While some will reject stats on the basis they don't like what they show/ suggest, they need to be reflected.
Brian Lara (131 Tests)
11953 runs @ 53.89. (HS 400no, SR 60.52)
100 x34, 50 x48 (ducks x17)
Sachin Tendulkar (198 Tests)
15837 runs @ 53.87. (HS 248no, SR not available)
100 x51, 50 x67 (ducks x14)
Ricky Pointing (168 Tests)
13378 runs @ 51.85 (HS 257, SR 58.72)
100 x41, 50 x62 (ducks x17)
In fairness to Lara he did bat for a fair while in a declining West Indies side, with little support bar the likes of Chanderpaul and Sarwan. Ponting batted in a strong aussie side, Indian batting sides are generally strong with the likes of Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag and Dhoni.
Lara scored 375 against England, on a flat track granted, but a massive effort to break the World Record which no one else had done in donkey's years of star batsmen. Then Hayden broke that record against the powder puffs of Zimbabwe before Lara decided England should give him the record back by him taking 400no off them.
As for the 153no highest rated innings ever, here's a summary of that Test. Steve Waugh made 199 and Ponting 104 to help the aussies recover from 144/4 to 490 all out, a bowling attack fronted by Walsh and Ambrose, but backed up by Collins, Perry and Hooper.
West Indies made 329 all out in reply, Sherwin Campbell scoring 105 and 68 from keeper Jacobs helped them recover from 98/6. Lara made 8 against an attack boasting McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, MacGill, Ponting himself and Mark Waugh.
The aussies then collapsed 2nd innings, scoring just 146, Warne top scoring with 32. The aussies had West Indies 105/5, Lara scored 153no against that strong aussie attack - McGrath took 5/92, Gillespie 3/62 - and guided the West Indies home. Despite having to pretty much carry the innings single handedly in scoring all but half the total himself, he still scored at 59.77 runs per hundred balls.
It's no great surprise that innings is ranked very very highly, although I'd rank the efforts of Gooch in 1991 at Headingley higher, 154no against a West Indies attack of Ambrose, Patterson, Walsh and Marshall on a pitch where no side scored more than 252 and that total was thanks to said 154no from Gooch otherwise it would have been no score over 200. Maybe it was ranked lower because it wasn't the 4th innings so not seen as clearly winning the Test as if literally guiding the side over the line.
But considering the next highest score was 27 in that innings, and the next highest score 73 in the match (Richards) with only a spattering of 50s, it was phenomenal compared to a match with scores of 400+ and 100s all round.
Anyway, back to PLT.
vs England : Ponting 44.21, Lara 62.15, Tendulkar 51.73
vs South Africa : Ponting 47.38, Lara 49.00, Tendulkar 42.46
vs Sri Lanka : Ponting 46.43, Lara 86.54, Tendulkar 60.45
vs Australia : Lara 51.00, Tendulkar 55.00
vs India : Ponting 54.36, Lara 34.55
vs West Indies* : Ponting 53.43, Tendulkar 55.21
*covers when they were decent, in decline, and then poor, otherwise they most certainly wouldn't have averaged 50! I could include Pakistan but they're so up and down it would favour those batting into the more uncertain latter years
Averages against different opponents much of a muchness, unlikely to be any different given they all average 50+ in Tests overall. I'd love to know Tendulkar's SR, if you go on howstat.com then you can see where the balls faced are missing if anyone has said info. I thought I had the 1991 Playfair Cricket Annual, I have 1992 but not 1991. They could just estimate it, 11 runs scoring at probably about a run every other ball is unlikely to influence a career spanning several decades and a lot of innings too much, even if as much as 20-30 balls out.
I feel Tendulkar has entered the "bohemian rhapsody" legendary status, if you talk of the best ever song people talk on about bohemian rhapsody as if it is written in stone, not necessarily as the best, but it is a pretty ordinary song in my book and the novelty of it wasn't even that novel given John Miles' "Music" in 1974 was much the same. It's too jerky, it's too meh, but like Tendulkar, it is hyped. That isn't to say Tendulkar isn't a top top player, but just that judgement of him is swayed by default - maybe "consensus of opinion" rules uber alles.
Would definitely have either of Tendulkar or Lara before Ponting, but for me Lara just edges a very close contest.
He and Lara were the best I ever witnessed, and I am proud to say I love the era of the 90s and 2000s. The art of batsmanship cannot be compared to the era of ST and BL.
For me Ponting is the complete cricketer.
