people who critize Punters Captaincy - What about Strauss?

[Belnakor]

If Punter had been captaining the way Strauss did yesterday there would be about 10 articles in the paper about how Punter is finished, he is a useless captain and doesn't know what he is doing.

Throughout the series Strauss has underperformed tactically, but yesterday, leaving Anderson off for almost an hour during a crucial time was nigh on unforgivable. His bowling changes and fields allowed Clarke and North to nudge and prod the ball playing themselves in with basically no pressure, and it seemed like they'd given up almost as soon as we got 100 in front. No Collingwood until the game was pretty much gone, Swann bowled most of the day with a field set for bad bowling.

Sure Clarke and North did bat very well, but still.

Lets not forget Strauss also dropped a very takeable chance on Clarke and you have a guy who really didn't do well as captain.

[TheColeTrain]

I dont understand why he didnt have a short leg in the first session when Flintoff was bowling short ball after short ball into Watson and Husseys body.

[damochandler]

If Punter had been captaining the way Strauss did yesterday there would be about 10 articles in the paper about how Punter is finished, he is a useless captain and doesn't know what he is doing.

Throughout the series Strauss has underperformed tactically, but yesterday, leaving Anderson off for almost an hour during a crucial time was nigh on unforgivable. His bowling changes and fields allowed Clarke and North to nudge and prod the ball playing themselves in with basically no pressure, and it seemed like they'd given up almost as soon as we got 100 in front. No Collingwood until the game was pretty much gone, Swann bowled most of the day with a field set for bad bowling.

Sure Clarke and North did bat very well, but still.

Lets not forget Strauss also dropped a very takeable chance on Clarke and you have a guy who really didn't do well as captain.


i bag him all the time. he crack alot under pressure

[stick]

Spot on Belnakor.

The blame that gets laid at the feet of Punter is way out of kilter with what the main reasons are behind us not performing upto expectations in the series thus far.

He can't bat, bowl and field for the other 10 members of the team - and it's been our execution that has let us down more than tactics.

How on earth do you set a field to MJ?
Is it Punters fault that all our batsman struggle when the ball hoops around a bit?

[JuddtheDudd]

Strauss didn't have his no 1 asset working well...
Not Freddy but his fellow country man Rudi 'triggering' out the Aussies at every opportunity:rolleyes:

[picture in me pasta]

I loved it when he brought on Bopara and Swann to bowl overs 70-80, essentially just to hurry up the taking of the new ball. That killed the game for mine because it took 10 overs off the day and we grabbed about 50 runs in quick time.

[Wicked Lester]

An interesting post but I think you fail to understand that:

1) If England lose 9 wickets but salvage a gritty draw it is because Ponting sets unimaginative fields, lacks aggression, handles his bowling changes poorly, overuses part time bowlers and the bowlers themselves bowl poorly. Moreover despite years to prepare for the Ashes the bowlers seem incapable of swinging the ball.

2) If Australia lose 5 wickets and salvage a gritty draw it is because the Australian batsmen bat superbly despite everything the heroic English bowlers throw at them and manage to withstand every effort made by Strauss to unsettle them, including the innovative use of part time bowlers. Unfortunately, due to clear skies the ball refused to offer the bowlers any assistance.

[holybishop]

The big difference is that Strauss has won a game so far, off some superb captaincy and fielding and bowling tactics in that second test. Strauss again made some great calls in the Aussies first innings, but the second innings let him down. Had almost two days not been washed out, England could have wrapped up the series. You've also got to remember, the Australian media isnt too concerned with Strauss's performance. I'm sure if Strauss ended up losing the third test the UK Tabloids would have been all over him, but he's still a test up and got the upper hand over Australia.

Also, people need to be critical over Ponting's role in selecting the side. Yes he does not have the final say, but he's influential and he publically backed Johnson, who imo didnt have the greatest of tests again. Australia has always had a knack of selecting teams on reputation over form. In addition, if you're going to select Watson over Hughes to boost your bowling line up, why only give him 3 overs for the match? That just completely bemuses me. I know they werent the best three overs but surely Ponting had to give him another spell.

[Belnakor]

An interesting post but I think you fail to understand that:


can't tell if your taking the piss or not

[Belnakor]

In addition, if you're going to select Watson over Hughes to boost your bowling line up, why only give him 3 overs for the match? That just completely bemuses me.

Punter doesn't decide the team, he decides the tactics on the day. Perhaps thats might be a clue for you.

Watson got absolutely hammered, if he'd been given the ball for another over people would have been hammering Punter for the next 10 years

[Belnakor]

Had almost two days not been washed out, England could have wrapped up the series.

We were 5 down over 200 in front. We could have easily set a target 300+ and been in a good position to win the test.

[CrazyQ]

Maybe because people dont rate Strauss as captain.

Ponting, everywhere in Australia, gets labelled a good captain.

[Wicked Lester]

can't tell if your taking the piss or not

You can safely assume pi$$ is being taken.

[King Elvis]

The big difference is that Strauss has won a game so far, off some superb captaincy and fielding and bowling tactics in that second test. Strauss again made some great calls in the Aussies first innings, but the second innings let him down. Had almost two days not been washed out, England could have wrapped up the series. You've also got to remember, the Australian media isnt too concerned with Strauss's performance. I'm sure if Strauss ended up losing the third test the UK Tabloids would have been all over him, but he's still a test up and got the upper hand over Australia.

Also, people need to be critical over Ponting's role in selecting the side. Yes he does not have the final say, but he's influential and he publically backed Johnson, who imo didnt have the greatest of tests again. Australia has always had a knack of selecting teams on reputation over form. In addition, if you're going to select Watson over Hughes to boost your bowling line up, why only give him 3 overs for the match? That just completely bemuses me. I know they werent the best three overs but surely Ponting had to give him another spell.

So at Lords, you're crediting Strauss for our batsmen having brain explosions and getting out hooking in the first, and crediting Strauss for Rudi giving 3 of our top 4 out when they clearly weren't in the second?

And I hate to break it to you mate, but the team that was in a dominant position in the Third Test sure as hell wasn't England.

[Ill Chicken]

So at Lords, you're crediting Strauss for our batsmen having brain explosions and getting out hooking in the first, and crediting Strauss for Rudi giving 3 of our top 4 out when they clearly weren't in the second?

And I hate to break it to you mate, but the team that was in a dominant position in the Third Test sure as hell wasn't England.

It wasn't Australia.

I understand that England had a lead and so forth, but it wasn't a lead of 250 and it wasn't three down overnight with seven wickets remaining. Australia were always going to post a lead and they weren't looking at any stage to bowl again. As soon as it gets to 100-150 in front with 40 overs to go and with the tale wagging for both teams reasonably well, there was little to no chance of result being had without another 45 overs of play available or had England been 250 in front.

Had Strauss taken that catch, there may have been a slight opportunity still but the game and intensity from the England bowlers had all but gone. Broad was trundling in at low 130's, while they wanted to ice Flintoff for the next test.

The only reason a chance of a result could have happened was because England came out and batted at good pace again through out their innings. Something Australia have only succeed in doing for minimal periods of time.

[belfast_bomber]

The worst thing Strauss did was drop that catch.

As far as not bowling Anderson goes, he was on a hiding to nothing there. The conditions were offering him nothing and if he had bowled, we'd have dealt with him pretty comfortably - which would have psychologically undone all the damage he did to us in the first innnings.

I think criticism of Ponting has been excessive but I won't redress the balance by slagging Strauss instead.

[King Elvis]

It wasn't Australia.

I understand that England had a lead and so forth, but it wasn't a lead of 250 and it wasn't three down overnight with seven wickets remaining. Australia were always going to post a lead and they weren't looking at any stage to bowl again. As soon as it gets to 100-150 in front with 40 overs to go and with the tale wagging for both teams reasonably well, there was little to no chance of result being had without another 45 overs of play available or had England been 250 in front.

The post I was responding to said if it hadn't been rain interrupted, didn't it?

[holybishop]

So at Lords, you're crediting Strauss for our batsmen having brain explosions and getting out hooking in the first, and crediting Strauss for Rudi giving 3 of our top 4 out when they clearly weren't in the second?

The reason they got out hooking was that Strauss set the man there for the hook and instructed the bowlers to get them out hooking. So yes, I'm definately crediting Strauss for getting the batsmen out hooking.

Punter doesn't decide the team, he decides the tactics on the day. Perhaps thats might be a clue for you.

Watson got absolutely hammered, if he'd been given the ball for another over people would have been hammering Punter for the next 10 years

Ponting said himself at the toss that the inclusion of Watson was just as much about boosting the bowling as it was boosting the top order. Just because he got smashed around the park for 3 overs doesnt justify that a full time bowler should get chucked in the closet for the rest of the innings. Give him a break, then Ponting should have given him another spell.

[rickyp]

His biggest mistake was holding off on Anderson for so long, he was by far the best in the 1st, no idea what happened between then

[JimDocker]

I think both Strauss and Ponting are pretty average captains.

I have criticised Ponting a lot previously and I have seen nothing on this tour so far that has changed my mind.

Strauss hasn't been much better.

[MinerBoy]

The big difference is that Strauss has won a game so far, off some superb captaincy and fielding and bowling tactics in that second test. Strauss again made some great calls in the Aussies first innings, but the second innings let him down. Had almost two days not been washed out, England could have wrapped up the series. .

This is just plain wrong. Due to the fact it was rain affected, they were the only ones with a chance to win on the final day. HOWEVER, had there been another 2 days to play England were the ones who would have been under pressure to save the game. We were 262 runs in front with 5 wickets still in hand and a batsman on 103*. England batting last chasing 350+ would have under the pump if a full 5 days had of been played.

[Sid]

Great thread.

Main mistakes from Strauss for me are not using Anderson and poor use of the new ball. He was way too defensive.

I think ponting has done well so far this series. It's not easy with out of form bowlers.

[Ill Chicken]

The post I was responding to said if it hadn't been rain interrupted, didn't it?

And? That's got nothing to do with England being the dominant side until the last two sessions of a final day when the pressure was all let off.

[MinerBoy]

And? That's got nothing to do with England being the dominant side until the last two sessions of a final day when the pressure was all let off.

100 runs in front on the first innings is just that - in front. It is not dominant. That can change in the space of one session (and did). Just because the state of the game meant England were the only possible winners on the last day, that doesn't mean they were ever likely to.

Had the game been a full 5 days, Australia most likely would have won, or been in the dominant position.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

And? That's got nothing to do with England being the dominant side until the last two sessions of a final day when the pressure was all let off.

Australia was the reason the pressure was let off, and Australia was then in the dominant position. As others have said, had we got that extra day England would have been under a lot of pressure to save the match.

[Ill Chicken]

Australia was the reason? Not that it was the final day and England needed to take six wickets in a session with a 60 over old ball after lunch? All Australia had to do was bat and not lose six wickets before tea and the game was dead. Obviously if we batted all day we were going to be in front by 200 runs. It's not rocket science. If there was still a day to go after that, we still wouldn't have time to post a secure total without losing the opportunity to realistically bowl England out.

[Ill Chicken]

Strauss captaincy was poor this test though. Up against it and did all the negative things like try to conserve runs by putting fielders out. Should have just gone the attack, they were up against it and the only way the would get back in was getting us all out for 300 or less.

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Australia was the reason?

Yes, we batted well enough to release the pressure of the match. Had we lost an early wicket they were basically getting into the tail, England would have lifted in that situation.

[Ill Chicken]

Yes, we batted well enough to release the pressure of the match. Had we lost an early wicket they were basically getting into the tail, England would have lifted in that situation.

The only innings where the tail hasn't put on more 60 runs for the last 4 wickets in this series was England's first innings this test.

I honestly couldn't see anything different happening.