's Knock better than anyone I can recall.
RN Harvey?
Cicero
>
> There have been other coming Bradmans; Dougie Walters and David Hookes
> were both described as such on the basis of domestic success,
> including several consecutive hundreds, and certainly never matched
> the Don at test level although both were far from complete failures
> (Dougie was indeed a great success outside England).
>
Not forgetting Norm O'Neill.
Cicero
> On Apr 23, 4:31 pm, "BenjaminFranklin" <BenjaminFrank...@America.com>
> wrote:
>> "eusebius" <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>
Can you explain this a bit more:
He hits the ball in the air a lot off the spinners even at test level,
and therein exhibits relatively minimal foot movement as well,
especially against pace.
Are you talking pace or spinners? Or fast spinners?
John Hall
"vigne...@hotmail.com" <vigne...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I would be happy to give that label to Ricky Ponting. But, certainly
>Tendulkar deserved that title few years ago.
Not as "Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman" he didn't!
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
John Hall
Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>anyone?
A shortlist would include:
Neil Harvey
Greg Chappell
Allan Border
Steve Waugh
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Certainly based on his figures Ponting has a strong claim to be
regarded, not only as the best Australian batsman since Bradman, but as
second to him on the all-time list. I hadn't appreciated quite how high
his average was until I looked it up. The only caveat is that I don't
think that the last few years have been a vintage period for bowling,
with the exception of the Australian bowlers (whom Ponting hasn't had to
face) and Murali (whom he has).
alvey
I think Harvey always lost points on the Great Batsman Ratings because he
was/is such a brainless tool.
alvey
in briz, wondering if it's worth doing a DNA check on Harvey & Deano.
Cicero
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LtkT5+By...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
But the original question is open to interpretation as well- "since
Bradman"- does that mean since Bradman finished playing or since he started
playing?
If it was after he finished that would disqualify Harvey. If it was since he
started you could start to think of Archie Jackson (as an example). Stan
McCabe, Arthur Morris, Syd Barnes and Lindsay Hassett (all just about
forgotten) would also have claims.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>But the original question is open to interpretation as well- "since
>Bradman"- does that mean since Bradman finished playing or since he started
>playing?
>
>If it was after he finished that would disqualify Harvey. If it was since he
>started you could start to think of Archie Jackson (as an example). Stan
>McCabe, Arthur Morris, Syd Barnes and Lindsay Hassett (all just about
>forgotten) would also have claims.
Interesting definitional point, that.
Jackson died too early; he's one of the great what-mights of cricket
along with Duleepsinhji and Collie Smith.
Of the others, why would you say Hassett? I'd have thought that to
even be in contention as a second-to-Bradman, you'd have to be
acknowledged as the best batsman in the team (at least after Bradman's
retirement), and I wouldn't have thought anyone ever rated Hassett as
Australia's top batsman de jour - though no doubt someone will correct
me.
Cheers,
Mike
--
David W
news:emso23538sntca139...@4ax.com...
Not at all. You placed Bradman indisputably as the greatest batsman. As far as
the "figures" you disparaged are concerned, there is no doubt that he is at the
top of the tree. Well, from what I've read and learned of him, I would pay more
to watch Viv Richards, Trumper or Sobers bat than Bradman. You were the one who
impicitly excluded batting style as a criterion by asking who is the second
greatest after Bradman. The only way you can put Bradman unquestionably at the
top is by his figures, not his style, since style is subjective. Then you get
all precious and offended that I deduce what was bleedingly obvious.
David
Cicero
Probably a bit of a long call to say he was second after Hassett, but who in
that team was rated better then Hassett? Probably Harvey. I just recall my
grandfather telling me about a double century Hassett made- although I don't
think my Grandfather was a particular cricket buff he was very impressed.
Barnes is the interesting one I think- his suicide was long after he stopped
playing but he seemed to have any number of quirks even while playing.
eusebius
> "eusebius" <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177310878.0...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Apr 23, 4:31 pm, "BenjaminFranklin" <BenjaminFrank...@America.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "eusebius" <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Can you explain this a bit more:
>
> He hits the ball in the air a lot off the spinners even at test level,
> and therein exhibits relatively minimal foot movement as well,
> especially against pace.
>
> Are you talking pace or spinners? Or fast spinners?
'therein' referring to test matches. Sorry if my writing style is a
little, shall we say, opaque. FWIW, I think he hits the ball in the
air quite a lot off slow spinners as well.
eusebius
At least Deano isn't a miserable old fart.
Harvey's record against England is also rather mediocre (amazingly in
his day England were by far Aust.'s best opposition, with superb pace
and spin, just before the advent of the mighty WI pace attack of the
60s, which Harvey also played against). He rather gorged himself on a
fairly weak SA.
eusebius
> "John Hall" <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:LtkT5+By...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <phmn239fke9khap8b352vvsgq2ldllk...@4ax.com>,
>
>
Archie Jackson? Nahh, he was another of those 'great white hopes' who
didn't really materialize into anything. Yes, he did contract
consumption at a very young age, but not whilst he was playing test
cricket. Apparently he was extremely elegant (something Bills
Woodfull, Ponsford, and even Brown, weren't, but all were still better
performed and able bats than Jackson).
eusebius
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:00:08 GMT, "Cicero" <moofi...@bigpond.net.au>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >But the original question is open to interpretation as well- "since
> >Bradman"- does that mean since Bradman finished playing or since he started
> >playing?
>
> >If it was after he finished that would disqualify Harvey. If it was since he
> >started you could start to think of Archie Jackson (as an example). Stan
> >McCabe, Arthur Morris, Syd Barnes and Lindsay Hassett (all just about
> >forgotten) would also have claims.
>
> Interesting definitional point, that.
>
> Jackson died too early; he's one of the great what-mights of cricket
> along with Duleepsinhji and Collie Smith.
He scored a mighty slab of his runs in one innings (not out, mind
you). Still, it is probable that illness blighted much of his test
career, including the 1930 tour, which was probably where he acquired
the TB which ultimately killed him. 1930 was a very wet summer, no?
Certainly Jackson won the aesthetic battle between himself and the
Don.
>
> Of the others, why would you say Hassett? I'd have thought that to
> even be in contention as a second-to-Bradman, you'd have to be
> acknowledged as the best batsman in the team (at least after Bradman's
> retirement), and I wouldn't have thought anyone ever rated Hassett as
> Australia's top batsman de jour - though no doubt someone will correct
> me.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
O'Reilly always had a high opinion of Hassett, who was apparently a
superb player of slow bowling. Hassett was perhaps the only player
(other than the Don himself, but not always even him) to dominate
O'Reilly, almost to the point of dismissiveness. Like so many others,
Hassett's best years were lost to the war. He never seemed quite the
same after the War, having served 5 years in the armed services. Pre-
war, he was an extremely forceful player, but the pressures of
captaincy and the effects of campaigning took an edge off his
strokeplay, but he was still an highly effective batsman (and a great
captain; and incidentally, a great prankster as well). I think it was
the glory of Harvey's strokeplay which outshone Hassett more than a
difference in effectiveness.
Still, Hassett came from a time of great quality in Australian
cricket, and deserves a mention at least, even if he was rarely(if
ever) considered the best bat of the side. Norm O'Neill, Bob Simpson,
Bill Lawry, Dougie Walters, and even Kim Hughes have perhaps worn that
mantle. I would rate Hassett ahead of any of them (although Simpson
and Lawry were outstanding openers, Walters on his day was a genius,
and O'Neill could be majestic depending on how afflicted with nerves
he was on the day.)
Cicero
> Archie Jackson? Nahh, he was another of those 'great white hopes' who
> didn't really materialize into anything. Yes, he did contract
> consumption at a very young age, but not whilst he was playing test
> cricket. Apparently he was extremely elegant (something Bills
> Woodfull, Ponsford, and even Brown, weren't, but all were still better
> performed and able bats than Jackson).
>
Umm- exactly how do you know when he contracted consumption?
eusebius
> "Mike Holmans" <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
Having read many posts by Mike, I can say with near certainty that he
doesn't rate raw numbers anywhere near as high as you impute. I think
it is Australians who are pretty well universal in their acclamation
of Bradman as the greatest ever. Not just of Australians, either. Mike
is merely following this unanimity in his underyling assumptions. Not
only that, but if I might be a little presumptuous and second guess
Mike, I really don't think that he considers raw run scoring to be
irrelevant in judging the greatness of a willow wielder. You might;
but really, what is better to watch, a Ponting century, with brutal
strokeplay, or an extremely elegant duck from Mark Waugh? Surely at
some point, the winning of a game is important. Surely cricket is a
game to be won, no? I love watching beautiful cricket, but I also
enjoy watching winning cricket. I enjoy playing to win. Not at all
costs; not at the expense of style; but I have to play my own game,
and not allow style to come at the expense of winning. Hence, Bradman,
a player with style but not a servant of style, is the choice of
nearly all Australian fans (and most world fans), the greatest run
scoring machine ever known.
eusebius
> "Mike Holmans" <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:821p23hhpmgq2ns9f...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:00:08 GMT, "Cicero" <moofi...@bigpond.net.au>
He refused to tow the establishment line. On one occasion he arrived
at the crease with a toy bat. He wrote controversial newspaper
columns. He wasn't personally popular with Don, although the Don had a
high opinion of his ability, apparently in 1948 after a close run
county game Don said something along the lines of 'from now on, either
Sid or I must play in every game'. Evidently Don considered Sid second
best. And I keep typing Syd. Confusing to have 2 homonymous greats.
Voice of Reason
I guess it's a matter of opinion -- but I repeat I wasn't speaking of
his efficiency, it's uncanny. But, I have found him to be wanting of
some elegance and felt he could do with a little bit more polish to
his strokes.
Voice of Reason
> On Apr 23, 11:16 am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> > > Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> > > quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> > > anyone?
>
> > > Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> > > in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> > > Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> > > necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> > > of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>
> > > Cheers,
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > --
>
> > I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> > before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> and others give Ponting the status of 'next echelon down' from
> Bradman. I don't think anybody can make a strong case for Ponting
> being in the same class as Bradman. I don't think that Ponting is the
> best batsman since Bradman. But one could make a good case for him
> being the best Australian bat since Bradman.
>
>
>
> > Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> > somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> > greats batted.
>
> That's why some of the 'in my day' brigade were reluctant to
> acknowledge the merit of Bradman. Bradman certainly lacked the grace
> of Trumper or Hobbs. Ponting's muscularity is part of his greatness.
> His technique isn't copybook always, but highly effective. It is
> churlish and unsupportable to describe him lacking in brilliance and
> to suggest he lacks 'ease'. He seems to score runs with a great deal
> of ease.
>
I admit I have only seen a few old videos on the interweb but
otherwise I am ignorant of Bradman's style other than what I have
gleaned through articles on the web.
But, I was under the impression that he was a decent stylist.
>
>
> > For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
> > same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
> > Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
> > at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
> > lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
> > a Tendulkar.
>
> Looks and results are 2 entirely different things. Despite the
> somewhat worthless nature of ODOs, Hayden has recently proved that he
> is a giant in both forms, due to various factors, including massive
> self belief and mental resilience. He aint always pretty at the
> crease. Ponting has many attractive shots, but his strength (like
> Bradman) lays less in the pure aesthetics of his play than results.
>
> In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing. This
> is related to the similarity perceived by the Don viz. his and SRT's
> batting style, I would suggest. I mean, SRT often doesn't do things by
> the book. A lot of heaves across the line, often lifts the ball
> whereas classical style dictates that the ball should be kept along
> the ground as much as possible, often rather minimal foot movement.
He did resort to some good old-fashioned slogging at times but more
often than not his style was by the book. Def more than Ponting IMO.
He prob falls short of Lara and Waugh in the regard but only in
regards to some of his shots imo.
> I
> don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
> straight drive. And he is more of a FWB than Lara (or Ponting).
You have sure picked the wrong shot to compare... :) SRT's straight
drive is considered to be the most elegant shot by many critics. I
have personally seen it so many times that I am baffled by it's
elegance.
SRT's main flaw stylistically is his pull shot -- other than that I
have to put him as one of the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen of
the era. Lara does edge him aesthetically by a fair margin but then I
think Lara is the best batsman ever in that regard so :) it would be
an unfair comparison.
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Apr 23, 6:04 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> > in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> > Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> > necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> > of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>
A lovely book, far better than Bruce Harris's effort on the same
topic.
Rodney Ulyate
The cricket blog to which I grudgingly contribute: http://crickex.blogspot.com/
My Wikipedia talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robertson-Glasgow
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Apr 23, 6:04 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
> > in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> > Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> > necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> > of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>
> Jack Fingleton's "The Ashes Crown the Year" - a diary of the 53 Ashes
> incredibly young age - think 19 or 20, which was well below the normal
> age for any player to undertake such a significant tour.
He was actually only seventeen (22 years younger than his captain),
although Harris assured his readers that Craig "looks a mature 20".
Fellow tourist Ron Archer, meanwhile, was only nineteen.
Gumby
>
> NO EXCUSES for Ponting..........In my book, Sachin is still #2 to
> Don......
>
> Mat I NO Runs HS1 HS2 HS3 Ave 100 50 0
>
> unfiltered 110 183 25 9368 257 242 207 59.29 33 36 8
> filtered 8 14 0 172 60 18 16 12.28 0 1 3
>
>
i agree (for once with you Benny), Ponting even had a dodgy injury that
ruled him out of the last Indian series.
suspect!
Gumby
> To go back to the original question, I would still have to go for Greg
> Chappell. Batsmen have to much in their favour these days for a meaningful
> statistical comparison.
I'd like to agree, if you saw Chappell you saw the greatest batsman in the
modern age IMHO.
Nowadays with batsman friendly pitches, bats etc batsmen like Ponting have a
real legup. Probably Ponting third.
eusebius
Well, I don't. Perhaps he contracted it in 1930. There is no
categorical evidence that he did so, however. I don't doubt that he
was physically weakened by his tour experience.
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Apr 23, 11:16 am, Voice of Reason <sasidha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:04 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> > > Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> > > quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> > > anyone?
>
> > > in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
> > > Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
> > > necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
> > > of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>
>
> > > Mike
>
> > > --
>
> > I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
> > before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> I don't put anybody in the same 'echelon' as Bradman. At best, Mike
> and others give Ponting the status of 'next echelon down' from
> Bradman. I don't think anybody can make a strong case for Ponting
> being in the same class as Bradman. I don't think that Ponting is the
> best batsman since Bradman. But one could make a good case for him
> being the best Australian bat since Bradman.
>
>
>
> > Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
> > somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
> > greats batted.
>
> Have you ever seen Bradman bat? Bradman had a fairly rough style.
> That's why some of the 'in my day' brigade were reluctant to
> acknowledge the merit of Bradman. Bradman certainly lacked the grace
> of Trumper or Hobbs.
There is that awesome slow-mo of a Braddles cover-drive...
> Ponting's muscularity is part of his greatness.
> His technique isn't copybook always, but highly effective.
That, at the end of the day, is what matters.
> It is
> churlish and unsupportable to describe him lacking in brilliance and
> to suggest he lacks 'ease'. He seems to score runs with a great deal
> of ease.
That is a matter of opinion, surely, but I agree with you.
> In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing.
I have to disagree with you there, eusebius. Nothing, to my mind,
could possibly measure up to the matchless poise and miraculous
grandeur of a Tendulkar drive on the up through extra-cover, who
hadn't ever a hope in hell. Tendulkar's front elbow was always high
and proud, the weight proportioned glitchlessly as he made his
imperial forward-bow into the stroke, an overused term wholly
vindicated in this case: there was hardly ever any discernible force
or effort; he just "stroked" it (one might almost say affectionately)
with the assured ease that comes with faultless timing. To see that
was to see batting at its very best, and how I long to see it again.
rodney...@gmail.com
> In article <phmn239fke9khap8b352vvsgq2ldllk...@4ax.com>,
>
> >An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> >Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> >quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> >anyone?
>
> A shortlist would include:
>
> Neil Harvey
> Greg Chappell
> Allan Border
> Steve Waugh
> Matthew Hayden
> Ricky Ponting
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Apr 23, 8:14 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > Jackson died too early; he's one of the great what-mights of cricket
> > along with Duleepsinhji and Collie Smith.
>
> He scored a mighty slab of his runs in one innings (not out, mind
> you). Still, it is probable that illness blighted much of his test
> career, including the 1930 tour, which was probably where he acquired
> the TB which ultimately killed him. 1930 was a very wet summer, no?
Shades of the tragic Fred Grace.
rodney...@gmail.com
"Look here, Neville," said Barnes, speaking to the immortal Cardus one
day in the press box, "I've got an idea. What about me slipping a
carbon paper into my copy today for you, and you can do the same for
me tomorrow? We both right the same sort of stuff."
Jack Fingleton thought it "true to say that that was the only time I
have ever seen Cardus stumped for a word".
eusebius
> On Apr 23, 2:18 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I admit I have only seen a few old videos on the interweb but
> otherwise I am ignorant of Bradman's style other than what I have
> gleaned through articles on the web.
>
> But, I was under the impression that he was a decent stylist.
>
There is beauty in utility. But for the English, Bradman's style was
'agricultural'. There was little obvious outward finesse in his play
(to the viewer of the time). His batting didn't overwhelm by its
charm, as Trumper's and Hobbs' (and Kippax' and Spooner's and
Jackson's for that matter) had done. His batting was never pretty,
although I for one don't find the muscularity of Bradman and Ponting,
and at times SRT, necessarily ugly.
snip
>
> > In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing. This
> > is related to the similarity perceived by the Don viz. his and SRT's
> > batting style, I would suggest. I mean, SRT often doesn't do things by
> > the book. A lot of heaves across the line, often lifts the ball
> > whereas classical style dictates that the ball should be kept along
> > the ground as much as possible, often rather minimal foot movement.
>
> He did resort to some good old-fashioned slogging at times but more
> often than not his style was by the book. Def more than Ponting IMO.
> He prob falls short of Lara and Waugh in the regard but only in
> regards to some of his shots imo.
I agree that he is more stylish than Ponting, but don't see that he is
overwhelmingly more stylish. SRT is(was?) also a run machine. I have
never been entranced by the beauty of his strokeplay, necessarily.
Perhaps I have seen few of his greatest innings.
>
> > I
> > don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
> > straight drive. And he is more of a FWB than Lara (or Ponting).
>
> You have sure picked the wrong shot to compare... :) SRT's straight
> drive is considered to be the most elegant shot by many critics. I
> have personally seen it so many times that I am baffled by it's
> elegance.
>
> SRT's main flaw stylistically is his pull shot -- other than that I
> have to put him as one of the most aesthetically pleasing batsmen of
> the era. Lara does edge him aesthetically by a fair margin but then I
> think Lara is the best batsman ever in that regard so :) it would be
> an unfair comparison.-
See, aesthetics is a subjective business. Now Lara isn't as pretty as
Gower, or as classical as Greg Chappell. But I do find his play
beautiful. Same with Dravid's straight drive, which is a classical
stroke.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:emso23538sntca139...@4ax.com...
>> From what you say, you deem it impossible for anyone to have a more
>> rational set of criteria for judging greatness than they have for
>> choosing a favourite colour. From this you apparently conclude that
>> any discussion of "who's the greatest?" is useless.
>
>Not at all. You placed Bradman indisputably as the greatest batsman. As far as
>the "figures" you disparaged are concerned, there is no doubt that he is at the
>top of the tree. Well, from what I've read and learned of him, I would pay more
>to watch Viv Richards, Trumper or Sobers bat than Bradman. You were the one who
>impicitly excluded batting style as a criterion by asking who is the second
>greatest after Bradman. The only way you can put Bradman unquestionably at the
>top is by his figures, not his style, since style is subjective. Then you get
>all precious and offended that I deduce what was bleedingly obvious.
We're in danger of having a slanging match where none is necessary,
and if I've been rude I apologise.
To be tediously pedantic, the original question was who was the
greatest Ausssie bat *since* Bradman, which only establishes a start
point in time (although somewhat fuzzily).
And you can't put Bradman unquestionably at the top even if you use
figures. It depends on what figures you choose. Among Australians,
several have made more Test runs, Ponting and Steve Waugh have made
more centuries, and Hayden has made more runs in an innings. Go
worldwide, and there are plenty in each category. You can only put
Bradman unquestionably at the top if you choose most runs in a series,
career average or ratio of centuries to innings as your measure - and
any is an arbitrary choice. Why isn't the measure how well you could
do on a particular day rather than the average of how you did on all
the days you played?
Actually, some people might well place Bradman at the top of the
aesthetic tree. Bradman was a contemporary of the Bauhaus, Le
Corbusier and van der Rohe, who preached that aesthetic perfection lay
in form being adapted to function: in coming up with a batting style
which was precisely tuned to the reliable mass-production of runs,
Bradman was the ultimate Modernist. (This probably makes Reggie
Spooner the ultimate Pre-Raphaelite: even those writers who call him
the greatest English batsman acknowledge that their opinion is at best
over-romantic and at worst downright silly.)
I'm not a Modernist, and I suspect few cricket fans are. Mostly we
like our cricket to have unnecessary frills and excessive flourish at
times - partly because we know that so much cricket is boringly
functional and we love the man who can help us pretend that it isn't.
Therefore we rebel at being told to admire someone whose cricket
doesn't titillate as well as achieve, and we hope against hope that
the glorious exhibitionist will be able to make the runs which will
allow us to call him great.
Style is a factor in greatness, just as weight of runs is. How each
judge balances them is an individual choice.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Grinner
"Voice of Reason" <sasid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177295821....@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 22, 10:06 pm, ants.b...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>> > in all corners of the world under intense media scrutiny, when bowling
>> > and fielding are much more refined sciences and the wicket is larger,
>>
>> Thats all well and good, but the bowling standards these days are
>> absolute rubbish to what players in the late 70s and 80s had to deal
>> with. Ponting is a class player, no doubt, but he would not have the
>> figures he has today if he was playing in that era.
>>
>> Bowling may be more of a science now, but in terms of actual talent,
>> world cricket is a desert compared to the era above.
>
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that at all -- there were always class
> bowlers and there still will be.
>
> I don't know how you forgot greats like Akram and Waqar who dominated
> the early 90s.
>
> Then came the era of the spinners with Warne and Muralitharan.
>
> And, even in this era, the pacemen weren't lacking. Pollock, McGrath,
> and Vaas aren't as fearsome as some of the West Indian giants but
> their impeccable line and length more than compensates for their lack
> of pace. And, for however transient a period, Akthar showed us a
> glimpse of true pace and swing.
>
> The new generation of Flintoff, Bond, Bracken, and Lee seem promising
> -- I am especially impressed by the first. Freddie is a very talented
> bloke and can achieve a lot if he could just get his head together.
>
. . and not have to play those bloody Australians.
Grinner
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:8s_Wh.66910$mJ2....@fe10.news.easynews.com...
> JPD wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 8:04 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>>> anyone?
>>
>> earlier references which suggested that status for Ponting - and
>> curiously, there were murmurs of discontent.
>>
>> That Ponting can average nearly 60 in both Test and first-class
>> cricket, in the modern era where he gets much less rest and must play
>> in all corners of the world under intense media scrutiny, when bowling
>> and fielding are much more refined sciences and the wicket is larger,
>> counter-arguments are that there were high-averaging batsmen in past
>> decades when pitches were less favourable to batting, when the bats
>> were thinner and less forgiving of minor error and when the boundaries
>> of the fields - especially for Australian batsmen - were bigger. And
>> before the 1980s there was no such thing as a full-time professional
>> Australian player. Ponting can devote most of his time to improving
>> his game, whereas Chappell or Chappell or Walters or Lawry or Harvey
>> had to earn a living whilst practising on the side.
>>
>> Still, Ponting's yield is higher than any of those guys. You can't
>> give the title to someone with a short career, because Bradman's
>> achievement was not merely to average 100 but to also to score more
>> total runs and centuries than any other Australian and to prevail for
>> 20 years. Ponting has a way to go to match that career, but as
>> previously discussed on this group, he will likely reach 15000 Test
>> runs. One will struggle to argue for a different candidate.
>>
>>> necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
>>> of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
>>
>> but that is all. Many are called but few are chosen.
>
> Many are called but few are chosen and only one was Bradman.
>
> That notwithstanding, Ponting is an A++ batsman who will surely rank
> at the end of the day as one of the ATGs.
Sure, I don't think Ponting goes to bed at night worrying about his average
anywhere including India.
sdavmor
I think that's really well stated. Certainly nails my opinion.
Grinner
> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> anyone?
No. But still, you can't compare now to then. The rigours of now, one day
internationals, world cups, more touring just don't stack up. Ponting's
become a GREAT batsman, but you you can't evaluate him with Waugh and Taylor
because he's maintained his ODI form. . . . but then there's the ashes :-).
IMO he's more batsman, and then a captain. Waugh, Taylor and Border were
better test captains.
Bradman was an invincible batsman and captain, for his day never played ODIs
and far less test tours.
Can they say that of Tendulkar, whom Bradman himself rated #2?
Then again Don Bradman's not around to see Ricky Ponting in his prime is he?
sdavmor
> his efficiency, it's uncanny. But, I have found him to be wanting of
> some elegance and felt he could do with a little bit more polish to
> his strokes.
OK. I find Punter "close enough for jazz" in the elegance department,
while acknowledging that there are far prettier stroke-makers around.
But were I penciling an all-time Oz post-Bradman XI, I can't help but
think Ponting would be the first batsman on my list. And that's with
several more years to go on his career. Barring injury I think the
next 4-6 years will cement his place right behind Bradman.
sdavmor
ROTFL!
That's brilliant.
John Hall
eusebius <euseb...@gmail.com> writes:
>Harvey's record against England is also rather mediocre (amazingly in
>his day England were by far Aust.'s best opposition, with superb pace
>and spin, just before the advent of the mighty WI pace attack of the
>60s, which Harvey also played against).
Given that that was so, I think that 2416 runs at 38.34 was pretty good.
With a Test career against England lasting from 1948 to 1962-3, it's
hard to find any Australian Test contemporaries to compare him with.
> He rather gorged himself on a
>fairly weak SA.
--
John Hall
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
John Hall
eusebius <euseb...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Apr 23, 8:33 pm, "Cicero" <moofi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> "Mike Holmans" <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:821p23hhpmgq2ns9f...@4ax.com...
>>
>> playing but he seemed to have any number of quirks even while playing.
>
>
>He refused to tow the establishment line. On one occasion he arrived
>at the crease with a toy bat. He wrote controversial newspaper
>columns. He wasn't personally popular with Don, although the Don had a
>high opinion of his ability, apparently in 1948 after a close run
>county game Don said something along the lines of 'from now on, either
>Sid or I must play in every game'. Evidently Don considered Sid second
>best. And I keep typing Syd. Confusing to have 2 homonymous greats.
>
And both of whom refused to toe the establishment line.
BenjaminFranklin
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1177310878.0...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 23, 4:31 pm, "BenjaminFranklin" <BenjaminFrank...@America.com>
> wrote:
>> "eusebius" <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>
>>
>> > In any case, I have never found SRT that aesthetically pleasing. This
>> > is related to the similarity perceived by the Don viz. his and SRT's
>> > batting style, I would suggest. I mean, SRT often doesn't do things by
>> > the book. A lot of heaves across the line, often lifts the ball
>> > whereas classical style dictates that the ball should be kept along
>> > the ground as much as possible, often rather minimal foot movement.
>>
>
> He hits the ball in the air a lot off the spinners even at test level,
> and therein exhibits relatively minimal foot movement as well,
> especially against pace. Not always, but enough to be not classical,
> which is the point, not that he isn't an outstanding player, which he
> is (was?)
When in prime, SRT was considered a mixture or combination of Dravid and Sir
Viv in batting style.......
>> >I
>> > don't think, for example, that SRT has a stroke as elegant as Dravid's
>> > straight drive.
>>
>> SRT has a text book classis straight drive as good as dravid's
>
> So, are you a SRT fan or not?
I am FAN of ALL "DESERVING PLAYERS".......
BenjaminFranklin
Actually SRTs straight drive is more elegant and aesthetic than even
Dravid's..........
But when it comes to "pure aesthetics", even SRT and Dravid are NO MATCH for
Laxman.......
Some quotes:
VVS Laxman is the most pleasing to watch - David Firth
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wac/content/story/136391.html
Batting in its pristine form
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/137311.html
India seized the momentum early in the morning, as Laxman and Tendulkar
smashed Brett Lee for seven fours in three overs to hit him out of the
attack. Laxman hit five of these, with wristy flicks and elegant drives that
evoked memories of the last time he played at Sydney, when he smashed a Stan
McCabesque 167. Having got the day off to a blazing start, though, the
batsmen then focussed on careful consolidation, playing the bowling on its
merit.
Laxman's innings was all sense and sensuousness, with swathes of studied
watchfulness punctuated by passages of dazzling brilliance. He caressed
balls that pitched outside off through the leg side with the most delicate
flicks of the wrist; he cut and drove on both front and back foot with
flowing grace; and yet, there was no risk in his batting. His shotmaking was
judicious, while his strokeplay was magisterial.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/137307.html
Steve Hague
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 11:58:51 +1000, "David W" <n...@email.provided>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>job
>>done, i.e., style vs. substance. As a spectator, style is usually the more
>>important to me, but it's highly subjective. I gather that Mike had in
>>mind more
>>objective criteria, such as batting average, speed of scoring, scoring
>>runs when
>>they're needed most etc.
>
> You would be well advised to desist from reading my mind, as you are
> not very well acquainted with it. I am one of the least likely people
> to be seduced by reams of figures: my contempt for the use of career
> batting average as some kind of answer to "how good was he?" knows few
> bounds, as is well-attested by my posting history.
>
> "Greatest Australian batsman since 1948" is a title which can be
> bestowed on anyone who meets the individual judge's criteria.
>
>
> Mike
One criterion I would use is this: if I had to choose someone since Bradman
to score a century to save my life, it would be between Gavaskar, Boycott
and Steve Waugh. So on that basis I would choose Waugh over Ponting, but of
course there are other criteria.
Steve Hague
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>> 2 Why was Ian Craig thought of as a possible next Bradman and why
>> didn't it come true?
>He was from NSW?
>
>He started playing FCC at a very young age (by Aust. standards) 16y
>249d after great success as a schoolboy. He started well in FCC
>including a 213* against the touring South Africans, which catapulted
>him into the test team. It wasn't merely the amount of runs he scored
>(or the state for which he played) which attracted notice, it was the
>manner and the composure he displayed, evidently the selectors felt he
>was a player of the Future. So much so he was persevered with, on and
>off, for 5 years including a stint as captain, depite Brearley like
>results with the willow. Craig eventually contracted hepatitis and
>retired, which was a boon undoubtedly for the Aust. selectors, who
>gleefully installed Benaud.
Thanks for that. I was particularly unaware of the hepatitis, which
explains why he disappears completely rather than being sighted in the
Sheffield Shield or playing against touring teams later on.
Ames makes reference to the double century, which was obviously a very
impressive performance indeed.
Cheers,
Mike
--
rodney...@gmail.com
Excuse my ignorance, but for what does that stand?
cricd...@hotmail.com
> Actually, some people might well place Bradman at the top of the
> aesthetic tree. Bradman was a contemporary of the Bauhaus, Le
> Corbusier and van der Rohe, who preached that aesthetic perfection lay
> in form being adapted to function: in coming up with a batting style
> which was precisely tuned to the reliable mass-production of runs,
> Bradman was the ultimate Modernist. (This probably makes Reggie
> Spooner the ultimate Pre-Raphaelite: even those writers who call him
> the greatest English batsman acknowledge that their opinion is at best
> over-romantic and at worst downright silly.)
>
> I'm not a Modernist, and I suspect few cricket fans are.
Without wishing to divert the conversation to Modernism (although
I suspect there will be few takers, anyway), let me mildly observe
that
there are different strains in Modernism. There's the utilitarian
kind,
some of whose proponents you mention above, and there's the organic
kind typified by the great Eva Zeisel (on an even more tangential
note,
the model for the prison interrogation bits in Arthur Koestler's
"Darkness at Noon"). As Charles Eames said to an interviewer
who wanted to know if modern design had to be useful: "Who says
pleasure is not useful?"
sdavmor
ROTFL = Rolling on the floor laughing
others related:
LOL = Loud out loud / lots of laughs
LMAO = Laughing my arse off
leading to (for the funniest things):
ROTFLMAO = Rolling on the floor laughing my arse off
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>On Apr 23, 7:18 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
As you say, it's not worth a diversion. It is surely sufficient for my
argument that Gropius could have designed Bradman's batting.
Cheers,
Mike
>
>
>
>
--
Rod
>Well, the one player who contrived to get out in soft fashion more
>than Mark Waugh is Gower (honourable mention, C.L. Hooper)
Yet has a much better record and likely to have at least 6 scores
higher than MEW's highest score.
I still put MEW below Gower in that regard.
Cheers,
Rod.
Mango
> On 22 Apr 2007 18:16:57 -0700, Voice of Reason <sasid...@gmail.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>>> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>>> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>>> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>>> anyone?
>>>
>>I find it hard to disagree as well. Yet, I have a few misgivings
>>before putting him in the same echelon as a Bradman.
>
> been the best Australian batsman since 1948. It makes no assertion
> that the nominated individual is fit to lick Macartney's or Trumper's
> boots, let alone Bradman's.
>
>>Although Ponting is producing the goods with amazing consistency,
>>somehow he lacks the brilliance, the ease with which some of the
>>greats batted.
>>
>>For instance, I simply can't put someone like Lara and Ponting in the
>>same boat. Even Mark Waugh looked more brilliant at his best than
>>Ponting. Granted, this may seem a controversial position esp looking
>>at Ponting's recent matches, but I still can't help feeling that he
>>lacks the natural flair, the originality, the masterclass of a Lara or
>>a Tendulkar.
>
> sublime. In a way, perhaps that makes him a worthy second to Bradman,
> for much the same was said of him.
>
Bradman himnself said there were plenty of players who could bat better than
him, its just that they got out more.
> It also doesn't help that he has played for such a dominant team.
> Perhaps his achievements get less recognition than they might because
> there's usually been another batsman or a couple of bowlers sharing
> the limelight. He would have been a lot more obvious as an outstanding
> player if he'd been a Kiwi.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
sdavmor
Which was a very clever way of reminding people that he was top gun.
>> It also doesn't help that he has played for such a dominant team.
>> Perhaps his achievements get less recognition than they might because
>> there's usually been another batsman or a couple of bowlers sharing
>> the limelight. He would have been a lot more obvious as an outstanding
>> player if he'd been a Kiwi.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mike
--
Cicero
>
>
> India seized the momentum early in the morning, as Laxman and Tendulkar
> smashed Brett Lee for seven fours in three overs to hit him out of the
> attack. Laxman hit five of these, with wristy flicks and elegant drives
> that evoked memories of the last time he played at Sydney, when he smashed
> a Stan McCabesque 167.
I would query what the author knew of McCabe- and even what he means by
"McCabesque".
Cicero
> On Apr 23, 10:19 pm, "Cicero" <moofi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> > Archie Jackson? Nahh, he was another of those 'great white hopes' who
>> > didn't really materialize into anything. Yes, he did contract
>> > consumption at a very young age, but not whilst he was playing test
>> > cricket. Apparently he was extremely elegant (something Bills
>> > Woodfull, Ponsford, and even Brown, weren't, but all were still better
>> > performed and able bats than Jackson).
>>
>> Umm- exactly how do you know when he contracted consumption?
>
> Well, I don't. Perhaps he contracted it in 1930. There is no
> categorical evidence that he did so, however. I don't doubt that he
> was physically weakened by his tour experience.
>
Very difficult to tell. It is clear he suffered pretty badly prior to his
death in 1933.
Mad Hamish
<mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
>Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
>quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
>anyone?
It's arguable
I'd say it probably really comes down to him and Greg Chappell, maybe
Neil Harvey, Steve Waugh and Hayden being other contenders
>
>Certainly it wasn't Ian Craig although, in his autobiography published
>in 1953, Les Ames wrote of him as though a lot of people expected
>Craig to at least be the next ATG Australian batsman, if not
>necessarily Bradman's peer. Why did people (not necessarily everyone,
>of course) think that, and why didn't it happen?
huge initial impact in first class cricket followed by a couple of
series doing nothing much then a break for national service then
another couple of series then hepatitus.
Then decided there was more money in business
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Cicero
> On Apr 23, 2:14 pm, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 23, 8:14 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Jackson died too early; he's one of the great what-mights of cricket
>> > along with Duleepsinhji and Collie Smith.
>>
>> you). Still, it is probable that illness blighted much of his test
>> career, including the 1930 tour, which was probably where he acquired
>> the TB which ultimately killed him. 1930 was a very wet summer, no?
His family believed he contracted TB on the 1927/28 tour of NZ where he
helped carry an ill team mate (Karl Schneider) down Mount Cook when
Schneider started bleeding. (Schneider, one of the stars of the tour would
die 6 months later at 23 of leukaemia). There doesn't seem any evidence to
support this though.
Cicero
>
> Can they say that of Tendulkar, whom Bradman himself rated #2?
> Then again Don Bradman's not around to see Ricky Ponting in his prime is
> he?
>
Maybe someone can clarify this, but from my memory of the Bradman interview
(with Ray Martin), Bradman never rated Tendulkar No #2 behind him. What I
thought he said, was of all modern batsmen, Tendulkar was the one most
similar in style to himself.
David W
> On Apr 23, 8:27 pm, "David W" <n...@email.provided> wrote:
>> "Mike Holmans" <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > What people who saw him and played against him have told me (I admit
>> > I've never talked to anyone who played for the same team as he did),
>> > as well as what I have read in works of history and contemporaneous
>> > reports.
>>
>> > >and what did you believe
>> > >respondents would know?
>>
>> > Whatever they know.
>>
>> > >> bestowed on anyone who meets the individual judge's criteria.
>>
>> > >what's-your-favourite-colour kind of thread. Sorry.
>>
>> > It is impossible to answer "Who's the greatest?" without saying what
>> > "greatest" means, or at least having an idea. Since there is no
>> > absolute definition of greatness, it is down to each individual judge
>> > to make up his or her own mind what greatness is.
>>
>> > From what you say, you deem it impossible for anyone to have a more
>> > rational set of criteria for judging greatness than they have for
>> > choosing a favourite colour. From this you apparently conclude that
>> > any discussion of "who's the greatest?" is useless.
>>
>> Not at all. You placed Bradman indisputably as the greatest batsman. As far
>> as
>> the
>> top of the tree. Well, from what I've read and learned of him, I would pay
>> more
>> to watch Viv Richards, Trumper or Sobers bat than Bradman. You were the one
>> who
>> impicitly excluded batting style as a criterion by asking who is the second
>> greatest after Bradman. The only way you can put Bradman unquestionably at
>> the
>> top is by his figures, not his style, since style is subjective. Then you get
>> all precious and offended that I deduce what was bleedingly obvious.
>>
> doesn't rate raw numbers anywhere near as high as you impute. I think
> it is Australians who are pretty well universal in their acclamation
> of Bradman as the greatest ever. Not just of Australians, either. Mike
> is merely following this unanimity in his underyling assumptions. Not
> only that, but if I might be a little presumptuous and second guess
> Mike,
He doesn't like people doing that, but you appear to have escaped without a
reprimand.
> I really don't think that he considers raw run scoring to be
> irrelevant in judging the greatness of a willow wielder. You might;
No, I don't. Obviously, to appreciate any player's style he has to be able to
stay in for a reasonable time and score a decent number of runs.
> but really, what is better to watch, a Ponting century, with brutal
> strokeplay, or an extremely elegant duck from Mark Waugh? Surely at
> some point, the winning of a game is important.
Yes.
> Surely cricket is a
> game to be won, no? I love watching beautiful cricket, but I also
> enjoy watching winning cricket. I enjoy playing to win. Not at all
> costs; not at the expense of style; but I have to play my own game,
> and not allow style to come at the expense of winning. Hence, Bradman,
> a player with style but not a servant of style, is the choice of
> nearly all Australian fans (and most world fans), the greatest run
> scoring machine ever known.
Whatever his style was, I don't think it has contributed one iota to his
reputation in Australia as cricket's greatest batsman. If it has, it has escaped
my notice.
David
David W
news:vvaXh.18414$M.1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
That's my recollection too.
will s
> An article in The Guardian recently referred to Ricky Ponting as
> Australia's greatest batsman since Bradman. I hadn't thought of it
> quite like that before, but I was hard put to it to disagree. Does
> anyone?
Yes I disagree. The bowling attacks of most sides are just about the weakest
I have seen over a decade and this has allowed Australia to dominate. Since
Don Bradman puts a lot of players in the equation and as I have not seen
half of them its hard to agree with that statement but if you mean based on
his stats then it would be hard to disagree. I guess if I was not biased
against Ricky then maybe I would agree but I just dont like him.