Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

[courtjester]

Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Border and Ponting are distinctly different players. Border, like Waugh, was a battler rather than a talented batsmen with all the shots.

(from LionsthenDaylight in the Ponting thread)

Just wanted to pick up on this and the other thread is locked. I thought it needed clarification.

Border was not a "battler" as you put it. There has been an image created around him as a "battler", but I wonder from what you say if you ever saw him play cricket. Border was a very talented batsman, with all the shots, who knew how to not go out in Australian cricket's toughest period. Border had all the shots, he had a sublime cover drive and straight drive, his pull shot was powerful, he was a beautiful leg-glancer and he also knew how to turn the strike over. Border averaged over 50 at a time when Australia's next best batsmen (Boonie) averaged 43 (respectable for the era, not many av. over 50 in the 80s). He faced the best era of pace bowers in the history of the game: Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Dev, and he excelled. Border was way more than a "battler". I reckon if he was playing now he'd be averaging plus 60.

 

[macca]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

(from LionsthenDaylight in the Ponting thread)

Just wanted to pick up on this and the other thread is locked. I thought it needed clarification.

He faced the best era of pace bowers in the history of the game: Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Dev, and he excelled. Border was way more than a "battler". I reckon if he was playing now he'd be averaging plus 60.

He was fantastic against the spinners as well remember. He would dance yards and yards down the track and drive them or cut and pull them to pieces.

He used to routinely murder Warne in the nets as well.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

He used to routinely murder Warne in the nets as well.

So did pidge. But Border was a great batsman. This battler image has been formed because he didn't give his wicket away under pressure unlike most of the current australian team bar maybe ponting and hussey.

 

[Kram81]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Good thread.

He was a class player that often seems to get forgotten about when people talk about the great batsman imo. Over the summer when they showed the World Series replays it made me remember how magnificent some of his strokeplay was.

More than handy orthodox spinner as well.

 

[courtjester]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Good thread.

He was a class player that often seems to get forgotten about when people talk about the great batsman imo. Over the summer when they showed the World Series replays it made me remember how magnificent some of his strokeplay was.

More than handy orthodox spinner as well.

I agree. I think he is probably in the top 5 Australian batsmen of all time. I'd say:

Bradman
G.Chappell
Ponting
Border
N.Harvey

are the best middle order players we've had. Of course, there is Doug Walters, S & M Waugh, Stan McCabe and a few others. But Border is right up there.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

(from LionsthenDaylight in the Ponting thread)

Just wanted to pick up on this and the other thread is locked. I thought it needed clarification.

Border was not a "battler" as you put it. There has been an image created around him as a "battler", but I wonder from what you say if you ever saw him play cricket. Border was a very talented batsman, with all the shots, who knew how to not go out in Australian cricket's toughest period. Border had all the shots, he had a sublime cover drive and straight drive, his pull shot was powerful, he was a beautiful leg-glancer and he also knew how to turn the strike over. Border averaged over 50 at a time when Australia's next best batsmen (Boonie) averaged 43 (respectable for the era, not many av. over 50 in the 80s). He faced the best era of pace bowers in the history of the game: Ambrose, Marshall, Garner, Hadlee, Imran, Wasim, Dev, and he excelled. Border was way more than a "battler". I reckon if he was playing now he'd be averaging plus 60.

Here we go, glorification of the past, the punks today don't know how easy they have it, yeah, yeah. If Border was playing today he'd probably average the same as he did back then.

For all the talk about how flat wickets over-inflate batsmen's averages, there is never the thought that perhaps today's bowlers would make hay on the uncovered wickets from the past.

If McGrath averaged 21 bowling on roads, than how would he have gone bowling on uncovered wickets. If Johnson is averaging 28 today, how would he have gone bowling on a raging seamer; what about Steyn? Not to mention the likes of Singh, Vettori and Mendis. If your going to bleat about the flat wickets making batsmen look good, then surely it is fair to say that today's bowlers just may be a bit better than many people give them credit for?

Border was a battler, who made the most of his talent, just like Steve Waugh. These batsmen were not child prodigys earmarked as future superstars from the age of 12. They didn't blaze a trail of shots, leaving bowlers in their wake.

I remember Ian Chappell telling a story about Ponting at the academy when Ponting was 17; Chappell always says he saw Ponting playing at 17 and knew he was a test player in the making. Rod Marsh said something similar.

My original point was that the public more readily identifies with those batsmen, like Waugh and Border, who have a reputation for being battlers. The maestros often get a more lukewarm reception, almost like it comes to easy for the likes of Ponting and Clarke.

That was the original point, FWIW's, I'd take Ponting over Border in a heartbeat. A better batsmen, fielder and captain.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Here we go, glorification of the past, the punks today don't know how easy they have it, yeah, yeah. If Border was playing today he'd probably average the same as he did back then.

For all the talk about how flat wickets over-inflate batsmen's averages, there is never the thought that perhaps today's bowlers would make hay on the uncovered wickets from the past.

If McGrath averaged 21 bowling on roads, than how would he have gone bowling on uncovered wickets. If Johnson is averaging 28 today, how would he have gone bowling on a raging seamer; what about Steyn? Not to mention the likes of Singh, Vettori and Mendis. If your going to bleat about the flat wickets making batsmen look good, then surely it is fair to say that today's bowlers just may be a bit better than many people give them credit for?

Border was a battler, who made the most of his talent, just like Steve Waugh. These batsmen were not child prodigys earmarked as future superstars from the age of 12. They didn't blaze a trail of shots, leaving bowlers in their wake.

I remember Ian Chappell telling a story about Ponting at the academy when Ponting was 17; Chappell always says he saw Ponting playing at 17 and knew he was a test player in the making. Rod Marsh said something similar.

My original point was that the public more readily identifies with those batsmen, like Waugh and Border, who have a reputation for being battlers. The maestros often get a more lukewarm reception, almost like it comes to easy for the likes of Ponting and Clarke.

That was the original point, FWIW's, I'd take Ponting over Border in a heartbeat. A better batsmen, fielder and captain.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA the highlight of my day!

All it needed was a 'you know nothing about cricket' comment and the post would've been top 3 all-time piles of crap put together from LtD.

Having said that, the above slots comfotably in the top 10 all-time Wall of Shame.

Border was not a battler, he dominated the best attacks world cricket had seen since the War. A battler would be someone who averaged 35 and looked like getting out every over. As someone said previous, you only need to watch 15 mins of Border batting in the World Series flashbacks on tv etc to realise we was a gun who had all the shots.

So please get a grip LtD, your stupid comments and farcical views on Ponting/Watson/Victoria/Border/anyone anti-Australian are turning posters away.

Note: way to go on getting as much Ponting post-time as possible previously.

 

[courtjester]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Here we go, glorification of the past, the punks today don't know how easy they have it, yeah, yeah. If Border was playing today he'd probably average the same as he did back then. .

Nothing to do with glorification of the past mate. I was merely stating that I thought your comment about Border being a "battler" was ill-conceived and plain wrong. I would strongly suggest that no batsman in the present (an any) era has had to face any sort of bowling attack as the ones Border (and his peers) faced. If you knew much about cricket you'd know that. That's not glorification of the past, it's plain fact. So it stands to reason, that all things being equal, he would average more against today's weaker attacks.

For all the talk about how flat wickets over-inflate batsmen's averages, there is never the thought that perhaps today's bowlers would make hay on the uncovered wickets from the past. .

Border didn't play on uncovered wickets, so I fail to see how that relates to this argument.

If McGrath averaged 21 bowling on roads, than how would he have gone bowling on uncovered wickets. If Johnson is averaging 28 today, how would he have gone bowling on a raging seamer; what about Steyn? Not to mention the likes of Singh, Vettori and Mendis. If your going to bleat about the flat wickets making batsmen look good, then surely it is fair to say that today's bowlers just may be a bit better than many people give them credit for?.

I didnt mention flat wickets at all. I mentioned the fact that in the 1980s, the standard of bowling in test cricket was considerably higher than it is today.

Border was a battler, who made the most of his talent, just like Steve Waugh. These batsmen were not child prodigys earmarked as future superstars from the age of 12. They didn't blaze a trail of shots, leaving bowlers in their wake. .

Do you know much about the history of cricket? Steve Waugh was initially a dasher who modified his game to suit the team. Check out the 1989 Ashes series. S.Waugh was hardly a battler. So, by your logic, anyone who doesn't get endorsed by a former player at the academy before turning 17yo is a "battler"?

I remember Ian Chappell telling a story about Ponting at the academy when Ponting was 17; Chappell always says he saw Ponting playing at 17 and knew he was a test player in the making. Rod Marsh said something similar..

And how does that relate to Border being a "battler"?

My original point was that the public more readily identifies with those batsmen, like Waugh and Border, who have a reputation for being battlers. The maestros often get a more lukewarm reception, almost like it comes to easy for the likes of Ponting and Clarke.

That was the original point, FWIW's, I'd take Ponting over Border in a heartbeat. A better batsmen, fielder and captain.

The public identified with Border because he was all we had in our worst period of test cricket, and he was bloody good. They identified with him because he maintained an average of 50 playing mostly against the WIs who were shit hot and England and Pakistan who were reasonable.

I ask again, do you know about cricket history? No one has said "Border is better than Ponting". If I was picking an all time Australian side, Ponting would be the 3rd middle order batsman chosen. And Border would be the 4th. He is far more than a "battler". And anyone who thinks he was a battler needs to brush up on Cricket History 101.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Nothing to do with glorification of the past mate. I was merely stating that I thought your comment about Border being a "battler" was ill-conceived and plain wrong. I would strongly suggest that no batsman in the present (an any) era has had to face any sort of bowling attack as the ones Border (and his peers) faced. If you knew much about cricket you'd know that. That's not glorification of the past, it's plain fact. So it stands to reason, that all things being equal, he would average more against today's weaker attacks.



Border didn't play on uncovered wickets, so I fail to see how that relates to this argument.



I didnt mention flat wickets at all. I mentioned the fact that in the 1980s, the standard of bowling in test cricket was considerably higher than it is today.



Do you know much about the history of cricket? Steve Waugh was initially a dasher who modified his game to suit the team. Check out the 1989 Ashes series. S.Waugh was hardly a battler. So, by your logic, anyone who doesn't get endorsed by a former player at the academy before turning 17yo is a "battler"?



And how does that relate to Border being a "battler"?



The public identified with Border because he was all we had in our worst period of test cricket, and he was bloody good. They identified with him because he maintained an average of 50 playing mostly against the WIs who were shit hot and England and Pakistan who were reasonable.

I ask again, do you know about cricket history? No one has said "Border is better than Ponting". If I was picking an all time Australian side, Ponting would be the 3rd middle order batsman chosen. And Border would be the 4th. He is far more than a "battler". And anyone who thinks he was a battler needs to brush up on Cricket History 101.

Your misinterpreting my assessment of Border as a "battler"; Border was a magnificent batsmen that had a reputation for getting 'hard' runs, he wasn't as naturally talented as say Ponting? Fair enough? Calling Border a 'battler' might have been the wrong term, at no stage was I doubting his batting ability.

The original point has been taken out of context . As I said, the public IMO, more readily identify with the likes of Waugh and Border who have a 'over my dead body' approach to batting when compared to those batsmen who were earmarked for greatness at a young age. Fair enough?

The 1980's standard of bowling was very patchy from what I have seen on television. Watching foxsports highlights from classic world series gives me the impression that apart from the Windies there wasn't much around; some of the bowlers look like club pros.

Rather, this is a classic case of people letting myth overtake fact. Most of the bowlers that are playing today would destroy lineups if they had the benefit of playing on uncovered decks.

I called Border a battler in regards to how the public viewed him, and how the public readily identifies with those type of players.

That was the original point, you have taken it, and turned it into something completey different.

Well done.

 

[courtjester]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

I'm not sure I'm the one letting myth overtake fact, as you say. There is a myth about Border's dogedness and "battler-ness", but in actual fact he was a magnificent batsman who thrived in a tough era.

The 1980's standard of bowling was very patchy from what I have seen on television. Watching foxsports highlights from classic world series gives me the impression that apart from the Windies there wasn't much around; some of the bowlers look like club pros.

Kapil Dev
Malcolm Marshall
Ian Botham
Richard Hadlee
Imran Khan
Abdul Qadir
Joel Garner
Bob Willis
Courtney Walsh
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding
Anil Kumble
Iqbal Quasim
Ravi Shastri
Waqar Younis
Andy Roberts


Fact is, nearly all the bowlers Ponting faces look a lot more like "club pros" than the ones Border faced. Try and think of elite bowlers (not from Aust) that have had careers concurrent to Ponting (let's say last ten years). Probably only Murali and Steyn are elite, then there are guys like Vaas, Vettori, Kumble and Ntini who are very good. You cannot POSSIBLY argue that bowlers outside Australia have been better in the last 10 years than they were in the 80s.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

LOL at Ravi Shastri being one of the 'bowlers', bona fide pie thrower.

 

[courtjester]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

LOL at Ravi Shastri being one of the 'bowlers', bona fide pie thrower.

Stats weren't great, but he took 4 wickets in an innings 11 times and 5 wickets in an innings twice. His average and strike rate weren't great, but he was bloody economical and hard to get away.

Well done on completely ignoring the other 16 elite bowlers posted.

 

[cold case]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Good thread.

He was a class player that often seems to get forgotten about when people talk about the great batsman imo. Over the summer when they showed the World Series replays it made me remember how magnificent some of his strokeplay was.

More than handy orthodox spinner as well.

I don't think he has been pushed aside regarding the all time greats. He has been involved within the team atmosphere since departing as a player. He is almost on every commentry in some way or another. And lastly , didn't they name a medal after him. Even tight arse grumpy Bradman wasn't the chosen one.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Ravi Shastri would be a greater than if not equal to the calibre of players such as: Powell, Fernando, White, Colleymore, Mullally etc all of whom Ponting has played against.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Fact is, nearly all the bowlers Ponting faces look a lot more like "club pros" than the ones Border faced. Try and think of elite bowlers (not from Aust) that have had careers concurrent to Ponting (let's say last ten years). Probably only Murali and Steyn are elite, then there are guys like Vaas, Vettori, Kumble and Ntini who are very good. You cannot POSSIBLY argue that bowlers outside Australia have been better in the last 10 years than they were in the 80s.

LtD if you can argue that effectively then we will stop bagging you and your apparent 'cricketing knowledge'.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

I'm not sure I'm the one letting myth overtake fact, as you say. There is a myth about Border's dogedness and "battler-ness", but in actual fact he was a magnificent batsman who thrived in a tough era.



Kapil Dev
Malcolm Marshall
Ian Botham
Richard Hadlee
Imran Khan
Abdul Qadir
Joel Garner
Bob Willis
Courtney Walsh
Wasim Akram
Curtly Ambrose
Michael Holding
Anil Kumble
Iqbal Quasim
Ravi Shastri
Waqar Younis
Andy Roberts


Fact is, nearly all the bowlers Ponting faces look a lot more like "club pros" than the ones Border faced. Try and think of elite bowlers (not from Aust) that have had careers concurrent to Ponting (let's say last ten years). Probably only Murali and Steyn are elite, then there are guys like Vaas, Vettori, Kumble and Ntini who are very good. You cannot POSSIBLY argue that bowlers outside Australia have been better in the last 10 years than they were in the 80s.

I never said he wasn't a magnificent batsmen FFS. I simply made the point that Border, like Waugh, had a reputation for fighting tooth and nail and that the public more readily identified with these type of players, especially when compared to those players who were earmarked as future test players from a young age (ie, Ponting and Clarke).

Is that a fair enough statement? Considering the shit Ponting and Clarke cop from the Australian public I'd think it's a fair statement.

You seem incapable of acknowledging this?

Ponting has faced a load of gun bowlers: Murali, Kumble, Gough, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Vaas, Vettori, Cairns, Bond, Younis, Aktar, Kaneria, Mustaq, Saqlain. That took me 10 seconds.

Those guys would have torn it up if they had the advantage of playing on the more 'sporting' wickets that were on offer in the 80's, hell, imagine if they also had the benefit of playing on uncovered wickets that some past bowlers did.

Todays bowlers have to deal with fast outfields, flat decks and small boundaries yet everyone reckons there are no decent bowlers worldwide other than one or two.

You telling me Ponting wouldn't be able to handle Kapil Dev and his 'trundlers' or Ian Botham's seamers?

Give me a break.

Dev and Botham would be averaging 30+ with the ball if they were playing today.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

LtD if you can argue that effectively then we will stop bagging you and your apparent 'cricketing knowledge'.

Oh yeah champ, I was at the Gabba in the 96/97 season (might have been the one before) when Ponting took to Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop batting at 3 when he was 21. Distinctly remember him putting one of them into the stands off a blistering hook shot.

I reckon Ponting would have been just fine quietly.

Add Flintoff to that list of gun bowlers Ponting has faced as well.

 

[a for effort]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Well, that settles it. Border was a battler because LtD saw Ponting hit a six this one time.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

I never said he wasn't a magnificent batsmen FFS. I simply made the point that Border, like Waugh, had a reputation for fighting tooth and nail and that the public more readily identified with these type of players, especially when compared to those players who were earmarked as future test players from a young age (ie, Ponting and Clarke).

Is that a fair enough statement? Considering the shit Ponting and Clarke cop from the Australian public I'd think it's a fair statement.

You seem incapable of acknowledging this?

Ponting has faced a load of gun bowlers: Murali, Kumble, Gough, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Ntini, Vaas, Vettori, Cairns, Bond, Younis, Aktar, Kaneria, Mustaq, Saqlain. That took me 10 seconds.

Those guys would have torn it up if they had the advantage of playing on the more 'sporting' wickets that were on offer in the 80's, hell, imagine if they also had the benefit of playing on uncovered wickets that some past bowlers did.

Todays bowlers have to deal with fast outfields, flat decks and small boundaries yet everyone reckons there are no decent bowlers worldwide other than one or two.

You telling me Ponting wouldn't be able to handle Kapil Dev and his 'trundlers' or Ian Botham's seamers?

Give me a break.

Dev and Botham would be averaging 30+ with the ball if they were playing today.

I'm not doubting Pontings ability you muppet. I'm saying that Border easily had the tougher of the decades bowling wise. Your 10 second list was/is nowhere near the list of courtjesters.

Border wasn't as dogged or as battler-esque as you think, have you actually seen him bat? I wasn't alive when he was going around and in his prime, but have seen many highlights of him and his batting. He was a gifted strokemaker who could play on both sides of the wicket and had amazing feet to the spinners. To sterotype him as a 'battler' isn't doing him any justice whatsoever.

Nealry each test he played in was against high-quality bowlers (Eg: the Windies 80's), unlike some tests this era where some attacks can be quite mediocre (Take your pick). Don't throw the flat-wicket, fast-outfield crap at me either, it is highly irrelivent. If anything it highlights how great Border actually was.

And for the record, I am capable of acknowledging your point, I just strongly disagree with it. Like Border, Waugh was a highly talented strokemaker also, but made his game suit the team as his residence in the side wore on. I don't think there 'reputation for fighting tooth and nail' made the public like or dislike them anymore or less.

Also, FFS stop bringing up 'uncovered wickets'.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Border- From Ltd's Ponting love fest thread....

Oh yeah champ, I was at the Gabba in the 96/97 season (might have been the one before) when Ponting took to Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop batting at 3 when he was 21. Distinctly remember him putting one of them into the stands off a blistering hook shot.

I reckon Ponting would have been just fine quietly.

Add Flintoff to that list of gun bowlers Ponting has faced as well.

This also makes the top 10, congrats. You're on a hot streak, keep the lolz coming please

Also, the irony is that Flintoff is not a gun.