View Full Version : Ponting's declarations:
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 14:31
2004 v SL - 355 runs off 2 sessions - match drawn
2005 v SAF - 491 runs off 4 sessions - match drawn
2008 v WI - target 372 runs off 3 sessions - match drawn
all the above matches only time stopped the aussies bowling the opposition out. Runs werent even in the question.
this time, 299 runs in 83 overs (2.5 sessions)
davey_magik
13 Oct 2008, 14:34
Can you tell me who won each series those Tests were in dr nick?
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 14:37
bit like tubby taylor. Why risk winning a test match when you can safely draw it.
davey_magik
13 Oct 2008, 14:40
Mate TBH I don't get why you've even included the SA Test at the WACA. Considering we had Warne and McGrath then and had 4 sessions to bowl them out, there was no way anyone thought that they would be a chance to draw it.
TimeIsRunningOut
13 Oct 2008, 14:42
2004 v SL - 355 runs off 2 sessions - match drawn
2005 v SAF - 491 runs off 4 sessions - match drawn
2008 v WI - target 372 runs off 3 sessions - match drawn
all the above matches only time stopped the aussies bowling the opposition out. Runs werent even in the question.
this time, 299 runs in 83 overs (2.5 sessions)
Batsman: Ponting > Waugh.
Captain: Ponting > Waugh (the stats don't lie).
Get over it.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 14:42
Thats the one where hodge kept batting and batting and batting getting his last 50 off about 120 balls. Ponting of course making sure he put his double century before a certain aussie victory. 500 runs off 4 sessions is ridiculous.
ManWithNoName
13 Oct 2008, 14:44
Thats the one where hodge kept batting and batting and batting getting his last 50 off about 120 balls. Ponting of course making sure he put his double century before a certain aussie victory. 500 runs off 4 sessions is ridiculous.
If we couldn't get them out in 4 sessions what makes you think another 45 minutes would've helped?
davey_magik
13 Oct 2008, 14:51
If we couldn't get them out in 4 sessions what makes you think another 45 minutes would've helped?
Forget it mate, he conveniently skipped the point I made about 4 sessions when I posted it and I don't think he's going to acknowledge the fact that really if you can't bowl someone out in the last 4 sessions of a Test match you've bowled very poorly.
thegreenmachine
13 Oct 2008, 14:52
Sorry, I've been at TAFE all day and still am. So we have 2.5 sessions to bowl India out for under 298 correct?
Cousin Jed
13 Oct 2008, 14:52
So whats your point about today's declaration?
I don't see the link.
Thats the one where hodge kept batting and batting and batting getting his last 50 off about 120 balls. Ponting of course making sure he put his double century before a certain aussie victory. 500 runs off 4 sessions is ridiculous.
Ehh, actually I think you'll find he cut sick to get his last 50. :thumbsu:
bit like tubby taylor. Why risk winning a test match when you can safely draw it.
Ballsy yes, but if the Aussies pull it off, the Indians will have to win the last 2 to regain the trophy (sorry for stating the bleeding obvious) & that will be very difficult. Then the Aussies will bat all day.
betterthanu
13 Oct 2008, 15:29
Sorry, I've been at TAFE all day and still am. So we have 2.5 sessions to bowl India out for under 298 correct?
yeah mate
Ballsy yes, but if the Aussies pull it off, the Indians will have to win the last 2 to regain the trophy (sorry for stating the bleeding obvious) & that will be very difficult. Then the Aussies will bat all day.
Its a 4 test series (sorry for stating the bleeding obvious)
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 15:31
Forget it mate, he conveniently skipped the point I made about 4 sessions when I posted it and I don't think he's going to acknowledge the fact that really if you can't bowl someone out in the last 4 sessions of a Test match you've bowled very poorly.
youre missing the point. conversely why keep batting for an hour if your already nearly 500 in front. You have to give yourself the greatest % chance as possible. He was only reducing Australias chance of a win rather than reducing the chance of a draw or a SAF win.
Its a 4 test series (sorry for stating the bleeding obvious)
Shocking call by me, apologies. Winning the first will mentally hurt the Indians though.
SpecialComments
13 Oct 2008, 16:02
Batsman: Ponting > Waugh.
Captain: Ponting > Waugh (the stats don't lie).
Get over it.
Agree for sure. PONTING > WAUGH.
NYE TTTT
13 Oct 2008, 16:33
2004 v SL - 355 runs off 2 sessions - match drawn
2005 v SAF - 491 runs off 4 sessions - match drawn
2008 v WI - target 372 runs off 3 sessions - match drawn
all the above matches only time stopped the aussies bowling the opposition out. Runs werent even in the question.
this time, 299 runs in 83 overs (2.5 sessions)
Ponting is the WORST Captain Australia ever had.
GenuineMatchWinner
13 Oct 2008, 16:44
youre missing the point. conversely why keep batting for an hour if your already nearly 500 in front. You have to give yourself the greatest % chance as possible. He was only reducing Australias chance of a win rather than reducing the chance of a draw or a SAF win.
Granted we did have enough runs, Hodge however was smashing them and Ponting gave him a set time to get his 200 or bad luck, this has been done for years.
We had 4 sessions on a wearing WACA wicket to bowl out SA and it took a mammoth effort from Justin Kemp to hold us off from victory.
I dont really get all torn up inside if we draw those sorts of games (pending situation of series!), it means that it takes the opposition to be at there best to hold us off, we have put the result out of the reach of the opposition, which is the first aim of test cricket.
Really Hodges 200 didnt effect the result, the way the SA batsmen were batting they prob could of batted another session.
Ponting is the WORST Captain Australia ever had.
I think u need to pull ur head in m8, what proof have u got of that, statistically he is the best, he has been most likely our most dominant captain ever, I was a big Waugh fan and Taylor fan as well.
Clearly results speak for themselves, i dont care how we do it, as long as we are winning and playing the game fairly.
These three captains pioneered our sucess.:D
NYE TTTT
13 Oct 2008, 17:19
I think u need to pull ur head in m8, what proof have u got of that, statistically he is the best, he has been most likely our most dominant captain ever, I was a big Waugh fan and Taylor fan as well.
Clearly results speak for themselves, i dont care how we do it, as long as we are winning and playing the game fairly.
These three captains pioneered our sucess.:D
Total Rubbish!
Alan Border pioneered our success. His Cataincy with Bob Simpson's coaching took us to where we are today.
Ponting's poor captaincy is ultimate proof to what a great team we have today.
Australia can win under any fools (ponting) captaincy.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 17:53
I often laugh at how superficially some people judge a captaincy. By % of test wins by chance with having possibly 3 or 4 of the all time top test players in the side.
No, it is judged on tactical ability, reading the play, inspiring your own men and intimidating the opposition.
Those who blindly go on maths have no idea what allan border did to drag the aussies out of the rut in the mid 80's when he had a very inferior team to the English.
Pontings defensive declarations and defensive field placings when there is a hint of opposition resilience is a hallmark of his reign, and it doesnt make him a good captain, he is captaining a great side.
Ponting did the right thing today. He just doesn't have the bowling attack to get these blokes out. And, when you consider India's batting line up, they were always going to be up against it.
aaronm46
13 Oct 2008, 19:34
you must be doing somethin right when u have a 75% win rate in tests
you must be doing somethin right when u have a 75% win rate in tests
having a good team perhaps?
Dominate a test match from day 1 and come out with a draw. Well played!
davey_magik
13 Oct 2008, 19:51
having a good team perhaps?
Dominate a test match from day 1 and come out with a draw. Well played!
My un-Australian friend, tell me how this was Pontings fault?
He wasn't the bowlers who couldn't get the lower order of India out which effectively has cost us the match.
frankrizzo
13 Oct 2008, 19:51
He got the dec spot on in this game.
My un-Australian friend, tell me how this was Pontings fault?
He wasn't the bowlers who couldn't get the lower order of India out which effectively has cost us the match.
Maybe Ricky could have tried to force a wicket with inventive field placings.
Ahahahahaha.
Yay, i'm unAustralian :) Time to secede!!
davey_magik
13 Oct 2008, 20:06
Maybe Ricky could have tried to force a wicket with inventive field placings.
Ahahahahaha.
Yay, i'm unAustralian :) Time to secede!!
I thought his field placings were good actually.
Tell me what you would have done differently in his place. Don't make a generalisation like 'Different field placings' actually tell me what you would have done in a little detail.
Leave the man alone. You'd be all over him if he declared too early and we lost.
The 747
13 Oct 2008, 20:21
having a good team perhaps?
Dominate a test match from day 1 and come out with a draw. Well played!
Hang on I thought the team was rubbish without Warne and McGrath and Gilly? :rolleyes:
You can bag the bloke all you want but he is probably going to retire with more Test wins than India the nation :thumbsu:
I thought his field placings were good actually.
Tell me what you would have done differently in his place. Don't make a generalisation like 'Different field placings' actually tell me what you would have done in a little detail.
Can't say I analysed the Indian tail that much but I'd certain put more pressure on them.
Leave the man alone. You'd be all over him if he declared too early and we lost.
I wouldn't. I'd praise him for having a go. Thankfully for me he never has a go :)
Hang on I thought the team was rubbish without Warne and McGrath and Gilly? :rolleyes:
You can bag the bloke all you want but he is probably going to retire with more Test wins than India the nation :thumbsu:
Never said they would be "rubbish". I've always said they would win less matches and Pontings captaincy will be shown up for what it is, ordinary.
Wow so insightful!
The 747
13 Oct 2008, 20:37
Can't say I analysed the Indian tail that much but I'd certain put more pressure on them.
I wouldn't. I'd praise him for having a go. Thankfully for me he never has a go :)
Never said they would be "rubbish". I've always said they would win less matches and Pontings captaincy will be shown up for what it is, ordinary.
Wow so insightful!
Amusingly Ponting's captaincy in this match has been really good. His field placings have been praised even by the most biased of them all, Sunny Gavaskar.
Got any comment to make on Kumble's captaincy? :o
Amusingly Ponting's captaincy in this match has been really good. His field placings have been praised even by the most biased of them all, Sunny Gavaskar.
Got any comment to make on Kumble's captaincy? :o
Yes, genius. He turned 5 days of domination into a draw. If I was Indian I too would be happy with this result. The guy does not attack enough.
Kumble is captain? Far out, I thought they all walked out onto the pitch and just decided to do whatever they wanted.
Oh yeah and clearly i'd have a backstop in for Haddin this match. He's moving like a sloth.
aaronm46
13 Oct 2008, 20:45
zomg i figured it out!!!!
YOTC is Neil Harvey!
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 20:45
Ponting is forever with the defensive fields in the 4th innings. Only ever has 1 slip and maybe 1 man in close when they are chasing late wickets.
Surprise surprise another declaration too late to add to the tally.
and ps: sunny gavaskar was saying ponting was too reliant on the spinners.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 20:47
Dominate a test match from day 1 and come out with a draw. Well played!
spot on. thats exactly what happened.
Had the opportunity to really tighten the screws late on day 4 but instead played it safe.
Cousin Jed
13 Oct 2008, 20:49
Ponting is forever with the defensive fields in the 4th innings. Only ever has 1 slip and maybe 1 man in close when they are chasing late wickets.
Surprise surprise another declaration too late to add to the tally.
Yeah he should have given himself 105 overs to get all the wicket......and set them a mere 200 to win :rolleyes:
2004 v SL - 355 runs off 2 sessions - match drawn
2005 v SAF - 491 runs off 4 sessions - match drawn
2008 v WI - target 372 runs off 3 sessions - match drawn
all the above matches only time stopped the aussies bowling the opposition out. Runs werent even in the question.
this time, 299 runs in 83 overs (2.5 sessions)
Care to also list the occasions when Ponting has declared and Australia has won the game?
Cheers.
Hang on I thought the team was rubbish without Warne and McGrath and Gilly? :rolleyes:
You can bag the bloke all you want but he is probably going to retire with more Test wins than India the nation :thumbsu:
Just checked.
Ponting 84 test wins, 33 as captain.
India 95 test wins as a nation.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 20:55
Care to also list the occasions when Ponting has declared and Australia has won the game?
Cheers.
there have been declarations where he won - i looked at them all. most are 600 run leads with 2 days remaining. No brainers with no tough decisions to be made. These are pretty much the times where his team has been batting nearing the 5th day and he has overbatted the vast bulk of them.
I often laugh at how superficially some people judge a captaincy. By % of test wins by chance with having possibly 3 or 4 of the all time top test players in the side.
No, it is judged on tactical ability, reading the play, inspiring your own men and intimidating the opposition.
Those who blindly go on maths have no idea what allan border did to drag the aussies out of the rut in the mid 80's when he had a very inferior team to the English.
Pontings defensive declarations and defensive field placings when there is a hint of opposition resilience is a hallmark of his reign, and it doesnt make him a good captain, he is captaining a great side.
% of test wins is the only objective way you can judge something like this. Everything else is subject to opinion. For everyone who hates Ponting`s captaincy like you do there will be someone who likes it.
A captain is there ultimately to deliver success. And whether you like it or not, he has done that extremely well. It almost sounds like you would prefer a captain with the intangible qualities you have described above who is in charge of a losing team.
there have been declarations where he won - i looked at them all. most are 600 run leads with 2 days remaining. No brainers with no tough decisions to be made. These are pretty much the times where his team has been batting nearing the 5th day and he has overbatted the vast bulk of them.
You listed three occasions when he declared and we didn`t win. Big deal. You do know that cricket declarations aren`t an exact science, don`t you?
List all his declarations, with how much time remaining. Then we can perhaps make a balanced judgment on his success rate with declarations.
All you are doing at the moment is presenting loaded data to try to justify your dislike of his captaincy.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:02
That argument is about as credible as saying Tom Harley is the best captain in the AFL.
ManWithNoName
13 Oct 2008, 21:03
That argument is about as credible as saying Tom Harley is the best captain in the AFL.
AFL captain has f- all control over the team on gameday. Ridiculous comparison.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:03
All you are doing at the moment is presenting loaded data to try to justify your dislike of his captaincy.
all youve managed to do is throw up a 75% and think thats captaining.
If you actually watch the tests, his fields are defensive, his declarations are defensive and he overbowls stock bowlers.
ManWithNoName
13 Oct 2008, 21:05
all youve managed to do is throw up a 75% and think thats captaining.
If you actually watch the tests, his fields are defensive, his declarations are defensive and he overbowls stock bowlers.
You've thrown up 3 matches and used that as justification to criticise Pontings captaincy.
having a good team perhaps?
Dominate a test match from day 1 and come out with a draw. Well played!
Fancy a successful captain having a good team. Whoever would have thought? :rolleyes:
Now I understand why Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, The Don, Steve Waugh, etc all went so well as captains. :p
Frankly, I have seen all this rubbish about Ponting`s captaincy here on BigFooty before. To sum it up, it goes like this:
*If Australia succeeds/wins/goes well - it is because of the good team under his charge.
*If Australia fails/loses - it is because of Ponting`s captaincy.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:06
AFL captain has f- all control over the team on gameday. Ridiculous comparison.
Not really, nobody is citing such examples of gameday tactics, infact theyve only thrown 75% in the air.
ManWithNoName
13 Oct 2008, 21:07
Not really, nobody is citing such examples of gameday tactics, infact theyve only thrown 75% in the air.
He wins 3 out of every 4 matches we play. Suggests there's some pretty good match tactics going on there.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:08
Fancy a successful captain having a good team. Whoever would have thought? :rolleyes:
Now I understand why Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, The Don, Steve Waugh, etc all went so well as captains. :p
Frankly, I have seen all this rubbish about Ponting`s captaincy here on BigFooty before. To sum it up, it goes like this:
*If Australia succeeds/wins/goes well - it is because of the good team under his charge.
*If Australia fails/loses - it is because of Ponting`s captaincy.
I never attribute batting collapses or poor bowling to the captain. That sounds like an argument the 75%'ers would use.
If you actually watch the tests, his fields are defensive, his declarations are defensive and he overbowls stock bowlers.
But that is nothing to do with his declarations, which is the subject of the topic.
Again, I ask you to list all his declarations with how much time remaining and the result.
Then, and only then, can we make a balanced decision about his success rate with declarations.
Fancy a successful captain having a good team. Whoever would have thought? :rolleyes:
Now I understand why Viv Richards, Clive Lloyd, The Don, Steve Waugh, etc all went so well as captains. :p
Frankly, I have seen all this rubbish about Ponting`s captaincy here on BigFooty before. To sum it up, it goes like this:
*If Australia succeeds/wins/goes well - it is because of the good team under his charge.
*If Australia fails/loses - it is because of Ponting`s captaincy.
Well so far he is 60% without the services of Warne and McGrath.
And a lowly 33% against India.
He wins 3 out of every 4 matches we play. Suggests there's some pretty good match tactics going on there.
Yep. Throw the ball to Warne and hope he performs a miracle.
Oh, oops.
Well so far he is 60% without the services of Warne and McGrath.
Two of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game aren`t playing and his success rate drops. Who would have thought?
And a lowly 33% against India.
So what? They are one of the few good test sides that lifts against Australia, it`s hardly a surprise his success rate against them as captain is lower.
Anyway, I thought we weren`t supposed to be measuring his captaincy on stats. :rolleyes:
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:27
for someone with the mantra "% of test wins is the only objective way you can judge this." pretty rich to be disputing what yotc is saying.
Two of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game aren`t playing and his success rate drops. Who would have thought?
So what? They are one of the few good test sides that lifts against Australia, it`s hardly a surprise his success rate against them as captain is lower.
Anyway, I thought we weren`t supposed to be measuring his captaincy on stats. :rolleyes:
Shock horror, his percentage isn't as wonderful as it was with a great team. My whole point.
You were, so I threw those up at you. Obviously didn't like them with such a convincing argument. Basically saying "India is competitive" so we can't captain success.
for someone with the mantra "% of test wins is the only objective way you can judge this." pretty rich to be disputing what yotc is saying.
Well it is. How can you objectively judge his captaincy otherwise?
And because he has won 75% of his Tests as captain doesn`t mean it will be 75% across the board against all countries. That is just common sense. India have been a major obstacle for Australia for quite a number of years, it hardly comes as a surprise that his success rate against them (or his rate without Warne/McGrath in the team for that matter) would be lower.
Shock horror, his percentage isn't as wonderful as it was with a great team. My whole point.
You were, so I threw those up at you. Obviously didn't like them with such a convincing argument. Basically saying "India is competitive" so we can't captain success.
I don`t know what you are trying to argue here. Of course having good players in the side helps the captain.
How do you reckon Steve Waugh`s success rate over the tenure of his captaincy would have been without Warne and McGrath in the side?
Or are you trying to say that a great captain can regularly win without good sides under their charge? If so, look at Allan Border`s early record.
And it is common sense that the good opposition sides are going to be harder to beat. I am not surprised at all that his winning record against India is lower.
Well it is. How can you objectively judge his captaincy otherwise?
And because he has won 75% of his Tests as captain doesn`t mean it will be 75% across the board against all countries. That is just common sense. India have been a major obstacle for Australia for quite a number of years, it hardly comes as a surprise that his success rate against them (or his rate without Warne/McGrath in the team for that matter) would be lower.
So you admit it then. It was Pontings team that won 75% of tests, not Ponting?
What are we arguing about?
So you admit it then. It was Pontings team that won 75% of tests, not Ponting?
What are we arguing about?
Nothing.
As long as you agree it was Steve Waugh`s team that won all the tests for him under his captaincy, and ditto for all the other captains I mentioned previously.
Or are you saying that only Ponting has won games as captain because of the good players in his team?
dan warna
13 Oct 2008, 21:40
1. sorry i didn't realise hodge was the captain when he scored his double century >< and 5 1/2 sessions given the bowling line up he had was more than enough time.
2. whats punters win / draw /loss ratio as captain again?
3. if you want to blame 'slow' have a look at the run rates of the indian batsman, oh and katichs second dig, that was terribad.
I don`t know what you are trying to argue here. Of course having good players in the side helps the captain.
How do you reckon Steve Waugh`s success rate over the tenure of his captaincy would have been without Warne and McGrath in the side?
Or are you trying to say that a great captain can regularly win without good sides under their charge? If so, look at Allan Border`s early record.
And it is common sense that the good opposition sides are going to be harder to beat. I am not surprised at all that his winning record against India is lower.
People rant about how Ponting is such a great captain yet I am trying to prove he is just an ordinary captain with a good team.
I reckon Steve Waugh's approach, whilst still attacking, would have been more suited to his team. He loved to compete.
No of course not, Captaincy only gets you so far. However a great captain will turn matches like the one we just witnessed into a win.
Nor am I, because he isn't the world's greatest captain.
dr nick
13 Oct 2008, 21:44
Nothing.
As long as you agree it was Steve Waugh`s team that won all the tests for him under his captaincy, and ditto for all the other captains I mentioned previously.
Or are you saying that only Ponting has won games as captain because of the good players in his team?
Steve waugh won most of his tests without any captaincy necessary, same with ponting. However when the tough declarations and attacking fields had to be made it was waugh who gave us a chance to win tests, not ponting.
ponting is a shit player and shit captain
just get used to it!!!!!! or ur gonna be upset a lot over the next 15 years
India 3-0
Cousin Jed
13 Oct 2008, 21:51
People rant about how Ponting is such a great captain yet I am trying to prove he is just an ordinary captain with a good team.
They do?
He'll forever be the captain that "lost the Ashes" which automatically rules him out of the great captain category in alot of people's eyes.
When would you have declared then mate?
Swanstar
13 Oct 2008, 23:01
They do?
He'll forever be the captain that "lost the Ashes" which automatically rules him out of the great captain category in alot of people's eyes.
Nah he will be remembered for bowling out Mick Lewis who was going for 11+ a over..
King Elvis
13 Oct 2008, 23:06
Just checked.
Ponting 84 test wins, 33 as captain.
India 95 test wins as a nation.
That's awesome :)
Anyone find it a bit strange they were offered the light so early?
As Mark Waugh said, it's meant to be if the light conditions make it dangerous, with spinners on, it sure as hell wasn't dangerous.
Swanstar
13 Oct 2008, 23:36
That's awesome :)
Anyone find it a bit strange they were offered the light so early?
As Mark Waugh said, it's meant to be if the light conditions make it dangerous, with spinners on, it sure as hell wasn't dangerous.
The rule should be reworded it's not about danger it's about being disadvantaged during that period if spinners are on.
That's awesome :)
Anyone find it a bit strange they were offered the light so early?
As Mark Waugh said, it's meant to be if the light conditions make it dangerous, with spinners on, it sure as hell wasn't dangerous.
My reading of it is that light gets offered to the batsmen if they are put at a disadvantage because of it, the only time dangerous is mentioned is when the umpires have the ability to overrule the captains and halt play.
http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-3-the-umpires,29,AR.html
(a)
(i) All references to ground include the pitch. See Law 7.1 (Area of pitch) (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-7-the-pitch,33,AR.html).
(ii) For the purpose of this Law and Law 15.9(b)(ii) (Intervals for drinks) (http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/law-15-intervals,41,AR.html) only, the batsmen at the wicket may deputise for their captain at any appropriate time.
(b)If at any time the umpires together agree that the condition of the ground, weather or light is not suitable for play, they shall inform the captains and, unless
(i) in unsuitable ground or weather conditions both captains agree to continue, or to commence, or to restart play,
or
(ii) in unsuitable light the batting side wishes to continue, or to commence, or to restart play, they shall suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart.
(c)
(i) After agreeing to play in unsuitable ground or weather conditions, either captain may appeal against the conditions to the umpires before the next call of Time. The umpires shall uphold the appeal only if, in their opinion, the factors taken into account when making their previous decision are the same or the conditions have further deteriorated.
(ii) After deciding to play in unsuitable light, the captain of the batting side may appeal against the light to the umpires before the next call of Time. The umpires shall uphold the appeal only if, in their opinion, the factors taken into account when making their previous decision are the same or the condition of the light has further deteriorated.
(d) If at any time the umpires together agree that the conditions of ground, weather or light are so bad that there is obvious and foreseeable risk to the safety of any player or umpire, so that it would be unreasonable or dangerous for play to take place, then notwithstanding the provisions of (b)(i) and (b)(ii) above, they shall immediately suspend play, or not allow play to commence or to restart. The decision as to whether conditions are so bad as to warrant such action is one for the umpires alone to make.
The fact that the grass and the ball are wet and slippery does not warrant the ground conditions being regarded as unreasonable or dangerous. If the umpires consider the ground is so wet or slippery as to deprive the bowler of a reasonable foothold, the fielders of the power of free movement, or the batsmen of the ability to play their strokes or to run between the wickets, then these conditions shall be regarded as so bad that it would be unreasonable for play to take place.
(e) When there is a suspension of play it is the responsibility of the umpires to monitor the conditions. They shall make inspections as often as appropriate, unaccompanied by any of the players or officials. Immediately the umpires together agree that conditions are suitable for play they shall call upon the players to resume the game.
(f) If play is in progress up to the start of an agreed interval then it will resume after the interval unless the umpires together agree that conditions are or have become unsuitable or dangerous. If they do so agree, then they shall implement the procedure in (b) or (d) above, as appropriate, whether or not there had been any decision by the captains to continue, or any appeal against the conditions by either captain, prior to the commencement of the interval.
I liked the deceleration today. Give the opponent a chance to win if they are good enough.
Aussies would have gone for the runs until they were 5-6 down and shut up shop. India played for a draw since day 3.
declaration! bloody automatic spellcheck!
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 01:23
ponting is a shit player and shit captain
just get used to it!!!!!! or ur gonna be upset a lot over the next 15 years
India 3-0
This has to be a troll. No one can be that stupid:o
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 01:28
Yep. Throw the ball to Warne and hope he performs a miracle.
Oh, oops.
Roughly translated into "Bring the world's best bowler on because he's a match winner and could win us the match"
Yeah I don't understand why any captain would want to do that:rolleyes:
Can someone list the success rate of the other nations against India?
Total Rubbish!
Alan Border pioneered our success. His Cataincy with Bob Simpson's coaching took us to where we are today.
Ponting's poor captaincy is ultimate proof to what a great team we have today.
Australia can win under any fools (ponting) captaincy.
Not this time mate!
Not even out great Aussie team could win with pontings shithouse captaincy!
Ponting stuffs around way too much. His field placings are shit.
He goes up to the bowler nearly every over (making sure he's on camera) wasting alot of time.
You don't see other Captains go up to the bowler as much as he does.
ponting is a shit player and shit captain
just get used to it!!!!!! or ur gonna be upset a lot over the next 15 years
India 3-0
YOU BEAUTY!!!! :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu:
TimeIsRunningOut
14 Oct 2008, 13:25
ponting is a shit player and shit captain
just get used to it!!!!!! or ur gonna be upset a lot over the next 15 years
India 3-0
YOU BEAUTY!!!! :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu: :thumbsu:
Hmm, I'll let Ari Gold do the honours.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x167/VincentJason/gtfomb4.gif
This has to be a troll. No one can be that stupid:o
You might be for mentioning something that blatantly obvious :rolleyes:
Goodwinblues
14 Oct 2008, 13:40
Thats the one where hodge kept batting and batting and batting getting his last 50 off about 120 balls. Ponting of course making sure he put his double century before a certain aussie victory. 500 runs off 4 sessions is ridiculous.They had 140 overs at SA in that Test then only got 5 wickets. If you can't get them out in that time you're not going too. 4 1/2 sessions is usually enough. Let's get that right. Really!
Goodwinblues
14 Oct 2008, 13:53
Steve waugh won most of his tests without any captaincy necessary, same with ponting. However when the tough declarations and attacking fields had to be made it was waugh who gave us a chance to win tests, not ponting.Waugh was too aggressive. He cost us a Test series in India making them follow-on in stifling conditions for our bowlers. Our bowlers fell apart in the conditions, India got 650 and we lose a test match we should've won. They we 4/410 before he decided we needed to place a 3rd man after a million 4's had gone through there. Of course, as it was part of back to back Tests our bowlers were still recovering and we lost the next Test by 2 wickets. A series that should've been won 30 was lost 2-1 because of that decision. Then he did it again at the MCG against England. They followed-on, we won the Test but given it was a part of back to back Tests we lost the next Test costing us a whitewash.
He nearly lost a Test against New Zealand with an adventureous declaration giving them 258 in 55 overs. We narrowly avoid a loss with a draw by giving the opposition a sporting chance so they take a risk. One day cricket makes those type of chases alot easier. Bat a side out of the game first as it forces them to play a little unnaturally. more often than not a side collapses for that reason. This wasn't one of those Tests but it's successful alot more often than not.
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 14:49
You might be for mentioning something that blatantly obvious :rolleyes:
You really need to stop stalking me. It's creeping me out!
Also, if you don't think someone could be stupid enough to say Ponting is a shit player then you haven't been here very long.
Waugh was too aggressive.
He nearly lost a Test against New Zealand with an adventureous declaration giving them 258 in 55 overs. We narrowly avoid a loss with a draw by giving the opposition a sporting chance so they take a risk
Perhaps, but atleast he tried to win.
Got it just right too. Gave Australia the greatest chance of winning with a minimal threat of a loss. New Zealand were never that close despite popular belief.
And it was 284, in 57 overs.
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 19:13
That's a run rate of almost 5, not exactly a risk in test cricket. Ricky didn't have that luxury yesterday.
That's a run rate of almost 5, not exactly a risk in test cricket. Ricky didn't have that luxury yesterday.
Shame NZL didn't have powerplays and limited overs to your best bowlers to help them.
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 19:19
Shame NZL didn't have powerplays and limited overs to your best bowlers to help them.
.....
.....
5 an over is a decent chase in one day cricket. More of an ask in tests.
dan warna
14 Oct 2008, 19:43
steve waugh and tubby taylor had far stronger test teams than punter has to play with.
the fact is punters win/loss ratio is comparable with the best captains, despite having a declining team.
Lee was the 4th bowler in s.waughs team behind warne, mcgrath and gillespie, now lee is the no.1 bowler.
waugh had mcgill as his 'spare' spinner...
probably the only 'great' talent that has been unearthed in the ponting era has been Hussey.
the rest are hand me downs from waugh's era, or those not strong enough to break into the team during waugh's era as captain.
arguably taylor had the best bowling to select from if the batting was a bit less than waugh had at his disposal.
the indian batting line up without a doubt is one of the best in the world, even if they too are in decline.
and let it be also noted the indians couldn't bowl Australia out twice either.
the indians made no attempt to chase down the total, and katich's glacial second innings dig also cost some time.
punter did well with what he had at his disposal.
as for punter being a shit player, the runs he smacked around the indian pie tosser would indicate he was considerably better than what they had to offer, and as for being a shit captain, he certain has performed better than any of the indian captains on the Grant thomas captaincy rotation policy.
and its a good thing that the prat harbadustbin scored some runs because he did SFA with the ball.
DeadlyAkkuret
14 Oct 2008, 20:06
5 an over is a decent chase in one day cricket. More of an ask in tests.
That's what I'm saying.
Belnakor
17 Oct 2008, 11:19
and its a good thing that the prat harbadustbin scored some runs because he did SFA with the ball.
their spinners actually performed worse than our part timers.
The Sim Dog
17 Oct 2008, 11:27
their spinners actually performed worse than our part timers.
Indeed yet we were supposed to spin them out on the last day. That pitch did not offer anyone anything. Batsmen or bowlers. Was a ####in shocker.
dr nick
21 Oct 2008, 23:41
% of test wins is the only objective way you can judge something like this. Everything else is subject to opinion.
well its now official even for you objective nuff nuffs that Waugh is the better captain.