We only have a handful of countries in the world playing proper cricket and each of those has produced great players who have combined their natural talents with the available facilities and conditions. It is not a simple matter to quantify those and claim that one or the other helped a particular player more - or less for that matter. There is an arguement - perhaps true - that Tendulkar would have done even better, particularly in the second half of his career - without all the attention & adulation heaped upon him and the pressures that such things bring with them. Likewise, Lara - a naturally gifted and instinctive batsman like so many other West Indians before him - might actually have done less well in his career if he was put under a rigid, academic training scheme early in his career. So, you cannot really tell and have to go by what is actually on the cards irrespective of the percieved reasons behind; on that score, Ponting is certainly a step ahead of all his contemporaries, including Lara & Tendulkar.

Nostromo, I highly doubt Ponting would have the same success as he is having now if he was batting in the 90's, which had much better bowling attacks then in this decade. Lara and Tendulkar were both hailed all time greats of the game because of the way their played in this decade. I doubt Ponting would have been head and shoulders above Lara and Tendulkar in the 90's when both batsmen were in their prime.

Also Lara and Tendulkar both are class batsmen with hardly any weaknesses in their game. This cannot be said about Ponting, who we all know has a big weakness against finger spin- just look at his record against Harbhajan Singh.

__________________
CC

I am sorry CC, entitled as you are to your opinion, I don't agree with your kind of reasoning at all. That kind of iffing and butting will never give the true picture because you can use them to distort facts to any extent. For example, most of us accept that Don Bradman was the greatest ever batsman, but there are those who argue that he only ever played in Australia or England and that his record might not have been so awesome if he had gone to South Africa, West Indies or India OR had the opportunity to play against the then non-test nations like Pakistan & Sri Lanka. Therefore, when comparing batsmen you have no choice but take into account what is on the cards and not speculate on what might have been. Of course, each of us will still have varying opinions - like you and I above; that is fine, but you have to leave out silly things like "Ponting did not have to face McGrath or Warne" etc. Come to think of it, Lara did not have to face Ambrose and Walsh, whereas Tendulkar and Ponting did; Tendular did not have to play Kumble, but Lara & Ponting did; all three have faced Murali. So where do you stop?