Decade review January 15, 2010

Why Ponting was voted Player of the Decade

We asked the jury to choose on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had had on the game on the whole
271

Even friends are complaining that Cricinfo's Decade Review went on and on, and having suffered the 2007 World Cup, we know the feeling. In our defence we can only say that it was quite a decade and we were keen to cover as much ground as possible. Now the matter is behind us and we can move on to the next one.

Of course there have been questions about our very concept of a decade. Should the decade not end next year, a few of you asked. We have followed a simple principle: Do we ever refer to the year 1990 as part of the 80s? How then can 2010 be part of the noughties? Of course, there can be an argument to the contrary, but we simply made a choice.

There has been far more passionate debate about the final element in the Decade Review package, and inevitably so. It would have been a surprise had it been otherwise. But the disappointing aspect of it is how parochial some of that debate has been. Whether Ricky Ponting deserved to be the player of the decade is a question that can be asked without being narrow-minded and mean-spirited.

Happily enough for us, not a trace of nationalist bias could be found in our jury. Without breaching the confidentiality of the process, I can reveal a few trends. More Indian jury members gave the No. 1 ranking to Ricky Ponting than Australian ones did, and exactly the same number of Indians and Australians had Sachin Tendulkar among their top three players. Seven of our nine Indian panelists gave the No. 1 ranking to an Australian player, and three No. 1 rankings for Jacques Kallis came from outside South Africa.

I can exercise the liberty to reveal my vote. I didn¹t choose Ponting as my No. 1. My player of the decade was Glenn McGrath; for to me it was he more than anyone else who was responsible for Australia¹s dominance till 2007. Shane Warne had a strong case too, but he gave up playing one-day cricket in 2003. But Ponting won by an overwhelming margin, and in our collective wisdom the right choice was made.

We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole. Ponting's case went beyond the numbers alone which were staggering in any case. He led, both with the bat and on the field, Australia to two World Cup wins, and his fire has kept Australia burning even after they lost all their great players apart from him.

It was never a question of who was the best player over a whole career. In a list of all-time great batsmen, Tendulkar and Brian Lara would always be, at least in my book, ahead of Ponting. But their best years were in the 90s. As were Warne's. No batsman has dominated the decade of the bat as much as Ponting.

Cricket is a small community. It must celebrate its greats without reservation or rancour.

Sambit Bal is the editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • rtyecript on August 24, 2011, 14:50 GMT

    I really liked the article, and the very cool blog

  • Hari on August 19, 2010, 0:05 GMT

    Ponting started his career in 1990's but never scored more runs when the fast bowling legends were in full flow I mean throughout 1990's. He has scored runs in Australia, South Africa and West Indies. He has never scored in a beligerant fashion in Srlilanka, India, Pakistan(I think he never played test match there) and ENgland. How can he be considered in the league of Lara, Sachin or Hayden. Ponting is the overhyped player of decade.

  • Swapnil Pampattiwar on June 21, 2010, 18:41 GMT

    Sambit, You guys haven't selected Ricky Ponting in Australia's all time great XI then how can you declare him as the greatest player of the decade? Don't you think that its contradictory? Ponting has always failed against their biggest rival India while Sachin always scored heavily against Australia(best team). Sachin scored 120 and 90+ in 2 finals in CB series in Australia which lead India a series win. How can you forget his 103* against England in fourth innings chasing 387 successfully? How can you forget his 200* in ODI against SA? I agree that with Ponting, Australia won most of their matches. But the reason is Ponting had great fellow batsman like Hayden, Gilchrist, Clark, Hussey, Symonds with him. All of them are match winners. While Sachin has always been a lone ranger for India, still he managed a lot of victories. To win matches you need to have have good bowlers. Now compare Australian bowlers with Indian bowlers. For me Sachin is the best player of all time.

  • Smiddy2232 on March 21, 2010, 2:01 GMT

    Ricky Ponting being picked for player of the decade was an ok pick. He has taken on the job of being captain after Steve War which was a pretty hard job. He has lead Australia into winning many titles and has done a great job in scoring runs for Australia. Ponting is not my favourite player but he has earned my respect and has done a great job as captain.

  • hatrick26 on March 4, 2010, 2:12 GMT

    I disagree with Ponting being the player of the decade. My vote goes either to his compatriot Mcgrath or Kallis(a genuine allrounder). Ponting has a abysmal record in India and an away average of 50 whereas is Oz avg is 60 in tests. Aus/SA always play about 5-6 tests in Oz/SA respectively, a set schedule, which is always an advantage for him or Kallis. Ponting has played about 19 more tests in Oz than away whereas SRT/Dravid has high away tests than India..please look it up if I am lying. He is an avg. batsman away from Oz - simple fact. Any Ponting lover, please care to explain on why is that. Tendulkar,Dravid & Lara have comparable avgs away from home. I am Indian and do not have SRT, Dravid anywhere close to the top as well so I am not biased. I am not sure why CricInfo staff do not take that into account. Again, I am yet to see Ponting play a "out of the world,lone warrior" 2nd innings in ODI great innings when the going is tough as he scored only about 8 100s out of his 29.

  • jaimaruti on February 27, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    Ponting, cricketer of the Decade? hahahahahaa.... I will say it "Joke of the Decade", ask me. Ponting never faced world class bowlers and he only started playing well after 2003 when most dangerous bowlers either retired or were close to it. Secondly to Indian jurors who showed that an Indian will never support fellow Indian. Ponting always played but relied on his bowlers and he used to use his negative tactics on other team players. Australians luck always comes when they need it, due to it they either escaped loosing a match or won . Ponting always won matches only by batting first and it shows how defensive is he?. I really feel bad not for Indian did not get that award ,but for not giving it to Kallis. Lets see how will ponting win this year Ashes. I bet after loosing ashes in Australia, he will retire from cricket. However, Ponting is a world class player and one of the greatest player of cricket history, but not the greatest of all players

  • Rohit on February 26, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    To me, Murali was a shocking exclusion from the Top 3. Never in the history of the game are we going to see a bowler take as many wickets as he did in 1 decade. He has single handedly made Sri Lanka a force to reckon with, and put an additional competitive team on the world map. His impact on the game is much greater than McGrath, Kallis and Gilchrist. Kallis is huge in numbers, but not in perceived impact. And Gilchrist faded away significantly post 2007.

  • Sandeep on February 26, 2010, 12:23 GMT

    To all those who think Ponting is not good enough..is just a shame to be called a cricket fan because looking not at the stats only but as a captain supporting the team he is a frontliner. Look at the captaincy of great players like tendulkar,ganguly and their team stats...then finalise the results. now talking about the team, certainly the team was of great players but in the end it is team game not one player doing all the things.. even team india got players of great talent in the last decade but were not a good team.

  • Alwyn George on February 26, 2010, 9:28 GMT

    To those who were speaking about Ricky ponting being the most single factor for Australian dominance and to those who were speaking about his 'staggering ' statistics, I got a few questions to ask... Australian dominance in the past decade cannot be attributed to 2-3 persons alone.. Ricky ponting, Mathew Hayden, Gilchrist, Andrew Symonds, Justin Langer, Michael Hussey, Warne, McGrath, Lee, Johnson etc. All of them were match winners. The dominance of a team does not depend on a few players alone, its the overall contribution of the entire team and they were the best in their performances. And about Ricky's staggering statistics, he did not have to face the two greatest bowlers of the past decade; McGrath and Warne, unlike others. One last question, what happened to Australian dominance now? Ricky's still out there, right?

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on February 18, 2010, 16:40 GMT

    Suppose if we count only 50% test career of Tendulkar only then again it is equivalent to or more than others. His career looks like that two batsmen are playing. Even batsmen are unable to score 20 centuries normally but he scored almost 50 centuries.

    First batsman in history with 50 or plus scores are 100 or more. First one with 50 or plus scores with 10000 or more runs in history. It is not his sole responsibility to win match, there are elven players totally. He will very soon break another record of Lara with 150 or plus scores 20 times. At a moment he has 18 such scores. He scored 10 centuries against Australia with only one with six centuries at their home ground. He has ability to prove himself in other continents too. His all runs are in grounds which are 100% beneficial for team. If we see big picture then I think he is no. 1 or no. 2 batsman of all-time in test matches and only one with equal balance in one day and test.

  • rtyecript on August 24, 2011, 14:50 GMT

    I really liked the article, and the very cool blog

  • Hari on August 19, 2010, 0:05 GMT

    Ponting started his career in 1990's but never scored more runs when the fast bowling legends were in full flow I mean throughout 1990's. He has scored runs in Australia, South Africa and West Indies. He has never scored in a beligerant fashion in Srlilanka, India, Pakistan(I think he never played test match there) and ENgland. How can he be considered in the league of Lara, Sachin or Hayden. Ponting is the overhyped player of decade.

  • Swapnil Pampattiwar on June 21, 2010, 18:41 GMT

    Sambit, You guys haven't selected Ricky Ponting in Australia's all time great XI then how can you declare him as the greatest player of the decade? Don't you think that its contradictory? Ponting has always failed against their biggest rival India while Sachin always scored heavily against Australia(best team). Sachin scored 120 and 90+ in 2 finals in CB series in Australia which lead India a series win. How can you forget his 103* against England in fourth innings chasing 387 successfully? How can you forget his 200* in ODI against SA? I agree that with Ponting, Australia won most of their matches. But the reason is Ponting had great fellow batsman like Hayden, Gilchrist, Clark, Hussey, Symonds with him. All of them are match winners. While Sachin has always been a lone ranger for India, still he managed a lot of victories. To win matches you need to have have good bowlers. Now compare Australian bowlers with Indian bowlers. For me Sachin is the best player of all time.

  • Smiddy2232 on March 21, 2010, 2:01 GMT

    Ricky Ponting being picked for player of the decade was an ok pick. He has taken on the job of being captain after Steve War which was a pretty hard job. He has lead Australia into winning many titles and has done a great job in scoring runs for Australia. Ponting is not my favourite player but he has earned my respect and has done a great job as captain.

  • hatrick26 on March 4, 2010, 2:12 GMT

    I disagree with Ponting being the player of the decade. My vote goes either to his compatriot Mcgrath or Kallis(a genuine allrounder). Ponting has a abysmal record in India and an away average of 50 whereas is Oz avg is 60 in tests. Aus/SA always play about 5-6 tests in Oz/SA respectively, a set schedule, which is always an advantage for him or Kallis. Ponting has played about 19 more tests in Oz than away whereas SRT/Dravid has high away tests than India..please look it up if I am lying. He is an avg. batsman away from Oz - simple fact. Any Ponting lover, please care to explain on why is that. Tendulkar,Dravid & Lara have comparable avgs away from home. I am Indian and do not have SRT, Dravid anywhere close to the top as well so I am not biased. I am not sure why CricInfo staff do not take that into account. Again, I am yet to see Ponting play a "out of the world,lone warrior" 2nd innings in ODI great innings when the going is tough as he scored only about 8 100s out of his 29.

  • jaimaruti on February 27, 2010, 6:43 GMT

    Ponting, cricketer of the Decade? hahahahahaa.... I will say it "Joke of the Decade", ask me. Ponting never faced world class bowlers and he only started playing well after 2003 when most dangerous bowlers either retired or were close to it. Secondly to Indian jurors who showed that an Indian will never support fellow Indian. Ponting always played but relied on his bowlers and he used to use his negative tactics on other team players. Australians luck always comes when they need it, due to it they either escaped loosing a match or won . Ponting always won matches only by batting first and it shows how defensive is he?. I really feel bad not for Indian did not get that award ,but for not giving it to Kallis. Lets see how will ponting win this year Ashes. I bet after loosing ashes in Australia, he will retire from cricket. However, Ponting is a world class player and one of the greatest player of cricket history, but not the greatest of all players

  • Rohit on February 26, 2010, 23:54 GMT

    To me, Murali was a shocking exclusion from the Top 3. Never in the history of the game are we going to see a bowler take as many wickets as he did in 1 decade. He has single handedly made Sri Lanka a force to reckon with, and put an additional competitive team on the world map. His impact on the game is much greater than McGrath, Kallis and Gilchrist. Kallis is huge in numbers, but not in perceived impact. And Gilchrist faded away significantly post 2007.

  • Sandeep on February 26, 2010, 12:23 GMT

    To all those who think Ponting is not good enough..is just a shame to be called a cricket fan because looking not at the stats only but as a captain supporting the team he is a frontliner. Look at the captaincy of great players like tendulkar,ganguly and their team stats...then finalise the results. now talking about the team, certainly the team was of great players but in the end it is team game not one player doing all the things.. even team india got players of great talent in the last decade but were not a good team.

  • Alwyn George on February 26, 2010, 9:28 GMT

    To those who were speaking about Ricky ponting being the most single factor for Australian dominance and to those who were speaking about his 'staggering ' statistics, I got a few questions to ask... Australian dominance in the past decade cannot be attributed to 2-3 persons alone.. Ricky ponting, Mathew Hayden, Gilchrist, Andrew Symonds, Justin Langer, Michael Hussey, Warne, McGrath, Lee, Johnson etc. All of them were match winners. The dominance of a team does not depend on a few players alone, its the overall contribution of the entire team and they were the best in their performances. And about Ricky's staggering statistics, he did not have to face the two greatest bowlers of the past decade; McGrath and Warne, unlike others. One last question, what happened to Australian dominance now? Ricky's still out there, right?

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on February 18, 2010, 16:40 GMT

    Suppose if we count only 50% test career of Tendulkar only then again it is equivalent to or more than others. His career looks like that two batsmen are playing. Even batsmen are unable to score 20 centuries normally but he scored almost 50 centuries.

    First batsman in history with 50 or plus scores are 100 or more. First one with 50 or plus scores with 10000 or more runs in history. It is not his sole responsibility to win match, there are elven players totally. He will very soon break another record of Lara with 150 or plus scores 20 times. At a moment he has 18 such scores. He scored 10 centuries against Australia with only one with six centuries at their home ground. He has ability to prove himself in other continents too. His all runs are in grounds which are 100% beneficial for team. If we see big picture then I think he is no. 1 or no. 2 batsman of all-time in test matches and only one with equal balance in one day and test.

  • Abhyuday on February 17, 2010, 15:58 GMT

    It is amazing to see how many people attribute all of Sachin's runs and centuries as useless. How easy it is to forget how many times when the whole Indian team has failed, he has stood firm, even if ultimately India lost. I am not against Ponting being voted as the player of the decade, but show some respect to Sachin. Is every single one of his runs useless? Tell any one of those commenting on the uselessness of his runs to play like him as he did in Nagpur against SA.

  • jayant on February 16, 2010, 12:06 GMT

    i feel ponting is not the greatest but my point is different. The most dangerous team of last decade was australia because they had some legendry bowlers like warne, mcgrath, lee and gilispie. ponting has not scored against these bowlers and the pressure which the other teams feels against australia , it was the only india who has faught against australia in last decade and against them ponting has been very poor. statistatically he has scored highest runs but he is not champion at all

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur, 0091 8087551058 on February 15, 2010, 10:47 GMT

    Indian side is presently ranking number one test team and the player who has contributed most for the team is non other than Virender Sehwag. He has played magnificant cricket in the last decade. While posting this blog I was informed that Sehwag got out on 168 against south africa in the first innings of second test match at Eden Gardens. He is just superb. Yet another 150 plus. Hats off to him. He playes like Sir Viv Richards.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur 8087551058 on February 9, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    Sehwag scored another century, his 18th in the first innings against south africa. He again played like a champion in that match. Rest of the team scored nothing except 56 from new comer Badrinath. He is going to make more and more such to prove himself.

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on February 3, 2010, 17:35 GMT

    Sehwag is excellent batsman. His records are also excellent but their is a big loop inside him. His scores with 50 or plus is more than 45 in Asia with runs score 3611. Beside Asia it is only 22.85 in 48 innings with runs score 1097. In other batsman case like Lara proved himself in other continents too. Lara dominated Murli is even not the case of any other batsman. Master Piece innings are not the case of Sehwag. In third and forth innings, he mostly unable to prove himself. We should accept reality as if we are not accepting it again reality will remain true. See the big picture, you can understand what I am saying. Also he is unable to play in defensive mode. See Lara, he can play in both modes that is aggressive and defensive. Also he is unable to transform his exact skills in one day cricket just like his skills in Test. Lacking on his part is due to absence of proper batting technique with lacking in proper front foot. So my own top five are Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Dravid Haq

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur, 0091 8087551058 on February 3, 2010, 7:51 GMT

    I am not saying Sehwag is better batsman than Sachin Tendulkar or Ponting. But he has done much better for his team in the last decade than Sachin and Ponting. We are here to choose a player who has put a great impression on team's overall performance and Sehwag has done this than any other currently playing batsman. As I said earlier Adam Gilchrist could have been the only comparable player had he played till 2009-10. Sehwag deserves to known as player of last decade or atleast batsman of decade.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur, 0091 8087551058 on February 3, 2010, 7:50 GMT

    Sehwag is quite consitent and always looks hungry for runs. I challenge you all, tell me one name from any team who is comparable with Virendra Sehwag after playing as many innings as Sehwag did, considering following points,

    1. Combination of scoring average and strike rate 2. Facing a New ball in every innigs. 3. Hitting new ball and dominating pace bowlers 4. Rate of Converting a half century into a century 4.Rate of converting a century in to 150+ 5.Six double including two tripple centuries. 6.Scoring twelve 150+ out of seventeen over all centuries. 7. Facing excellent quality bowling attacks of Pakistan, Australia and Srilanka. 8. A tripple tonne against South African bowling.

    The list is so big, not going to end. I bet no one is near him. Neither ponting nor Sachin.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur, 0091808755058 on February 3, 2010, 7:29 GMT

    Facing new ball and dominate pace bowlers looks simple to virendra Sehwag, the way he faces the things. But Sunil Gavaskar is the only opening batsman who is considered as a Legend. Had Virendra Sehwag not given those magnificant opening stands in a quick time what would have been the situations of those perticular test matches afterwords. He has changed the entire game style of Indian Batting line up. No following batsman dares loose the momentum we get after Sehwag's innings. I dont think any other batsman from any other team has done this for his team in such a manner. Sehwag started his carrier in Nov 2001 against South Africa in Boemfontein, that means away. He came to bat at no. 6. Sachin was there with him and Sehwag managed to hit a century on his debut. No one could have imagined this as he was considered only an entertainer before that. In the last alomst 9 years, he never changed his batting style. He sees the bowl only. Never worried about the bowlers, pitch or conditions.

  • deej on January 30, 2010, 13:05 GMT

    Please tell me how many peatered-out test matchs has ponting played or captined? Did his batting drop-off when he became captin? Did his side free-fall with the retierment the two best bowlers in cricket & the loss of WK of the century & most effective openers ever? Indians are 1-eyed & should play more test cricket if they have a hope of staying number 1 beacuse the player of the decade is comming after your spot.

  • Partha on January 30, 2010, 12:31 GMT

    To those who dont agree with the verdict, this is sounding very much like sour grapes to me. People who say he cant play spin, take a look at his average against Srilanka. I can remember 4 of his tons in the 4th innings when Australia were chasing more than 250.On 3 occassions, Australia won (ag. SA twice (1 in SA,1 in Aus) Bangladesh once (in Ban) and drew 1 (in Old Trafford).I have not seen a better team player than Ricky, always plays according to the team needs. One of the all-time great fielders if not the greatest. Most accurate throwing arm in history. Most Test wins as captain and Player. 3 World cups, 2 Champions trophy and more to come, hopefully. What more do you want? Forget the last decade...tell me someone who has achieved more in cricket history.

  • gra on January 29, 2010, 10:22 GMT

    Dont forget that the new facing the new ball has its advantages like flies off the bat quicker, having the field up less preasure if you lose your wicket, not having to start your innings against spin and generally better pitch conditions. So if the opening bowlers dont get it right its the best time to bat.

  • Zeeshan Ahmed on January 29, 2010, 8:08 GMT

    Poting scored 438 runs in India in 21 innings with batting average 20.85 with the help of 1 century and two half centuries. Tendulkar scored 835 runs in 22 innings with batting average 39.76 which is almost 40 with the help of 3 centuries and 3 half centuries. I think comparing that Tendulkar is not great to play in S. Africa is not true. He maintained 40 batting average there whereas Ponting batting average 21 in India means he is poor in India.

    Lara batting average is 41.97 in Australia. Can we say he is not great there as his batting average is only 2 more than Tendulkar. Whenever players are playing against seven to ten countries, they slightly lack one region. So I think Tendulkar is not great in Africa is not true. Where we should rate Lara with 4 centuries and 4 half centuries in Australia in 35 innings. In 22 innings 3 centuries are enough to prove someone as compare to one century in 21 innings. It means Ponting is not technically as great as Tendulkar is.

  • Jughead on January 28, 2010, 20:18 GMT

    Many Indians seem to disagree with the decision. Grow up! To suggest as some have that India were Australia's main rival through the decade is a joke. thankfully the advent of neutral umpires means opposition sides can now win in India.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur. 0091 8087551058 on January 28, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    Facing a new ball in every first or second innings of a test match is not a simple thing. I know, a specialist opening batsman is prepared for this thing only. So Sehwag doesnt do any thing new. But no batsman faces a new ball in such a different style. When ever an innings starts, bowlers always have the benifit of new ball, its seam movments, conditions. Lot many things are there. So batsman become cautious. He doent take take too much risk and play slow cricket wating for the ball gets old. But Virendra Sehwag himself makes the the ball old by connecting it with bat most of the time. And often this connection is firm and solid. A traditional match include slow start. But not when Sehwag is there. He scores at the same rate he could have scored in the middle slot when the ball looses its shine and fast bolwers lost there effectiveness in a reasonable extent. This is a fact that batsman like Sehwag can give more number of resulted test matches than other players.

  • vishalbulbule@yahoo.com, SOlapur 0091 8087551058. on January 26, 2010, 8:15 GMT

    Virendra Sehwag is all set to prove self against South African side and improve his records against their bowling side. I am very confident about his game in the series.

  • Steve on January 26, 2010, 1:01 GMT

    The fact is, India were not and still are not Australia's "Great rival". India is certainly up there, but the Indian-Australian series will never contain as much history as the Ashes. Australia's "Great Rival" is England without a doubt.

    To say that Ponting has failed against his great rival, as a player, is stupidity (as a captain, well, that's another matter entirely).

    Having said that, Australians recognise just how tough it is to win in India. It's extremely difficult and a great challenge.

    At the end of the day, every cricket has his faults. Sachin is not so great in South Africa. Ponting is not so great in India. Kallis's bowling is not what it used to be.

    To even consider anyone outside of these three players is crazy. Warne and McGrath only played 70% of the decade.

    And it wasn't that long ago that every Indian was calling for Dravid's head because he went so poorly for so long.

    How about we just agree on a top three, unranked, of Kallis, Ponting, Sachin? Happy now?

  • Amal on January 24, 2010, 15:23 GMT

    It is impossible to see that there are some people accepting and even justifying the fact that ponting should be the 'player of the decade' when sachin is on the nominee list .He has been one of the most significant factors for Indian cricket to rise from dolorous state earlier to the current success.Moreover Ponting himself acknoledged sachin to be the best batsman of all time Who can boast the fact about having ultimate compliment from the ultimate batsman when Don Bradman confided to his wife that Tendulkar reminded him of himself. Not only his batting ,he is respected and idolised by many young stars of modern cricketers like Kevin peterson,Virender Sehwag etc.His 45 hundreds in ODIs will remain a dream of many upcoming cricketers to come any near.Has anyone seen the 175 innings he has played against aussies recently.It was byfar the best inings ever played by anyone . There is 194 frm saeed anwar,186 himself by sachin but that 175 was the one which mesmerised all including Ricky

  • Ravi on January 22, 2010, 0:56 GMT

    I think I am 48th commentor here and lots of people above me have almost mentioned what I would like to so am not going to repeat same stuff again. My comment for Ricky is that, a player should not only be scoring runs or taking wickets but also what impression he left on cricket lovers also matters. Ricky as a player and captain played with utmost less humility and that doesn't make him player of decade for me. If taken a voting of last 10 years for all nominated players for the award, Ponting would easily be most arrogant player of decade. In my opinion his arrogance is just going to keep growing after fetching this award.

  • Steve on January 21, 2010, 21:52 GMT

    The results of any player can only be judged by the quality of their opponents. It is pointless trying to compare the 80's Windies against Bradman. In this time span overall, Australia have been the dominent force in world cricket. The likes of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Hayden etc have been major influences. The fact that Ponting has been awarded so many votes having regard to the quality of players he played with and against is testament to his performance. He is being judged on his influence on cricket from a personal and team situation. Lara, Dravid, Tendulkar and Kallis are world beating cricketers but their individual performances have not led to team results in almost all environments in the same fashion as Ponting. I find the jury made a rational and well reasoned decision. No group of cricket enthusiasts will ever unanimously agree on best this or best that when it is an opinion only. Let us rejoice in the quality of all world cricketers who provide us so much skill.

  • M. Omair on January 21, 2010, 17:34 GMT

    No doubt he is one of the best batsman among his contemporaries. His consistency is marvelous. But as far as he is the best in this decade or best batsman of this century. May be it is true but one more thing is that when we compare his overall performance with Lara and Tendulkar, I think both have clear edge upon him. So many people say that Lara is inconsistent, if so how he managed 34 hundreds with 11953 runs in test. Consistency of Lara and Tendulkar is almost same but if we count only 50 or plus scores then Lara scored 9301 runs in 232 innings it means his runs per inning is 40.09 which is more than any other test batsman. He scored 5889 runs with help of 100 or plus, it means 25.2 runs per inning with the help of 100 or plus. Only player who scored 3 double hundred against Australia in which two doubles are their homeland. What about his 153 not out, best situational inning. What about his innings like 400, 375, 277. He is the only complete batsman who comprises of every thing.

  • Eddy on January 21, 2010, 12:26 GMT

    My personal opinion would have to go with ponting or probably just as deservingly kallis. kallis and pontings averages are around the same and kallis is also very handy with the ball

  • Michael on January 21, 2010, 9:43 GMT

    Ponting and Aussies are the best no doubt. When Aussies lost nothing less than 8-9 great players within a span of one year, many other captains in World Cricket would have cried out of Captaincy. In fact many from other countries did that in fact in the last decade. But Ponting still carries on and despite having lost cream of the talent, has taken responsibility for rebuilding the team, despite losing some matches and series. If you look at the last 2 years Aus performance has not slid as many believed and were wishing for. They are not vanishing like the West Indies team did after they lost the Greats from their team. Look at the latest records and we will notice Aussies are on the rise again. Very soon they will be at top again. And Ponting would have contributed significantly to that rise even though he may or may not be in team or helm of affairs as Captain when it happens. Hats off to the Man Ponting and to The Team Australia.

  • abhin on January 21, 2010, 7:39 GMT

    I whole-heartedly agree that Ricky Ponting has been the player of the decade (This despite being the fact that I am a die-hard Tendulkar fan). But as others have pointed out- he never had to face the best bowling line up :) (interesting to imagine how he would be facing the likes of mcgrath and warne). I am also disappointed with Dravid getting so few votes- the sheer number of times he has been "the wall" for the opposition and that too the challengin situations he did it, should have earned him more votes.

  • SivaCrics on January 20, 2010, 18:38 GMT

    @Mumfoda: Really? Ponting a gentleman ? He lied under oath - when Kumble and Ponting had the gentleman's agreement on catches, Ponting simply lied that his teammate took a clean catch. It was clear. He's crickets Bill Clinton - great in skill low on ethic.

  • Rekha on January 20, 2010, 17:01 GMT

    Yes surely McGrath and Gilly are the two terrefic maestroes but I see no logic in rejecting Ponting's candidature, Punter, indubitably is an unsung hero. Hats off to him!

  • saf on January 20, 2010, 15:27 GMT

    i pick brian lara, he make runs against the best bowling attack and score heavily against them especially against australia, england, sri lanka, south africa(and where those great bowlers came from.... you tell me)and for a lanfmark of setting the world record twice is some achievement. with that kind of vote for player like brian is bias

  • Lindsay Went on January 20, 2010, 13:26 GMT

    I think Kallis runs into trouble in these types of assessments because he doesn't win you many games as he's such a slow scorer and his bowling stats have been raised by great performances against the minnows. As an Australian, Kallis has never taken games off us in the way Laxman, Sehwag, tendulkar, Dravid and Lara have.

    I have no problems with people not approving of Ponting, I think McGrath is also the best choice as he was the most important player for the best team.

    However, comments such as 'he's never played a good innings or won his team a game' are patently silly and demonstrate the commenters lack of cricket knowledge.

    I still find it amusing that it's apparently Ricky Ponting's fault that fielders appeal, umpires give bad decisions, players won't walk and that 3 Indian tailenders couldn't handle one over of left arm spin by a part timer.

    Actually, with those abilities, clearly he really is the Player of the Decade as no one else could have such power!

  • Zeeshan Ahmed on January 20, 2010, 11:39 GMT

    Ponting is unable to select in dream team of cricinfo of Australia. How it is possible that he is the best in ten years. If so then it means others have serious problems. Another thing is that unable to play off spinners in Asia. His never prove himself as a batsman in India. Also at crucial times, he is unable to take correct desisions as a captain like lost of Aussie series in 2005. His record as a captain is very good because they have Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and many others.

    After Tendulkar, he scored highest no. of centuries but his runs per inning is 49.41 as compare to Dravid's 47.22 with facing Australia as well so it is very difficult to judge either Dravid is better or Ponting although Dravid has only 28 centuries in 239 innings but I think he is technically more correct than Ponting. Lara scored 153 not out against Australia. He created six to eight master piece innings like 400, 375, 277, 226, 221 + 130. Has he any inning like these innings of Lara.

  • Mumfoda on January 20, 2010, 9:54 GMT

    A lot of the posts on here are ridiculous (eg. Matt's). The Indian team displayed also displayed extremely bad behaviour throughout the entire 2007/2008 series (mainly Singh and Sreesanth). What did Ponting do? Appeal to loudly? Claim a catch that he thought he'd taken? All of the players in the review performed exceptionally well over the last decade and I have really appreciated watching them play. Petty, jealous and hysterical posts that appear on CricInfo demean all of the great players of the decade.

    Sure you may disagree with the result, but there is no need to denigrate and insult one of the greatest players of the last decade.

  • BJ on January 20, 2010, 7:45 GMT

    DJ, more like DH (d...head)

  • Isak on January 20, 2010, 7:23 GMT

    Statistics are objective and all the other criteria beyond that are subjective. Therefore, I found it utterly illogical that the objective part of the assesment was dominated by subjective judgements, hence Ponting got more votes than Kallis. How unprofessional can a panel of judges be?

  • whitma on January 20, 2010, 5:42 GMT

    Its impossible to keep everyone happy when naming the "player of the decade", Personally I probably wouldn't have picked Ponting and there are arguments for a lot of great players. Its easy to think of pros and cons for all these players. I feel there are just too many issues or arguments to consider eg: If one is a great allrounder does he have more of an influence on the gamen than if ones is a successful captain with a good win loss ratio should he be seen to be more influential or if a great batsman didn't have such a good record whilst captaining a side but still batted well..... But I dare say ultimately the players who voted are better qualified than me or anyone commenting here and unlike some of the people commenting I'm sure they just didn't name their favourate player from their own Country.... I would like to see what the result would be if all current/recent players who played for a substantial period in the last decade voted on the matter..... Either way well done Ricky

  • cricfan ;P on January 20, 2010, 0:50 GMT

    We know ponting can bat, there is no need to discuss this as many agree upon this already.

    His captaincy - the ablity to make hard decisions, take risks with bowlers, declarations and back his team is an attribute which also must at looked at.

    Pontings world class fielding has changed many a game which cant be said for lara, kallis, tendalkar. (Beyond the stats...)

    And as for dravid, he scored so slow! This may be effective in sometimes gaining runs but it does put alot of pressure on the rest of your team, and gives his team a smaller chance @ victory.

  • josh on January 20, 2010, 0:35 GMT

    i still dont understand how people are debating this.. 32 test hundreds and over 9000 runs.. its not just the numbers but the way he made them.. indian pitches are a joke flat tops that aloow batsman 2 score massive runs.. aus pitches give the bowlers a chance and he averages 60 here.. i would love 2 see his average at coming 2 the crese at 1 wicket down and the score under 10

  • ravishanka on January 19, 2010, 19:58 GMT

    I think the point that many are missing is to what extent Pontings performances effect the team. He is a total team player, whether as a player or captain. His players respect him and are prepared to follow him to the end. As good as Brian Lara is (I consider him a better bat than Ponting) he never showed a capacity to drag a team into a winning position in quite the same way. Ditto Sachin - fantastic bat (my favourite) but for all his brilliance, what does India have to show for it? Last time the trophy cabinet was opened, two japanese soliers absconded!

    Its not just about personal statistics, but how performances translate into overall team results. Ultimately, teams are out there to win games, to snaffle trophies and to harness self belief. Viv Richards was, to me, the essence of this in the 80's, even tho he may not have statisically been the best operator.

  • Surinder Dhamija on January 19, 2010, 17:50 GMT

    Dinesh i agree with you but if not Sachin then how can you ignore the best all rouder Jack Kallis.I think he deserved it.Sorry jury but its a bucn of joke.

  • Ravi Chandra on January 19, 2010, 16:42 GMT

    It is sad to see that this had boiled down to an Aussie-India bashing game. Come on guys, grow up. Ponting is a great cricketer. Accept that. Coming from an Indian that should be a great relief to many a Aussie. See things in different perspective. Aussies are born fighters whereas we have to fight to be born. These rankings and other things are only a creation of the media and does not really matter when Indians have to actually fight for their survival every day. We just do not have the luxury. Let them enjoy their moment of glory. For us, we always have Sachin to fall back on. He has 1 billion Indians supporting him. Does the opinion of a handful of jury matter. Let the matter rest at this.

  • Ravi Chandra on January 19, 2010, 16:34 GMT

    OK. Ponting is the best. Accepted. Records speak for themselves. Hindsight is always a great thing which the jurors ofcourse did not have. Is it a correct thing to rank somebody ahead of others just because he has scored runs. Don't other things matter? What about the spirit of cricket? Does Ponting hold good in this aspect. The reply is a resounding NO. The whole question is about character. Persons are judged on the basis of their work and conduct. If just work is to be taken into account, then Ponting is probably the best as records prove. If conduct of a player or a team (because he has been captain of the team during this period) does matter, then the question is open to many interpretations. Let us stop worrying about these things. These rankings are meaningless. aptain of a team Do Aussies Actually these rankings are meaningless. How do you judge a cricketer. Cricket is a game of gentlemen.

  • P Arulmani on January 19, 2010, 15:30 GMT

    It is sad that Ponting is voted as the player of the decade ahead of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara. The two are far ahead when it comes to cricketing talents and infact there are many others who are far better players than Ricky Ponting like Mutiah Murlidharan, Rahul Dravid, Anil Kumble just to name a few. These are players who played under much more challenging conditions than the Australian who was blessed with the best balanced team of the decade. Tendulkar and Lara always had to shoulder the responsibility of carrying their respective teams through their performance.But Ponting had many talented batsmen around him and who took the pressure off him! Most of the teams he played against never had the same quality of bowlers that Australia had at the same period. The Editor saying,'Ponting's case went beyond the numbers alone' is really absurd. The fact is that Ponting has nothing other than the number to show as a player. The selection defies logic and looks a comic at best!

  • Salim Mian on January 19, 2010, 10:40 GMT

    If Ponting was really the player of the decade how come he has played 11 more matches than Lara, 8 more innings than Lara and perhaps even more tellingly, faced 144 more balls MORE than Lara and still has LESS runs. Lara played in a worst team yet scored more runs in less matches, less innings and less balls faced. i rest my case. thank you and good night.

  • Mathew Scolyer on January 19, 2010, 4:52 GMT

    I would like to know why Lara and Tendulker would be ahead of ponting when all 3 have retired. It must be a different game that i watch. Lara Flashy Tendulker no flare punter got the lot.

  • RB on January 19, 2010, 1:46 GMT

    Sambit,Ponting is fine on top but to me Dravid getting 2 votes undermines the whole jury's voting pattern. May be the jury missed the point if Dravid had to get 2 votes. It is not about national bias...sachin and dravid are both Indians but the jury should have known that Dravid was far more valuable than Sachin.And same goes to Chanders who was far more valuable to WI than Lara. Shame.

  • js on January 19, 2010, 1:41 GMT

    There is no WAY Tendulkar is the player of the decade. Wouldn't be in my top 10 and certainly wouldn't even be the top Indian player of the decade (Dravid easily).

    I have to agree with the parochialism - you might as well scrap the Cricinfo site and just have one dedicated to Indian cricket. In fact, let's scrap international cricket and have the sport focus on a series between Indian club teams where international players get invited to play if they're lucky. Oh, wait...

  • ananya sanyal on January 18, 2010, 23:27 GMT

    very well said

  • Rajat Jain on January 18, 2010, 20:18 GMT

    Even though I'm a die-hard Tendulkar fan (and Ganguly, and Dravid), I do think that the player of the decade is not any of these three. Sachin, while dominant this decade as well, was not as much as when he was during the 90s. I mean, Ponting scored runs like anything. His captaincy is a bit suspect, I agree, but I think he's still doing fine after so many of Australians retired. This is a testimony in itself. Saying that he didn't score runs when conditions were hostile is a little unfair unless you compare and present stats of the other players who are being considered as well... and ultimately, it is the result is what that counts, not ifs and buts.

    Roger Federer will be considered the greatest of the last decade, not Rafael Nadal ('coz of his 13-7 H2H against Federer, and I'm a die-hard Nadal fan). Results count in unison, not bits and pieces of it.

    McGrath certainly has a case, but I think the way Ponting has led his side post 2007, gives him the edge.

  • Zeeshan Ahmed Siddiqui on January 18, 2010, 18:58 GMT

    Lara completely dominated Murli and proved himself on so many occasions. If you are saying that Ponting is player of the decade, how it is possible. He is even now unable to play off spinners. When he dominated bowlers like Lara. There is not only criteria to judge players by statistic. Also his captaincy is due to best players in team.

    My another question is that why in your list Lara and Tendulkar are only one of the best. I think both are no. 1 and no. 2 batsman including all. Tendulkar took pressure of one day and test in 20 years. If pressure of 3 one day = 1 test then he took six times more pressure of international cricket then Bradman in same period of twenty years. He played cricket on 45-50 different grounds in test only. With all respect to Sir Bradman, this is also true that he never played quality bowlers in his entire career. Like Tate left cricket in 1930 then onward to 1937, only occasion after it when he faced Verity with 100 wickets and then never happened.

  • Santosh on January 18, 2010, 18:47 GMT

    Some people are complaing about Tendulkar's match winning abilities.In 2003 world cup India are into finals on the virtue of Tendulkar being highest run getter does that mean to say taking India to finals single handedly is not an achievement because he didnot score 140 in finals. He always done well against Australia which was the best team during the decade, can we forget the CB series finals where he had won matches for India or the test match against England where he made a superb hundred in the fourth innings. He has the greatest quality of either to play defensively or aggresively when required which other contenders donot possess . I am not sure of the wins or draws % that india has achieved without the contribution from Sachin either with Bat or Bowl. So for me he is the best player of the decade for the way he conducted himself on and off the field and carrying billion people expectations on the shoulders everytime he enters the field. It's pity that still we criticize him

  • kranky on January 18, 2010, 15:52 GMT

    Interesting to note how almost no non-aussie in the comments section has backed the decision to name Ponting the player of the decade. The aussies needless to say have whinged eloquent about their captain and put down the average indian fans' comments as they are wont to do. Ridiculous to suggest that either Ponting, Sachin or Lara should vie for player of the decade when it clearly should've been a toss up between Mcgrath and Murali for reasons that need no delving into. Good on you sambit.

  • Dylan on January 18, 2010, 15:45 GMT

    Who cares about decades anyway.

    The question that should be answered is when one watch cricket, who do one really want to watch over others. here goes:

    Best batsman - Tendulkar/Lara Best attacking batsman - Sehwag (this dude is the gangster of cricket,deserves a special mention) Best bowler - Wasim Best attacking bowler - Waqar Best Spinner - Murali and Warne (split) Best fielder - Jonty Rhodes Best Captain - Definately Ponting

    ESPN

  • DINESH BABU on January 18, 2010, 14:07 GMT

    I cannot tolerate the fact that sachin is not the player of the decade.IT is the very worst thing to here.I really dissapointed to not sachin be there in that spot.i dont know wether all you guys forgot that sachin have posted many many records, you all know people not only in INDIA in OVERSEAS also peoples are seeing sachin in a different manner, wether he have not done any thing as a batsman? not at all he did every thing he won the game for india, saved the game for india with his solo performance in some occatons.Is there still any thing to do by, he is a founder of more shots in the cricket life, we guys are seeing sachin is a scientist in cricket.he is a GODFATHER OF CRICKET

  • Matt on January 18, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    Surely by looking "beyond the numbers" this would have count against Ponting, not for him. Ponting has disgraced the spirit of the game over the decade, with many examples referred to by other posters. The Australian public even turned against him and his team during the 07/08 home Indian series, which is saying something. He's done a great job holding the team together post 2007 and with the new guys coming in, that could have been his time to lead those players in a new era where his players displayed sportsmanship, and respect for the opposition and umpires but by judging the recently completed WI series, this is clearly an opportunity he has not taken (lets not even get started on Shane Watson's behaviour). And was Ponting really a great captain? Sure the statistics would say so. But for the majority of the decade he was the captain of perhaps one of the greatest teams to ever play. Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath - how hard would it be to captain that lot

  • Bollo on January 18, 2010, 13:23 GMT

    Once again, and just for the record, against the great Pakistani/SAf pace attacks of the 90s, Sachin averaged 32 in 7 tests against Pakistan, and 33 in 10 vs the Africans. Even the greats have their failings, and some of the hysterical dismissals of Pontings achievements here do the posters little credit.

  • Bollo on January 18, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    Oh, I forgot this cracker from Vivek Narayan,in support of Dravid over Ponting. Dravid has never had support at the top of the order because`Sehwag ...came a couple of years ago.` Ah, he debuted in 2001 if I`m not mistaken. Dravid had an excellent decade, as the panel decided well within the top 10 cricketers of the 2000s, but not the top 5, and not close to Ricky Ponting`s test/ODI/captaincy records.

  • Bollo on January 18, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    Quite a few comments I take exception to here, but none more so than that of Vivek Narayan. You simply can`t make things up to support your bias. Apart from the fact that this vote was about the years 2000-2009, you say `Ponting in the 90s was an absolute failure` - he averaged 45. `and that was when the world had great fast bowlers (Ambrose, Walsh, Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock)` - Ponting averaged 63 vs Pakistan, 40 vs WI, 50 vs SAf in that decade. And worst of all, `In the 2000`s Lara and Sachin scored their runs against Wasim and Waqar`. Neither of them faced a ball in test cricket in the 2000s against either!! Finally, while Dravid may not have failed against any particular country, his 45 tests against the 2 top teams (Aus/SAf) have resulted in 4 centuries at an average under 40. Ponting`s worst record against any country is 47 against India with 6 centuries. Check your stats before going to town next time.

  • gaurav on January 18, 2010, 12:43 GMT

    I strongly think that pointing does not deserve to be the cricketer of the decade.firstly, he is being surrounded by great cricketers like Warne,Hayden,Gilchrist,McGrath and Langer who made situtations very easy for him.Secondly,he is not tested against quality bowling beacuse most of good bowlers of this decade played for australia and whenever he is being tested he mostly failed like in india or against south africa.

    So, for me list top three would be like this: 1.Kallis 2.Dravid 3.Ponting

  • Ganesh on January 18, 2010, 12:41 GMT

    Whether cricket has been played only for the Decade? If you select a particular year, then Mohd. Yusuf is the best among everyone which doesn't mean that Sachin or Kallis is not the best. Ricky Ponting may be a better player, but its a failure of Indian Cricket Board who propose to play only few test matches when Sachin was in peak.

  • Mohammad Qadir on January 18, 2010, 12:37 GMT

    i totally disagreed to choose ponting as player of the decades, its not judicious to choose such player who is full of dispute on the game and oou of the game. he is well known sleazing. he is responsible for his team mate to arouse to play mind game which ever disputed with australian players.

  • Jack on January 18, 2010, 12:12 GMT

    The anti-Ponting bias in some of these comments is amazing. He has been an amazing cricketer virtually all decade in all formats. While he has periods of poor form, so has every other option listed.

    Also, regarding the Sydney test in 2008, no controversy is more over-rated than Ponting's supposed over-reaction. Pontings reaction was pure emotion, rather than the pre-meditated childish rubbish we saw from H Singh when he dismissed Ponting in the same test, which was surpassed only by the childish behaviour of the entire Indian team after the 2nd test after failing to win another series in Australia.

    Also a bit perplexed about the comment regarding Australia doctoring pitches. Pitches are mowed grass, not rolled mud. 4th test, 2004, India v Australia ring a bell? That was an embarrassment to the sport.

    Some people just need to learn to appreciate a star - only player to score 9000 runs in test and ODIs in the decade, only player to captain 2 WC and CT wins, most test wins as captain..

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur. 8087551058 on January 18, 2010, 12:12 GMT

    Continuing....Ricky Ponting never faced a strong, leathal, explosive, accurate and always hungry for wicket bowling attack of Australian side. On the other hand Sehwag has played excellently well against them averaging almost 60 with a strike rate of 74 with 2 centuries and 3 half centuries in 14 innings. This is a very fine performance on Aussie tracks against their bowling. Pakistan side also have bowling attack of excellent quality. He averages 91.5 with an amazing strike rate of 85 against this bowling attack on their soil. Dont you all think these points are strong in favour of Virendra Sehwag. He has not proved himself much only against South African soil where he played only 5 games. I am sure he will lift his performance there also. But There are many other factors related with this fantastic batsman. I will keep sending the same here. I wish to him getting selected a player or atleast batsman of the decade.

  • Ravi_Cbe on January 18, 2010, 12:01 GMT

    Leigionnaire - Ponting should have been voted as the "Worst player of the decade."

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur. 8087551058 on January 18, 2010, 11:59 GMT

    Shane, I just read your posts and find very interestings and thaughtful. You keep all updates. Its really nice my friend. I dint write after seeing your posts on Sehwag. Infact I was the first to raise points on his wonderful batting ability. You can just check my first post on 16th. 12.36 pm and yours came at 12.38 pm. I am a big big fan of Virendra Sehwag. But first Sachin Tendulkar. Sehwag has created a big impression on over all indian batting style. I tell you one thing. Often we used to score 250 runs on the first day. But since he come, the batting strike rate has been increased in a great extent. This is what we should look for before we vote any player. A batsman like Sehwag, Gilchrist, Richards help us to see a resulted test match. This is why I am repetady saying choose a player who has braught a revolution in teams over all performance. Sort such players and select the best one among them. I put another very strong point in the next blog. Just read that.

  • Rahul B on January 18, 2010, 11:44 GMT

    It was interesting reading the number of posts either supporting or degrading Ponting. Even though, i have to grudgingly admit that Ponting was not a bad choice. I personally think Chanderpaul, McGrath, Muralitharan and Dravid have been really overlooked here. If you have to talk about one person carrying the whole weight of the team on his shoulders, then it is not Sachin or Ponting, but it definitely has to be Chanderpaul. He always had a weaker team to assist him, so most of his performances went overlooked. Its really sad that the most consistent performer this decade has gotten a small slice of glory. Ponting is no way a bad choice, but C'paul, McGrath, Murali and Dravid were always ahead of Punter.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur. 8087551058 on January 18, 2010, 11:41 GMT

    I would like to put one very important point on my views for Virendra Sehwag.

    Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Jaqus Kalis, Rahul Dravid, Don Bradman, Steve Wagh, take any big name. No one used to come to bat as an opener in the morning session in every first innings of the test match with brand new ball when fast bowlers ofen dream of taking quick wickets and again often they succeed due to the natural and man made conditions. When no one knows the pitch. This is why Virendra Sehwag is again unmatchable (except with Sir Don Bradman as they would have play same in any condition and in any scenarios). He not just hit but hit new ball equally well. Come on my all friends. Why are you not accepting the fact that Virendra Sehwag is the best for the decade. Lets vote him. Join me.

  • aristrocrat on January 18, 2010, 11:38 GMT

    Ricky Thomas Ponting..need i say more.he has been the most prolific scorer of the decade nd has led his country to two CONSECUTIVE world cup wins.even after the retirement of greats he is leading by example.beating south africa in their country and now another couple of sereis wins.Ponting is game's greatest.look at his test avarages against SA,Pak(whwn they had wasim.shoib etc),NZ its far better than Sachin's.Somebody rightly pointed that Ponting has scored mre than ne batsman in hs team which dominated the world cricket.his recent form has been scratchy but still has maitained an average above 42 in tests.comon there are enuf achivments of Ponting's which is gr8r dan individual achivments..he deservs all the credit and defintly the player of decade.Kallis did score runs and took wickets but dint achiv wat Ponting did..most wins and trophies than ne1.all that matters is a win and Ponting has carried the Australian winning culture forward..Hes a gr8 captain and gr8est batsman ever.

  • Johann on January 18, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Taking Ponting's batting stats along with his captaincy, this South African would have to admit...fair enough and well done.

    In my opinion, it would be more "better" to have 4 "Best of Decade" cricketing awards:

    (1) Batsmen - Ponting (over Kallis and Dravid; too close to call the runner-up)

    (2) Bowlers - Muralitharan (over Warne; only two horses in this race.)

    (3) All-Rounders - Kallis (over Flintoff and Vettori; too close to call the runner up)

    (4) Specialist Keepers - Gilchrist (over Boucher)

    In my opinion, there cannot be too much arguing the above considering statistics and the period in question. (2000-2009)

    But for sheer viewing pleasure, give me Lara, Tendulkar, McGrath, Kumble, Donald and the awesome Waqar Younis!

    (If there was a category for "Scariest Player of the Decade", Waqar would take it hands down ;)

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur. 8087551058 on January 18, 2010, 11:29 GMT

    I have already voted Virendra Sehwag. I feel there should be three different categories in the selection. Batsman of the decade, Bolwer of the decade, and All rounder of the decade. Because often we speak only about batsmans. We all love to see boundries and sixers hit by the batsmen. No one is speaking about Muthiya Murlitharan. Though I feel he should have been banned much much earlier. But now if you are selecting the best one on the basis of performances, you can not raise new controvercies on his bowling style. And on paper he seems a legend. Why shouldnt we select him as bowler of the decade? Kalis can easily be All rounder of the decade. And my favorite Veeru should be the batsman of the decade. What say...? Straight forward Virendra Sehwag has clearly an edge over arrogant Ricky Ponting. Obviously nature doesnt matter in the game of cricket as per Aussies. You should only play for wins. Forget about the spirit and all.....their views.

  • sumit on January 18, 2010, 10:05 GMT

    I am totally disagree with the decision.Most of the times ponting scored runs when hayden and langer gave aussies a good start.In comprison to ponting Rahul dravid scored runs when India was one down early in the match.Even rahul has batted well on every condition.He was man of series in Australia,England,WestIndies....His epic 270 against pakistan won the series for india.Also i want to mention about bowlers as well.Shane warne and Mcgrath were responsible for the aussies stability.No other team in the world was having such kind of attack that ease presurre on the batsman of thier team.I think Rahul played many games without the support of indian bowling which fails to create presurre on the opposition.Similarly for Sachin.He also was vital in India becoming a number one nation in the world

  • Bollo on January 18, 2010, 9:24 GMT

    Just a reminder to those Dravid fans, that this award was given on the basis of performances in Tests AND ODIs. In no way wanting to denigrate his many wonderful performances over the decade, in Test matches Ponting scored about 900 more runs, at an average of about 3runs higher, a strike rate of 20runs higher, and scored 10 more centuries. In one-dayers the difference is just as stark. Ponting scored 1800 more runs, averaged 4 runs more, struck at 14runs/100balls quicker, and scored 23 centuries to 5. He was also a very successful captain. Nuff said.

  • leash on January 18, 2010, 9:18 GMT

    How can anyone say Ponting wasn't a match winner? His hundred in each innings in 2006 against SA won Aus that match, and there are many more emaples of him doing this. Australia would not have been the dominant team of the 2000s without him. He is by far the best batsman of the decade and he sould not be punished because he is not a bowler. He played much more match winning innings and was more entertaining than Kallis.The only player who could be even close to Ponting is McGrath.

  • nidur siraj on January 18, 2010, 9:13 GMT

    Undoubtedly Glen McRath is the bowler of the decade and Suchin Tendulkar is the batsman of the decade.I think there should be two awards that is one for batting and another for bowling. Though Ricky Ponting played some memorable ininngs but I rate the batting of Sachin,Lara, Inzamam,Sehwag, Smith and Dravid for more value because they scored against McRath,Warne,Murali and etce... But all these batsman were struggled against Mcrath but we are not sure how Ponting might have batted against him. Hence Glen Mcrath is my player of the decade.

  • sivaprakasam on January 18, 2010, 9:01 GMT

    according to me mcgrath is the best in 2000's , Ponting is missing one thing , he do not play spin well in spin pitches

  • Vijayanand on January 18, 2010, 8:32 GMT

    Wow, I am surprise with the number of people opposing to Ponting's Player of the Decade (trophy :) ). Cool !!! I think it's a CricInfo's personal opinion.

  • Mike on January 18, 2010, 8:22 GMT

    With cricket being a team sport, I think the best player of the decade should be the one who has contributed most to the betterment of his team's performance. In such analysis, Muralidharan has a strong case. Sri Lanka has the 3rd best winning ratio (45.83%) in tests over the decade, after Australia and South Africa. In both 1990's and 1980's, they were in the bottom of the test ladder (8th place) with winning percentages of only 20.89% and 6.89% respectively. While Ponting in the Australian team was surrounded by talents such as Hayden, Langer, Martin, Lehmann, Waughs, Gilchrist, Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespe, Fleming, McGill, Slater and Lee to name only a few, Sri Lanka only had Sangakkara, Mahela, Vass and Murali as world-class test players. With apologies to the other three, it is undoubtedly Murali's contribution that transformed a mediocre test side in the 1980's and 1990's into the No.3 side of the decade. Surely, his 'throwing' saga would not have been a deciding factor here?

  • Anonymous on January 18, 2010, 7:59 GMT

    It should have been kallis. just look at his performance. did ricky ponting won the world cup by his own, his team did it and he is just a part of it. this is rubbish conclusion.

  • Muhammad Haroon on January 18, 2010, 7:41 GMT

    This is very surprising for me the Ricky Ponting is voted player of the decade. No doubt Ricky is a very good batsman and also a good captain as batsman great contribution for his team but being a captain all major success in the era of when all big player playing as team mates like Glenn Mcgrath, shane warne, Adam Gilchrist, Mathew Hyden and justin langer. so captaincy success made up possible by all these great players because if you have good team you have a winning track. But as compared to Kallis I think he might be closer him but not high performer than Kallis, Kallis is not allrounder becoz when you talking about a batsman he considered a complete batsman and same case in bollowing he is complete bowler he is match winner bowler and batsman. My great player of the decade is KALLIS no body can touch his greatness he is the outstanding player of the century.

  • Pablo on January 18, 2010, 6:36 GMT

    Well, I agree with 80% of the posts here - Jacques Kallis is peerless, the greatest cricketer/sportsman/ambassador. This point has been made many times, he is a legend, we all know the truth, who the legends are, and we will remember them. My post is actually concerning the total lack of consideration when is comes to fast bowling greats. A name that fails to pop up is Shaun Pollock's. How is it that a bowler who's figures almost mirror those of Glen McGrath and one who led the tables through most of the 2000's is not mentioned more - it's absurd. Give Shaun Pollock some credit, the guy was amazing.

  • ajay on January 18, 2010, 5:12 GMT

    If one went even one step beyond numbers Ponting cannot even be considered a player. He has done his best to disgrace cricket as a gentleman's sport. Kallis, I think has a much better claim, but since he is not flamboyant and does not toy with controversy, he does not get picked. Was this study/survey sponsored by ACB by any chance? Ponting has been disgusting as a sportsman, failure as a captain, but an outstanding success as a batsman. Why not McGrath then? He performed extremely well against one and all oppositions.

    Ponting is hardly a sports-person. Remember the controversial test versus India? Remeber the meaningless claim of apology from Vettori? His on-field behaviour is something that needs to be hiddne from kids.

    The logic is warped and so is the justification. That too from the Executive Editor? Shame, shame. Looks like an Agatha Christie novel. You decide the end-result first. Then build around it, no matter how improbable it sounds.

  • redneck on January 18, 2010, 4:19 GMT

    so reading between the lines, many indians dont agree with this as ponting isnt a allrounder? or is it because some indian fat cat tried to get his head in the australian team photo in the 06 champions trophy? get real! what next sachins better than bradman because sachins taken more test wickets? how about you guys give the man some credit for a change! when sachin or dravid or laxman come down under they are given the respect they deserve. just because ponting has lead the team that india have lost too more than anyone else is no reason not to give the man his dues!

  • avseq on January 18, 2010, 4:12 GMT

    all indians has got problems..they hav no gae and dont know whats goin on... they think tendulkar is a god and only he deserves to b the player of teh decade..haha like ponting laughs on bowlers and other reams faces..i laugh on u indians faces..who stayed on the top spot?? both odi and test for long time??india?? or sothafrica??.. which captain wont the most games in the past decade?? hamy many times hav u got ur captain changed in the past decade?? which country has got consistancy of having one captain?? india?? who scored more runs??tendulkar or kallis?? who is a better fielder?? tendulkar??kallis??murli?? or Ponting??he is not a captain who blames to their player whn he loses a match like dhoni..how easily can he say..batsmen were good but bowlers didnt played well, thts why we lost.hahaha i laugh on u cricket is a game to play with a team and there has to be a man who manages it within the team.only person who played cricket very well and mngd his fellow players is ricky no doubt

  • Kabir on January 18, 2010, 0:25 GMT

    I don't think it's true...Ponting is not the "player of the century". I think it definatly had to be Kallis. What Ponting can do with the bat Kallis can do it to the same level, not forgetting that Kallis can bowl aswell. He has over 250 wickets in both forms of the game. Kallis is a Match Winner with bat and ball, he should have easily won it.

  • peter56 on January 17, 2010, 23:06 GMT

    I agree with Bob. in 44 years watching cricket Lara is the batsman who has suffered most at the hands of the umpires in terms of bad decisions.even the aussies acknowledge this (2005 Mike Coward in the Courier exress for example)on the other hand the batsman who has led the most charmed life at the hands of the umpires,is Punter the only bad one i can think of is the 96 on debut( Can anyone tell me of any others )Ponting has scored more easy third innings runs after refusing to enforce the follow on, on flat tracks against "waiting for the declaration" disinterested bowling, again witness this morning against Pakistan when at lunch over 400 ahead, with dodgy weather around, he still decided to come back out in search of his 100 I hope just for once it costs him and Pakistan survive, but then Punter is the luckiest cricketer of them all too. lucky with injury, lucky with getting away with it, anyone else would have lost the 2nd test last week, been caught by Aamar and still in a slump

  • Johan on January 17, 2010, 22:56 GMT

    It's a pity to see the bitterness in Indian fans! They say Ponting can't handle pressure situations - well while his captaincy in the 2 Ashes series was abysmal, his sublime 140* in WC 2003 final vs India was simply the greatest masterclass by a batsman in the ODI format!!! No wonder u Indians hate him! When u bring the issue of captaincy into the situation players like Dravid and Tendulkar were too mentaly weak to handle the situation and when they wer captain they batting failed them! That is pressure!!!! I am a West Indian but Brian Lara's contributions apart from in 1999 vs the Aussies were meaningless to our game and his selfish ways undermined WI cricket for years before we hit an all time low with him as captain! No one cares what u fans think...Ponting is a winner and the rest are losers!!! Jealousy Kills my friends...so please accept the decision gracefully because Punter deserved it!! No one cares about your average joe biases!!!

  • Bony on January 17, 2010, 22:05 GMT

    I dont think Ponting is a gentlemen cricketer...His behaviour is not good as a cricketer. recent west indies tour proved it a lot. There have been lot of controversies around him. I guess it should have been gone to Lara or Muralidharan. For being good cricketers as well as good human beings.

  • crazyhead on January 17, 2010, 21:01 GMT

    Sambit, Sorry man.. I was your biggest fan on Cricinfo. But no longer! You supporing Ponting in an article, while you have not even voted him as your No.1 does not make sense. Did someone force him to write this? Now lets look at stats. Of all players who had impact on last decade, Gilchrist and Mcgrath stand out. No one talked Gilchrist's knock in 2007 finals. Thats a much better knock than Ponting 140 in 2003 finals. Any doubts?? He redefined wiket-keeper batman in cricket history. Ponting just accumulated runs on weaker teams.. Never re-defined anything. Sorry! Mcgrath redefined the art of 'Choke and take wickets'. Its absolute non-sense to select Ponting. This obsession with Batsman should stop. Anyway, Ponting's failures in India are well documented. Only the juy should know why they chose to ignore it. Gilchrist or Mcgrath were the deserved ones ( they were successful in all countries, all conditions), followed closedly by Kallis, Dravid and Ponting, Tendulkar

  • R.P on January 17, 2010, 20:55 GMT

    Guys...everyone seems so obsessed with Lara, Tendulkar and Ponting...I think everyone of them is a great player, the whole list. They shouldnt have named someone as the player of the decade, rather should have set up a team with all these class players. Talking about someone saying Lara'a not consistent, Ponting doesn't show sportsman spirit and Tendulkar not being consitent...i just need to say Lara admitted not consistent, but is there any other pleasing sight to see him bat in full flow and that high backlift. Even dont you guys think that 400* in a match is no joke? Coming to Ponting, why would you say he didnt bat against these bowlers and all that, dont you think everyone in the australian team had the same chance to score a bilk of runs and only ponting suceeded to have so many runs? And Tendulkar, why would you doubt a genius? I mean i was hearing someone saying he doesnt inspire teammates and want to be safe? Are you kidding? Ask any indian cricker...dont make your judgement

  • ali_a on January 17, 2010, 18:53 GMT

    Not sure if you ever did the player of the (90's) decade, but I would argue about Wasim and Waqar as the choice. Why? Look around they came with concept of reverse swing. They were blamed for cheating and what not by all those nations (England and Auss the prominent ones), and now they are the ones who are dying to learn and apply it to win. Both W's brought something new to the game, alas same cannot be said about Ponting and his men. He is definitely a great batsman, but most of his winning tactics are questionable and definitely not honest. He is definitely not an ambassador of the game and wants to win at all cost. Some of the Auss and English commentators blame Asian countries for bad umpiring - look at what kind of umpiring they have in their countries. Both the W's brought a new dimension to the game, and I doubt it that anyone else brought something as revoultionary than them (well some brought dooshra and flipper to name a few). What did Ponting bring besides the numbers??

  • Dee2 on January 17, 2010, 18:34 GMT

    1st of all, a humble request to "cricket lovers" - when you criticize Tendulkar, take a few deep breaths, and think about what you gonna say. How long would the man keep on proving himself and to whom??. 2nd - Iam a big fan of Ponting - love his game. But I dont vote him to best player of the decade. For me best batsman of the decade is Mathew Hayden - he was miles ahead of ponting and overall best player of the decade is Jaq Kallis. The reasons would be obvious if you think about it.. what say guys?

  • faisal on January 17, 2010, 17:50 GMT

    I love ponting.When cricinfo decide to announce the player of the decade the name of ponting comes to my mind immediately.Who is the best?-lara,sachin or ponting,is a favourite perennial debate in cricinfo blog and most importantly not conclusive.I ofcourse think its ponting but I am not that shalow-minded to repudiate the greatness of others(Except kallis,I Don't like selfish cricketer and he is too ugly to have such a pretty wife).But this time I am truly happy because its officialy declared.I feel like the on-field captain who has the support of umpire while the batsman is fighting for a loosing cause by asking a review.Trust me it feels great as a supporter.You ponting-hater can go on with your needless howler,it doesn't really matter anymore.

  • William on January 17, 2010, 17:49 GMT

    Good question, Bob. I, for one, would unquestionably go to the stadium where Lara's playing, no matter how far it is from home. Those who won't, I have to say, don't know the game enough. And David, I have to agree with you bro on cricinfo's clear anti-West Indies bias of late. But please don't quit the site coz it's still the best and biggest forum for the lovers of the game. Let's just wait for the day when Kemar, Fidel and Jerome are all fit together. Our batting with Gayle, Barath, Chanders, Bravo, Simmons, Nash and POLLARD can beat up any attack there is. The Aussies struggled to avoid defeat in the 2nd Test against us and won the 3rd by 30-odd runs riding on a horrendous last decision. And look how they're beating Pakistan 3-0. Still, the West Indies are regarded an inferior team to Pakistan!! As for the player of the decade, I'd say McGrath, Lara, Sehwag and Ponting in that order. McGrath ahead of the batting greats for the sheer impact of his bowling on every Test he played.

  • Anit on January 17, 2010, 17:49 GMT

    I strongly believe that national bias played an important factor in selecting Ponting. I will still rate Kallis much better over Ponting considering that his batting average is almost same as Ponting's. On the other hand, Kallis is a true and genuine all arounder.

  • DJ on January 17, 2010, 17:10 GMT

    Here are the reasons why ponting got Player of the decade award

    1. His All round performance 2. Highest Cheating Average in the decade 3. Helping umpires to take decisions.....(Recall Sydney test 2008).... 4. Dominant the weaker bowling attack... 5. his some what batting avg..against good team.. 6. i dont think that his captaincy affect this decision because for australia any one can do captaincy....

  • Nadim on January 17, 2010, 15:02 GMT

    The jury has spoken and we have to accept it. Ponting has played well this decade and he deserves it only on the merit of the runs scored. But there were a lot of flaws. We are talking of a decade and that means we are considering consistency here. Mind you, i am not anti Ponting or pro Sachin like most Indians on this site. It is just so ironic that Ponting in the last 3 yrs has played around 30 tests and barely managed to average in the 40s when other contemporaries are averaging 55. I feel that if he had to be given the award , it should not be at a time when his form and average is decreasing. Of course , great batsmen like him will always have the odd century , double century here and there. But 30 tests and avg of + - 40 is ridiculous for a winner of this prestigious award. Frankly, if you remove his 2 years of prolific scoring... i think he is very average in the other years. for such an important award ,more points should have been given for last 5 yrs & less for 1st 5 yrs.

  • GMNorm on January 17, 2010, 14:50 GMT

    In a decade of batsmens wickets , the best bolwer McGRath would have been a fitting choice.OK he is not a role model but was consistently great against all opposition i both forms of the game.Thats not something you can say about anyone else- bowler or batsman

  • GMNorm on January 17, 2010, 14:50 GMT

    In a decade of batsmens wickets , the best bolwer McGRath would have been a fitting choice.OK he is not a role model but was consistently great against all opposition i both forms of the game.Thats not something you can say about anyone else- bowler or batsman

  • sangey on January 17, 2010, 14:40 GMT

    ponting is best choice for player of the decade, his batting, fielding, run out are all suparb, dont forget one other captain perfome like ponting did, he is definetly world class player, if you see sachin, when he is captain his batting was worst, take ganguly when he is captain his batting very poor, so guys dont critize about ponting coz being a captain he will be under pressure, but he always perfome as captain. thats why he is great player, i think india lost so many games under ponting captainship that why all of u r critisize ponting, its not fair guys, looks at his game, look at his passion about cricket. so well done to choose him as a player of the decade.

  • Vivek Narayan on January 17, 2010, 13:13 GMT

    Ponting, in the 1990s was an absolute failure, and that was when the world had great fast bowlers (Ambrose, Walsh, Waqar, Wasim, Donald, Pollock, etc.) and juicy pitches. This is where Tendulkar and Lara did well. In the 2000s Ponting thrashed Darren Sammy and Jerome Taylor, while Lara and Tendulkar scored their runs against Wasim and Waqar. Okay, if you don't buy that theory, then you can also argue that Dravid should have been the player of the decade, because Ponting didn't have as much pressure, since he had all of those great bowlers on his team where India only had Kumble. Ponting has failed in India, but Dravid hasn't "failed" in a single country. Another thing is that Ponting always had a strong opening pair and India didn't (Sehwag and Gambhir came a couple years ago). Ponting is still a great but a level below Lara and Tendulkar, and to certain extent Dravid.

  • Bob on January 17, 2010, 12:51 GMT

    Lara walks when he hits the ball,Pointing would edge to second slip and wait for an umpire decision and Lara had more bad decisions than the top batsman if you have three stadiums open with Lara at one Tandulcar and pointing at the others who would you think the public would go and watch. Take a vote.

  • Harmeet on January 17, 2010, 11:50 GMT

    Ponting is one of the best cricketers of all time. But in this particular decade, he was the best.

    As far as his performances in India are concerned, well you've got to wonder how well he must have played in other countries to have the best average among the great batsmen who have crossed the 11,000 run mark. He played very well on tough, fast bowling pitches like the ones in South Africa, where batsmen like Tendulkar failed.

    Ponting is not the best batsmen on Indian pitches but the best overall.

  • sarath chandra on January 17, 2010, 11:33 GMT

    I really cant understand those people who say india wins only in india. india's record in oz and sa in the last 11 test matches is 3-5 and that includes an undeserving loss in sydney! thats better than what Sa or oz did in sub continent. india also won and drew a series in england in 07 and 02. Its a side that has improved. And to suggest that india did not play as team is foolishness. Their bowling stocks are improving each year and so has their performance. And India does not doctor pitches and its still same for both teams! how fair is it to produce a green deck which makes sure that team batting second has an overwhelming edge? Oz won recently despite doing that because of Pak blunders! and ponting did not take oz to finals. he won them 03 finals. He failed in 96 and had nothing to do in other 2! Sachin took india to semis and finals in 96 and 03! He played once and failed once! even viv richards succeeded in only one of his WC finals. its their luck that they belonged to that team

  • Paul on January 17, 2010, 10:52 GMT

    Dear, dear, dear. Don't the Indian fans like a good whinge? Get over it. And by the way, in Sydney 2008 the Indians were ready to threaten to abandon the game/series if they didn't get their way. So while Ponting might not be the 'cleanest' guy, you might want to think about the attitude of your players and team.

    To those of you who are identifying some good players like Tendulkar, Dravid, Sewag etc that didn't rate heavily in a top-three race: it is actually possible - in theory - to be the 4th best player in the world in everyone's eyes and get 0 votes.

    Personally I would have given the award to Kallis. I read between the lines that being captain got Ricky ahead. That's probably fair enough as its a big responsibility the Aussies have done well.

  • Ashish on January 17, 2010, 10:24 GMT

    And talking about the Australian dominance, more than Ponting's leadership, it is the Australian domestic cricket system and strong sports culture which are responsible. They have an ability to roll out the performers regularly from their domestic cricket factory, which is not their in any other country at that level. BCCI even after being the richest cricket board has been unable to do that.

  • Ashish on January 17, 2010, 10:17 GMT

    I completely agree that Ponting has been a better perfomer in this decade than Sachin,and many others too.

    But whoever questions his commitment, hunger to win and match winning capability has to understand that Ponting has been backed by his world-class bowlers and even other tough batsmen in the wins. While India has always lacked quality bowlers at the front. In the 2003 WC, the hunger to win was so evident in him as he defied the law of averages to give back to back performances until the final day. First the bowlers blew it up, and when Sachin failed to fire, the team couldn't stand up to the challenge. Compare that to 2 of the league matches where Bevan and Bichel(the no. 10 player) saved Australia to start the WC with disappointments.

    Being a sportsman it is hard to fathom for me that how can anyone perform brilliantly for so long without having a liking towards winning.

    Ponting always had what Lara and Sachin didn'- strong teams.

  • DJ on January 17, 2010, 9:30 GMT

    i am not agree with the jury's choice....ponting has scored against weaker bowling attack while othere batsman like Lara,Sachin has scored against australian attack including great McGrath and warne....same time when ponting came to bat they dhad almost 100/150 runs on the board so takes off the pressure from (Great..not so)ponting...which is not the case with Lara or Sachin..i am agree that he(ponting) has scored with better rate in both form of the game....he is a good batsman...but the player of decade.....

  • Sam Moorthy on January 17, 2010, 8:53 GMT

    Thank you Sambit. But I wish you hadn't written this piece.

    By explaining the reasons, you have acknowledged "... the parochial, ... narrow-minded and mean-spirited views..." some have expressed on Ricky.

    Acknowledgment is way more than those comments deserve. The jury needs to provide no explanations or justifications.

  • P Walker YOKOHAMA JAPAN on January 17, 2010, 8:51 GMT

    Re: dhiren at January 15, 2010 12:55 PM There certainly have been some great battles between Australia and India in the past ten years. However, to claim India as being Australia's biggest rival of the decade would be a little inaccurate. For much of the decade, South Africa where undisputably the 2nd best side, and in the same period England regained the ashes on their home turf on two occasions. On the other hand, Australia defeated India in India for the first time in eons (albeit with Ponting on the sidelines) and held on for drawn or victorious series against India at home. Ponting's performances against all opposition has been second to none, and in the majority, match winning. Furthermore he has battles away for the past 3 years without the most potent players world cricket has seen in many years in his side. As per his onfield behavior, while he is no gentleman in the mould of Tendulka,he has been tough but fair on the majority of occasions.

  • Pradeep on January 17, 2010, 6:52 GMT

    It will be foolish of me if I dispute the jury's choice. There is no doubt whatsoever that ponting is the player of the decade. Though some folks argue that ponting often fails on indian pitches; they never account of neutral venues. World cup event was hosted on neutral venues on both occasions and numbers show that ponting has delivered when it matters. Again, not just with the bat but as a leader as well.

    Even today australian dominance in cricket continues; despite the retirement of stalwarts like warne or mcgath. Ponting's leadership role in shaping the team and enforcing the fighting attitude in every game or series must be truely lauded.

    Yes, the australians have been occasionally tamed by indians/srilankans/southafricans; but we must not forget the number of times they have mauled other teams- whether in australia, within the subcontinent or even on neutral veneues.

  • ABHI on January 17, 2010, 6:20 GMT

    i am an indian and proud of being an indian however only indian who could be player of decade probably is virender sehwag however whom we call god is no god he has been playing for years now and he has never been able leader and please look being unbiased man who has beeen declared player of decade has scored more runs and 100s in decade so whoever has scored more runs by playing for long can be said player of 100 years however in no way he is anywhere near even jacques kallis or mohammed yousuf

  • sandy_bangalore on January 17, 2010, 6:06 GMT

    Let me have the final word to the whining Indian fans: Your self importance is taking you nowhere. Wait for two more years until the likes of tendulkar and dravid and laxman retrie and you'll have to face some hard facts. It should be a great sight to watch the likes of Kohli and pujara hopping around in headingley or Joburg

  • kshitiz vashistha on January 17, 2010, 5:35 GMT

    simply this was not about who's your favourite player....this award was about who has performed better than others in last decade. So it's fair enough to give this award to a man who has scored more runs than anyone in last decade with two world cups. Ricky broke the myth that only the sub-continent players can score runs sure any one can who has the skill to do so.IF in the coming decade someone from bangladesh or any other 'non-favourite' countries performs better than others we should be happy to give it to him.If your favourite is not the player of decade because he has not performed as well as others. AND THE LAST DECADE SURELY BELONGED TO RICKY AND HIS WORLD CUP WINNING TEAM.they have not lost a match in a world cup during this decade.

  • We dont like cricket on January 17, 2010, 5:14 GMT

    Go the Tassie boy! Ricky has been ruthless because, guess what, cricket is now a man's game - not the gentleman's game it was 50-100 years ago. He has predecessors for decades teaching him to be hard, and to play to win. That has been the Aussie way since Border, and that's why the Aussies have been consistent winners since the early 90s. For all those who speak of Kallis - when did he ever take a World Cup final by the scruff of the neck? Same of Tendulkar et al. Ricky has won more of the big moments than he has lost, and I can see why that sets him apart for the majority of the selection panel. But I agree with the editor - McGrath was truely the man of the decade - dominant against all opposition, home and abroad, and able to take down the top opposition bats on a regular basis. A true champion for all time let alone these past 10 years. We done to the editor and the dirty little Taswegian! And everyone - chill out - we ALL love cricket, dont we? Forget the racial themes please!!!

  • Aalok on January 17, 2010, 2:53 GMT

    It is more to do with Aus domestic cricket than ponting. he has a very poor record in India, and that is totally opposite to Sachin's aganist Aus. Also pushed for his 100 against Pak today when Aus have already won the series and has forgotten his whinge against Lara's 400, undermining that as a dead rubber and yet accusing Lara of not playing for pride. Sore loser and the most unworthy of the lot

  • Aalok on January 17, 2010, 2:53 GMT

    It is more to do with Aus domestic cricket than ponting. he has a very poor record in India, and that is totally opposite to Sachin's aganist Aus. Also pushed for his 100 against Pak today when Aus have already won the series and has forgotten his whinge against Lara's 400, undermining that as a dead rubber and yet accusing Lara of not playing for pride. Sore loser and the most unworthy of the lot

  • Karl on January 17, 2010, 2:52 GMT

    I am so sick of our mates from India and their constant complaints. If an Indian is not found to be the best, then the result has to be biased. And if an Australian should happen to win it, well that just proves that we are a racist bunch. Grow up India. Ditch the victim tag and accept that your are not the best team going around. When you win three world cups in a row and string together two sequences of 16 test match victories, and can still remain competitive after you have lost high quality players such as Warne, Gilchrist, NcGrath etc., then you can call yourselves the best. Until then do the hard work and lift your game to match those standards.

  • Paddle_Sweep on January 17, 2010, 2:37 GMT

    Just because some 30 people come together and select Ponting as the player of the decade he does not become the player of the decade. What next? Player of the week..player of the hour..

  • Anonymous on January 17, 2010, 1:24 GMT

    Its amusing why Sachin obsessed fans come up with lame line of arguement that Sachin had the burden of entire Indian batting line whereas Ponting had Hayden and Gilchrist. While Sachin did have the burden of entire Indian batting in 90s, this was not the case in the last decade with the emergence of Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman and Sehwag. In the last few years its Sehwag's demolishing of attcks which has made lives easy for all Indian batsmen. In the last decade the two memorable victories for India in Kolkata and Adelaide were made possible by Dravid and Laxman and not Sachin.

  • Anonymous on January 17, 2010, 1:05 GMT

    I am not atall agrreed with the decision since last two years pointing is not at his best, he is performiong only with the bat and as he got the

  • Anonymous on January 17, 2010, 1:03 GMT

    I am a big fan of Sambit Bal for his articles. But this time looks like he got it wrong! If he, himself, did not vote for Ponting as No.1, the he should not be writting this.. Someone who voted for, should write this. It sounds like someone forced Sambit to write this. This particular one especially sounds very un-Sambit.you know what I mean! The criteria in this article seem to be fit Ponting perfectly. But the question is whether critetia is the most appopriate one. In the decade of batsman, this award should go a bowler, who dominated Batman. AND thats Mcgrath.. He succeeded in all conditions, AUS, SA, India etc.. All. He played major role in all AUS triumphs in the decade whenever he played, unlike Ponting. Worldwide, if any batsman wanted to see the back of a bowler that was Mcgrath ( Not Warne or Murali, the were failures in India and AUS, INDIA respectively). On this criteria, Ponting fails badly. My listing for top 5. 1. Mcgrath 2. Adam Gilchrist3.Dravid 4.Kallis 5.Ponting

  • Vost on January 17, 2010, 0:34 GMT

    I for one disagree with the decision. Sure he's done well but he sucked against india and struggled against spinners

  • Apyboutit on January 16, 2010, 23:50 GMT

    If it was pure statistics and If it was about highest run scorer and winner of matches, then call it that. Where is the meanin/need for voting in that?! BTW, Best ODI team of 2009 was Bangladesh. Best Test team was also Bangladesh - only team to whitewash WI in 2009!! Even by statistics, Kallis wins over ricky anyday. As long as winning contnues to be a criterion, only Ozs will continue to be in top contention. Let us all get this in our heads - The Ozs Know to win. But none of them, except the last decades finds - Warne, McGrath, Gilli - were world class over the past 5 decades. Ricky's memorable innings where he turns a match, through captaincy / batting is countable with one finger. He cannot have captained, for example, a Rajathan Royals to victory. He is lucky to be an Oz - backed by the Oz team spirit. He (would have) failed against McGrath, Warne, Bajji, Ishant, Shoaib, Vettori. He failed against the current Pak bowlers (un-helped by their fielders & team)!

  • geoff on January 16, 2010, 22:47 GMT

    most of the anti ponting comments seem to come from india, maybe because they have an inflated view of their importance in world cricket. as shown by their attitude at the scg when they threatened to take their ball and go home if they didn't get their own way. so what if ponting hasn't done well in india? a lot of world teams don't, due largely to the fact that india doctor their pitches to suit the home team. pontings record speaks for itself.

  • peter56 on January 16, 2010, 21:56 GMT

    Australia team of the decade by a mile but to then suggest that the 6th most important member of that team is player of the decade is a lunacy Australias most potent weapons were Warne and Mcgrath who won australia the tests. Hayden and langer who were immense at the top of the order and Gilchrist whose pyrotechnics often from 400-5 gave their bowlers extra time to bowl em out, and then Ponting (who as christian Ryan said in his Laughing boy article)this decade Punters luck was in such pitches that were anything less than perfect were rare. the most significant fact is that in the nineties Punters average was 44 (Kallis averaged 41)Lara averaged 51 and Tendulkar 58 this is the decade for making comparisons 10 great bowlers, great wickets not the bowling wastelands of the noughties where Murali was the only great bowler Punter encountered and even then he was only 4th highest in the averages for the decade. then the illegal bat he used for 15 monthes averaging 75, 19tsts 2093 runs

  • peter56 on January 16, 2010, 21:18 GMT

    I agree with Gaurav "There seems to be an unwritten rule among juries to exclude Murali from consideration seemingly suggesting his performances are tainted" Murali,s stats were the bowling equivalent of Bradmans in the thirties. 49 fivefors 20 tenfors the batting equivalent is 49 tons and 20 double tons( and these figures are for test only )virtually all of the Aussie cricket writers resent Murali because he has totally eclipsed warne statistically and these stats make a joke of their prose extolling warne as the greatest spinner ever. so excuses have to be found the arm deformity and figures against Zimbabwe/Bangladesh etc The aussie antipathy towards Murali is because he has all the records not warne and THIS IS EXACTLY MIRRORED by Sachin fans on cricinfo whose antipathy towards Ponting is that he may have all Sachins records one day. But that’s all Ricky can aspire to, the stats because sachin has the critical acclaim the greatest right hander since the Don said the Don

  • Paul Argyle on January 16, 2010, 20:01 GMT

    To suggest that "Ponting won by an overwhelming margin, and in our collective wisdom the right choice was made "!! smacks of breathtaking arrogance and disregard for the readers of and contributors to Cricinfo. I repeat that if the panel had been selecting a BATSMAN of the Decade as the award should have been for then I don't think many people would have had a problem with their decision. However the fact of the matter is Ponting can't justifiably be regarded as PLAYER of the last ten years because that implies he is/was the best CRICKETER of the decade. It doesn't matter what Sambit Bal or other jurors think the fact of the matter is he (Ponting)is NOT. There are many other far more worthy contenders for that title who were not only great in their respective discplines - or in the case of Kallis for example with all three - but who were respected and admired for the WAY they played the game. It is clear Ponting wouldn't win the SPORTSMAN of the decade award!!

  • Paul Argyle on January 16, 2010, 19:46 GMT

    To suggest that "Ponting won by an overwhelming margin, and in our collective wisdom the right choice was made "!! smacks of breathtaking arrogance and disregard for the readers of and contributors to Cricinfo. I repeat that if the panel had been selecting a BATSMAN of the Decade as the award should have been for then I don't think many people would have had a problem with their decision. However the fact of the matter is Ponting can't justifiably be regarded as PLAYER of the last ten years because that implies he is/was the best CRICKETER of the decade. It doesn't matter what Sambit Bal or other jurors think the fact of the matter is he (Ponting)is NOT. There are many other far more worthy contenders for that title who were not only great in their respective discplines - or in the case of Kallis for example with all three - but who were respected and admired for the WAY they played the game. It is clear Ponting wouldn't win the SPORTSMAN of the decade award!!

  • daniels on January 16, 2010, 18:50 GMT

    Ponting deserves it. Lots of Indian fans cannot digest the fact that Tendulkar did not win the award and say that Ponting had all those great players like Langer, Hayden, Gilly, Warne, Martyn, McGrath in his team. Indian fans always bragged about having the best batting line up in the world with players like Dravid, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Sehwag, Laxaman. But they could never perform together as a team and Tendulkar could never cut it as captain of the team. India could win only within India on spinner friendly pitches. Ponting captained the team and also score loads of runs, took catches, effected run outs and is one of the best fielders the game has ever seen. About performing in India, just a couple of months back Ponting and a second string Australian team beat India in India. Also Ponting is the bet captain the history of the game. Guess that's more than enough for him to be voted as the player of the decade.

  • Jeremy on January 16, 2010, 18:15 GMT

    I completely disagree with the boards decision.Fine maybe Ponting has played well over the decade. However you cannot just say that brian Lara's prime was in the 90's and just discard him like that. Kallis, was an excellent all rounder that stunned everyone. Ponting for the most part was just a batsmen. For a batsmen to be considered he has to perform extraordinary well. Ponting just played well but no super. I'm actually surprised that it did not go to someone like Mc Grath or Murali. Murali is someone special. He has broken most of the records and has kept them. He has tormented everyone throughout the decade and i am quite surprised it did not go to him.

  • Rafiq khan on January 16, 2010, 17:33 GMT

    Ponting is really a bonafide and most deserving player of the decade.His performance in all fields of cricket is amazing.He is not only a majestic batsman but also a superb fielder.He has in his honour most centuries in both formats of cricket than any other one.He has bestowed the Australia with many a cherished titles.He is the right choice by many as 32 senior panelists.BRAVOOOOOOOOOOOO PUNTER.

  • Gaurav on January 16, 2010, 17:04 GMT

    What I find galling is that in this decade heavily tilted towards batsmen, the jury did not choose a bowler as the player of the decade. 3 contenders stand out - Murali, Warne, McGrath and Murali stands out both in terms of stats and otherwise. There seems to be an unwritten rule among juries of all lists to exclude Murali from consideration seemingly suggesting his performances are tainted. Even Sambit Bal here did not consider the basic courtesy to mention his name in what is a very poor apology for selecting Ponting over Murali and Kallis. If he argues for the jury, then it is a very poor apology on behalf of the jury

  • Alan on January 16, 2010, 17:04 GMT

    to be frank, the case for ponting being brilliant is easy to make. I would instead like you to write a blog on why murali was not voted player of the decade.

  • Alan on January 16, 2010, 17:03 GMT

    "We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole. Ponting’s case went beyond the numbers alone which were staggering in any case. He led, both with the bat and on the field, Australia to two World Cup wins, and his fire has kept Australia burning even after they lost all their great players apart from him."

    Murali surely scores higher in all these categories? wisden commented that he was "the difference between sri lanka being good and very good.". Is ponting the same to australia? Wisden also name him leading cricketer twice. no other player won it more than once. consistency?

    And pontings fire that kept australia burning? would this be why they dropped to 4 in the rankings not long after mcgrath and warne retired?

  • Bolly on January 16, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    Ponting is correct decision, has been captain since 2004 and still maintained his batting which other greats such as Lara and Tendulkar were unable to do. That is no mean feat.

    Trying to say Ponting isn't deserving of the award is nothing more then jealously that an Indian didnt win it.

    Lets be honest.

  • naveen on January 16, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    can u comeup with the stats showing that he scored against best bowlers? There where not that many bowlers in 00's apart from Australian golden gen. Ya, he scored loads of runs, but not against best attack. I feel that kalis is hard done. It is a decade where pitches are very flat, if not all atleast most. But Jacqs have done exceptional with bat and ball, thought he has nothing to show as SA time and again, managed to weld in semis and finals. But for me jacqu is best of the decade. It is a very valid argument to say that it is very easy to play along side of hayden, martyn, clark, langer, and gilly. It has eased lot of pressure from ricky and again, he no need to face best bowlers in the world. So i dont agree with cricinfo verdict. Sorry guys, i feel you got it wrong this time around, how ever it is just my opinion.

  • FanCric on January 16, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    That voting was complete joke. Punter can never be player of any decade or era. He may be devastating batsman, but still he cannot be voted as player or batsman of any decade.

  • Antesh on January 16, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    I don't envision a batsman getting this award and the corner the contribution of bowlers in the game. The batsman may have contributed to the financial success of the game, its the bowlers who have contributed more to a winning side. The legends like Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara and many more havn't done much without a genuine bowler. India with his formidable batting line up haven't been a success bcoz they lack a match winning bowler. Aus after Mcgrath and Warnie are just as good as any other side. SL without Murli, Pak after Akram and even NZ with or without Bond looks totally a different side. It's just so depressing to see the real assets of the game not get their credit even by the people who have played the games.

  • Akash on January 16, 2010, 15:03 GMT

    I think best player of the decade award to Ponting is total INJUSTICE to Kallis .I think in terms of overall performance no one is near Kallis. Either KALLIS or DRAVID (for his numerous excellent match saving innings in pot bolier situations for so long) deserved the award . ITS TOTAL INJUSTICE.

  • Kash on January 16, 2010, 15:00 GMT

    In my opinion Ponting's selection is not at all any surprise.But what i like to see is a list of players who could have been serious contenders for the player of the decade award if they played for longer time in 2000's before injury or other reasons halted their career.The most prominant name that comes to mind is Mr.Shane Bond.

  • Shane on January 16, 2010, 14:44 GMT

    Hehehe, it's great to see some more Sehwag votes come in at the same time as my post. He's my favourite batsman to watch, and once again that is coming from an Aussie!

    Mark wrote "I would have also loved to see performances of the decade decided by the jury" - very intriguing, I agree! It would have to be Laxman and Dravid batting one day + in that amazing partnership that not only turned the test match after following on, but won India the 2001 home series! A special mention has to go to Flintoffs 2005 Ashes series as well. Australia was by far the best team of the noughties, so it's only fitting that the best performances go to the men who bravely took them down in my opinion.

    And finally, to all these people trying to rationalise Pontings inadequacies - DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK HE SCORED 11,000+ TEST RUNS BY ACCIDENT (THIRD BEST ALL-TIME AND CLOSING)?! He is clearly the equal of Tendulkar, Lara, and anyone else in cricket history (besides Bradman, of course).

  • Aruni Mukherjee on January 16, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    Actually the McGrath point is well made. In 2005, for instance, England won the 2 tests that McGrath sat out injured. It is relatively easier to bowl when the opposition is 70/3, as Warne often did after McGrath had shell-shocked the top order.

    However, in my view, on a similar argument Matthew Hayden did more for Australian dominance than Ponting did since he often set the platform on which Ponting re-enforced Australian dominance.

    In the 1990s it was Tendulkar who often had to rescue his team given that India mostly had makeshift opening pairs in Test matches. However, this decade his workload has been lightened somewhat.

    Overall, it is definitely McGrath who deserves the accolade more so because he is one of a dying breed- the star bowler. That breed may not exist for too long in the future. Steyn, Bond...I'm struggling to find another fast bowler of such pedigree. In the 2000s despite featherbeds, McGrath was undoubtedly the most feared bowler in world cricket.

  • MartinAmber on January 16, 2010, 14:24 GMT

    I have no real issues with the final choice. But I feel that the main criterion should have been to choose a man whose feats were as close as possible to being unprecedented not only in scale (weight of runs, number of wickets) but also significance. Kallis has all-round stats closer to Sobers than anyone before or since; Sehwag has as many triple hundreds as Bradman and Lara; Muralitharan's record number of wickets and Tendulkar's record number of runs will probably stand for all-time. These are close, but only one player qualifies as having achieved something completely unprecedented in the history of Test cricket. Not only that, his career began immediately before the 2000s began and ended with just under two years of the decade left. There has never been a wicket-keeper, batting at 7, who averaged over 50 for most of his career and changed the course of so many matches as well as setting a new record for Test victims. Adam Gilchrist gets my vote: he was useful in ODIs too!

  • Mukul sharma on January 16, 2010, 13:55 GMT

    acc to my view the player of the decade will goes to that player who will play a major role in victory of his team in home as well as in abroad.And Ricky ponting does not deserve for this award because his performwnce in india is very very poor.I think his test batting average in india is below 25.in my view player like Dravid who played his highest knock at the crucial time.i think no one forget his knock in eaden garden when india was following on australian target.so i completly disaggre with pontig who will never play a knock in india.

  • Vimalan on January 16, 2010, 13:31 GMT

    @Anthony, this is for you. You said Ponting has been a superstar right from his start of the career. Do you know his stat in the first 50 test matches ? He was such an average performer with an average of 44 and only 9 centuries. Those were the days when we had better bowlers all around. Come 2000's, pitches became batting paradise and many great bowlers retired. So our man scored tons and tons of runs. I can only laugh at your ignorant statement of Tendulkar and Lara are not even half of Ponting.

  • Vishal Bulbule, Solapur on January 16, 2010, 12:50 GMT

    It is difficult to maintain a strike rate of 80 plus even in ODI category, and a unique player like Sehwag carries a carrier strike rate of 80 plus in the Test match category with a scoring average of 52 plus per innings. This is just an extra ordinary class.

    Sehwag becomes more dangerous for the opposition when he thinks that he needs to stick on the pitch. He shows that in test innings. He has scored 150 plus in twelve innings out of his seventeen centuries in tests. This is simply amazing. And what is more important, he has proved himself on all kinds of tracks so far and played against all quality bowlers. This is about tests. He averages 52 in test matches and nearly 35 in one dayers. In 50-50 games, a batsman carrying an average of 35 is considered to be a good batsman. But again the deadly strike rate of 103 makes him a special in LOIs too. I think the player who understands cricket most but looks very casual is Virendra Sehwag. He is the man of the decade. Salute to him.

  • Shane on January 16, 2010, 12:40 GMT

    I think it's pretty pointless trying to single out one player as the best of the best, and I think it's completely pointless to get upset and argue about it. The fact is that you could make a case for any of these players to be picked - Ponting has sheer weight of runs, Kallis all round abilities, McGraths performances all over the world, Lara's massive scores, Murilithirans astounding assault on the wicket taking record, Tendulkars gorgeous technique, Dravids faultless technique etc etc. You can also make cases against them all - Pontings' poor record in India, Murilithirans poor record in Australia, Lara's inconsistancy, Tendulkars poor record in the 3rd/4th innings, etc.

    Any one of these players would be a deserving choice. In the end, Ponting scored the most runs, won the most games, and played in the best team of the decade, that is why he was chosen. As an Australian I am happy he was chosen, but i would be just as happy if Kallis or Murilitheran were given the honour.

  • Shane on January 16, 2010, 12:38 GMT

    One thing I couldn't fit in my previous post - I'd like to mention Dan Vettori for the spirit of cricket. Sure he hasn't had the impact of the other men we are discussing, but his all round talent, grit and determination is the only thing holding a terrible New Zealand team together, and he is the best gentleman of the sport during the noughties that I can recall.

    And one last quick thought; I am surprised at how rarely Sehwags name comes up in these discussions! To me he is equally as destructive and game changing as Gilchrist, except Sehwag opens the batting, has a better average, makes bigger scores and came oh so close to being the first batsman EVER to score three triple centuries at test level. Seeing that Gilchrist was voted third it gives a very strong indication of how impressive Sehwag is, and this is coming from an Aussie! (of course Gilchrist is also a successful wicket keeper, which is why he figures higher).

    Just my thoughts; feel free to disagree with them if you like

  • Vishal Bulbule on January 16, 2010, 12:36 GMT

    Totally disagreed with the selection. I am scared people who know cricket well still dont want to dare taking name of the most valuable legend for his team. And he is non other than Virendra Sehwag. He has not played for all the ten years of the past decade. Still managed to win hearts of millions. Only and only by his fearless batting. He averages 52 plus. Just below the average score which Ricky Ponting scores per innings. Dear sir, I want to ask how can you forget the deadly strike rate of Virendra Sehwag he carries even in the test matches. For me he is man with magic hand eye co ordination. Only two players would have compete with him had these two were still playing. First Sir Viv Richards and second Adam Gilchrist. I have no doubt what so ever in my mind about voting Virendra Sehwag as player of decade. Had he scored those 7 Runs against Sri Lanka after scoring 293, would have been the only playter to score three triple centuries in the history. Strike Rate helps getting result.

  • Shane on January 16, 2010, 12:26 GMT

    I think it's pretty pointless trying to single out one player as the best of the best, and I think it's completely pointless to get upset and argue about it. The fact is that you could make a case for any of these players to be picked - Ponting has sheer weight of runs, Kallis all round abilities, McGraths performances all over the world, Lara's massive scores, Murilithirans astounding assault on the wicket taking record, Tendulkars gorgeous technique, Dravids faultless technique etc etc. You can also make cases against them all - Pontings' poor record in India, Murilithirans poor record in Australia, Lara's inconsistancy, Tendulkars poor record in the 3rd/4th innings, etc.

    Any one of these players would be a deserving choice. In the end, Ponting scored the most runs, won the most games, and played in the best team of the decade, that is why he was chosen. As an Australian I am happy he was chosen, but i would be just as happy if Kallis or Murilitheran were given the honour.

  • Andrew on January 16, 2010, 12:12 GMT

    Srikanth I applaud you for your unbiased comments. As an Australian it might seem obvious that I should like your comments, but the reason is, that you haven't resorted to simply mercilessly researching all of Ponting's failings just because you might not like him. Credit has to be given where it is due, without bias prejudice or any personal feelings. This gives your comments credibility, unlike many of the other replies.

  • Praveen on January 16, 2010, 12:10 GMT

    I wont agree sachin as best because he failed to lift 2003 wc, and three 3 big guns (sachin saurav dravid) played in 2007 wc what happened world knows. I think ponting has more winning knocks than sachin in 45 tons of his career india lost 16 times but as a captain ponting managed only one loss in his centuries (164 against sa).

  • cricket mad on January 16, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    I dont care an iota about Ponting. For me he has failed miserably on the most important front....sportsmanship......Even though I am Indian, i can remember me having high regards (and lots of affection as well) for past aussie greats like Steve and Mark waugh, McGrath, Warne, and even for Bret Lee. Am fong of Ian Chappell, Mark Taylor and a big fan of Shane Watson. Even though Australia won everything under the sun, they are nowhere close to being admired and more importantly "loved" as the all conquering Windies teams of 80s. The sole rason has been Ponting....his personality is repulsive and this conduct on the field pathetic.....thats all i have to say. dont want to waste more time on him....and to think of the fact that he has been voted the "Player of the decade"....well you could easily make it "the most derided player of the decade"!!!

  • Mohammed on January 16, 2010, 12:09 GMT

    Dan, you are getting ahead of yourself, greatest since Bradman? What about Viv Richards, and I'm an aussie. I rank Ponting slightly higher than Sachin and Brian but not Viv.

  • sumit on January 16, 2010, 11:42 GMT

    ponting deserves the player of the decade award for sure.he has scored more runs than anyone in both forms of the game.he has led his team to two world cups and two champions trophy.he is an outstanding fielder.he is the only player who has led his team so nicely and has scored runs at the same time.and he is a counterattacker and takes the game away from the opposition.the only competitor from him is jacques kallis because of his allround performance but still ponting 1 and kallis 2 .then mcgrath ,warne ,lara, muralitharan ,dravid.and talking about the form of ponting against india .he scored two consecutive double hundreds against them

  • Arvind on January 16, 2010, 11:37 GMT

    A bunch of the editor's "friends" chose their player of the decade by a "majority vote". That's fine, you and your friends can go for a picnic or a movie or play cards or choose player of the decade, but what is the need to put it up on the Cricinfo's website and give it more importance than the live matches?

    What about Ponting the cricketer, by the way? Looks like you have only considered his batting? Have you forgotten how he swore at the England dressing room during the Ashes 2005, or his recent antics at the end of the Cardiff Test? I know that if I mention his "I said out" gesture to the umpires during the Sydney test, and appealing for dropped catches, a number of folks will pounce on me.

    By publicly announcing an "award" for him, you have given the wrong signal. Cricket is not a Bullfight.

  • Shaun on January 16, 2010, 11:29 GMT

    @Legionnaire - very insightful post , but please people remember to add 250 plus wickets in both forms of the game to Kallis's record !!

  • Joshua Levin on January 16, 2010, 11:28 GMT

    Its very simple, for anyone confused about who deserved player of the decade. There are only four real contenders:1) Kallis - second best batsmen of the decade by average and runs scored, as well as having a strong bowling ability making him the greatest all rounders of the decade and maybe all time( Sobers and I Khan are the only ones who compare) 2) Ponting - greatest batsmen of the decade through average and runs scored, also could be rated alongside Barrington, Hobbs, Hutton, G Pollock, Tendulkar and many others as one of the many possible second greatest batsmen of all time (to Bradman) 3) Murilitharin - Statistically a contender for greatest bowler of all time, but if you go by averages, then 100% greatest spin bowler of all time (slight problem with action hurts his chances) 4) Mcgrath - Greatest pace bowler of decade and with shear number of wickets and extremely solid average would rate alongside j. Garner, M. Marshall, A.Donald as one of the top pace bowlers of all time.

  • Shaun on January 16, 2010, 11:25 GMT

    The last decade there has been little to difference in the amount of runs ponting has scored compared to Kallis, add to all this Kallis is closing in on 300 wickets on both forms of the game. Also go and check cricinfo's records, Kallis has won the most man of the match awards in the recorded history of the game !! Kallis should have won hands down, also Ponting did not have to face the like of warne and macgrath.

  • rext on January 16, 2010, 11:03 GMT

    Nationalism rules you fools!! When did Lara ever play an innings for his team in preference to his own statistics and when did Tendulkar win a Test for India? Just look at his second innings career average. Just over 30. Very ordinary. But don't let the facts influence your thoughts will you? Ponting's been a champion as captain and neither Tendulkar or Lara can claim that as they were failures in that role!

  • Anthony on January 16, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    How can anyone be so uneducated that they would think the decade ended at the end of this year? I am amassed that anyone who thinks that can actually read. There is no better choice for player of the decade than Ricky Ponting, he has been the superstar batsmen of cricket since he's career began their isn't anyone out there who can get close to him, Sachin is not even half the batsman that Punter is. Sachin is over rated, Lara wipes the floor with him.

  • Sundar on January 16, 2010, 10:55 GMT

    Ricky Ponting? hmmm.I would love to see him bat against Warne. Someone who would couldn't handle Harbhajan in Indian pitches would have failed utterly against Warne anywhere. Mine would have been either Tendulkar or McGrath. Anyways, not a bad choice though the arguments would never end.

  • scotty on January 16, 2010, 10:42 GMT

    he just backed it up with 200 runs didnt he? Im a kiwi and i totally think ponting deserves it. Yes India has some good players but ponting is the best batter while captaining, Sachin doesnt have the pressure of being the captain. So my top three would have to be Ponting, Kallis, and probably McGrath

  • John M on January 16, 2010, 10:37 GMT

    I won't try and dispute the list. What the list does provide is ten players in a pretty decent cricket side. I am wondering who #11 would be? Who would be the drinks waiter?

  • PunterFan on January 16, 2010, 10:13 GMT

    Ricky Ponting was the most prolific run scorer of the decade and was the captain of the most successful team of the decade. No other player comes close and the voting correctly reflects that.

  • P.Satish on January 16, 2010, 9:45 GMT

    I totally agree with Mr.Bal having McGrath as his player of the decade. There have now been countless articles written about this decade having gotten easier to bat. Mr.Bal himself recently mentioned that only Tendulkar and Lara averaged more than 50 during the 90s while lots more got there during the 2000s. It might mean there are more number of better batsmen today, it might mean there are fewer good bowlers today and it certainly has shown that wickets are flatter. Tailenders themselves are hanging on much more easily.

    In this scenario, Cricinfo unfortunately has not seemed to have taken the overall change in the game when arriving at this decision. In a decade of the batsmen a player like McGrath has gone at close to 5 wickets a test, at an average around 25 and has performed everywhere including India where he was a tremendous force both in the THE SERIES of 2001 and the triumph of 2004.

    So why pick a batsman in the age of the bat?

  • sushant on January 16, 2010, 9:34 GMT

    some Australian voted their man and its big news come on. everybody in world knows who is best. if its about decade, ponting surely doesnt deserve it. On what count he won, dravid, tendulkar, lara, kallis everbody played brilliant cricket over decade. If one person who would edge others is kallis. he didnt only scored runs but was also among wicket. And of voting, surely it was carried out in Aus not globally. For us, duo dravid(test)/tendulkar cherished most.

  • Adi on January 16, 2010, 9:33 GMT

    As with most comments, i disagree with this choice. Pontings case doesn't go beyond numbers at all. Yes, Ponting dominated most teams within the decade, and he lead Aus to a number of trophies, but during his career, not once did he play an innings that dramatically changed the course of a game. If the Australian batting line up crumbled (which was admitedly quite rare) he crumbled with them. There was never a time where he stood alone and truly shone for his team. If you look at Tendulkar, Lara and even Sehwag nowadays u can always associate a particular innings that they played which were truly special, because of the manner in which the runs were accumalated as well the effect they had on the match as a whole. With Lara it was his flair, Sehwag, his belligerance and Tendulkar, it was just overall batting perfection.

    Ponting never laughed at any bowler, he just merely laughed with them.

  • Apyboutit on January 16, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    Ponting SUFFERED(s) against quality fast bowling and spin. He would have had his 3rd "0" at Hobart, thanks to Pak. He is poorly mannered against all people around him - so what if your Motto is to win, where is your human quality gone?! Worst Oz captain after Kim Hughes. Scored most runs against poor bowling and fielding sides and in the background of a strong and dependable team. His scoring rate and average dropped after THAT team retired. His fielding and catching has also been a distant shadow of the past, since THAT team retired. Best of the decade? Give Kallis, Warne, Murali, Sehwag, Dravid, McGrath, Sachin, Lara, Gilli and Smith, a huge break!! What a wasteful formality! A bad joke!

  • faisal on January 16, 2010, 8:39 GMT

    For the guys who tried to say ponting never played a match-winning or match saving innings I have somthing to say to them,please before mentioning such stupid stuff take a little visit in cricinfo archive(not your memory because you don't have one).You guys are missing one thing that you will neevr find a player with more guts than him.I can still remember one of his innings at Leeds.In the previous five innings of that ashes he had scored only 50 runs and that day he was joined by mark waugh at 40+/2,the bowlers were doing very good specialy gaugh,then ponting produce one of best test innings ever under immense pressure,he scored 144 of 153 balls(at second innings he also scored 72 of 72,unfortunately he end up at the losing side because of gilchrist's brave declaration and buther's amazing 173).The point I try to make here is that he never change his game even under pressure,thats what make him the greatest.

  • Xolile on January 16, 2010, 8:24 GMT

    The decade is behind us. We know what happened. If we could travel back in time to the start of the decade, and were given the opportunity to manage one national side, and the choice to pick one player to represent that side, who would you pick?

    I wouldn’t pick McGrath because he missed the last three years of the decade. The same goes for Warne. I also wouldn’t pick Ponting. He inherited a thriving business from Steve Waugh and ran it into the ground. He is not a very good man manager, not much of an ambassador, and certainly not a great tactician. I blame him for the demise of Symonds, to give one example.

    For me it would be a tough call between Kallis and Murali. Given my preference for Test cricket I would go with Kallis. His all-round numbers for the decade in which bowling was so difficult is significantly better than Sobers’. I find it baffling that the “small cricket community” was not prepared to give him the recognition he deserves.

  • Ravi on January 16, 2010, 7:48 GMT

    How sachin can get that many points. He got 47 average on top 8 teams in tests. He is making good runs after Gambir, Sehwag putting tons. He was best players of 90s but he is not one if the best players of 2000s. Dravid is better than Sachin. Hayden is better player than ponting and Gilchrist. Kallis can be given place 1 because of batterng and bowling in Tets/ODI.

    1. Kallis 2. Dravid. 3. Hayden. 4. Ponting. 5. Gilchrist

    Bowling.

    1. McGrath. 2. Murali. 3. Warne.

  • Sreedhar on January 16, 2010, 7:37 GMT

    Where is Hayden? He is the best from AUS for this decade. He is better&consistant than Gilchrist in both ODI and Tests.Gilchrist, Hayden,Lager always made very good runs for opening wicket, they are all aggressive players taking pressure, all has around 50 average in tests. So there was no pressure on Ponting. India never had such openers.Sehwag is never consistant. Dravid played on all grounds in the world with all kind openers who are not consistant like Sanjay Bangar, Akash Chopra, Deepdas,Gambir(before 2008),Zaffer,Parthp, Karthik. Sachin is never been consistant. In 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 in these years. The 241 on australia is the only good innings that came after good start where all the players made runs in that inns. That inns can't be compared with Dravid 233 which came in second inns trailing 500+ score and 85/4. 194* is just like Dravids 117 in chennai against SA. Sachin is making good runs these days on young bowling attack. Dravid is best test player of the decade

  • PaNkit on January 16, 2010, 7:21 GMT

    i do not agree that ricky pointing is selected the player of the decade.

  • Jar on January 16, 2010, 7:18 GMT

    To Legionnaire and other ponting fans,

    How many test runs did ponting score against mcgrath and warne? How many did he score without hayden and gilchrist in the team?

  • Kumar on January 16, 2010, 7:15 GMT

    Ponting dont deserve to be No 1 simple reason as bowlers he faced to get all those runs were average, he faced neither McGrath or Warne. He failed in important test series such as 2001 (vs India) and 2005 (vs England). When voting a player one must go beyond pure statistics. What impact has Ricky imparted on the game? I beleive Adam Gilchrist without doubt is the player of the decade as he changed the way ppl look at wicket keeper/batsman. Furthermore, he walks once he knows he is out. Thats a fresh approach for the game.

  • Meghana on January 16, 2010, 6:54 GMT

    It is very surprising that Ponting should be the choice for the No. 1 player. His activities off the field have been far from sporting and that should be more important than just runs. I am surprised that Dravid or Kumble are not around.

  • Satyajit on January 16, 2010, 6:51 GMT

    Fair explanation from Sambit. The fact that the jury has been asked to look into player's impact on the game helps the players of a champion team who would be more confident than their counterparts from other teams and hence get better results. Kallis would have been my player of the decade looking at his contribution. Probably his boring style of play and SA choking under pressure in major classhes has contributed to that. I would actually put McGrath and Murali after Kallis and Ponting at 4th. I am ok with Sachin's 6th (though I am Sachin fan), as this decade he was either injured or out of form half the time. If you ask about players of the decade for 90s, top ten should be Sachin, Lara, Akram, Donald, Warne, McGrath, Waqar, Murali, Kumble, Steve Waugh in the same order. Cann't recollect anybody from Eng,NZ who could have made to the list ;-)

  • venkat on January 16, 2010, 6:37 GMT

    Leigionnaire- Thats the last thing Indians fear. Ponting overtaking Sachin.Simple fact. Ponting was good coming behind Hayden and Langer. He was woeful against Harbhajan (who is by no means a world class spinner). His numbers have dipped significantly since the retirements of Hayden and Langer. If he was as great as he is deemed to be, he would have taken the lead after these retirements. Remember,Dravid, Kallis, Sachin and Lara never had that luxury. They were their teams 20/2 men.

  • Max on January 16, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    Ponting is LUCKY to become player of the decade. Yes, LUCKY. FACTS: 1) The guy was at his (personal) peak when pitches became flatter; 2) Hardly faced any all-time great bowlers this decade (played Murali only in a few games, didn't face McGrath or Warne...would probably have struggled against Warne, given he keeps falling to Harbhajan). 3) Lara retired mid-decade; Tendulkar lost 2 years due to tennis elbow, and his arm strength was never again the same. 4) For 7 years of the decade, had other greats like Warne, McGrath, Waugh, Gilchrist, Hayden + very good players like Langer, Martyn, Lee, Gillespie to take the pressure off (with more pressure on him he's not even averaging 45 in the last 3-4 years). The FACT is Kallis scored nearly as many runs and got TONS of key breakthroughs for his team, but team SA were never as good as Aus, and so Ponting wins the plaudits. Those are FACTS no Aussie can truthfully deny. They also know RTP would never figure in an 'ambassadors of cricket' list!

  • Zubin on January 16, 2010, 6:22 GMT

    i simply cant believe that a man( read ricky ponting) who averages 20 in the most batting friendly pitches of the world( read india)...the man who didnt have to face Mcgrath and Warne in their prime...the man who consistently was over the line in discipline...the man who never had to build a time ( steve Waugh did that job for him)..the man who failed miserable when his star bowlers and batsmen retired...the captain who lost 2 ashes in a decade....is voted as the player of the decade by elite panelists of an elite magazine..sorry to say but cricinfo jus lost a fan...i dont say Sachin should be given the award...for me its Jacques Kallis/Rahul Dravid/ Glenn Mcgrath.....

  • UriGagarin on January 16, 2010, 6:21 GMT

    I don't know about the best stats or most dominant but for player of the decade we have to look at the glamour of the sport, Tendulkar and Lara brought a certain glitz to the sport. There is though the case of Ashley Giles as well. A sorely underrated player,whose sheer force of personality won the Ashes for England in 2005, and masterminded the win in 2009. If not for a crippling injury in 2006/7 series in Australia (in which he despite being in a wheelchair still went on field)would have single-handedly kept the ashes in England. A mild mannered man, a style guru for most, and truly the King of Spain (the present monarch having abdicated in secret many many years ago, but Giles being the gracious man that he is said to carry on while he was still working in Cricket.) Ashley Giles IS the cricketer of the decade! If only those fools would see sense .

  • Muthu on January 16, 2010, 6:15 GMT

    both mcgrath & warne were so lucky that they dont need to bowl to Punter, otherwise he would have smashed them to all cornersof the ground. even both the bowlers would agree with me. that sums up the greatness of Punter.

  • GD on January 16, 2010, 6:11 GMT

    Ponting averaged just 44 in England (for the decade), a pathetic 20 in India, and has averaged just over 40 over the last 3 years when other greats in the Aussie side have retired! And he's the PLAYER OF THE DECADE? BEST SINCE BRADMAN??? Nonsense! KALLIS, McGRATH and MURALI deserved the honour far more. The honours that Australia won during the decade were due to the STRONG AUSSIE TEAM SPIRIT, and COLLECTIVE TEAM CONTRIBUTION...anybody who attributes the 2 WC wins to 1 man and then votes for him as player of the decade doesn't understand S#@T about Aussie cricket teams!

  • Chandra on January 16, 2010, 6:00 GMT

    I always thought that SRT had fewer fans these days than in the past. It is ridiculous the way some fellow Indians worship him. The same with Rahul Dravid. His struggles of 2006 end to 2009 are well documented. In fact, while there are many good players, the exceptional ones are few. For me, Ricky Ponting's 2003 final will stand out as an outrageous innings. But I would not vote him for player of the decade. I would vote Glen Mc Grath. Nobody has his statistics and Australia have won most of their matches because of him (Look at the success rate when he did not play, including 2005 Ashes). His averages are fairly uniform across countries (Not even Murali and Warne).

    Sambit's defence does not make sense. In fact, Cricinfo should have been careful about a Jury which had 17 people from just two countries and the rest 21 from 7 other countries. There has been relentless criticism of cricinfo on the overload of Australians and English people on a web-site that has an Indian base. Pity!

  • Mark on January 16, 2010, 5:58 GMT

    I would have also loved to see performances of the decade decided by the jury - in a match/series, since when it comes to Player of the Decade, say a Ponting/Kallis/Tendulkar has a certain advantage over a Warne/McGrath since they are still playing and very successful at it (unlike say a Murali), and their feats are fresh in everyone's minds. One reason why a few fans still can't get over Tendulkar not being chosen is perhaps because of all the nostalgia and the slightly over-the-top celebration and tributes that all the news media (Cricinfo included) cashed in on during the week when he completed 20 years of international cricket. In my opinion, the disappointment in the decade review was the choice of the ODI XI - some worthy one-day players such as Symonds, Hussey, Dhoni deserve their place instead of Kallis and Jayasuriya and having a Gilchrist at No. 7 is rather pointless since he hardly did so. Also Lara's Sri Lanka exploits should have found a mention in the best performances.

  • Namma_bengalurian on January 16, 2010, 5:44 GMT

    ROFL! to see some of the Indian fans talking about poor 'sportsmanship' being overlooked when selecting ponting as the player of the decade. As if the Indian players are paragons of virtues and have done nothing to upset the spirit of the game. THese guys should have watched the Ranji final, when Uthappa after catching Agarkar abused him, and agarkar had to complain o the umpire. And then of course after Uthappa was dismissed,All the mumbai players converged togetther and collectively screamed eff-off. So much for model behaviour. India has so few achievers in world sport that these fans go to every length to project Sachin tendulkar as sme sort of a god

  • alex on January 16, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    If i have to say in Test , there is only 3 people who i think could be player of teh decade. Dravid , Mcgrath and ponting.

    ODI - Ponting. No question - 3 worldcup and he performed when his team needed him most.

    Best production ever by an all rounder - KALLIS - Iron man of cricket!.

    i really do not get this obsession of sachin , i think indian media over hype his useless stats that come from draws mostly is really not in the picture.

    I rate people by how they influence others around them to win at all cost. I never seen sachin inspire any other indian cricketer to play well at pressure situation. I never seen anyone winning a game and tell the world it is for sachin. Because sachin is just selfish man. He is not a leader , he is not even a good batsman. He is a sneaky run accumulator at best. quit making God out of crap.

  • Mark on January 16, 2010, 5:37 GMT

    Totally agree with Cricinfo's jury on their choice. Quite a few will make a fuss on Tendulkar missing out, but in our heart of hearts - even the most die-hard Sachin fans - we know that we would rather watch the Tendulkar of 1990s than the 2000s. That he still continues to be consistent and come up with amazing performances is what makes him an all-time great, but as far as the 2000s go, others were better than him. For curiosity sake, I would love to see this panel vote on their Player of the 1990s. I am sure Tendulkar would be the hot favourite alongside Lara and Warne. All those who are citing Kallis' numbers (mostly anti-Ponting and anti-Australia fans), if we go by stats along then perhaps Murali wins it hands down. Also the stats never reveal Ponting's greatness as a fielder - the fact that he is as comfortable in the slips as he was at backward point (something Jonty never could manage) and his accuracy at hitting the stumps.

  • Alex on January 16, 2010, 5:27 GMT

    Ponting is Best player of the decade!. No question on my mind. He will also be best batsman ever better than sachin miles ahead.

    Why?. Simple. Ponting may have 3 world cup and people may say because aussie had great bowlers , true. The thing about ponting that set him apart is he plays well under pressure. I have seen many many times he played counter attacking inning and won the game for aussies. I never seen sachin take risk. In one dayers sachin never take first strike and in Test he is always 4 down so even wicket fall , he will never face new ball. He is more of safe selfish cricketer who like sto accumulate runs. I am indian , i am not into sachin jingoism. Even india i rate Kapil Dev as greatest cricketer not sachin even if he score useless 20000 runs.

    I like people who wants to win for INDIA. Not selfish records. I just do not get it this obsession about sachin who is absolute waste in terms of india winning any game. His presence caused india lose last 3 world cup.

  • Madhu on January 16, 2010, 5:12 GMT

    The amount of votes Rahul Dravid got was very disappointing and surprising. In my view, Rahul Dravid is the best Test batsman of the decade and Brian Lara the best Test batsman of this era. Ricky Ponting and Sachin are the best in shorter form but in Test matches they lag behind Lara and Dravid. Moreover Sachin and Dravid never had the oppurtunity to feast on mediocre Indian bowling and Ponting never had to face Warne and McGrath all his life. McGrath and Warne were responsible for the Aussies domination. Even Warne had difficult times with India. So, McGrath is the undisputed player of this decade in all forms of the game. If you ask me who is best batsmen of the decade, it has to be "THE WALL". But sadly no one recognizes his performances. I agree Sachin is genius and more talented than Rahul. He is demigod of Indian Cricket. But Rahul is the prime factor behind India becoming No.1 Test nation and deserves more praise.

  • Jason on January 16, 2010, 4:44 GMT

    I agree with you Sambit. McGrath, then Kallis, then probably Ponting would be my top 3 of the decade. Example of his value? Tendulkar only scored 2 of his 10 100s against Australia when McGrath was present.

  • sandy_bangalore on January 16, 2010, 4:36 GMT

    People like Sathya are in a minority, who tries to prject themselves as a "religious fan" and goes about giving the likes of TEndulkar a god-like status. To all readers outside the subcontinent: Very few Indian fans are of this type. Mos of us know real class when we see one, and rate Kallis, Ponting o par with the TEndulkars and Dracids. Please dont assume that all Indian fans are the type who dont give a damn about the achievements of Aussies and Saffers.

  • Aditya Deshpande on January 16, 2010, 4:11 GMT

    This must be the joke of the decade - Ponting voted the best player! A player is not just a run machine, he has to be a gentleman as well (the game's definition has this word). Ricky Ponting has been nothing but Australia's national disgrace the way he has conducted on and off the field. He only succeeded as a captain because of McGrath and Warne - you see, the 'Arrogant Aussies' are no longer invincibles with India, South Africa and England making heavy inroads. All he has done is led a pack of wolves this decade and trained everyone to be like him, arrogant to the core with no sportsman spirit - Watson, Clarke, Siddle, Bollinger, Martyn, Symonds, etc etc - Ponting can take all due credit for bringing forth these bullies of international cricket. Tendulkar, Murali, Kallis, McGrath, Warne - everyone else was a better choice than the 'smirking, spitting punter.' This is just another case of a heavy bias towards white players. The past cricket greats would be turning in their graves.

  • Legionnaire on January 16, 2010, 3:41 GMT

    Most Runs in Tests : 1. Ponting : 9458 (107 tests) 2. Kallis : 8630 (101 tests) 3. Dravid : 8558 (103 tests) Tendulkar at 7th with 7129 runs in 89 matches

    Highest Test batting Averages : 1. Flower : 63.25 2. Kallis : 58.70 3. Yousuf : 58.53 Ponting at 4th position with 58.38 Tendulkar at 14th position with 53.20

    Most test 100s : 1. Ponting : 32 2. Hayden : 29 3. Kallis : 27 Tendulkar at 9th with 21 100s

    Courtsey: kaustubh saha

    The only real competition is between Ricky Ponting and Jacques Kallis.

    Its amusing why all the objections are predominantly from India. May be Indians' fears of Ponting overtaking Sachin??

  • Anand on January 16, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    Let's face it guys. This is some 38 blokes who feel they know more about cricket. Ponting is great but for me brian and Rahul getting so less votes shows how biased the juris were. It useless to do these kind of things. Cricinfo - you are shame to cricket ! Kallis scored as many runs and took bloody 250 odd wickets. Add 20 runs / wicket he got to his tally and u get how much runs he scored. Utterly biased and crap stuff. I am sure you will come up more such things in future guys - good luck.

  • senthil on January 16, 2010, 3:25 GMT

    Ponting is not the greatest of this Decade, certainly he is not.He has never played a match saving innings, you can take all his greatest performances listed above.It is all built over other's contributions.He has never faced the best bowlers in the list(Glenn & shane).He is certainly good but certainly not the best.The real person who helped Australia to rule the decade is Mcgrath.He was the one who tore apart the opponents.I don't know how the jury people thought, but it is wrong. I certainly don't understand how people still say that sachin didn't produce a match winning innings. In the last vb series, he was the real cause of our winning against pakistan(2003 wc ), century against england in chepauk..the list will go on brother's..He was the one who was appreciated by the great Don Brodman as this guy has my touch !Think once before you type ! please !

  • Middlestump on January 16, 2010, 2:07 GMT

    Sambit, your clarification only makes it even more clear that the selection process was deeply flawed. The judges probably did not know how to weigh the different aspects before rating a player. So besides batting, the rating was based on what Ponting did on the field? Yes, he lead his team in cheating his way to a series win against India in 2007, led his team in blunders on the tour to India in 2008 (remember his bowling decisions in Nagpur?), repeated his ineptness during the South Africa tour Down Under last year. His list is endless. Then again, remember one Sourav Ganguly? That's the guy who brought the winning temper to Indian cricket seventy years after the country played its first test. Something no captain, manager or coach from India or abroad could not do for nearly a century.I am sure your balanced reviewers did not even think about him.Somehow you think having Indian judges vote for Ponting and Aussies for Sachin makes it a good decision.No,it only makes it uniformly bad.

  • Tim on January 16, 2010, 2:00 GMT

    India, India, India. Just because there are more Indians than Australians in the world doesn't mean that the majority should rule when it comes to this debate.

  • Omkar on January 16, 2010, 1:37 GMT

    I am surprised that Punter was voted player of the decade. I won't give too much credit to Ricky Ponting the captain. A team that has players like Gilly, Haydos, Langer, Ponting the batsman, Warne, McGrath, Lee and company in its ranks will win consistently even if it is captained by Mohd Yusuf. The true test was giving the results when the big names retired and thats when Oz started loosing. Just shows a captain is as good as the team. Punter played in a strong lineup, rarely had to play under pressure when you compare him with players like lara or sachin. Also, Punter did not have to bat against the best bowling attack in the world and we never know how he would have fared incase he had to. When Oz big names retired and the side became depleted, thats when Punter felt the heat. His form over the past 2-3 yrs has dipped when it mattered the most. Though he was the top scorer in both forms of the game I consider SRT's contribution higher than Punter.

  • Omkar on January 16, 2010, 1:21 GMT

    Ricky Ponting had a very good decade, but to me he does not deserve to be adjudged the player of the decade.

  • Dan on January 16, 2010, 1:07 GMT

    Anyone who thinks Ponting didnt deserve it is kidding themselves. I cant be anything but surprised when people try and throw up names of batsmen they think even compare to Ponting. Ponting is the best since Bradman (this coming from an Englishman) despite what the Indian fans may try and argue..

  • Spirit0cricket on January 16, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    Sathya The bullying tactics of CA mmmm lets remember that those players in the ICL who were banned from all forms of the game due to ....the BCCI and who had a plan fuelled up and ready to go if the ICC held up harhajans ban following his on field behaviour at the SCG ... please don't talk about bullying tactics without addressing those of the BCCI

  • Pete on January 15, 2010, 23:40 GMT

    No mention of Mohammed Yousuf anywhere even though statistically he is at par with the best this decade. He broke Viv Richards' 23 year record of most Test runs in a calendar year(which i doubt will be broken again) Not surprising since Pakistani players are rarely given their fair due internationally. I dont think Ponting is a bad choice but i wouldve given the title to Kallis. We get to see 4 or 5 batsmen of Pontings caliber every decade, but players with the all round ability of Kallis are very very rare.

  • Atif Qazi on January 15, 2010, 23:32 GMT

    well for me..Kallis z No, 1..coz if u see all the nomination in all of them only kallis, statistics z remarkable not only as batsman but as bowler too so i cant belive why ponting z no 1 and with such highest points...

  • Viewer on January 15, 2010, 23:28 GMT

    @Gautam How did Dravid get to be in the top 3 of the 90s ? Last time I looked it was Steve Waugh and McGrath in the 90s that dethroned WI in 1995. India were no where on the map. Dravid only debuted in 1996, his prime years were in the 2000s. He was THE best Indian player in the 2000s which pretty much tells you where Sachin stands. I would say the players of the 90s were Steve Waugh, McGrath and Lara with Warne a close 4th. You look at the 2000s and Ponting dominates it both as batsman and captain. He is also better than both Lara and Sachin, just look at their statsguru analysis for tosses. Ponting averages 63 when the toss is lost, Sachin 43, Lara 50. This tells me that Ponting raises his game when the opposition has the advantage. You couple that with Lara's inconsistency and Sachin's mediocre record vs Pak and SA ( The premier fast bowling sides with Aus) and his horrible 3rd and 4th inns record and you get the picture. Ponting is the best of the 2000s and of his era case closed.

  • Noel on January 15, 2010, 23:10 GMT

    Ponting rightly is the best player of the past 10 years.After the greats retired Ponting was left with the task or rebuilding a new test team with players who were no-names players,he has done this without stars players around,he has lead from the front with style and the best is to come .Ponting will take the Aussies back to the NO.1team

  • Vinai on January 15, 2010, 22:34 GMT

    For me the pinnacle is test cricket. Look at his stats for the last decade. He has performed well only in australia. Other than that, he played well only in westindies and bangladesh which are not up to the mark. Reg his leadership, even Geoffrey's mom would have captained the likes if hayden, gilly, mc grath n warne. Its as simple as that...

  • Rohana on January 15, 2010, 22:31 GMT

    Ponting 1, daylight second. Kallis avearges 40 v Aust, 43 v England and has denied his side at least 3 victoris because he batted so slow, SA ended the game still requiring 1 or 2 wickets. Tendulkar averages 33 aginst the spin of Sri Lanka and Ponting averages 47 against the spin of India. When out of form, Ponting did have a horror tour in India in 2001, averaging about 4 but that dosn't make a decade. When it mattered, World cup Final 2003 in India, Ponting made 140 and Tendulkar 4. As far as Lara, on occassion he batted for so long that he denied his side any chance of victory and Test Cricket is all about winning Test Matches and not about Brian Lara. When not scoring double plus hundreds he was scoring 10.

  • Naveed Shahzad on January 15, 2010, 22:24 GMT

    I am really flabbergasted to know that Jacque Kallis hasn't chosen as the player of decade. In my opinion nobody then him deserved more the accolade of the player of decade, because he has performed expectionally well in all the areas of the game beyond imagination. In my opinion Ponting is the batsman of the decade but not player and is far behind then Kallis because of his unimaginable all round capabilities.

  • Amit on January 15, 2010, 22:16 GMT

    my one question is : Is there any cricketer who had impact on cricket as SACHIN has ?

  • Amit on January 15, 2010, 22:11 GMT

    i disagree with ponting being the best of the decade. most of his centuries have come in situations where batting was very easy and opponents having weak attacks. he didnt score in india, he didnt score in important situations, he didnt impact the game. fair play is a big question mark over him. numbers tell half the story. tendulkar is averaging more nowadays but we still feel tendulkar was better in 90;s. we also forgot the important factor called INJURY. tendulkar lost quite a few matches in injury. but still tendulkar apart, i think it was KALLIS who is way ahead of ponting anytime. PONTING HASNT JUST SCORED AGAINST THE BEST BOWLERS OF THE DECADE. his latest double century is the perfect example of it.

  • Avi Singh on January 15, 2010, 21:49 GMT

    I can't say I agree with the choice of Ponting as the best player of the decade but I don't think anyone can say that the jury got it completely and utterly wrong. However I do agree with the comment that noted how disappointing it was to see Brian Lara and Rahul Dravid receive only 3 votes between them. Out of 38 people with 3 votes each (equalling 114 votes), how can these two great cricketers receive only 3 out of 114 votes????? Some explanation of the criteria please Sambit and what these two greats did that pushed them so far down the pecking order as to be basically unrecognised for their contributions to the game.

  • vas on January 15, 2010, 21:31 GMT

    Hats off to the many Indians fans here who despite have ben on the wrong end of Ponting's worse moments, have recognised the good he has done for world cricket.

    Anyone who says Ponting should be disqualified on the basis of his onfield conduct are missing the point. Ponting has had a colourful record at times, but his conduct since Sydney 2008 has been exemplary and he has been a fine leader of the Australian team.

    Kallis was a fine contender with the amount of runs and wickets gained, but does that personal stat really seem better than how Ponting's personal contributions have taken his team to number 1 and kept them there for a long time. The best thing is he isn't finished, and still has plenty of time remaining to sow the seeds of another champion Australian side.

  • scott on January 15, 2010, 21:29 GMT

    We could argue the criteria for player of the decade but the way it has been decided is probably the best. If we were to include every aspect of the game then we would get the result in about 2032.

    The reason pointing got it was cause he obviously left the biggest alsting impression amongst the jury. and to be honest I agree if I was to ask people who was the most memorable player of the decade most would say pointing beacause it the big innings and hard edge captancy that lingers in our mind.

    It would then most likely rate as Kallis which is the way the results paned out.

  • younis on January 15, 2010, 21:23 GMT

    I am a South African but will always support Australia, yes Ponting is my favourite player and is a exceptional captain regardless of his "attitude" everybody has a player to pick as the best player of the decade at the end of the day nobody can say that the judges were biased as most did not even compose of Australian panel so all the "haters" of Ponting take a bow cause he is a true legeng, master and magician as they say his record speaks for itself go see people. I must admit there are other players that werent praised that much if at all such as Dravid, Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis,S.waugh,Warne,Pidgeon,Donald,Polly,Inzimam,Jayasuriya,Gilchrist,Murali,Kumble etc im sure i left out other greats im sure you know who use are it is unfair because they are all masters and cricket graets at the end of the day there can be only one PUNTER a WALL OF FAMER,keep tormenting attacks till you retire.

  • Sha on January 15, 2010, 21:22 GMT

    I think the player of the decade should also reflect the decade in general and the 2000s was the decade of Australian dominance and with great credit to McGrath and Warne, only Ponting' come through from start to finish. And then we have the statistical argument that proves him as the biggest match winning batsmen of the decade as well... therefore, probably the only surprise would be how easily he won it... as for the "Greatest" achiever of the decade, has to go to Kallis. So under-rated but it's possible we will never see an all-rounder of such consistency and longevity. In the last part of the decade, he's even been able to adapt to a completely different ODI and T20 player which adds more feathers to his hat... just last week, he still managed a bouncer at about 143 kmph... not bad eh? And the fact that he can stand-up to Ponting' numbers purely as a batsmen (disregard all those 400+ wickets) speaks volumes. Bowler of the decade, Murali of-course :)

  • Saad on January 15, 2010, 20:14 GMT

    If cricket is NOT a gentleman's game, then I have no doubt whatsoever that Ponting is the player of the decade! The numbers support him, his captaincy record supports him, he has played some unbelievable innings in the most crucial of times, he is a match winner. he is probably the best fielder around with an amazing ability to inflict run outs. I guess the only question mark can be about his on-field behavior over the years.

  • RSGarcia on January 15, 2010, 19:48 GMT

    It says a lot that you felt the need to defend your selection. I think every jury member ought to think about what it says to every new cricketer that someone with such ungentlemanly behaviour on and off the field is lauded with such fervour. Cricket is no longer the gentleman's game. If you're picking batsman of the decade, by all means, pick Ponting, but the Player of the Decade should encompass more than just stats and criteria--he should be someone we can all look to as the embodiment of all that is positive in cricket. An all-rounder would have been the obvious choice. A gentleman would also have been obvious. But in reality, none of these lists mean a damn, sorry to say. In the end, we'll remember the greats, not Cricinfo's lists. And I fervently thank the cricketing gods for that.

    And while you're at it, explain how Lara got left out in a Test 11 for the decade? Didn't he have a bunch of stats too? Pity that criteria never seems to work for anyone but the Aussies...

  • Minal on January 15, 2010, 19:41 GMT

    And since the comments section is limited - isn't it rather odd that the best player of the decade failed miserable against a team that gave his team the toughest fight in the entire decade - India even lead Aus 7-6 in the test match wins. But that does not count does it because he did manage to get 32 hundreds and 9000+ runs in tests and even in ODIs. It's better we keep it a numbers game and not go beyond numbers, cause if we do - Ponting does not stand a chance.

  • Minal on January 15, 2010, 19:38 GMT

    If it was only the nos. game then we won't debate Ponting. We don't doubt the cricinfo jury. But if you make a statement that the selection goes beyond numbers & therefore Ponting's selection is more justified,then you are being contradictory.Ponting is a rather bad role model for any budding cricketer.His word cup wins,championship trophy win,Ashes white-wash do not count when compared to his behaviour on-field. It's sad & not in the spirit of the game. Aussies are known for their sledging but I don't recollect Taylor or Tugga's side being spoilsports.Ponting is an average captain-he had a good side to go with hence he succeeded. His captaincy in the 2005 Ashes for no where near imaginative. In a decade that firmly established this game as a batsman's game with dead pitches,shorter boundaries, power plays and IPL nonsense-it would've been a great message if the crown had gone to the one man who bravely shouldered Aussie attack-Glenn McGrath.I expected the elite jury to make that call

  • Krishna on January 15, 2010, 19:14 GMT

    Ponting's victory seems so un-digestable to many simply coz he has had such undeserving victories on the field(like the one in Sydney). With due respect to his batting prowess, my personal view is that there are much more things needed to make a legend.To me Dravid to some extent and Sachin to a greater extent were deserving candidates. How many players outside of the Aussie dressing room respect Ponting? (if all inside the dressing room do is debatable as well). But everyone, even the most unfortunate bowlers whom he tormented are happy for Sachin and respect him. After all, greatness lies not in laughing at the bowlers face. It rather lies in putting a smile on as many other faces. More than convincingly, Sachin has done that. My vote to him (for the first time, I wish I was not an Indian, for this statement of mine will now be considered biased)

  • Stephen on January 15, 2010, 19:02 GMT

    Chanderpaul one vote. Did anyone look at the WI stats with him and Vic Richards the cricket bully? Almost the same amount of test with Chand overtaking him for the second highest run scorer in the WI.So he do not use brute force but he has being carrying a very weak side for most of his time in test cricket.Do you have to be a flacher to make it. Remember he still have the 4th fastest hundred in test cricket and bowlers hate to see him at the crease. One vote? How many of these so called judges played test cricket and what was there averages?

  • Masum on January 15, 2010, 19:00 GMT

    I think,the selection is ri8.I think some indians always want their player win everything,though there is a best one ahead of them.Last decade, Ponting was the man.Sm1 talk abt his poor form in india.Bt in the last tour ,1st test against india,is nt he scored a gr8 hundred.Forget that?Huh!U forget that ,the 140 in 2003 final against india!And in recent time,ponting helps australia to win a odi series 4-2 against india without their 8 main players..Obviously,ponting was the best cricketer of last decade.Congrts ponting and keep it going

  • Gautam Kumar on January 15, 2010, 18:58 GMT

    I don't think Punter deserve to be Player of the decade.....there are so many players who had done great job in past. Murli, Greame smeath and Rahul Dravid are much deserving players, because of match winning their match winning capablities...

  • Aus on January 15, 2010, 18:52 GMT

    dhiren - Australia's biggest opponent in the decade was England, as it is in every decade. Their biggest threat for supremacy was South Africa. India had a decent team in the decade, but they were not the biggest opponents. I would have thought there would have been more comments for the Sri Lankans in the decade Jayawardene, Sangakarra and Murali over the Indian players. These players as individuals were outstanding this decade in an otherwise ordinary team. I would thought along the lines of Sambit as well, but cannot fault the process.

  • Rogers Jeffrey L on January 15, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    Ponting's numbers are a bit staggering,agreed.His dominance of the bowlers over the entire decade is unrivalled. He has the fighting spirit and has lead his team to many victories as no other captain has ever done.Its all fine, but are these alone enough to judge 'The cricketer of the decade'. A cricketer most be judged not only in terms of records, but also in his effort to uphold the spirit of cricket.The Sydney test, and the un cerimonious ushering of Sharad pawar,Australian sledging tactics do no good to his image as an ambassador of cricket.Ponting might be the captain with the most victories, but was it the team he formed?The seamless transition into captaincy was possible as it was Tugga who had transformed Aussies into a powerful cricketing force.The second ashes defeat is surely a black mark in his other wise illustrious captaincy.Well Ponting might be the man who laughs in bowlers faces.he surely deserves to be the batsman of the decade but not the 'Player of the Decade'

  • Ravish Kumar on January 15, 2010, 17:47 GMT

    Point noted! I would have voted for McGrath too because to me Ponting is one among many who are closely clubbed in that space but McGrath stands on his own without peers as a fast bowler who dominated the decade in all conditions. With Ponting I don't get that "head and shoulders above his peers" vibe. That said, its not a bad choice. Its a predictable choice in todays environment where microscope is put on the number of decimals after a players batting average to determine who is the greatest and bowlers are treated both by the ICC and the crowds as a bowling machine intended to help pile on to a batsman's average.

  • Saquib on January 15, 2010, 17:37 GMT

    as a avid cricket & statistic follower my view is...Ponting was decade's best batsman & not a player as rightly commented by others, the player of the decade is undoutdly Kallis for his allround abilities in both forms of game (now in 3rd form ie 20-20 also).

  • yusuf on January 15, 2010, 17:30 GMT

    Ricky ponting offcurse deserve the no.1 player of the decade he is the most dominating batsmen both in test and one dayers despite of being a captain lots of pressure he can bat vry well n lead his team all the tym cricket counts on records his figures offcurs he is the best in all aspect its a award tht he desvere n we all shud apricate him

  • Sathya on January 15, 2010, 17:18 GMT

    Well. Yes. It is the right of an "un-biased" jury to select Ricky Ponting as the Player of the decade. How about instituting the "worst Sportsman of the decade". Any sensible un-biased jury will definetly vote Ricky Ponting with pants down. For takers this category will be dominated by mostly Aussie players of the present and past. They are the best in this and all other players have to learn from them. An award has to be given to ICC for their splineless display of enforcing discipline to teh Auusie players because of the bullying tactics of CA.

  • Sathya on January 15, 2010, 17:16 GMT

    Well. Yes. It is the right of an "un-biased" jury to select Ricky Ponting as the Player of the decade. How about instituting the "worst Sportsman of the decade". Any sensible un-biased jury will definetly vote Ricky Ponting with pants down. For takers this category will be dominated by mostly Aussie players of the present and past. They are the best in this and all other players have to learn from them. An award has to be given to ICC for their splineless display of enforcing discipline to teh Auusie players because of the bullying tactics of CA.

  • Jason on January 15, 2010, 17:00 GMT

    I would agree to Pointing being batsman of the decade, but not player of the decade. Player of the decade must have sportsman spirit included. Just because one is good technically but not spiritually, should not be considered in overall. Kalli's have bagged wickets as well and all round performance. Murli have achieved milestones beyond imagination.

  • Ram on January 15, 2010, 16:57 GMT

    Even after reading Sambit Bal's editorial I am not convinced. Infact I am even more disappointed. Because the criteria come first and then the evaluation for any good judgement/decision. His editorial still makes it sound as if the final outcome is being justified with the criteria. The logic sounds good because Ponting fits it perfectly. I am not ... See Moresure that should be the criteria for "player of the decade". For example why not number of wickets ? Why not number of matches won by a bowler for a country ? Why not the bowler who contributed to more test victories and world cup wins ? Itr somehow seems predetermined that this is the decade of batsman so a batsman should win so who was the batsman who scored most runs and by the way the batsman also won two worldcups so the answer is ponting. With this criteria being applied who else will it be !

  • Kentaro on January 15, 2010, 16:48 GMT

    It's amazing. Indian fans cannot deal with someone from another country winning anything. Please just show some small mark of respect for a man that was voted the best of the decade by respected players/journo's. Also to that guy, it was Damien Martyn who nudged the guy offstage.

  • faisal on January 15, 2010, 16:43 GMT

    Despite his poor average at India he still maintain a career one over 55,isn't that something.Does it really matter to score heavily in a country where 50 percent of the match has ended up in a dull draw.Ponting is anything but a selfish cricketer,the way he scores is amazing.I have never seen him playing a single ugly innings for himself,tha latest one is the great example of my ovation.And for those who try to say he is not a good captain, I reprimand their claim.He has got better in it after that exodus of greats. The way he led at south africa after loosing in home soil(after 14 years) was magnificant.And don't you guys see he can still win a world tournament along with "man of it" prize.At the last limited over tour in India he took himself at the highest point ever as a captain by winning it with a second-class of their new generation team.Lets put it this way,he was the best player of the best team ever.

  • Nithya on January 15, 2010, 16:34 GMT

    First of all, it wasnt ponting who pushed Pawar. It was Damien Martyn. Secondly, Ponting deserves this award. Let us not be blinded by Tendulkar runs that were usually scored in not significant moments. I am sure Dravid's, McGrath's, Gilly's and Ponting's contributions have come at very very need times unlike Tendulkars.

  • Sandy_bangalore on January 15, 2010, 15:59 GMT

    No doubt about it...POnting was the best. Dravid a close, especially the period between 2001 and 2006, where he scored runs everywhere, in all situations, and even kept wickets and volunteered to open a few times. A team man to the core! Coming back to Ponting, I think his 156 to save Aussies from defeat on a 5th days wicket in a high pressure Ashes encounter in 2005, against the best quartret of bowlers(even thoguh they played only a series or two together) was the innings of the decade.And to those so-called fans mocking his Indian record, even TEndulkar and Lara have had series in whch they struggled. But has either played an innings like his 140 in a world cup final? And what about those conscutive 200's against India in the 2003 series down under? The best playe to watch, and one who had lots of fans in India.Well done cricinfo and Ponting!

  • Avroneel Biswas on January 15, 2010, 15:44 GMT

    I totally agree with the decisison. Ponting deserevd to be called Player Of Decade. He is such a player who has shown his character on every format of the game. We have won two world cups, two ICC champions trophy under his belt. He has always lead from the front and supported his bowlers even on their tough days unless like some other who always ready to blame and bash the bowlers. Ponting is such a player who has continued to hold his form along with his captaincy. How many players can we witness who have kept sparking along with his captaincy ?? The answer is very simple ... NO ONE. Recently he has shown in India, how to clinch victories with a broken team. What more people want from him ?? He is a successful player along with a successful captain. These are enough to call him Player Of Decade.He has earned this and no one should raise questions regarding it.

    The Batsman Who Laughs In Bowlers Faces - Ricky Thomas Ponting.

    Hats off to such a wonderful cricketer ....

  • rohit on January 15, 2010, 15:18 GMT

    It's difficult to disagree with the choice. Ponting,kallis,dravid,lara and sehwag have been the batsmen of the decade. Apart from India ponting has conquored the rest of the world. Its a mystery why he failed against harbhajan. He got runs against murali but not against harbhajan. cricket is indeed a funny game.

  • Varun on January 15, 2010, 15:08 GMT

    It's a pity that we cannot see Rahul Dravid's name mentioned in the article even once.

  • Sam on January 15, 2010, 15:06 GMT

    Some fans are so idiot here!! That's wat happens when cricket borders to being a religion, u get all kind of 'Religulous' comments from people. There is not one way in the book by which anyone cannot justify why Ponting shouldnt have gotten this title. Everyone is being a cry baby. anybody who asks question that Lara's 400 impacted the game, Sehwag's hairraising batting in tests impacted the game but how did Ricky impacted the game? He impacted the game by making sure his team stayed at no. 1 for a decade, for me that is the biggest impact. People who say stupid things like he had support of good players, well sorry to break it to u guys, he scored more than any of his teammates, perhaps he was supporting them more than viceversa. Anyways having this discussion is pointless because as i said earlier, when something like cricket equates to being a religion, any idea contrary to your belief seems wrong. Sachin is the best for me, but Ponting deserved the title.

  • Vivek on January 15, 2010, 15:02 GMT

    I also disagree with Ponting being the player of decade. For sure he is argubaly the best batsman is last 10 yrs but his onfield behaviour is more than worst. Whenever put under pressure he is like ballon which cannot contain himself. I can give countless exampes. Dont forget he is the player who has lost maximum amount of his match fees in last decade and fined maximum number of times.This fact alone is enough and i dont want to say more.

  • sameer ashraf on January 15, 2010, 14:58 GMT

    i think their is no doubt pointing is one the deserving candidate but i would opted mwas jacques kallis!

  • vi_ch on January 15, 2010, 14:55 GMT

    Everyone is entitled to voice his choice.At the first place,it is not a good idea to compare people,be it in any walk of life.But comparisons cannot be avoided.I would always assess a player's performance in the context of the game in his own country.Taking this into account,Dravid, by his sheer contribution in making India a tough team to beat abroad deserves to be placed much higher, if not above Tendulkar.I say this because,New Zealand apart,all the other countries(not Sri Lanka)have mostly been reasonably good travellers,which unfortunately could not be said of India in the past.Also,it is very rare that we see Indians being appreciated,I am talking of the likes of Dravid,Viswanath,Kumble and others.Surely they deserve a lot more for their immortal contribution to the game.

  • Srikanth on January 15, 2010, 14:50 GMT

    Also, to address the usual "character" flaws that people bring up regarding Ponting. 1) the Pawar incident - Yeah the team was a lil hasty in getting on the stage to celebrate but they had just won their first champions trophy and were excited. Also, there was no reason for Pawar to be there long after the awards had been given out. In any case it was Martyn who made contact. How people pin this on Ponting is something that stumps me. 2) Sydney 2008. How is this Ponting's fault? What was he supposed to do? Ask Symonds to walk when he knicked it? If so, then every captain who has ever NOT had a guy walk when edged is guilty. 3) Appealing when he thought his fielder made a legit catch? If that is a crime again all captains are guilty inculding the great M.S.Dhoni. Lastly, one last point to ponder. Who was the first person to be given out by the review system because he didnt walk when he edged it? Whoa..it was the paragon of virtue S.R.Tendulkar.I dont think cricinfo will publish this.

  • vas on January 15, 2010, 14:43 GMT

    Some ppl can't get it through their heads.

    A jury comprising people with far greater cricketing knowledge than us came to the conclusion that Ricky Ponting was the best. I don't need to hear it from Sambit Bal to know the process was a fair and unbiased one.

    For all (mainly Indians) who question Ponting's lack of success in India, how has Sachin fared in South Africa, or in team situations in World Cups?

    Ponting has not only got huge numbers of runs, but also plenty of catches, runouts, and within this decade, became the most successful Test cricketer and Test captain the world has ever seen. So what if he had accomplices that helped him along the way? No one tries to diminishes Sachin's glory by attributing it to Dravid, Ganguly, Sehwag or Laxman.

    End of the day, it is fitting the best player tag went to an Australian, because Australia was the greatest cricket team over a decade, and a large part of that was Ricky Ponting. Well done to Cricinfo on an excellent choice...

  • Srikanth on January 15, 2010, 14:40 GMT

    Oh please, even after the editor makes an impassioned plea for objectivity we get the usual jingoistic blah blah. ill the ones stumping for tendulkar address his pathetic record in the one country with decently competetive pitches - south africa? As an Indian, but more importantly a cricket fan, its easy to tell that Pointing has done is all this decade. He has lead both with the bat and on the field. He has some of the most dominating performances in all forms of the game..156 vs Eng in tests, 98* in the first ever 20/20 international and of course, that unforgettable 140* in the 2003 WC final where he thrashed his supposed tormentor harbhajan. no amount of boasting from harbhajan can disguise the fact that in their most important encounter, Ponting came out on top. He has been an impassioned supporter of Test cricket and contrary to what many may think..he has been a gracious captain always praising his opponent etc. Dravid would be a close no2 just for his matchwinning performances.

  • ashik on January 15, 2010, 14:36 GMT

    In terms of sheer statistics, yes Ponting is the player of the decade, but he don't have to face the Mcgraths and Warnes...the best bowlers in the decade, and except Murali the other countries have failed to produce a top-notch bowler...

  • Mick on January 15, 2010, 14:16 GMT

    You also need to remember, it is not necessarily how many are scored but also how. Ponting (more so previously than recently I must say) is a master at taking the momentum away from the oppostition with his strokeplay. While Lara is the best strokeplayer I have seen in my generation, he was not consisent during the decade. Players such as Kallis, Dravid and Tendualkar (recently) are more in the mould of accumulators, which, while still valuable, cannot necessarily take the game away from a side in the from of a dominant no.3, no matter the situation of the game (see 150 vs england 2005 at srike rate of 60+ while 'playing for draw;)

  • Yadvendra Singh on January 15, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    To recognise any player as the best of the past decade, we have to view all round performance. Hence KALLIS is miles ahead of everyone in the field. Ponting was maybe the best? batsman, but he was a good leader only till the greats in his team were present. Otherwise he has been an uninspiring captain. Kallis on the other hand has produced the best overall cricket in the decade; but loses out to a batsmen friendly generation of viewers and jury alike.

  • Paras on January 15, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    How about the worst "cricketer" of the decade award? I am sure Ponting will win this hands down; with some of the jury giving him the No.1, No.2 and the No.3 rank.

  • Hasmukh Raichura on January 15, 2010, 14:01 GMT

    Ponting may be the best batsman of the decade because of the amount of runs scored, but he has almost always failed when the bowlers from the rival teams bowled well. His batting also failed him once he lost his two main weapons Glenn Mcgrath and Shane Warne because he could not handle pressure situations. Finally, when we talk about the way he presented himself on-field and off-field in the past decade, the less said the better.

  • nancy on January 15, 2010, 13:59 GMT

    ricky ponting has done a lot for his team, nation,game and and for himself too...and i really think that this choice is perfect..

  • ratnakar on January 15, 2010, 13:53 GMT

    Sambit I agree with you.Ponting is ahead of others by a mile esp wen u take the wins he is part of into account..but Brian Lara Rahul Dravid Chanderpaul scoring 3 2 1 points respectively?how can anyone ever justify that?This is what you say-"We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole" Where did these three fail?May be Chanders is not in many people's books what about Brian and Rahul???Did they not make any impact at all in the last decade?400* might stand for a century more..is that not an impact on the game??

  • Hari Singh on January 15, 2010, 13:37 GMT

    Viewing a player's performance, divorced from how his team performs, is well nigh impossible in a team sport. The Aussie records have a sepia tint because for the greatest part of the decade they conquered almost all that came before them. Ponting's record must also be viewed in juxtaposition with his dominance at the crease. He has, quite simply, been the most peerlessly consistent game changer of the decade.

    In that one regard, at least from the year 2004 till he retired, the only man who upstaged him was perhaps Warne. But I can hear the naysayers, even as I write.

    Judge these players on the basis of the games they won off their bat, with only one exception. Lara stood frequently among the ruins this decade. And yet remains the greatest test batsman of his generation.

  • ratnakar on January 15, 2010, 13:36 GMT

    Sambit I agree with you.Ponting is ahead of others by a mile esp wen u take the wins he is part of into account..but Brian Lara Rahul Dravid Chanderpaul scoring 3 2 1 points respectively?how can anyone ever justify that?This is what you say-"We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole" Where did these three fail?May be Chanders is not in many people's books what about Brian and Rahul???Did they not make any impact at all in the last decade?400* might stand for a century more..is that not an impact on the game??

  • faisal on January 15, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    To me disputing about whether "it should be a bowler" is nothing but nagging like a stuborn girl "why can't god be a she?". Lets face it,it should be batsman,not even a sobers like allrounder!When you really close your eyes a try to remember the past decade you should come up with a bewildered gaze along with a justified ingress that it's all ponting,none but him,from the very begining of the last ten years.This man has done almst everything apart from match-winning dream double at any two of the ashes decider(thanks god,if he did so then it would considered as blasphemy). No doubt about the brilliance of every crickter in the list(not Kallis,he is the second most selfish crickter after boycott),but if you consider the past decade ponting was far ahead then anybody. Somebody try to say gilchrist does not deserved to be no-3.For you guys if you try to make all-time eleven then there is no certain number -7 than him,nor will be ever.

  • Nipun on January 15, 2010, 13:19 GMT

    Glenn McGrath & Shane Warne have been excellent beyond words,but there is absolutely no doubt that Ricky Ponting deserves this.Some Indians won't agree,but Ricky has been the perfect symbol of the overwhelming Australian dominance over the whole decade.Even Sachin Tendulkar averages below 40 in South Africa.Does it mean Sachin falls behind as the candidate for the best batsman of all time?Not at all.Same with Ricky.

  • Gautam on January 15, 2010, 13:17 GMT

    I believe the best players of the prior decade are Glenn McGrath, Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar. Ponting may be the best batsman of the decade because of the amount of runs scored, but he has almost always failed when the bowlers from the rival teams bowled well. His batting also failed him once he lost his two main weapons Glenn Mcgrath and Shane Warne because he could not handle pressure situations. Finally, when we talk about the way he presented himself on-field and off-field in the past decade, the less said the better.

  • TequilaGuy on January 15, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    But none the less, Ponting has been THE batsman of the decade, even though I have my reservations on his captaincy.

    And the 'Player of the Decade' has been chosen by Cricinfo jury and its not a unanimous vote :) I guess, everyone of us has his/her own player of the decade (in your case McGrath). And instead of turning this into a fight of stats, performances and national egos, we should just celebrate the performances of all the greats who have played this decade! I personally find it a futile exercise to do comparisons. Every match is different, players are different, situations are different. Just Enjoy the great performances and the game of Cricket!

  • Jey on January 15, 2010, 13:14 GMT

    Ponting may be great in the field and with the bat. But for being a Player of the decade is that enough? What about his off field incidents like pushing Sharad Pawar from the stage in Champions Trophy? What about the behaviour of Ponting in Sydney test against India 2007/08? I do not find any meaning for " Ponting’s case went beyond the numbers alone which were staggering in any case".

  • David on January 15, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    Since 2000 Brian Lara has scored 5 double hundreds, 6 other scores of over 150 where he did not reach 200 including 2 innings where he reached 190 and scored the highest score in the history of test cricket 400* and he got 1 vote out of a panel of 38? And these scores were made against good nations 3 against Sri Lanka, 3 against south africa, 2 against pakistan 2 against australia, 1 against england and 1 against zimbabwe. Only 1 of those 12 scores of over 150 was made against a "minnow". How in god's name can he only have gotten 1 vote?

    Cricinfo has been heavily anti west indian since the turn of the new year. If this trend keeps up you can bet that I will no longer be visiting this website to get my cricket news

  • TequilaGuy on January 15, 2010, 13:01 GMT

    I never had a suspicion about the jurors having national bias.They are all respected people and have seen cricket long enough so realize that cricket can be beautiful even when other countries play it. I would have gone with a bowler just because they showed up to bowl in this decade of placid wickets! :) For me(everyone has the right to their opinion),Kallis has been a tremendous player this decade. He has made contributions consistently with bat and ball and is unlucky(as always!) for not being recognized. McGrath and Murli have put their teams into winning positions so many times that its hard to see what more they could have done to deserve it. Its a shame that Dravid is so low in the overall voting results.He has had a major role in making India the team it is today even outside India. In the end, you cant make everyone happy. My only surprise is that Ponting won it so easily :) Surely, its not a decade where his performance has overshadowed everyone else s.

  • dhiren on January 15, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    I totally disagree coz it goes beyond numbers... Ponting for me failed in his most important challenge.. Everytime he played in Tests in India he was a bunny to say the least.

    Infact He not playing was the only reason Micheal Clarke played when Australia won in India. Had he played... :P

    How can the player of the decade score runs in over 20 innings at just 20 against his biggest opponent in their territory ??

    If anyone Mcgrath & Gilchrist can claim they overcame all challenges they were pitted against..

    Even Warne was a cropper in India.

    Australia's biggest opponents were India in the last decade.. and Ponting was a total failure when in India.. A big mark against him for me !

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • dhiren on January 15, 2010, 12:55 GMT

    I totally disagree coz it goes beyond numbers... Ponting for me failed in his most important challenge.. Everytime he played in Tests in India he was a bunny to say the least.

    Infact He not playing was the only reason Micheal Clarke played when Australia won in India. Had he played... :P

    How can the player of the decade score runs in over 20 innings at just 20 against his biggest opponent in their territory ??

    If anyone Mcgrath & Gilchrist can claim they overcame all challenges they were pitted against..

    Even Warne was a cropper in India.

    Australia's biggest opponents were India in the last decade.. and Ponting was a total failure when in India.. A big mark against him for me !

  • TequilaGuy on January 15, 2010, 13:01 GMT

    I never had a suspicion about the jurors having national bias.They are all respected people and have seen cricket long enough so realize that cricket can be beautiful even when other countries play it. I would have gone with a bowler just because they showed up to bowl in this decade of placid wickets! :) For me(everyone has the right to their opinion),Kallis has been a tremendous player this decade. He has made contributions consistently with bat and ball and is unlucky(as always!) for not being recognized. McGrath and Murli have put their teams into winning positions so many times that its hard to see what more they could have done to deserve it. Its a shame that Dravid is so low in the overall voting results.He has had a major role in making India the team it is today even outside India. In the end, you cant make everyone happy. My only surprise is that Ponting won it so easily :) Surely, its not a decade where his performance has overshadowed everyone else s.

  • David on January 15, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    Since 2000 Brian Lara has scored 5 double hundreds, 6 other scores of over 150 where he did not reach 200 including 2 innings where he reached 190 and scored the highest score in the history of test cricket 400* and he got 1 vote out of a panel of 38? And these scores were made against good nations 3 against Sri Lanka, 3 against south africa, 2 against pakistan 2 against australia, 1 against england and 1 against zimbabwe. Only 1 of those 12 scores of over 150 was made against a "minnow". How in god's name can he only have gotten 1 vote?

    Cricinfo has been heavily anti west indian since the turn of the new year. If this trend keeps up you can bet that I will no longer be visiting this website to get my cricket news

  • Jey on January 15, 2010, 13:14 GMT

    Ponting may be great in the field and with the bat. But for being a Player of the decade is that enough? What about his off field incidents like pushing Sharad Pawar from the stage in Champions Trophy? What about the behaviour of Ponting in Sydney test against India 2007/08? I do not find any meaning for " Ponting’s case went beyond the numbers alone which were staggering in any case".

  • TequilaGuy on January 15, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    But none the less, Ponting has been THE batsman of the decade, even though I have my reservations on his captaincy.

    And the 'Player of the Decade' has been chosen by Cricinfo jury and its not a unanimous vote :) I guess, everyone of us has his/her own player of the decade (in your case McGrath). And instead of turning this into a fight of stats, performances and national egos, we should just celebrate the performances of all the greats who have played this decade! I personally find it a futile exercise to do comparisons. Every match is different, players are different, situations are different. Just Enjoy the great performances and the game of Cricket!

  • Gautam on January 15, 2010, 13:17 GMT

    I believe the best players of the prior decade are Glenn McGrath, Rahul Dravid and Sachin Tendulkar. Ponting may be the best batsman of the decade because of the amount of runs scored, but he has almost always failed when the bowlers from the rival teams bowled well. His batting also failed him once he lost his two main weapons Glenn Mcgrath and Shane Warne because he could not handle pressure situations. Finally, when we talk about the way he presented himself on-field and off-field in the past decade, the less said the better.

  • Nipun on January 15, 2010, 13:19 GMT

    Glenn McGrath & Shane Warne have been excellent beyond words,but there is absolutely no doubt that Ricky Ponting deserves this.Some Indians won't agree,but Ricky has been the perfect symbol of the overwhelming Australian dominance over the whole decade.Even Sachin Tendulkar averages below 40 in South Africa.Does it mean Sachin falls behind as the candidate for the best batsman of all time?Not at all.Same with Ricky.

  • faisal on January 15, 2010, 13:34 GMT

    To me disputing about whether "it should be a bowler" is nothing but nagging like a stuborn girl "why can't god be a she?". Lets face it,it should be batsman,not even a sobers like allrounder!When you really close your eyes a try to remember the past decade you should come up with a bewildered gaze along with a justified ingress that it's all ponting,none but him,from the very begining of the last ten years.This man has done almst everything apart from match-winning dream double at any two of the ashes decider(thanks god,if he did so then it would considered as blasphemy). No doubt about the brilliance of every crickter in the list(not Kallis,he is the second most selfish crickter after boycott),but if you consider the past decade ponting was far ahead then anybody. Somebody try to say gilchrist does not deserved to be no-3.For you guys if you try to make all-time eleven then there is no certain number -7 than him,nor will be ever.

  • ratnakar on January 15, 2010, 13:36 GMT

    Sambit I agree with you.Ponting is ahead of others by a mile esp wen u take the wins he is part of into account..but Brian Lara Rahul Dravid Chanderpaul scoring 3 2 1 points respectively?how can anyone ever justify that?This is what you say-"We asked the jury to choose the Player of Decade on the basis of quality of their performances, consistency and durability, contribution to their team's overall performance, and the impact they had on the game on the whole" Where did these three fail?May be Chanders is not in many people's books what about Brian and Rahul???Did they not make any impact at all in the last decade?400* might stand for a century more..is that not an impact on the game??

  • Hari Singh on January 15, 2010, 13:37 GMT

    Viewing a player's performance, divorced from how his team performs, is well nigh impossible in a team sport. The Aussie records have a sepia tint because for the greatest part of the decade they conquered almost all that came before them. Ponting's record must also be viewed in juxtaposition with his dominance at the crease. He has, quite simply, been the most peerlessly consistent game changer of the decade.

    In that one regard, at least from the year 2004 till he retired, the only man who upstaged him was perhaps Warne. But I can hear the naysayers, even as I write.

    Judge these players on the basis of the games they won off their bat, with only one exception. Lara stood frequently among the ruins this decade. And yet remains the greatest test batsman of his generation.