More proof of why Ricky Ponting is easily the greatest batsman of the modern era.

[khalek]

Yeah Punter's a legend, I hardly see him choke. All his greatest innings come when Australia need him the most, unlike some other legends who are just inconsistent and choking all the time.

 

[sohum]

Punter is not a bad person at all even Kumble would have called a match such as the Sydney Test a great achievement there is no big deal in that and remember Cricket is based on luck too...If you become your country's greatest captain you'll obviously call it a great achievement

Do you even understand logic? It would have been a great achievement had India won that match despite everything that went against them. Sure, cricket is about luck, but what happened in that match was a lot more than the average share of luck per side in a game.

sohummisra added 0 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...

:

Who wouldn't call it a great achievement is more like it. We took 3 wickets in an over to win it was a historic moment.

I wouldn't. : It was a historic moment for many other reasons.

 

[jordox]

I wouldn't. : It was a historic moment for many other reasons.

No I agree with Matt. Disregarding all the umpiring mistakes and everything, if you just look at it at face value: India had 9 minutes to draw the game, Clarke took 3 wickets. That's pretty amazing, regardless of what else went on.

I'll give him the superstar, but to be a legend you need around 1/2 a billion people looking up to you

Hitler sprang into my mind immediatley.

To be a legend you have to do amazing things, it has nothing to do with who is the most popular. Van Gough for instance....

Legends should be remembered by the things they achieve, not their groupies.

 

[sohum]

No I agree with Matt. Disregarding all the umpiring mistakes and everything, if you just look at it at face value: India had 9 minutes to draw the game, Clarke took 3 wickets. That's pretty amazing, regardless of what else went on.

Why should you disregard things that obviously had a HUGE part to play in the final result. Anyone who claims that victory as a testament to their own talent instead of the IMMENSE amounts of luck dealt to them should be eating their own tongue.

Here's an analogy. Imagine the US bombing enough of Iraq that there are more US soldiers there than Iraqi citizens, and hence are able to instate a democracy. Making the statement "disregarding the loss of so much human life, you just look at it at face value: Iraq used to be a tyranny, they are now a democracy." would be analogous.

 

[mattfb]

Why should you disregard things that obviously had a HUGE part to play in the final result. Anyone who claims that victory as a testament to their own talent instead of the IMMENSE amounts of luck dealt to them should be eating their own tongue.

It doesn't matter. Snatching a win from a game which was set for an almost certain draw is fantastic.

 

[sohum]

It doesn't matter. Snatching a win from a game which was set for an almost certain draw is fantastic.

It does matter to many people. Just because you lack the ability to recognize the many, many factors that were at play in that Test match does not mean that you have the right to write them off.

In my opinion, it's only fantastic if you choose to turn a blind-eye to all the nonsense that ensued before. And I repeat, if you honestly go to sleep taking pride from that victory, then I don't respect your character too much (as is the case with Ponting).

 

[jordox]

Why should you disregard things that obviously had a HUGE part to play in the final result. Anyone who claims that victory as a testament to their own talent instead of the IMMENSE amounts of luck dealt to them should be eating their own tongue.

9 Minutes to go. 3 wickets.

You can't talk your way around that.

 

[sohum]

9 Minutes to go. 3 wickets.

You can't talk your way around that.

I don't see you countering any of my points. Repetition doesn't count as anything in this case.

A test match is played over 5 days, not over 9 minutes. If you choose to ignore everything that transpired in the 29 hours and 51 prior minutes of the game, that is your own folly, not mine.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

For example, what player with any sort of humility would claim the victory in Sydney 2007 as a "great achievement" after all the events that transpired over that match? As a batsman there is no doubting his class, but as a person, I think he's as bad as Hayden thinks Harbhajan is.

Still not over it? Clarke pawned you, i call that an achievement in itself. Maybe if the Indians could handle a part time spinner they might of had a chance!

 

[k3nichi]

I would like to see a poll on this one, it would have been interesting.

Ricky Ponting the greatest batsman of the modern era?

For me hes up there, and no one have to agree with me.

 

[jordox]

I don't see you countering any of my points. Repetition doesn't count as anything in this case.

A test match is played over 5 days, not over 9 minutes. If you choose to ignore everything that transpired in the 29 hours and 51 prior minutes of the game, that is your own folly, not mine.

3 Wickets in 9 minutes. 9 Minutes to hold on. How often does a part time spinner take 3 wickets in the last over to make a result in a drawn match?

I agree with everything you are saying, the game was dodgy as all hell but you somehow can't understand what Clarke did.

But anyway, everyone is over it, even the Australian's are, and you know what that bunch is like.

 

[sohum]

3 Wickets in 9 minutes. 9 Minutes to hold on. How often does a part time spinner take 3 wickets in the last over to make a result in a drawn match?

I agree with everything you are saying, the game was dodgy as all hell but you somehow can't understand what Clarke did.

But anyway, everyone is over it, even the Australian's are, and you know what that bunch is like.

I understand what Clarke did was pretty rare. I have a problem with Ponting and his train of Australian fanboys claiming it was a brilliant victory when there was so many other poor events plaguing that match. It was a brilliant individual spell of bowling, a brilliant 10-minute span but it was NOT a brilliant victory.

10 years from now, I guarantee that the Sydney test will not be remembered for Clarke's performance as much as it will be for the pathetic umpiring and the controversy that ensued. That in itself will be testament to the fact that the victory for Australia was not as well-deserved as Ponting makes it out to seem.

Anyhow, we have trailed quite far off topic now.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

Your right, it won't be remembered for Clarkes peformance. It will be remembered for the pathetic attitude India showed after the game and why Australia has a new found hate for India.

 

[jordox]

I understand what Clarke did was pretty rare. I have a problem with Ponting and his train of Australian fanboys claiming it was a brilliant victory when there was so many other poor events plaguing that match. It was a brilliant individual spell of bowling, a brilliant 10-minute span but it was NOT a brilliant victory.

I agree with you there.

10 years from now, I guarantee that the Sydney test will not be remembered for Clarke's performance as much as it will be for the pathetic umpiring and the controversy that ensued. That in itself will be testament to the fact that the victory for Australia was not as well-deserved as Ponting makes it out to seem

In India, you're right, in Australia you're wrong. In all other countries, it wont really be remembered all that much.

 

[Cricketdude]

Very true Jordox.