View Full Version : Ponting to be rested - i cant remember steve waugh ever needing a rest
aussie1st
2 Feb 2009, 06:07
A CAPTAIN is supposed to stay with a sinking ship, but Ricky Ponting will not play against New Zealand this Friday and may be out of the side for the rest of the series.
The selectors have decided to rest Australia's skipper for at least the next three games, fearing he will either drown on the deck or die of exhaustion from the constant call to man the pumps.
Ponting, 33, has played a herculean role, carrying the side through the summer, and is one of only two players who have not had a break in the busy schedule.
His physical workload has been exacerbated by the strains of captaincy during the team's below-average performances. Australia has had losses to India in the Test series and South Africa in a Test and one-day series.
Sunday's dismal top-order effort against New Zealand follows two equally poor games against South Africa and indicates the ship may not be sinking so much as sunk.
Ponting looked tired in the game and fell victim to an error of judgment that caused him to be run out for 5.
Michael Clarke, who was resting an injured thumb, was rushed back to Perth to join the squad ahead of schedule because the South African series was in the balance. He will take over the captain's role in Ponting's absence.
Clarke has failed in both games since returning but will be in good company, with no Australian batsman showing any capacity to score runs consistently.
Dave Warner has apparently snuck into the side under false pretences or is a ring-in. Hired to get the game off to a good start, he has pushed the ball around in the past two innings and failed to do the job expected of him. He scored 7 off 18 balls on Sunday.
Fellow opener Shaun Marsh has fared a little better, but looks likely to miss the rest of the series after apparently tearing a hamstring. David Hussey has not passed 50 since the first game against South Africa and was unlucky to be given out caught tickling a delivery down leg.
In the past, when Clarke and Ponting have been missing, Michael Hussey has stood in as captain but he, too, has not had a break and there is thought among the selectors that a rest may improve his form, although he has batted well in the past two games in Perth.
"We are discussing Ricky having a break at the moment," chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch said.
"The reality is if he doesn't have a break now, he won't get one until the end of the South African tour, so I think a break is quite likely.
"It's been pretty hard on him since India - it's been a long stint. Ricky wanted to play the entire South African series for obvious reasons, so if there is going to be a break, it will be against New Zealand."
Ponting probably would have missed the first game against New Zealand on Sunday but as he was in Perth, team management decided it was best for him to remain and play.
He will fly to Melbourne with the squad for the Allan Border Medal on Tuesday but fly home to Sydney before Friday's game in Melbourne.
Ponting has played four Tests against India, two against New Zealand, three against South Africa, two international Twenty20 matches and six one-day matches since October last year.
The Australians played nine Tests in 10 weeks before the start of the 10-match one-day series.
The team will be away for more than 300 days this year. Immediately after the NZ series, it will fly to South Africa for three Tests and five one-dayers and then there is a five-game one-day series against Pakistan at a venue to be confirmed.
Most players may then take two weeks to fulfil their contracts with the IPL before heading straight to England for a three-month stretch that includes the Twenty20 world cup, five Ashes Tests and a one-day series.
There would be pressure on Ponting to return for the last one-dayer against NZ in this series if it is in the balance.
He may have to find another break before the Ashes and the series against Pakistan seems to be the obvious period for a rest.
Ponting captains all three Australia teams and poses a real problem for CA when it comes to finding an appropriate time for him to rest.
The dangers of pushing players too hard is obvious, with injuries costing the team dearly across the summer. Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Peter Siddle, Bryce McGain, Andrew Symonds, Shane Watson and Clarke have all been unavailable at critical times.
Last year, the Indians' crowded schedule resulted in captain MS Dhoni being rested from a Test series against Sri Lanka, although he was not captain of the Test team at that time.
Ponting had a major operation on his wrist after the West Indies Test series and has batted with pain during the summer, but has managed to play more cricket than almost every other senior Australian player.
Even South African coach Mickey Arthur has noted how crowded the calendar is.
"I honestly don't know who agreed to that schedule. It is really, really tough," Arthur said. "They're going to be playing some hard cricket, then they get on a plane and come to us.
"I would have thought that they would have tried to push for a break.
"It's going to be quite a tough series; New Zealand are fighters.
"They are going to be on the road consistently for such long periods now that they're going to have to manage injuries, they're going to have to manage workload."
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24993860-23212,00.html
Don't know what to make of this really, is it the time that we really need to be resting our skipper with the state of our game. Also it looks like a cop out especially if we lose cause the selectors will be able to say oh Ponting was rested so no need to worry about the loss.
Underdog
2 Feb 2009, 07:17
It's a disgrace I reckon. Why didn't they rest him in the dead rubbers rather then not having one of your best available batsmen for live games? :confused:
Absolutely mind boggling
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/ponting-likely-to-be-rested-before-coming-tours/2009/02/01/1233423049938.html
what is with this aussie team - when we need a captain to lead they talk about resting him ?
we will be a laughing stock of world cricket in two years the way we are going
Cousin Jed
2 Feb 2009, 07:38
I know what you mean. What an outrage resting a guy for a one day match.
We need him absolutely rooted for the test series.
Underdog
2 Feb 2009, 07:44
I know what you mean. What an outrage resting a guy for a one day match.
We need him absolutely rooted for the test series.
Well why wouldn't we rest him in the dead rubbers instead of live games?
I know what you mean. What an outrage resting a guy for a one day match.
We need him absolutely rooted for the test series.
That made me chuckle.
:thumbsu:
bigpapagman
2 Feb 2009, 08:22
we play a lot more cricket now.
Wicked Lester
2 Feb 2009, 08:28
Waugh batted at number 5 (and sometimes 6) in ODI cricket.
Such was the strength of the upper order that in later years he regularly got a 'rest' in as far as he didn't have to shoulder the responsibility of carrying the batting.
Besides it was around this stage of his career (34 years of age) that he was permanently 'rested' from the one day side.
notting18
2 Feb 2009, 08:30
And Ponting's back and wrist are quite damaged.
PumpyChowdown
2 Feb 2009, 08:34
Time to rest the selectors I reckon.
Steve Waugh might not have been rested, but he sure limited his involvement in this test:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64025.html
Batting behind Gilchrist and Brad Hogg and being the 6th bowler in one innings?
Ponting's got his faults, but Waugh wasn't perfect either.
Nice excuses, every team in world cricket has almost the same schedule. It's the fault of the ICC and they really have to look at changing things around.
Have a rest, i somewhat can see the reason why (as in previous years they rotated players a lot through the tri series) - but on the other hand the team is down and out.... they need their best performing player in the side. As much as i hate to say it Ponting is the glue that is holding the team together (albeit barely).
Are they trying to protect him so that the media don't go all 'Matty Hayden' on him if he fails again ?
Belnakor
2 Feb 2009, 10:06
If we want to have a reasonable chance of winning the test series in SA we need Punter to be absolutely cherry ripe, and if he plays all these meaningless ODI he'll be knackered.
Underdog
2 Feb 2009, 10:10
If we want to have a reasonable chance of winning the test series in SA we need Punter to be absolutely cherry ripe, and if he plays all these meaningless ODI he'll be knackered.
Why wasn't he rested on Friday or the final test then?
Really this is a huge mismanagement and quite frankly a disgrace that our captain and best player misses live games due to fatigue which was partly brought on by dead rubbers and could have been avoided by resting him in those games.
Being beaten by South Africa is one thing as they're an in form side who deserve to the at the top of the mountain.
Being beaten by New Zealand is another, they may as well have played and lost to Bermuda, Bangladesh or Kenya.
Underdog
2 Feb 2009, 10:23
Being beaten by South Africa is one thing as they're an in form side who deserve to the at the top of the mountain.
Being beaten by New Zealand is another, they may as well have played and lost to Bermuda, Bangladesh or Kenya.
Rubbish
Australia are 2nd, New Zealand are 4th, Bermuda aren't ranked, Bangladesh are 9th and Kenya 12th
Steve Waugh might not have been rested, but he sure limited his involvement in this test:
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64025.html
Batting behind Gilchrist and Brad Hogg and being the 6th bowler in one innings?
Ponting's got his faults, but Waugh wasn't perfect either.
yeah terrible decision to send gilly in for a run a ball century when you need quick runs at 3 for 371 -) !!!
the match was won correct ?
you will need to dig your archives a bit further mate to get me listening to your dribble
potatomasher
2 Feb 2009, 10:30
Waugh wasn't as important to the team as Ponting is now.
Belnakor
2 Feb 2009, 11:09
Waugh wasn't trying to carry 2-3 unperforming batsman. Waugh was reknowned for "hiding" at point to avoid having to run too much.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 11:43
WTF has Steve Waugh got to do with it?
I have no problem with resting Ponting, it is commonsense.
Everyone on here is always whinging abount "meaningless" ODI's and now there is uproar that Ponting is going to have a rest. The guy has been going non stop for a fair while and deserves a break.
The Australian public better get used to not winning everything, pretty damn soon. Right now we are whinging more then the poms. Ponting is our main player, without him this summer we'd be stuffed. Lets rest him up to be ready for the SA series.
Underdog
2 Feb 2009, 11:51
WTF has Steve Waugh got to do with it?
I have no problem with resting Ponting, it is commonsense.
I would've thought common sense would be for him to rest/be rested for dead rubbers instead of live games. Don't you agree?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 11:58
No i don't agree.
The test series in SA should be our main priority at the moment. Id quite happily endure a 5 - 0 series loss to NZ if it ment we would win in SA.
As i said, the Australian public should get used to the notion that we are not going to win everything. If your only going to rest him for dead rubbers then you could be waiting until the final game, if at all, to rest him.
This protocol would have been drawn up before the series started, the selectors would have decided who is going to be rested when. They are going to stick to it no matter what the situation is with regards to the series.
Some of these players are going to have to learn to take responsibility, Ricky cant be holding their hands all the time.
yeah terrible decision to send gilly in for a run a ball century when you need quick runs at 3 for 371 -) !!!
the match was won correct ?
No one could smash a run-a-ball hundred like Gilly. But then he sends in Brad Hogg to toddle along to hold an end up while Gilly got to the ton? What's the rationale there?
you will need to dig your archives a bit further mate to get me listening to your dribble
It's not my dribble. Waugh's "resting" in that match was pointed out in the biography of one of his teammates in that game. And that teammate was pretty disappointed in Waugh's decision, thinking he put his own interests before that of the team, and not for the only time.
I just want to point out that just as Ponting is not the hopeless goose that some want to believe, Steve Waugh was not as perfect a captain as some want to remember.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 12:15
No one could smash a run-a-ball hundred like Gilly. But then he sends in Brad Hogg to toddle along to hold an end up while Gilly got to the ton? What's the rationale there?
It's not my dribble. Waugh's "resting" in that match was pointed out in the biography of one of his teammates in that game. And that teammate was pretty disappointed in Waugh's decision, thinking he put his own interests before that of the team, and not for the only time.
I just want to point out that just as Ponting is not the hopeless goose that some want to believe, Steve Waugh was not as perfect a captain as some want to remember.
Who's biography? Pontings?
WTF has Steve Waugh got to do with it?
I have no problem with resting Ponting, it is commonsense.
Everyone on here is always whinging abount "meaningless" ODI's and now there is uproar that Ponting is going to have a rest. The guy has been going non stop for a fair while and deserves a break.
The Australian public better get used to not winning everything, pretty damn soon. Right now we are whinging more then the poms. Ponting is our main player, without him this summer we'd be stuffed. Lets rest him up to be ready for the SA series.
ponting tookover from waugh so i am just drawing a comparison on their leadership styles - waugh would not rest while his team was losing
India should be second on the ODI list actually.
potatomasher
2 Feb 2009, 13:31
India should be second on the ODI list actually.
In 1926, Sturtevant found the first gene inversion in Drosophila.
tin can sam
2 Feb 2009, 13:38
Lets just field a side something like this.
D. Warner
M. Klinger
L. Carseldine
D. Hussey
C. White
M. North
L. Ronchi
J. Hopes
B. Hilf(sp?)
S. Tait
N. Bracken
don't risk anyone who could play tests in South Africa
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 13:49
ponting tookover from waugh so i am just drawing a comparison on their leadership styles - waugh would not rest while his team was losing
Remember Steve Waugh was the one who introduced the "rotation policy".
He was a big believer in it.
Steve Waugh last played ODI 7 years ago. Thats a long time.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 13:51
India should be second on the ODI list actually.
Yeah of course they should, after their early WC exit and all :D:rolleyes:
Waugh wasn't trying to carry 2-3 unperforming batsman. Waugh was reknowned for "hiding" at point to avoid having to run too much.
Your kidding right. Steve Waugh carried Australia's batting for years in the mid 1990's.
Wicked Lester
2 Feb 2009, 18:43
Your kidding right. Steve Waugh carried Australia's batting for years in the mid 1990's.
Waugh could be a splendid middle order scrapper, but I think this overstates his contribution somewhat.
Firstly, the batting in the mid 90's when he supposedly "carried" the batting included, at any given time, Taylor, Slater, Boon, Mark Waugh, Border and the list goes on. The mid 90's period wasn't exactly a barren period in Australian cricket.
Secondly - and more critically - if he did, as you suggest, carry the batting he'd have marched up to the captain and said "I want to bat at number 3". He'd have demanded the responsibility.
Alas he did not. He batted at 5 and appears to be have been content doing so. Now, coming in at 3-50 odd and grinding out an innings is super stuff and all that, but coming in at 1/10 is the far tougher assignment. And therein lies the difference; if you're a successful number 3 your team wont get into trouble too often in the first place.
Waugh could be a splendid middle order scrapper, but I think this overstates his contribution somewhat.
Firstly, the batting in the mid 90's when he supposedly "carried" the batting included, at any given time, Taylor, Slater, Boon, Mark Waugh, Border and the list goes on. The mid 90's period wasn't exactly a barren period in Australian cricket.
Secondly - and more critically - if he did, as you suggest, carry the batting he'd have marched up to the captain and said "I want to bat at number 3". He'd have demanded the responsibility.
Alas he did not. He batted at 5 and appears to be have been content doing so. Now, coming in at 3-50 odd and grinding out an innings is super stuff and all that, but coming in at 1/10 is the far tougher assignment. And therein lies the difference; if you're a successful number 3 your team wont get into trouble too often in the first place.
Are you trying to suggest that batting number 3 means your a better batsman than batting at number 4 or 5?
You do know that no names like Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara batted most of their careers at number 4 dont you and no one ever said that they were crap batsmen because they didnt bat at number 3.
Batting order has very little to do with ability. Otherwise your openers would be your best batsmen. It all comes down to what your most comfortable doing and for Steve Waugh he was most comfortable batting at number 5.
Steve Waugh saved the day many many times. He was brillaint against the West Indies (in 1995 i think) and without Steve Waugh we would NOT have won the 1999 World Cup and probaby wouldnt have won the 87/88 world cup).
Shows how big a shambles Australian cricket is when Clarke is captain.
Exhale You
2 Feb 2009, 19:45
I know what you mean. What an outrage resting a guy for a one day match.
We need him absolutely rooted for the test series.
:D
Well why wouldn't we rest him in the dead rubbers instead of live games?
They're all dead rubbers.
The only ODI matches that mean anything happen every four years, the rest are just mindless entertainment and avenues for gambling.
Ill Chicken
2 Feb 2009, 22:22
Are you trying to suggest that batting number 3 means your a better batsman than batting at number 4 or 5?
It is generally considered that the best bat in the side should come in at number three.
You do know that no names like Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara batted most of their careers at number 4 dont you and no one ever said that they were crap batsmen because they didnt bat at number 3.
Maybe Lara should have played his career at three. Tendulkar is a gun bat, no doubt but it was better team wise for him to bat middle order.
Batting order has very little to do with ability. Otherwise your openers would be your best batsmen. It all comes down to what your most comfortable doing and for Steve Waugh he was most comfortable batting at number 5.
That is insane, batting order has a lot to do with ability. Your best bats generally start from the top down, yes you may have a clincher such as Lara, Tendulkar or Kallis but the best bats in the modern game are openers/number threes. No doubt about it.
Steve Waugh saved the day many many times. He was brillaint against the West Indies (in 1995 i think) and without Steve Waugh we would NOT have won the 1999 World Cup and probaby wouldnt have won the 87/88 world cup).
You could also argue that Steve Waugh cost us a home World Cup. The end of the day Steve Waugh is a great batsman but there is no way he would have been as successful at the top of the order as he was in the middle.
GoldenSky
2 Feb 2009, 23:33
I really can't believe people support the selectors resting Ponting for these next few games. Would anyone put up with Geelong Footy Club resting Ablett Jr for home and away matches?
It's just an insult to Australian cricket fans. Don't schedule the games if you don't want your players participating in them, CA. :thumbsd:
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
2 Feb 2009, 23:57
Deal with it people. Ponting is being rested and there is not a damn thing you lot can do about it, and rightly so. The guy hasnt had a break since India, this was pre-planned and was always going to happen.
We need the Punter in peak condition heading into SA.
Build a bridge and move on.
Cooldude
3 Feb 2009, 00:07
I cannot believe some of the crap that goes on about Steve Waugh. That man has made some of the toughest and most telling runs in Australian history. He is the best Aussie batsman under pressure I've ever seen. He was the no.1 batsman in the world for a couple of years starting from 95. Then people goes off sniping at him about his achievements? Were those people even born then to watch him play?
To say it works against him that he doesn't bat first drop is incredibly idiotic, I can also argue that there hasn't been a better no.5 batsman in world cricket for the past 20 years. The man's good at what he does: rescue missions in the middle order. So why even slag him off for it? It makes zero sense
And resting Ponting is stupid. The team clearly needs a consistent best XI to find some form, then you rest the best player and the captain.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 00:17
I cannot believe some of the crap that goes on about Steve Waugh. That man has made some of the toughest and most telling runs in Australian history. He is the best Aussie batsman under pressure I've ever seen. He was the no.1 batsman in the world for a couple of years starting from 95. Then people goes off sniping at him about his achievements? Were those people even born then to watch him play?
To say it works against him that he doesn't bat first drop is incredibly idiotic, I can also argue that there hasn't been a better no.5 batsman in world cricket for the past 20 years. The man's good at what he does: rescue missions in the middle order. So why even slag him off for it? It makes zero sense
And resting Ponting is stupid. The team clearly needs a consistent best XI to find some form, then you rest the best player and the captain.
No one is disputing he made some very hard runs at crucial times and because of that he is rightly regarded as a great.
The critisicm levelled at him by KNOWLEDAGBLE commentators was that when Australia was struggling in the early 90's that he didnt move himself up the order. Batting at number 5 or 6 is normally a lot easier in the long run then batting at 3. Simply do to the fact that batting at 3 will, by its very nature, mean that on a pretty regular basis the number 3 batsmen will be coming in against a new ball and a fired up attack.
At 5 or 6 often the ball has lost its hardness and is easier to negate. Sure, the odd occasion when the team loses 3 wickets in quick succession then the ball will still be relatiely new, but normally that is on the ODD occasion.
His captainicy at various times i thought deserved critisicm. I thought that at times he never used the mantra of using "defense as attack". Perfect example was India in 2001, when using ultra-aggressive fields resulted in batsmen getting off to flying starts and the run-rate spiralling out of control. The refusal to budge from the principle of stacking the cordon which had worked so well for 2 or 3 years leading up to 2001 was found wanting in India and i thought that Waugh took to long to ease up and try and stiffle the boundaries and frustate the predominately boundary scoring Indian batsmen.
The follow on issue i feel was a perfect example as well.
No one is disputing he made some very hard runs at crucial times and because of that he is rightly regarded as a great.
The critisicm levelled at him by KNOWLEDAGBLE commentators was that when Australia was struggling in the early 90's that he didnt move himself up the order. Batting at number 5 or 6 is normally a lot easier in the long run then batting at 3. Simply do to the fact that batting at 3 will, by its very nature, mean that on a pretty regular basis the number 3 batsmen will be coming in against a new ball and a fired up attack.
Actually in the mid 1990's when Steve Waugh was in amazing form the bowling side would bring their strike bowlers back in the attack as soon as Steve Waugh got to the crease in a attempt to get him out before he got settled in.
Steve Waugh also worked very well with the tail end. Look at every bowler that played under Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh and you will see that every bowler improved their batting under the captaincy of Steve Waugh (hell even Glenn McGrath did).
People still watch ODI's?
As exhale said - they're all dead rubbers.
Wicked Lester
3 Feb 2009, 07:14
Are you trying to suggest that batting number 3 means your a better batsman than batting at number 4 or 5?
You do know that no names like Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara batted most of their careers at number 4 dont you and no one ever said that they were crap batsmen because they didnt bat at number 3.
I should have thought it was patently obvious that I am saying it is more difficult to bat at 3 than it is lower in the order and, that as the best batsman in the side, I was always disappointed that Waugh (either of them) didn't demand the additional responsibility the role carries.
To your second point, yes, I am well aware Lara and Tendulkar preferred to bat at four. In fact Tendulkar has never played an innings at 3 over his entire career.
It doesn't greatly diminish their standing, but I'll always give extra points to a batsman like Ponting, who willingly bats at 3.
To whoever noted that opposing captains generally brought there better bowlers back into the attack when Waugh came to the crease, that's all good and well, but I don't care what you say, facing a great paceman in his 15th over with the shine wearing off the ball is simply not as difficult as coming in at 1/10 against a bowler in his 2nd or 3rd over with a still new cherry.
Look at every bowler that played under Mark Taylor and Steve Waugh and you will see that every bowler improved their batting under the captaincy of Steve Waugh (hell even Glenn McGrath did).
Stuart MacGill didn't.
Every bowler (with one exception) who played under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting also improved their batting under the captaincy of Ponting - McGrath did, Gillespie did, MacGill did (back to even higher numbers than he did under Taylor).
The only one who didn't was Shane Warne - who's figures were exactly the same under Waugh and Ponting, as are Brett Lee's.
Isn't all this talk about Waugh batting at 3 or pre-planned rests missing the point? We're in a situation where we have a few injured players missing, we've just been hammered by South Africa in a one-day series, and we need to beat NZ in order to retain our number one ranking.
Wouldn't a captain want to be around for that?
I'd suggest that when they planned to rest Ponting, they would have expected that we'd have settled our one-day line-up and beaten SA in the one-dayers (which we may very well have done if our bowling attack was at full-strength). Well, things have changed and we need a bit of front-foot leadership right now.
Ponting is perfectly within his rights if he wants to take a break right now. But it does give the impression that he can pick and choose exactly when he wants to be captain, regardless of circumstances.
Wicked Lester
3 Feb 2009, 08:49
Isn't all this talk about Waugh batting at 3 or pre-planned rests missing the point? We're in a situation where we have a few injured players missing, we've just been hammered by South Africa in a one-day series, and we need to beat NZ in order to retain our number one ranking.
Wouldn't a captain want to be around for that?
Both Ponting and the selectors are on the record today stating that Ponting did not want to take a break, principally for the reasons you've outlined.
The selectors insisted on following through with their planned rest.
legend166
3 Feb 2009, 08:49
Surely the fact that the next game isn't until Friday is rest enough?
Then we have a problem with our selectors. Surely a captain who wants to play for his country shouldn't be prevented from doing so - short of an actual injury that is.
Wicked Lester
3 Feb 2009, 09:11
Then we have a problem with our selectors. Surely a captain who wants to play for his country shouldn't be prevented from doing so - short of an actual injury that is.
Perhaps, though the rotation policy is not exactly new.
I agree it an 'interesting' time to invoke it.
Hilditch was at pains in an interview I heard earlier to note that only Ponting and Hussey have not had a rest since September and that Hussey is next.
He inferred that their eyes are firmly fixed on South Africa.
Gopies 2002
3 Feb 2009, 09:26
This isn't the first time Ponting has missed the NZ one day series.
Its just another of the meaningless one day series that occur now. Did anyone complain when Johnson was rested against the Safas ?
Fair enough. I just think the circumstances are crying out for leadership right now.
And while I think about it, what's the thought process behind resting the captain one game into a five game series? Why not give him the first two off with an option on the third (and the final game of the S Af ones, if it's decided), so that he can come back in if we find ourselves 2-0 down? The timing is weird.
I have the biggest man crush on Steve Waugh. My favourite cricketer ever. But those that are not recognising the additional difficulties of batting higher up the order than 5/6 (ie. newer ball, wickets with more moisture, fresher bowlers/fielders) have either never played the game at a reasonable standard, or have rocks in their head.
To suggest otherwise is madness.
This isn't the first time Ponting has missed the NZ one day series.
Its just another of the meaningless one day series that occur now. Did anyone complain when Johnson was rested against the Safas ?
Why is it a meaningless series ? Quality of opposition, or just the circumstances (ie: previous South Africa series and future South Africa tour being more important) ?
While i think T20 is the future and will be the bes form of cricket (aside from tests) over time, i'd class those games as meaningless. While you don't see many of those games, i'd rather see the Australian T20 side become like an Australia A side - up & comers who are on the fringe of selection in ODI & Tests.
I certainly didn't complain about Johnson being 'rested', the guy was knackered after the tests - you've got to be more careful of bowlers, especially when they've shouldered a huge workload. You don't need another bowler to break down ala Lee.
I understand the chance of burn out, but i'm also of the opinion that they are shielding Ponting from any further embarassment.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 12:30
You honestly think they are shielding Pontign from "further embarassment"?
I can't understand how some people think to be honest.
This is not the first time Ricky Ponting has been rested during a one day series. It has happened before in exactly the same way except we had been winning. I agree with the selectors here to be honest, the selectors are engaging preventative measures which won't be popular but will serve a purpose.
Shiedling Ponting from further embarassment, what a laugh that is, it really is no wonder that Rudd got voted when you consider the average intelligence of the average Australian.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 12:34
Fair enough. I just think the circumstances are crying out for leadership right now.
And while I think about it, what's the thought process behind resting the captain one game into a five game series? Why not give him the first two off with an option on the third (and the final game of the S Af ones, if it's decided), so that he can come back in if we find ourselves 2-0 down? The timing is weird.
To get maxium time off, if they rested him for 2 games after this Friday's game then Punter woul only have a few days off, now his rested so he gets more time off between games :rolleyes:.
I mentioned yesterday that the public better get used to this rotation policy, because they are going to see it more then ever this year and like it or lump it, some fixtures are going to have be given priority over other fixtures.
The last thing we want is for the Punter to be fatigued going into the SA return series, if that means making the unfavourable decision to rest him for these one dayers then so be it, leadership is not just about cricket captains, its about people like the selectors and the CA board making the hard and often unfavourable decisions for the benefit of a long term goal. The ICC is severely lacking in this regard.
Blues_Man
3 Feb 2009, 13:06
Ponting is perfectly within his rights if he wants to take a break right now. But it does give the impression that he can pick and choose exactly when he wants to be captain, regardless of circumstances.
The selectors are forcing the break on Ponting he wants to play every game...sometimes you really shoul gain some knowledge of the circumstances before posting ignorant rubbish. :rolleyes:
To the op.
The timing could perhaps be better but we don’t know if Ricky has aggravated or feeling pain in his wrist, we don’t know. It was at the beginning of the summer we read his career was being threatened by injury. It was stated it needed management. Perhaps said management could have chosen better date but Better than losing him for the test series now.
Also I’m sure its been pointed out but Waugh stopped playing One Day cricket altogether.
The attempted comparison to imply Ricky as weak, well it lost.
You honestly think they are shielding Pontign from "further embarassment"?
I can't understand how some people think to be honest.
Shiedling Ponting from further embarassment, what a laugh that is, it really is no wonder that Rudd got voted when you consider the average intelligence of the average Australian.
I voted Howard :( :D
What i typed has a double meaning - shielded from the embarassment of losing AND avoiding those questioning his form / decisions in the field etc.
The selectors are forcing the break on Ponting he wants to play every game...sometimes you really shoul gain some knowledge of the circumstances before posting ignorant rubbish. :rolleyes:
Here's a tip, Blues Man: go out and buy yourself a dictionary, and look up the word 'impression'. Give it a couple of days to sink in - it may be a difficult concept to get your head around. When you think you've got a vague idea of what I said in that post, get back to me.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 13:58
Keep it going lads, good entertainment.
Cooldude
3 Feb 2009, 14:21
No one is disputing he made some very hard runs at crucial times and because of that he is rightly regarded as a great.
The critisicm levelled at him by KNOWLEDAGBLE commentators was that when Australia was struggling in the early 90's that he didnt move himself up the order. Batting at number 5 or 6 is normally a lot easier in the long run then batting at 3. Simply do to the fact that batting at 3 will, by its very nature, mean that on a pretty regular basis the number 3 batsmen will be coming in against a new ball and a fired up attack.
Wait, wait, wait, KNOWLEDGABLE commentators? Please name them? Because during the early 90s, Steve Waugh would've still been classified as an allrounder. It was only when he was dropped during that period that he reinvented himself as a pure batsman, which was the result from 95 onwards
People who criticise Steve Waugh's batting efforts prior to 95 knows nothing about his career. He was originally selected as an allrounder in the Australian side and was classified as such for a better part of nearly a decade. When he decided to concentrate on his batting, he became the most valuable wicket in the world and the best man in cricket under pressure.
And wait just a second, how can he move himself up the order during the early 90s? Allan Border was captain then, obviously AB knew more than you do about where he should bat. No, Steve Waugh didn't have an easy time of it at all at no.5 if you've watched his career. He had to come in so many times when Aussies were in absolute deep poop. Did you even watch his twin tons at Old Trafford that turned the 97 Ashes on that minefield?
Sorry, after reading your post, I'm almost convinced that you know very little about Steve Waugh the cricketer to begin with
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 15:07
I dont want to get in a big argument. But at the time Australia needed a strong number 3 many seemed to think that Waugh was protecting himself at 5 and therefore his cricketing career by refusing to go up to number 3 for the good of the team.
It is pointed out in this article here.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280443839.html
Hookes, though, did say there were some points for which Waugh deserved criticism: He should have been quicker in deciding his future after his Sydney Test ton last summer. Should have gone to the West Indies as a player, handing the captaincy to Ricky Ponting. Should have batted higher when younger.
"But they're minor things over an 18-year career," Hookes said
JimDocker
3 Feb 2009, 15:50
I am not a huge fan of Ponting as captain, but he is a great batsman. I mean great too, not great as is often bandied about about a batsman has a better than average series. As far as resting him goes. If he needs it, rest him. Cricketers do play a lot nowadays and resting a great player from a one dayer or two to freshen him up for a test series makes sense.
As for Steve Waugh. I often wondered why he never batted further up the order, but in reality his batting down the order worked for a hell of a long time.
I voted Labor by the way !
PalaceGun
3 Feb 2009, 17:11
Why is it a meaningless series ? Quality of opposition, or just the circumstances (ie: previous South Africa series and future South Africa tour being more important) ?
While i think T20 is the future and will be the bes form of cricket (aside from tests) over time, i'd class those games as meaningless. While you don't see many of those games, i'd rather see the Australian T20 side become like an Australia A side - up & comers who are on the fringe of selection in ODI & Tests.
All forms of international cricket are meaningless except test cricket.
I'd much rather lose 100 ODI's than lose one test match.
damochandler
3 Feb 2009, 17:56
i thought they scrapped the rotation policy after the debacle of the 2002 vb series. were the selectors and ca thought it would be a great idea to rest everyone. they are going back to old habbits here
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 18:26
You mean the 2001/02 series?
In reality was it a debacle, it was a ploy to develop a pool of players that could play at a high level in ODI's to prepare for the 2003 WC.
One could argue that it was successful. In the 2003 WC when we lost Warne and Gillespie, we had to players in Brad Hogg and Andrew Bichel who could fill the breach seemlessly. At of that VB Series of 2001/02 each team (SA, AUS, NZ) had played 8 games and each team had lost 4 and won 4. We missed out on run-rate. At the time there was uproar but in reality one could make a case that rotating players allowed players like Andrew Bichel, Andrew Symonds experience at ODI level which enabled them to eventually perform at a high standard.
Andy Bichel was a perfect example of that.
I know what you mean. What an outrage resting a guy for a one day match.
We need him absolutely rooted for the test series.
I try to avoid LOLs but I really did laugh out aloud at this one Jed...frickn funny quip
Nice excuses, every team in world cricket has almost the same schedule. It's the fault of the ICC and they really have to look at changing things around.
why would Micky Arthur make excuses for the Aussies?????
Cooldude
3 Feb 2009, 22:16
I dont want to get in a big argument. But at the time Australia needed a strong number 3 many seemed to think that Waugh was protecting himself at 5 and therefore his cricketing career by refusing to go up to number 3 for the good of the team.
It is pointed out in this article here.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/09/1052280443839.html
Of course you don't wanna get in a discussion about this, because it'd just prove how wrong you are. And did you even read my post? In the early 90s, he wasn't captain, he doesn't decide where he bats, so why do you go on and on about him protecting himself when the choice isn't his to begin with?
And did you even read that article? It was an article basically going on about some pretty unfair criticism on Waugh from past players. If anything, that article proves you're talking bollocks. Hookesy is a good bloke and highly opinionated, but he isn't right most the time. Ponting took over the captaincy at precisely the right time and everything went to plan. All these should'ves and would'ves are just that, they mean nothing. The fact is, Waugh was the best no.5 batsman in world cricket for probably the past 20-30 years, and anyone who criticise him for not batting up the order have rocks in their heads. Then they could criticise any other great batsmen in history who never batted at 3.
PalaceGun
3 Feb 2009, 22:52
EFA, unfortunately...
Hookesy was a good bloke and highly opinionated, but he wasn't right most the time. .
I dont want to get in a big argument.
But at the time Australia needed a strong number 3 many seemed to think that Waugh was protecting himself at 5 and therefore his cricketing career by refusing to go up to number 3 for the good of the team.
LtD at his best, really he doesn't want to get in an argument, really trust him, he never disagrees with anything or everything anyone or everyone says... ROTFLMAO
:D:D:D
LtDs post of the decade..... still ROTFLMAO
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
3 Feb 2009, 23:32
Of course you don't wanna get in a discussion about this, because it'd just prove how wrong you are. And did you even read my post? In the early 90s, he wasn't captain, he doesn't decide where he bats, so why do you go on and on about him protecting himself when the choice isn't his to begin with?
And did you even read that article? It was an article basically going on about some pretty unfair criticism on Waugh from past players. If anything, that article proves you're talking bollocks. Hookesy is a good bloke and highly opinionated, but he isn't right most the time. Ponting took over the captaincy at precisely the right time and everything went to plan. All these should'ves and would'ves are just that, they mean nothing. The fact is, Waugh was the best no.5 batsman in world cricket for probably the past 20-30 years, and anyone who criticise him for not batting up the order have rocks in their heads. Then they could criticise any other great batsmen in history who never batted at 3.
That is all your opinion.
No need to get fired up, i just dont particularly want to get into an argument. Someone asked why people think Steve Waugh was a bit selfish. I provided some reasoning that was put forward by past players.
Dont shoot the messenger. For what it's worth i have gave some reasons in the past that to be were SLIGHTLY selfish. Such as saying that he wanted to retire with an average over 50 in late 2002, (i think is average dipped to 49 in that period) and saying that he didnt want to retire until after he completed a full circle of captaining in each country.
Your obviously a bit of a fan boi, they are only minor suggestions to why people thought he was a bit selfish.
That is all your opinion.
No need to get fired up, i just dont particularly want to get into an argument. Someone asked why people think Steve Waugh was a bit selfish. I provided some reasoning that was put forward by past players.
Dont shoot the messenger. For what it's worth i have gave some reasons in the past that to be were SLIGHTLY selfish. Such as saying that he wanted to retire with an average over 50 in late 2002, (i think is average dipped to 49 in that period) and saying that he didnt want to retire until after he completed a full circle of captaining in each country.
Your obviously a bit of a fan boi, they are only minor suggestions to why people thought he was a bit selfish.
AGAIN... lol.. ROTFLMAO
Says I dont want to argue and then writes 2 paragraphs arguing... lol. Just cant help himself
LtD thanks for the laughs mate.. I needed it tonight. cheers
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 00:03
Wait till you see the other thread.
:D :D :D
Cooldude
4 Feb 2009, 01:09
That is all your opinion.
No need to get fired up, i just dont particularly want to get into an argument. Someone asked why people think Steve Waugh was a bit selfish. I provided some reasoning that was put forward by past players.
Dont shoot the messenger. For what it's worth i have gave some reasons in the past that to be were SLIGHTLY selfish. Such as saying that he wanted to retire with an average over 50 in late 2002, (i think is average dipped to 49 in that period) and saying that he didnt want to retire until after he completed a full circle of captaining in each country.
Your obviously a bit of a fan boi, they are only minor suggestions to why people thought he was a bit selfish.
Your reasonings are dumb. So, setting personal goals are wrong, wanting to get an average above 50 is wrong. Now I've heard it all. He has goals, boohoo, that's selfish? Now I know why you don't wanna get into an argument, because you would just embarrass yourself.
You calling others being a fan boi? Talk about pot kettle black, you stick up for your Queenslanders more than Elton John stick it up the dudes...
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 01:39
Setting personal goals, don't give me that crap.
Steve Waugh stayed one year too long, many people believe that. I happen to suscribe to that belief. Steve Waugh is one of my favourite players, i have a large amount of his books, and i regularly read them as i find them very enjoyable.
I have nothing against him, but i did think some of the things he did during his career were selfish. I remember reading his autobiography and thinking some of the stuff he did was a bit selfish.
Basically, he should have retired at the end of the SCG test 2002. What is there to achieve by going on for another year and playing the likes of WI, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and then India. 3 of those teams are mediocre. He should have at least stood down as captain and let Ponting take over for the tour to the WI in 2003.
I remember him saying that one of the reasons he didnt want to retire was because he wanted to finish with an average above 50. That raised my eyebrows a bit, and i can understand why a player like Ian Chappell would look at that as a negative. It is only a minor thing but it does give an insight into his character. He was very determined and in a sense that can sometimes cross over into being a tad selfish.
His comment that he also wanted to "complete a full circle" before retiring before he toured the WI in 2003 also raised eyebrows.
My reasonings are not dumb, i cant pull out evidence that says in black and white that he was selfish. All i can do is offer some reasoning into why some people, especially ex-cricketers at times viewed him as a selfish player.
He was a magnificent player, but the whole circus around his retirement in 2003/04 was in hindsight unfortunate as it no doubt distracted the team. But the media would have been all over him i spose if he didnt announce his retirement before hand.
Look there is no point sitting here talking about stuff that happened years ago. I do think that at times Waugh could be a tad selfish, but its hard not to be for a player who has enormous determination and thrived on the "ill show you" principle when someone wrote him off.
Setting personal goals, don't give me that crap.
Steve Waugh stayed one year too long, many people believe that. I happen to suscribe to that belief.
How could you say that when in 2003 (his last full year) he averaged 79.64. When Steve Waugh retired he was in very good form and probably could have continued playing at a high level for another year.
Wicked Lester
4 Feb 2009, 08:30
How could you say that when in 2003 (his last full year) he averaged 79.64. When Steve Waugh retired he was in very good form and probably could have continued playing at a high level for another year.
It's very easy to say it. His 2003 was buffeted by a series against the Windies where his innings of substance were made in the 3rd and 4th test matches (the FW trophy having already been secured in the first two tests; in fact Waugh didn't even have to bat in the second test), two big centuries against Bangladesh and two not out half centuries against Zimababwe. In fact, but for those two series against the Bangas and Zimbabwe his test average would have remained under 50.
He finished up with an adequate series against India finishing with an 80 in the second innings of the 4th test (his highest score of the series and quite bizarrely the highest 4th innings score of his test career).
I also thought he should have called it a day following his century in Sydney the year before. Given the 8 tests (Windies, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe) we were about to play against the cricketing minnows it would have been an excellent opportunity to blood a younger player.
As it was the circus that became his farewell tour sadly distracted the team. John Buchanan had to read the riot act to regain the team's focus. I doubt Cricket Australia would sanction such a circus again, but then Waugh and Cricket Australia were not exactly on great terms by that stage. You might recall that, rather unusually, his press conference announcing his retirement was a private affair with no CA officials present.
Cooldude
4 Feb 2009, 10:18
Setting personal goals, don't give me that crap.
Steve Waugh stayed one year too long, many people believe that. I happen to suscribe to that belief. Steve Waugh is one of my favourite players, i have a large amount of his books, and i regularly read them as i find them very enjoyable.
I have nothing against him, but i did think some of the things he did during his career were selfish. I remember reading his autobiography and thinking some of the stuff he did was a bit selfish.
Basically, he should have retired at the end of the SCG test 2002. What is there to achieve by going on for another year and playing the likes of WI, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and then India. 3 of those teams are mediocre. He should have at least stood down as captain and let Ponting take over for the tour to the WI in 2003.
I remember him saying that one of the reasons he didnt want to retire was because he wanted to finish with an average above 50. That raised my eyebrows a bit, and i can understand why a player like Ian Chappell would look at that as a negative. It is only a minor thing but it does give an insight into his character. He was very determined and in a sense that can sometimes cross over into being a tad selfish.
His comment that he also wanted to "complete a full circle" before retiring before he toured the WI in 2003 also raised eyebrows.
My reasonings are not dumb, i cant pull out evidence that says in black and white that he was selfish. All i can do is offer some reasoning into why some people, especially ex-cricketers at times viewed him as a selfish player.
He was a magnificent player, but the whole circus around his retirement in 2003/04 was in hindsight unfortunate as it no doubt distracted the team. But the media would have been all over him i spose if he didnt announce his retirement before hand.
Look there is no point sitting here talking about stuff that happened years ago. I do think that at times Waugh could be a tad selfish, but its hard not to be for a player who has enormous determination and thrived on the "ill show you" principle when someone wrote him off.
Of course your reasoning is dumb. Steve Waugh was always a fighter who tries to get every last bit out of himself. So what was wrong with him thinking he has more to offer to the team by staying on? That is not selfish at all. What you're doing is, you're imposing onto him what you believe he should've done, and brand him selfish because he didn't act according to your wishes and your expectations. That's just completely stupid, Ian Chappell type stupid
The only one person I can see who was very vocal about Steve Waugh being a selfish player was Ian Chappell. The dude has it in for Waugh because Waugh got the captaincy ahead of Warnie and Chappelli was Warnie's mate. It was nothing more than primary school clique stuff. Even after Warnie retired, he took his chances to bag Steve Waugh because he wasn't happy Waugh dropped him at one stage.
What I do know is, most the players who played under Waugh talks of the tremandous influence he has over the players and what he has done for them in their cricketing lives and also personal lives. Haven't you ever wondered why lots of players thrived under his captaincy? I can't see how a selfish person can ever promote such a ruthless yet tight team culture in an Australian team and make them hunt as a pack and play as a unit? Furthermore, India worships Steve Waugh. It is a nation that finds it hard to take in outsiders and embrace them. Yet Steve Waugh managed to maintain great relationships with the Indian public, and I can ensure you the crap that goes on between India and Australia would've never happened under Steve Waugh. Indian players also look up to him immensely, and so does many English cricketers and South African cricketers, which to me says more about Steve Waugh than anyone else. Anyone who's seen his achievements as a captain and still brand him as selfish, in my very very humble opinion, are all nuff nuffs with an axe to grind for whatever reason.
Unfortunately I think you're talking shit about Steve Waugh, end of story. It's the same people who gives the crap about Matthew Hayden being a flat track bully. It's all predetermined opinion character assassinating someone without any basis of truth backing them up, purely because they didn't agree with the player's actions
Wicked Lester
4 Feb 2009, 10:48
The only one person I can see who was very vocal about Steve Waugh being a selfish player was Ian Chappell.
I can ensure you the crap that goes on between India and Australia would've never happened under Steve Waugh.
You can add Shane Warne to that list.
To the second point, what an utter absurdity. It's an assertion that you can never prove. Waugh was a master at sitting back while his boys abused and monstered the opposition, then shrugging his shoulders when things got out of hand. He and Ganguly despised each other (ironically Ganguly and Ponting get along quite well). Who knows what might have happened; it may even have been worse.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 11:38
How could you say that when in 2003 (his last full year) he averaged 79.64. When Steve Waugh retired he was in very good form and probably could have continued playing at a high level for another year.
He averaged that in 2003 primarily due to a couple of back to back tons against Bangladesh (not out as well) and a couple of not half centuries again Zimbabwe.
I have made some valid points backed up by citing articles with quotes from former ex players.
All i get is abuse.
He averaged that in 2003 primarily due to a couple of back to back tons against Bangladesh (not out as well) and a couple of not half centuries again Zimbabwe.
I have made some valid points backed up by citing articles with quotes from former ex players.
All i get is abuse.
You get abuse because you never take on board other people opinions.
Steve Waugh didn't do the scheduling for 2003. He can only play the teams that he is scheduled to play against.
An average of 79 more than justifies his decision to play the extra year.
Just let it go, it's clearly an "agree to disagree" type argument.
Wicked Lester
4 Feb 2009, 12:41
You get abuse because you never take on board other people opinions.
Hold on a minute. This cuts both ways my friend. On recent posts it's not LtD that responds to others' points of view with lines such as "your reasoning is dumb".
Rather LtD is on the receiving end of it.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 12:47
Exactly, on one thread when people were discussing Andrew Symonds form they were saying that is average was inflated due to his not out scores. Steve Waugh's average was inflated in 2003 due to 2 not out tons against Bangladesh. That is never mentioned.
I gave some reasoning why some people consider Steve Waugh to be a tad selfish. They are all minor points but they still are there and many people that no more about cricket then anyone here consider them to be valid. Such as the likes of Ian Chappell, Keith Stackpole and the late David Hookes.
However, in saying that Steve Waugh was such a driven and determined player who thrived on people writing him off. As such, its very hard for a player who "loved proving people wrong" to not at times cross over into a area which could be considered a tad selfish.
I can ensure you the crap that goes on between India and Australia would've never happened under Steve Waugh.
Waugh was captain in 2001 when Slater went off his rocker at Dravid and Venkat. He didn't exactly step in to defuse that.
Hold on a minute. This cuts both ways my friend. On recent posts it's not LtD that responds to others' points of view with lines such as "your reasoning is dumb".
Rather LtD is on the receiving end of it.
I never said it didn't cut both ways.
But i was speaking about LtD, not anybody else.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 15:28
Didnt realies we had so many Steve Waugh fan boi's on here.
:D :D :D
Wicked Lester
4 Feb 2009, 15:39
Waugh was captain in 2001 when Slater went off his rocker at Dravid and Venkat. He didn't exactly step in to defuse that.
Correct. Nor did he intervene on the 2003 tour of the West Indies when McGrath and Sarwan almost came to blows. Instead, he stood nearby and watched.
Afterwards he copped a volley of sharp criticism from commentators and the media for not involving himself to assist in resolving what almost became one of cricket's ugliest incidents.
Didnt realies we had so many Steve Waugh fan boi's on here.
:D :D :D
Well when people try to claim that he went on a year too long when he averaged over 79 in his final year he deserves to be defended.
PalaceGun
4 Feb 2009, 17:07
He and Ganguly despised each other (ironically Ganguly and Ponting get along quite well). Who knows what might have happened; it may even have been worse.
Is it also "ironic" that an Australian XI skippered by Ponting can't beat India?
Whats got me buggered is how much we comment on the 'personality' of people we have not met and have conversed with let alone even know them.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
4 Feb 2009, 23:18
Personality?
Steve Waugh has a very determined character. In his young days he was a shot-maker, then he was dropped and he came back a relatively conservative batsmen compared to what he originally was. He didnt play the pull shot as he reasoned it was to risky. That probably pissed off the likes of Ian Chappell, who was a renowned exponent of the shot.
He was a very determined character. He scored a ton after ripping his calf muscle severly. He played the match when medical literature said the recovery time was not yet complete. To do that and score a ton was unbelievable and evidence of a very determined character.
At one stage during the match he tore the calf in a different spot (or it might have been the other calf). He could only run singles and didnt call for a runner. So instead he opened his shoulders and literally just resorted to hitting 4's.
Cooldude
4 Feb 2009, 23:44
To the second point, what an utter absurdity. It's an assertion that you can never prove. Waugh was a master at sitting back while his boys abused and monstered the opposition, then shrugging his shoulders when things got out of hand. He and Ganguly despised each other (ironically Ganguly and Ponting get along quite well). Who knows what might have happened; it may even have been worse.
You're kidding, right. I believe the only thing that's utterly absurd is that sentence.
Ricky Ponting has done his fair share of sledging himself. I remembered him giving batsmen personal send offs when he was captain. These incidents are part and parcel of the game and it's just the way Australians play their cricket.
Waugh managed to maintain good relations between India and Australia off the field. He had the aura of an elder statesman that people respect to. Whereas Ponting would go off shooting his mouth in the media, vocally abusing and complaining about umpires, or have a go at a batsman for not walking. If you wanna handpick isolated incidents that doesn't even have anything to do with Steve Waugh, then there are plenty.
Behavioural problems have existed in this Australian team for ages. Loads of opposition teams don't like Hayden and Symonds because they've had a history of being serial sledgers who go over the top on and off the field. Do you think Ponting should've stepped in everytime something like that happens, too? I don't believe he should, because players should be responsible for their own behaviour. When Michael Slater claimed that extremely dodgy catch, he should've tried to control himself. It's not Steve Waugh's fault if he keeps going off his nut
There are plenty of things you could say in hindsight of what people should've done better, but seriously, blaming Steve Waugh for what happened with Sarwan/McGrath and Slater in India? That's just absurdly ridiculous. I do not know one single captain in the world that would've done what you thought Steve Waugh would've done
Wicked Lester
5 Feb 2009, 06:23
There are plenty of things you could say in hindsight of what people should've done better, but seriously, blaming Steve Waugh for what happened with Sarwan/McGrath and Slater in India? That's just absurdly ridiculous. I do not know one single captain in the world that would've done what you thought Steve Waugh would've done
You miss the point. In fact you miss your own point.
Nowhere do I "blame" Steve Waugh for the Sarwan-McGrath incident. I simply observed that he didn't seek to intervene on the field. this, in my view, was an ongoing theme of his captaincy.
YOU are the one asserting with high degrees of certainty that 'this or that would not have happened under Steve Waugh'. Several of us are simply pointing out to you that ugly events did occur under his captaincy and that he had a habit of not appearing to intervene on the field (and copped an absolute barrage of criticism in the media as a result).
As for your final question, "I do not know of one single captain......", I can recall a very telling image right off the top of my head of one who did. It's a picture of a certain Richie Richardson (the West Indian Captain) intervening on the field and forcefully pulling Curtley Ambrose away from an altercation that was about to get very ugly indeed. The batsman involved? SR Waugh.
Cooldude
5 Feb 2009, 10:21
Actually, you also missed the point. Some of the stuff about Sarwan/McGrath wasn't referring to you, it's to the other posts in the thread, which I couldn't be bothered quoting because it took too much effort
I believe you also missed my point completely, well, utterly hopelessly missed it anyway. When did I ever said ugly incidents wouldn't happen under Steve Waugh? What I said was, the relations between India and Australia wouldn't have fallen down the shitters as much as it has if Steve Waugh was still captain. Steve Waugh embraced the Indian culture and earnt their respect. I don't believe a bunch of pissed off Indians would've come out so strongly after the game and mouth off like they did if they didn't have to deal with an Australian captain constantly going over the top with the umpires and at the opposition like a petulent child. That is not to say the Indians weren't on the wrong, because they were.
Erm, that Curtly Ambrose incident is a poor example at best. By the way you told that story, it is almost like you thought Steve Waugh shouldn't have started anything? What a load of biased bullcrap that is. Windies have been long time bullies of batsmen for a better part of 2 decades since then, so a batsman decides to stand up to that bullying and the bowler couldn't take it and starts getting pissed off like a little kid, and it's wrong? I dunno what game you think this is, but it's certainly not women's cricket.
While I always regarded Richie Richardson as a very good bloke and respected him, that was a poor example out of a string of isolated incidents that I can remember (Besides, Windies have bombarded batsmen with sledging and short pitched bowling for ages, I'm sure those captains were very sporting then when they broke Henry Lawson's jaw, too). Allan Border never went in to stop Shane Warne when he went absolutely bananas at Andrew Hudson back in 94 after dismissing him. Stephen Fleming and Graeme Smith had a prolonged onfield tussle of their own for a long while since they've played each other, so how are you gonna criticise them? Should Michael Vaughan had gone in and stopped Simon Jones when he went off and threw the ball at Matthew Hayden like a mad dog back in 05 Ashes, even though Hayden was well within his crease to cut out any chance of a run out? When Boucher and Sangakarra had that famous vicious verbal that was graphically captured by the stump mics, are you gonna bag both captains of the team for not interfering?
If you're (Not referring to you specifically, but anyone who talked bout it in this thread, just in case you miss the point again) gonna go off and criticise Steve Waugh for every "ugly incident" that happens under his captaincy, then I believe you'd be drawing a very long bow, because ugly incidents happen in every cricket team and it is massively hard for the captains to take responsibility of all their players' actions. It's better for you if you stop taking the moral high ground and go off at Steve Waugh for something that's not even his fault. Also, maybe you should harden up a bit and watch a bit more real cricket. Winning cricket was always played hardnosed, the way Steve Waugh played it. If you think it's a bit too hard for you and you gotta criticise him for it, then I suggest you watch a different sport
The Michael Slater example was a poor one to begin with, I saw it nothing more than an Australian opening batsman with a well known suspect character claiming a dodgy "catch" that wasn't a catch, and went off his nuts and lost it because he was proven to be a cheat. Sure, somehow it's Steve Waugh's fault... Even after that, the relations between the Indian and Australian team was still fairly good. Ganguly, while never admitted to have a good friendly relationship with Steve Waugh, have always been vocal in his respect, and famously said he'd think about how Steve Waugh would bat, and do as Waugh would do when Ganguly himself is struggling with his batting. Australian players have also said to have got on well with Ganguly off the field and good relationships were maintained between both teams, instead of letting it go absolutely out of control under Ponting
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
5 Feb 2009, 10:25
Cant the fan bois just let it be.
Cooldude
5 Feb 2009, 10:27
Cant the fan bois just let it be.
You are not familiar with the phrase "pot kettle black", are you?
Wicked Lester
5 Feb 2009, 13:16
I think I'll just let it be LtD.
Cooldude's problem is he makes these sweeping statements and, when someone calls him on it, we get a further series of sweeping statements.
For the record, you claimed categorically that the tension between India and Australia last summer would never have occurred under Steve Waugh's captaincy.
Several of us wondered aloud whether, given his non-interventionist approach as captain to on-field drama, that claim really stacked up. No-one is suggesting for one moment that Waugh, and he alone, is the only captain to have ever failed to demonstrate perfect leadership on the field. Far from it.
As for the Waugh-Ambrose incident, you challenged us to provide you with one example where a captain had intervened when a couple of players were taking it to an ugly level. I did so with an entirely relevant example. That Waugh was the batsman involved is incidental.
Mario the Lothario
5 Feb 2009, 14:48
A major difference is that Ponting is a far more important batsman to this current test team than Waugh ever was in his day.
Ill Chicken
5 Feb 2009, 16:11
Loads of opposition teams don't like Hayden and Symonds because they've had a history of being serial sledgers who go over the top on and off the field.
From what I've heard they don't sledge you directly, rather to their team mates.