Ponting push to send cup minnows packing

[Griffo]

What ever the best team may be, manners and respect for others has been taught to all right from the school days

A person may be genius/highly educated in world but it doesn't mean that he shd criticise the ppl who are not upto his level which will make the character without education a waste. Similar thing applies to not only in cricket but in general as a human. :cool:

totally bringing the conversation out of context its not a dictatorship here its cricket

Very curious to know how its best for world cricket?

* A Team must know how to compete with a stronger team to gain more experience.

Take Bangladesh as an example, it grew step by step.. and its looking dangerous now.. it wud be no suprise if they become dominating one day too. If Ponting's comments apply here, they wud have stopped cricket and looked for a better profession long yrs back

im not saying it is its ricky pontings opinion and he is entitled to it

 

[surendar]

totally bringing the conversation out of context its not a dictatorship here its cricket

Actually i was referring to that " arrogance " point.

Ricky Ponting CAN be arrogant, because he is that good, the whole Aussie team can be arrogant because they are good

 

[Griffo]

cricket is a buisness people arent going to buy tickets to a 5 match series between bermuda and australia

 

[angryangy]

Similarly, you wouldn't ask a C Grade team to play an A Grade team simply because they're both cricket teams.

I really don't see how Bangladesh are evidence that lesser teams should be invited to the World Cup. Considering they've only managed 11 matches at World Cups, their improvements as a team are quite clearly unrelated to the tournament.

Teams improve by playing together regularly, in competitive circumstances. They don't improve just by playing 3 matches against the best teams every four years. If you want to see them develop, it has to be much more complex.

 

[Leicester Fox]

at the end of the day this is just Ponting being nasty. these players obviously don't have the same talent as he does but this is still their big moment that they work their whole career for and just because he has 2 world cups doesn't mean that the tournament was made for him. Maybe he should realise that their are real people playing for the minnows who have built their whole careers around this moment

 

[Sureshot]

Similarly, you wouldn't ask a C Grade team to play an A Grade team simply because they're both cricket teams.

I really don't see how Bangladesh are evidence that lesser teams should be invited to the World Cup. Considering they've only managed 11 matches at World Cups, their improvements as a team are quite clearly unrelated to the tournament.

Teams improve by playing together regularly, in competitive circumstances. They don't improve just by playing 3 matches against the best teams every four years. If you want to see them develop, it has to be much more complex.

Correct me if I'm wrong but New Zealand were slower to reaching a win than Bangladesh. Add to that, that didn't the Bangladesh U-19s just beat their Australian counterpartsw down under? (May have been last year).

 

[sohum]

How highly can you rate him, Tendulkar is a great batsman, yes, he was once the best in the world, but he is not even India's best at the moment, the fact is, Ricky Ponting CAN be arrogant, because he is that good, the whole Aussie team can be arrogant because they are good, people don't like it because they are good.

The debate is not whether he can be arrogant or not, it is whether he is or not. And he quite clearly is.

Similarly, you wouldn't ask a C Grade team to play an A Grade team simply because they're both cricket teams.

But in the end, they're all vying to compete in the same league: international cricket. They're fighting and improving to represent their countries against other countries. They definitely stake more claim in playing an international match than a C Grade team has in playing an A grade team.

I really don't see how Bangladesh are evidence that lesser teams should be invited to the World Cup. Considering they've only managed 11 matches at World Cups, their improvements as a team are quite clearly unrelated to the tournament.

The point is not to count the number of matches that Bangla has played at the World Cups and attempt to determine how much of their improvement has come from each of these matches. The point is that playing against international opposition has helped Bangla grow. Exposure against quality opposition is ALWAYS going to make the game more exciting in your country. So what if Netherlands got thrashed by Australia? That gem of an innings from Gilchrist will inspire some Dutch fan to get himself a bat and try out the game. Associates will never get the chance to play international, quality opposition outside of the World Cup. Maybe a 3-match tour once in 4 years, but nothing more than that. They've shown that they can play good cricket when they've played each other, so it's time to step them up to the next level. It's not like we are suggesting a random associate to play at the World Cup--these are the associates that have topped their league.

Teams improve by playing together regularly, in competitive circumstances. They don't improve just by playing 3 matches against the best teams every four years. If you want to see them develop, it has to be much more complex.

There is an upper bound to playing each other, though. If this was not the case, then domestic teams would be able to compete with international teams. Why? Well they've been playing together regularly, in competitive circumstances.

The World Cup just has an aura of spectacularity that will definitely attract and create more fans for a non-cricketing nation. For example, I do not chart the Indian sports teams (minus cricket) in the random tournaments that they play. As soon as I see that it is a World Cup that they are playing in, be it a sport like football or rugby, I will take some time to find out how they are doing.

 

[manee]

You're just speaking out of your pants now. Claiming that Tendulkar is not under the pressure of close to a billion people thinking that India's success rides on him is equivalent with claiming that water doesn't get you wet.

Rubbish metaphor() but good point.

Tendulkar in matches won: Not out 29 times! Average: 56.73
Tendulkar in matches lost: Not out 2 times! Average: 32.33

 

[pominoz]

The main argument here was that most of us agreed that 'the little twit' Ricky Ponting is absolutely arrogant, and that his often ?stupid comments? are nothing but blight on international cricket and its need to move forward in world standings.

People like Ponting need to take more heed from ?arguably? the two greatest sportsmen (in their respective sports) of all time, Roger Federer and Tiger Woods. These two are genuine role models for all children, they?re both humble, polite, kind, they work hard in their sports to help others achieve, you never here any of them (especially Federer) say they don?t want to play in a tournament because there?s people playing in it that are ranked lower than top 100? Even though ?more times than not? they make the final round, they still start in round 1 like every other player. Go figure Ponting, has anyone ever told you that playing sport was always about being a ?good sport? yourself.

 

[Cricketman]

Add Sachin Tendulkar to that list. Dominated the game longer then Punter. Played the game for 17 straight years, breaking record after record after record...with his feet flat firmly on the ground.

Ponting, take some notes.

 

[smssia0112]

Adam Gilchrist is the best wicket keeper-batsman in the world playing for the best team in the world. Can you explain why it is that people don't hate him? You think maybe its because he doesn't exhibit arrogance?

As for the point about pressure, I don't think you're quite familiar with the Indian public and the media. There's no doubt that Ponting has pressure, but he doesn't have to deal with people burning his effigies or being blamed for every loss no matter how good/bad he plays. Sachin does.

1)As I said, not everyone feels that way, I'm sure there are a lot of people who don;t like Adam Gilchrist, but yes as you said, I'll agree that talking yourself up doesn't get you too many fans.

2)Well no he doesn't, but just because he doesn't have barbaric fans like that doesn't mean he isn't under pressure.

Add Sachin Tendulkar to that list. Dominated the game longer then Punter. Played the game for 17 straight years, breaking record after record after record...with his feet flat firmly on the ground.

Ponting, take some notes.

Once again, how highly can you possibly rate him? He is a great batsman yes, but not one of the greatest sportsmen ever. And re the above post and yours, being humble is not something every human exhibits, in an ideal world all good sportsmen would be so, but being arrogant does not change the fact that he is the best batsman in the world, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath have been arrogant, but they were still the best spinner/pace duo in the world, seems less people hate McGrath than Ponting.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Add Sachin Tendulkar to that list. Dominated the game longer then Punter. Played the game for 17 straight years, breaking record after record after record...with his feet flat firmly on the ground.

Ponting, take some notes.

Ponting's been a way better batsman for years. Tendulkar never dominated like Ponting did. If Tendulkar was as good as people say he is, then he'd would've been averaging a bradmanesque for the last several years.

 

[sohum]

Once again, how highly can you possibly rate him? He is a great batsman yes, but not one of the greatest sportsmen ever. And re the above post and yours, being humble is not something every human exhibits, in an ideal world all good sportsmen would be so, but being arrogant does not change the fact that he is the best batsman in the world...

How this opinion of yours, that Ponting is the best batsmen in the world, is veiled as a fact, is something I will not understand. And the same goes for Ponting--how highly can you possibly rate him?

Ponting's been a way better batsman for years. Tendulkar never dominated like Ponting did. If Tendulkar was as good as people say he is, then he'd would've been averaging a bradmanesque for the last several years.

How old are you? Perhaps not old enough to watch the days that Tendulkar did in fact dominate. You must surely remember the times when Warne had nightmares about Tendulkar? Or the one where Warne bowled a bouncer in a test match at Tendulkar because he had been smashed all over the park in that over?

Or maybe you would have been around sometime during Tendulkar's career when he broke the Test aggregate barrier. Or the one day aggregate barrier. Or perhaps even the time when he crossed 50 international centuries. You surely must have seen Tendulkar destroy all opposition in the 2003 World Cup.

No, definitely all the evidence and feats of Tendulkar amount to only one thing: that Ponting has been a better batsman for years. All statistics and experts aside, I guess you hit the nail on the head.

 

[cricketmad09]

It's the world cup. These nations play cricket. Why disallow them the opportunity to play.

The game needs to grow, so we need to give them this opportunity.

Ponting's been a way better batsman for years. Tendulkar never dominated like Ponting did. If Tendulkar was as good as people say he is, then he'd would've been averaging a bradmanesque for the last several years.

As much as I love Ponting and sticking up for my own country, you're an idiot.

 

[aussie_ben91]

How this opinion of yours, that Ponting is the best batsmen in the world, is veiled as a fact, is something I will not understand. And the same goes for Ponting--how highly can you possibly rate him?

Only behind Bradman? Or perhaps Viv Richards?

How old are you? Perhaps not old enough to watch the days that Tendulkar did in fact dominate. You must surely remember the times when Warne had nightmares about Tendulkar? Or the one where Warne bowled a bouncer in a test match at Tendulkar because he had been smashed all over the park in that over?

Or maybe you would have been around sometime during Tendulkar's career when he broke the Test aggregate barrier. Or the one day aggregate barrier. Or perhaps even the time when he crossed 50 international centuries. You surely must have seen Tendulkar destroy all opposition in the 2003 World Cup.

No, definitely all the evidence and feats of Tendulkar amount to only one thing: that Ponting has been a better batsman for years. All statistics and experts aside, I guess you hit the nail on the head.

Old enough to know that Tendulkar never dominated like Ponting has. When did I ever say Tendulkar never dominated? I guess you also don't need Warne to get Tendulkar out when he became a regular bunny for McGrath & Dizzy Gillespie.

And don't start with this "Tendulkar faced the 90s bowlers" because that's just as raw as me saying millions of players would've already passed 50 international centuries or beaten the aggregate if they had've played as many matches/innings as Tendulkar has. I'm almost sure Tendulkar had a fabulous time smashing around the minor teams in the '03 WC.