PDA

View Full Version : In defence of Ponting.


Blue Boyz
14 Aug 2005, 14:59
Criticising Ponting's captaincy seems to be popular recently and I must admit that times I have a found some of his bowling changes and field places a little hard to understand, however I said at the time I was almost certain he was he wasn't totally responsible for the tatical blunder to bowl first in the 2nd test.

My argument was that while I realize the captain carries the can win, lose or draw, I found it hard to believe that he would have made that very important decision to put in England in without the input or advice of the senior players, the coach or even the selectors.

Interesting to note that Mark Waugh confirms what I thought when he says that the present day senior players would have been consulted over the decision as has been the practice to his knowledge over the past 15 years which would take in Border, Taylor and brother Steve's captaincy.

To Ponting's credit he accepted total responsibility for the decision and didn't look to spread the blame which would have been the easier course of action.




Captain's calls undone by loose bowling, poor fielding
By Mark Waugh
August 14, 2005
The Sun-Herald

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Leadership is important in any area of life whether it be in the office, the cockpit of a plane or in the classroom.

In sport, the captain of the team is the person under the microscope. A genius when the team is winning but a mug when it is losing.

I believe this is a bit too black and white in cricket, where senior players often have a large input into tactics and players' individual performances are a key factor.

Ricky Ponting has come under a fair bit of criticism for his decision to bowl first at Edgbaston and his reluctance to bowl Warney before lunch on Thursday at Old Trafford.

Australia have many senior players in their squad and that has been the case for the past 15 years or so.

Quite often when a decision is made, it is generally after much consultation with these experienced players, then the captain will evaluate and make a final decision.

At Edgbaston, with a lot of rain around, word of an unprepared pitch and the fact England batted very poorly at Lord's all added up in Ricky's mind to sending them in to bat.

Advertisement
AdvertisementI have no doubt Warney, Glenn McGrath, Adam Gilchrist, Matthew Hayden and John Buchanan would have also discussed with Ricky what they should do if they won the toss.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and as it turned out it was a sizeable blunder to bowl first.

But the fact remains it was the bowlers who let the captain down. If the Australian bowlers had performed better then we wouldn't be talking about the captain's decision having a bearing on the loss of a Test. The batting, too, at Edgbaston was poor in the first innings and this is what also lost us the game, not just the captain's decision to bowl first.

In this third Test, Ricky came under fire again for not bowling his trump card, Shane Warne, before lunch. While the quickies did look fairly innocuous and went virtually wicketless, it was the dropped catches rather than the absence of Warney that put Australia in the predicament they now find themselves.

Even if Warney had bowled three or four overs I doubt if it would have made much difference at that stage of the game on a firm surface. While the captain has obviously a vital role to play in the success of his team, I truly believe he's only as good as the players in his team.

I feel Australia need to address their fielding more than worrying about whether they should be batting or bowling first in a Test match.

It has been a real problem for them for a couple of years now and I just wonder whether this will be the series in which they finally pay for those mistakes.

England are a better side than we've played recently and are much more capable of capitalising on these errors. Michael Vaughan showed how costly a dropped catch can be, punishing our bowlers after being let off early on.

Subconsciously, I think our boys also believe with the quality of bowlers we have they probably will get another chance to grab a catch if they happen to miss one.

The problem is once you get into lazy habits it can take a while to get out of those habits.

Australia have an extremely talented bunch of close catchers but they will need a sharper mindset and higher level of concentration to make those catches stick in the future.

England have shown they are more than capable of punishing our mistakes. It's now up to the Australian players as individuals to switch on, support the captain and respond.

weevil
14 Aug 2005, 16:12
Yeah I’ve said it a number of times before. Plenty of ‘experts’ around here were very wise after the event regarding the decision to bowl first. None of them seemed to comment before events panned out though.

England’s bating looked fragile and shell shocked, it was an under prepared pitch that everyone thought would be very difficult and atmospheric conditions looked perfect for bowling. At the time it seemed like a perfectly reasonable decision.

skipper kelly
14 Aug 2005, 16:20
Yeah I’ve said it a number of times before. Plenty of ‘experts’ around here were very wise after the event regarding the decision to bowl first. None of them seemed to comment before events panned out though.

England’s bating looked fragile and shell shocked, it was an under prepared pitch that everyone thought would be very difficult and atmospheric conditions looked perfect for bowling. At the time it seemed like a perfectly reasonable decision.


I didnt post it beforehand but I agreed and was not surprised with the decision.

scottywiper
14 Aug 2005, 18:48
When JL sneaks into slips, I always feel like we are just going.

- PC -
14 Aug 2005, 18:55
I am on record as posting that due to the weather etc Australia should have bowled first. The only issue I have is was the decision the right one once McGrath went down?

I feel Ponting captains by numbers and not instincts

Cooldude
14 Aug 2005, 18:56
In the end, we only lost it by 2 runs

The call wasn't good, but it wasn't the reason why we lost

YOTC
14 Aug 2005, 19:01
In the end, we only lost it by 2 runs

The call wasn't good, but it wasn't the reason why we lost
Yes, it was the 2nd of many reasons.

The first being McGraths freak accident.

Jim Boy
14 Aug 2005, 19:53
Interesting to note that Mark Waugh confirms what I thought when he says that the present day senior players would have been consulted over the decision as has been the practice to his knowledge over the past 15 years which would take in Border, Taylor and brother Steve's captaincy.


Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, but it seems doubtful that he took much notice of them if he did. Apparently Warne was livid with Ponting for making such a stupid call, which is why Ponting decided to put personal vengeance ahead of the team good in making Warne wait so long before bringing him on.

eddiesmith
14 Aug 2005, 19:55
It was the 2nd time on this tour he made the wrong call at the toss

Blue Boyz
14 Aug 2005, 20:14
Maybe he did or maybe he didn't, but it seems doubtful that he took much notice of them if he did. Apparently Warne was livid with Ponting for making such a stupid call, which is why Ponting decided to put personal vengeance ahead of the team good in making Warne wait so long before bringing him on.


"....personal vengenance"

What do you mean? Please explain.

eddiesmith
14 Aug 2005, 20:21
"....personal vengenance"

What do you mean? Please explain.

Warnie and Punter are fueding right now, it apparently boiled over after Ponting bowled first last test, but its likely something bigger that most dont know about. I know Warnie doesnt like many players for not backing him a couple of years back

teams
14 Aug 2005, 22:20
Criticising Ponting's captaincy seems to be popular recently and I must admit that times I have a found some of his bowling changes and field places a little hard to understand, however I said at the time I was almost certain he was he wasn't totally responsible for the tatical blunder to bowl first in the 2nd test.

My argument was that while I realize the captain carries the can win, lose or draw, I found it hard to believe that he would have made that very important decision to put in England in without the input or advice of the senior players, the coach or even the selectors.

Interesting to note that Mark Waugh confirms what I thought when he says that the present day senior players would have been consulted over the decision as has been the practice to his knowledge over the past 15 years which would take in Border, Taylor and brother Steve's captaincy.



They didn't react to Mcgrath injuries was the problem. Were to fixed on bowling first but, if you are listening to Mark Waugh's summations, 'yeah Ponting out to a lazy shot'....................