View Full Version : How much credit should Punter Ponting get for the SA series win?
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Mar 2009, 19:38
Personally, i have never been a big believer in the notion put forward by some that captains have a great influence on the result of a match.
The flak that Ponting copped after the series loss to India and South Africa was disgraceful, bordering on shameful and cowardly.
South Africa were the better side in Australia and more importantly, they had the better bowling attack. As did India in late 2008 (as well as the benefit of winning 3 tosses in the subcontinent where winning the toss is almost required to have a chance of winning).
Tim Lane wrote an interesting piece before the start of the first test in Joburg.
Here is some of the article.
In the Test arena, Ponting can scarcely claim better than a pass in five years at the helm. He inherited the leadership at a difficult time but, even taking account of that, his reign has been less than exceptional. A third series defeat inside six months would inevitably have him edging to the wrong side of history's ledger.
The series against South Africa that began on Thursday presents Ponting with an enormous opportunity. It is his chance to win true status as captain. His team is inexperienced and the underdog. He is in a position, as batsman and leader, to wield substantial influence on the result. That the No. 1 world ranking is on the line provides a tangible symbol, both of the weight of the task and of Ponting's success or failure. To turn history's tide at this time would be the sort of achievement his tenure has so far lacked.
To me this serious was won because our bowling attack bowled with discipline and skill while SA's attack was thwarted by some patient batting.
Cast your mind back to the perth test match in the 2nd innings when we should have batted SA out of the match by setting a target over 500. Most of our batsmen holed out including Clarke and Symonds (bear in mind both holed out in the first innings as well). We threw that game away at the end of the day, we may not have been able to win it but we sure as hell should have drawn it with some decent batting.
One could have made a case for that fact that we ambushed SA at Joburg but to win again in Durban was exceptional.
To me a captain really can't do much if he was a bowling attack that isn't performing, as Grame Smith had here. The thing i have been impressed with Ponting is the amount of work he has done behind the scenes with this team.
Sure you win games on the field but the captain doesn't bowl the ball.
Ponting apparently has been at training watching each player, giving them tips on finetuning their technique and what each bowler will do and what not.
Staying back after training to give McDonald throw-downs, just little things like that show that he know treats this team as truly his.
Ponting would never go into the nets and tell Gilchrist that his top hand was too high, or tell Martyn he needed to move his feet more. They'd tell him to go and jump because they are successful senior players.
I think we won this series because of better batting and better bowling more so then captainicy. A captain is only as good as his bowlers. The fact that deluded English supporters still think Michael Vaughan was the mastermind behind their 2005 Ashes win is amusing to say the least.
Ponting however instilled confidence and belief into this side that they could win the series. Giving Hilfenhaus the new ball would sent his confience skyrocketing because he would have known that the captain thought he could do the job.
Costanza_
13 Mar 2009, 21:39
I think a captains influence over a series result is always exxaggerated by media and fans - for better or worse. A team that is chock full of world class players (e.g. the Aussie team of the past 10 years) will generate positive buzz about the captain. A team that struggles will draw unwarranted criticism of the captain.
Thus Pontings culpability in the home defeat was probably overstated. And his contribution to this fantastic win in SA probably inflated.
IMO the guy is the best batsman in the world (Tendulkar and Smith vying for this honour) and does a reasonable job with bowling rotations, field placements etc. But the victory against the Saffers reflects on the team as a whole, and particularly the inclusion of Hughes and some drastic improvement among our pace attack moreso than any captaincy issues.
Jimthegreat
13 Mar 2009, 21:53
Like Steve Waugh. Great off-field leader, great leader by example but ordinary on-field tactician. Still gets the best from the players as seen by the commitment and work ethic.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
13 Mar 2009, 22:26
By on-field tactictian, what exactly do you mean.
Care to elaborate?
robbo75
14 Mar 2009, 00:47
Some of the criticism of Ponting captaincy was well and trully justified ie. bowling the part-timers in India due to overrates when the game was there to be won. He should have gone in for the kill and didn't. One area where I do think the captain has an influence is on team unity. This team, at least at the moment, looks like they are really gelling nicely as a unit.
Mr. Blonde
14 Mar 2009, 09:25
When judging Ponting and the results he's achieved of late you have to remember that Australia has not only lost some legends of the game due to retirement, but also have many injured played not playing. Lee, Clark, Watson, Symonds, Jacques have all been out of the side due to injury.
Lee was in career best form about 12 months ago and our number 1 strike bowler.
Clark was a massive loss on the eve of the home series against SA.
Watson was about the pick of our bowlers in India and, I believe, on the verge of finally becoming a consistent performer in the test side.
Symonds wasn't fit for the last couple of tests he played, but has been an important member of the team for a while.
Jacques averages 50 as an opener and looked to have a long career ahead of him.
Now it looks like all of these players will struggle to break back into the team. Ponting has to be given some credit for that.
Jimthegreat
14 Mar 2009, 09:37
By on-field tactictian, what exactly do you mean.
Care to elaborate?
Speaks for itself. General on-field captaincy like field placings, bowling changes, "reading the play" quickly and making changes accordingly... anything else on field. Things Mark Taylor was brilliant at. Not his strong point but remember that's only one part of captaincy. Obviously doing well with the team off-field and that's translating to getting the best out of them on-field. They're a close unit working a as team. Similar to Steve Waugh, who I though was exactly the same.
Adelaide Hawk
14 Mar 2009, 11:37
If you want to balance things up, in view of the pasting he got when the team wasn't doing well, he deserves every bit of credit that comes his way.
You can't blame a captain for losing and then not give him credit when he succeeds.
blackhead&boil
14 Mar 2009, 14:31
he won't get as much credit as he deserves, in the same way that he cops a lot of criticism for his captaincy when I think he is better than a lot of people realise. he has been at the helm in a period where older players are dropping in performance and retiring, so the expectation has been that the side will continue to dominate as it has done, but the truth is that the playing stocks peaked years ago and have been in gradual decline (from a high position) for quite some time. even then, some players (such as brett lee) seem to have performed better under ponting's leadership. now he finally has some young blood to work with and I think he is already stamping his dominating and disciplined mark on them...
blackhead&boil
14 Mar 2009, 14:34
Speaks for itself. General on-field captaincy like field placings, bowling changes, "reading the play" quickly and making changes accordingly... anything else on field. Things Mark Taylor was brilliant at. Not his strong point but remember that's only one part of captaincy. Obviously doing well with the team off-field and that's translating to getting the best out of them on-field. They're a close unit working a as team. Similar to Steve Waugh, who I though was exactly the same.
taylor was an amazing on-filed captain and tactician as well as a very good speaker off the field. pretty much perfect as a captain. waugh and ponting are less skilled in terms of tactics but I think they are good at establishing a winning culture/attitude/approach...
The 747
14 Mar 2009, 19:09
In answer to the OP, none whatsoever. This is Bigfooty. ;)
emperor
15 Mar 2009, 09:52
If you want to balance things up, in view of the pasting he got when the team wasn't doing well, he deserves every bit of credit that comes his way.
You can't blame a captain for losing and then not give him credit when he succeeds.
Correct.
crudbucket
15 Mar 2009, 13:39
He cops all the crap when we lose, so logically .............
Belnakor
15 Mar 2009, 17:20
Even Chappelli has come out and praised punter, thats certainly a big thumbs up because Chappell has always hated Punter.
Even Chappelli has come out and praised punter, thats certainly a big thumbs up because Chappell has always hated Punter.
I've never had that impression. You may be thinking of Steve Waugh (who Ian Chappell, for reasons known only to him, has always disliked).
Of late i have not been happy with Pontings leadership. To often he put in place defencive fields which is the worst way to teach young bowlers how to get wickets. Bowlers need to be told that all out attack to a well placed plan is how to get wickets, not by slowing up runs and waiting for a batters mistake. I think he fixed up these errors a little during the SA tour but im still not won over by his leadership.
I also feel that he needs to score a ton a soon not just for himself but for the team. To often he gets to 75-80 and goes out. 3 years ago a 70 was 100 for ponting. As leader he needs to go on a make big innins out of starts.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
15 Mar 2009, 22:17
Of late i have not been happy with Pontings leadership. To often he put in place defencive fields which is the worst way to teach young bowlers how to get wickets. Bowlers need to be told that all out attack to a well placed plan is how to get wickets, not by slowing up runs and waiting for a batters mistake. I think he fixed up these errors a little during the SA tour but im still not won over by his leadership.
I also feel that he needs to score a ton a soon not just for himself but for the team. To often he gets to 75-80 and goes out. 3 years ago a 70 was 100 for ponting. As leader he needs to go on a make big innins out of starts.
All out attack?
We have often had 3 slips and a gully and short leg for the opening bowlers, and dropping back to 2 slips and a gully when the ball gets older.
The problem with Steve Waugh that he only went all out, when you have bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie at his peak, Lee, Bichel and what not then you can afford to stack the slips. However, in India Steve Waugh was presented with batsmen who could defend his bowlers and unfortunately the all out attack routine cost us the series.
Punchy Bassett
16 Mar 2009, 09:27
You cannot have it both ways, if he cops the crap when we lose he should get all the plaudits when we win.
UpForGrabs
17 Mar 2009, 10:44
I've never had that impression. You may be thinking of Steve Waugh (who Ian Chappell, for reasons known only to him, has always disliked).
Because he's right? Steve Waugh gets far too much credit for things he didn't do and for things he wasn't good at.
Alot of credit.
He built this team and has led them well.
Belnakor
17 Mar 2009, 11:37
Because he's right? Steve Waugh gets far too much credit for things he didn't do and for things he wasn't good at.
Well you don't have to look far for someone who cost his team a series single handedly.
krusden
17 Mar 2009, 14:14
Even Chappelli has come out and praised punter, thats certainly a big thumbs up because Chappell has always hated Punter.
Chappell is a two-faced twat who still can't get over the fact he isn't the most important former cricketer in australia.
he's an ass to ricky when losing and then has the balls to praise him? stick to your cricinfo summaries chappelli you flog
davey_magik
17 Mar 2009, 20:58
I think he deserves enormouse credit.
This is 'his' team. He built it, he has nurtured it and now he is reaping the rewards.
Tactically Ponting isn't really astute, but to be honest, very few captains are, and a lot of luck is also required with tactics. I rate Fleming as the best captain I saw because I believe he got the best out of a very average side, and conversely I rate Dhoni as an average captain and nowhere near the genius he is hyped up to be.
ROO BOY IN W.A
17 Mar 2009, 21:08
Has done a great job with a young side.Im glad he has made it his team and its great to see the boys playing for each other.Its amazing when you get away together and play as a team.It just goes to show that Sth Africa maybe thought that they would just walk up and beat us.Well guess wat Sth Africa you where wrong and you have showed that it went to your head.
Because he's right? Steve Waugh gets far too much credit for things he didn't do and for things he wasn't good at.
I agree with some of Chappell's criticisms of Waugh (overrated captain, had an all-star team, bereft of ideas when facing real opposition, etc.) but I think that Chappell goes over the top when it comes to Waugh. He derides him as being selfish when really, all Waugh did was put faith in the tailenders. Sometimes, it worked. Sometimes, it didn't. I don't really see reason to dislike Waugh as unilaterally as Chappell does, whatever Waugh's often marginalised faults are.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
18 Mar 2009, 13:09
I agree with some of Chappell's criticisms of Waugh (overrated captain, had an all-star team, bereft of ideas when facing real opposition, etc.) but I think that Chappell goes over the top when it comes to Waugh. He derides him as being selfish when really, all Waugh did was put faith in the tailenders. Sometimes, it worked. Sometimes, it didn't. I don't really see reason to dislike Waugh as unilaterally as Chappell does, whatever Waugh's often marginalised faults are.
To be fair to Chappell, he did say that he believed Steve Waugh was a selfish player long before he was made captain. When Waugh was appointd captain in early 1999 after Taylor retired, Chappell went on radio and said that he thought Waugh was "selfish" and that he "has always felt that selfish players don't get the best out of their team".
Waugh's record showed that he turned some ordinary players into great players under his leadership. Hayden and Langer are too prime examples, perhaps Damien Martyn as well. These players were ordinary players at international level but under Waugh's captainicy they flourished. Cynics will point to weak bowling attacks but one has to wonder whether Waugh's guideance helped those players get the best out of their ability.
Waugh does deserve a lot of credit for that.
One thing about Ian Chappell is that you will never hear him say he was wrong and he always has to have the last word. Always.
I remember Ian Chappell before the 06/07 Ashes saying that Clark and McGrath couldn't play in the same side because they were too similar in bowling styles. I mean, have you ever heard a more absurd reason?
You can't play in this team because your too much like Glenn McGrath.
Needless to say we haven't heard anything about that comment from Mr Chappell.
To be fair to Chappell, he did say that he believed Steve Waugh was a selfish player long before he was made captain. When Waugh was appointed captain in early 1999 after Taylor retired, Chappell went on radio and said that he thought Waugh was selfish and that he has always felt that selfish players don't get the best out of their team.
I believe that Chappell went on about Waugh being 'selfish' not longer after Waugh carried out the practice of showing faith in the tailenders, which was quite a while before he was made captain (as early as 1989, when he and Geoff Lawson pummelled England at Lords). It is a particularly poor call - Waugh was just showing faith in the tailenders, to give them some confidence. Sometimes it worked; sometimes it didn't.
Waugh's record showed that he turned some ordinary players into great players under his leadership. Hayden and Langer are too prime examples, perhaps Damien Martyn as well. These players were ordinary players at international level but under Waugh's captainicy they flourished. Cynics will point to weak bowling attacks but one has to wonder whether Waugh's guideance helped those players get the best out of their ability.
True - Waugh does deserve credit for doing that. But he hardly stands out in that regard. For instance, Border (partially because he had no choice) stuck with some young underperformers until they flourished. Taylor has McGrath and Reiffel, while Ponting has Katich, Kasprowicz, Johnson, Siddle and especially Symonds.
One thing about Ian Chappell is that you will never hear him say he was wrong and he always has to have the last word. Always.
I remember Ian Chappell before the 06/07 Ashes saying that Clark and McGrath couldn't play in the same side because they were too similar in bowling styles. I mean, have you ever heard a more absurd reason?
You can't play in this team because your too much like Glenn McGrath.
Needless to say we haven't heard anything about that comment from Mr Chappell.
I concur. It was a dastardly call. I didn't agree with him before he said it and I'm certainly glad that he didn't get his way with regards to that Test match. In fairness, though, he wasn't the only one spouting that ridiculous view. But yes, you are right about his ego being possibly too big for him to admit error.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
18 Mar 2009, 23:02
What about the fact that he still harps on about that fight with Botham in a Melbourne bar?
UpForGrabs
19 Mar 2009, 13:19
Waugh's record showed that he turned some ordinary players into great players under his leadership. Hayden and Langer are too prime examples, perhaps Damien Martyn as well. These players were ordinary players at international level but under Waugh's captainicy they flourished. Cynics will point to weak bowling attacks but one has to wonder whether Waugh's guideance helped those players get the best out of their ability.
I'd just pretty much chalk that up to some competency in the selection panel after years of ineptitude.