Yeah Healy could be painful depending on who he was on with. He's still been on some coverage I think but not as much.
Unpopular Cricket Opinions
- Thread starter Black Diamond
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Yeah Healy could be painful depending on who he was on with. He's still been on some coverage I think but not as much.
Agree with your criticisms of Ponting's captaincy RE spin, but Ponting never captained Lyon, and Clarke never captained Hauritz/Krejza in Tests.
Clarke was a better tactician for the following reasons:
1) More inventive field placings (willing to use leg slips, fly slips and deeper slips, which I don't recall Ponting really doing)
2) Better at setting the bowler to the batsman (Pietersen to Siddle, Harris/Johnson to Cook, Johnson to the ENG tail)
3) Better at using part-timers (using Mike Hussey and David Warner to winkle out wickets when nothing was happening)
4) More willing to stick with plans (Ricky Ponting captained Tests like he did ODIs, which meant he tended to change the field constantly and set fields to bad bowling)
5) Having a better idea of how to use bowlers generally (Ricky Ponting seemed to think Johnson was an Akram/McKenzie hybrid; Clarke recognised that he was a shock bowler)
Clarke struggled to fully adapt to overseas conditions, however. The ENG 2015 tour was a disappointment, and the IND 2012/13 and PAK 2014/15 tours were a disaster.
Ricky Ponting was the better man-manager, but even then there were certain personalities he struggled with. He and Hauritz clashed, and by his own admission, he didn't understand Johnson.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,894
- 56,299
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #5,403
I know that, my post probably wasn't clear enough in the demarcation between Ponting and Clarke's captaincy.
Really? My problem with Ponting was twofold:
He was the most rigid captain in my lifetime. We play my way. That's it. Never mind it not working; never mind plan A feeds into opposition's hands; never mind it never working in India. No. We play my way, and we just rely on being the best to see us through.
He had no reason to be so rigid, not when he was a part of the squad that went to India in 2001 and lost then modified their plans and preparation and won in 2004.
The other issue I had was that he clearly played favourites. He had go to bowlers; now granted, if you've got McGrath and Warne in your team you're probably going to them more often than not. But if he didn't trust you, the second he looked at you to bowl you were under pressure for your spot.
You cannot run a team that way. It's a s**t way to treat people, and it's akin to having a selection committee after the selection committee has already picked the team.
Imagine playing for the national test side only for the captain to be reluctant to give you a bowl because he doesn't rate you.
In a lot of ways, Clarke is Kohli.
Both players were the dominant figures of their countries before and during captaincy. Both were different fish in the changerooms, and changed their sides to make them more aggressive. Both sought to play cricket harder than their opponents, and both succeeded a formative leader. Both players were the dad for their sides with the vice captain (Haddin for Clarke and Rahane for Kohli) being the mum; the vices compensated somewhat for the poorer grasp of the interpersonal. Both saw tremendous overseas success, but both have also failed and failed badly when it counted.
Clarke gets a lot of credit for tactical acumen when IMO I don't think being a better captain than Ricky Ponting is all that hard a bar to clear.
Fair enough.
I think this describes Steve Waugh, or even Steve Smith, far better than it does Ponting.
Steve Waugh's philosophy was 'attack, attack, attack' and when that didn't work, he'd do it some more. It almost always worked because we had an ATG side, but when it didn't, the consequences were disastrous (Calcutta 2001, Adelaide 2003, Sydney 2004).
Steve Smith struggled to think on his feet, so invariably the opposition lower-order would mount a fightback and he'd have no idea what to do.
Ricky Ponting was perfectly willing to change field settings when things weren't working. The problem is, he did it too often, and in response to bad bowling. That works in ODIs, but not Tests. In truth, I reckon Ricky Ponting served too long as ODI captain before becoming a Test captain, and that affected how he captained Tests.
Interestingly, Ian Chappell thought that Ricky Ponting was too conservative in Test matches, and I think that's because he captained them like ODIs. In ODIs a more conversative approach works, which is why he excelled at that format.
I agree that Ricky Ponting's natural instincts are very attacking, but he didn't captain like that. So I don't think he really captained 'his way'.
True. He definitely had a thing for Doherty, and a thing against Hauritz.
Good call.
I think Ricky Ponting was an average Test captain who roughly performed to his side's ability. Sometimes better (SA 2008/09), sometimes worse (ENG 2010/11, arguably ENG 2005). The likes of Steve Smith, Kim Hughes and Tim Paine were clearly worse.
I'm surprised that people debate Clarke's tactical acumen. IMO he's at least on Taylor's level tactically, and I'd argue better given that he had less to work with. Taylor was very clever with field settings, but like Border/Ponting, he'd too often default to the "let's bowl Shane ad nauseum" tactic. It usually worked, but when it didn't (Edgbaston 1997, IND 97/98), things could get ugly. Clarke didn't have that issue, and he was quick on his feet.
EDIT: Also, IMO Clarke made bolder declarations than Taylor or Ponting (declaring when trailing against WI in 2012 - who else has done that?).
Last edited:
The “Pink test” has run its course.
Let it go back to being a normal test and raise the money elsewhere.
Are we really going to be wearing pink hats in 50 years time?
“Dad what’s with all the Pink?”
“The wife of one of our bowlers 70 years ago died from breast cancer”
Let it go back to being a normal test and raise the money elsewhere.
Are we really going to be wearing pink hats in 50 years time?
“Dad what’s with all the Pink?”
“The wife of one of our bowlers 70 years ago died from breast cancer”
- May 1, 2016
- 28,894
- 56,299
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #5,406
I feel like Waugh's approach was significantly more calculated, thought through than Ponting's was. He and Buchanan got on and decided on a course of action and singlemindedly honed in on trying to do it; most of the time it worked. Ponting felt instinctive, and thus limited in that he didn't understand why what he did sometimes worked and when it didn't he had no recourse other than 'Warnie, any ideas?'
Waugh also had a bit of rat cunning about him. He'd let sides back in to put pressure on them; go on, play exceptional, world record cricket to beat us. Go on, do it while staring down Matthew Hayden with the bat who can and will blast the ball straight back at you deliberately hard to try and knock your head off. Go on, take on Glenn McGrath or ******* Warne.
A Sun Tzu quote states to always give your enemies a way out to avoid them fighting with the desperation of certain death. I feel Waugh did his best to embody this in his captaincy.
See, I think this is due to who his role models were, Ponting and Clarke. He also had Lehmann sitting off his left shoulder and Warner on his right; enough words have been spoken about both Smith's obsessiveness around all things cricket and his weakness as a leader.
Smith's leadership was a vehicle for Lehmann more than anything else, IMO. The side was built around Australia renewed, around conjuring the image of Waugh's Australia, and were all the more pugnatious out of imitation.
That. It's ironic that I find Chappell very 'old man shakes fist at cloud', but I agree with him. Reactive to a fault.
That'd be the difference between him and Clarke more than anything else. Clarke tried to be proactive where Ponting didn't.
I didn't really say his way was attacking, more that things were done his way without flex.
I think he'd have been similar to Nathan Buckley as a coach: I don't understand, just go out there and get 35 disposals and 8 clearances and kick two goals, it's not that hard, I used to do it every week. Why can't you just be like me? No real self awareness when it comes to the capabilities of others; no conception that there's something to learn from everyone, something that can be contributed from everyone.
I can talk about this stuff for hours.
Hmm...
Ponting had for the first half of his career a team of worldies and some pretty ******* incredible replacements. Stuart Clark has been somewhat forgotten, but as a bowler he just gave as McGrath figures for around 4-5 seasons. Lee became a very disciplined bowler. Imagine discovering a bloke who would average 80 for almost four years the way Hussey did. Clarke becoming the player he became when he grew up. Johnson.
While pure speculation, I think if you give any other captain in world cricket at the time the sides he had they've have given better results.
I was younger than 10 when Taylor ceased being captain, don't remember it.
.. out of a desire to be proactive, to set himself apart, to create a legacy for himself. It's why Kohli reminds me so much of him.
It was ego as much as boldness.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,392
- 152,133
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #5,407
Ponting was too emotional. Had a bit of white line fever that affected his on field thinking. Combative. He's far better in the commentary box.
Clarke was very good with Lyon. Saw opportunities to bring him into the attack at good times eg if a new batter was in or a chance to bowl to the tail in the 1st innings, knowing that he'd need him full of confidence and bowling well in the second innings.
Had a much better feel for people imho, just with an increasingly worse team than Ponting steered for much of his tenure.
Clarke made Lyon's test career early days. At a time when Matthew Wade was doing everything in his power to destroy it.
Clarke was very good with Lyon. Saw opportunities to bring him into the attack at good times eg if a new batter was in or a chance to bowl to the tail in the 1st innings, knowing that he'd need him full of confidence and bowling well in the second innings.
Had a much better feel for people imho, just with an increasingly worse team than Ponting steered for much of his tenure.
Clarke made Lyon's test career early days. At a time when Matthew Wade was doing everything in his power to destroy it.
I agree with this. Waugh's approach was certainly more calculated, but it also made him more inflexible. The more you calculate things, the more you expect things to go a certain way. And then you get caught on the hop when it doesn't. Trust me, I know.
Not sure I agree with this. Waugh would annihilate the opposition immediately if he got the chance (WI 2000/01, PAK and ENG 2002/03).
By contrast, against Ponting's early sides the opposition would find themselves on top at various stages of a game, only to have their chances snuffed out - SL in 2003/04 is a prime example, but you also saw it with NZ and PAK in 2004/05.
As players and people, both were street-smart and had plenty of rat cunning. I agree that Waugh's was more controlled than Ponting's, though.
I'm not so sure. He barely played under Ponting, and his captaincy style was nothing like Clarke's. Also, his personality was quite different from both. Much more introverted, spacey/quirky, and non-confrontational. Something I also touch on below.
True. But I'm talking about Smith's tactical approach as much as anything. Also, ironically, and quite unlike Ponting and Clarke, Smith quite disliked confrontation, which is why that whole sandpaper thing blew up in the first place. Waugh, Ponting and Clarke would have stopped that in its tracks.
True.
I agree. That's why he failed to understand Johnson and Hauritz. As a whole though, his side respected his authority, even at their 2010/11 nadir.
Yeah, this is pure speculation. Stephen Fleming and Michael Vaughan would have done better, but the others are debatable.
And Clarke/Johnson peaked after Ponting's captaincy, anyway - partially because Ponting didn't manage Johnson that well, admittedly.
I've spoken to older cricket fans about Taylor, and that was the one criticism they had. He used Shane Warne as a crutch, which would have expedited his shoulder injury, his subsequent layoff and his form slump. It worked the vast majority of the time, but still...
Fair enough.
Taylor is comfortably the best Test Captain of my span watching the game - he had a flair for it, was attacking and inventive when it was demanded and rarely let the game drift - there is a big gap to the next best
Black Diamond
Sleight of Hand
- Thread starter
- #5,410
Very surprised at some of the positive Ponting takes here.
He was reactive, caused unnecessary delays, and was rarely ahead of the game.
He was one for moving a fieldsman to where the boundary had just been hit.
He copied Vaughan’s use of the deep point sweeper just because Vaughan used it well against us in the ‘05 Ashes.
Ponting would have conferences to set the field with the bowler immediately after a drinks or lunch break, as if they hadn’t had enough time to work this stuff out.
The biggest stuff up of all was during the third test of the ‘08 tour of India. We had them on the ropes but he bowled Hussey for a spell because we had fallen behind the over rate.
This next part cannot just be slated home to the captain alone (some of it may be the coach), but standards in training and preparation dropped badly under Ponting, and I consider this why we lost the ‘05 Ashes.
Great player, enjoy his commentary and analysis, may be a good coach, but not a great captain.
Say what you want about Steve Waugh having a great team (and he did), he still took that team to unprecedented dominance.
He made difficult calls. It was his decision to try Gilchrist as an opener in ODI cricket. Tom Moody took it well.
He also made the call, and delivered the news, to drop Warne in ‘99, which obviously burnt their relationship and from which Warne never recovered emotionally.
Probably worth considering that many of the greats who played under Waugh became great under him. Gilchrist, Langer and Hayden in particular, and you could make a case for Gillespie and McGrath each improving too.
Contrast with Ponting, who churned through spinners, hamstrung several fast bowlers, and under whom probably only Hussey and Martyn (briefly) actually improved.
Michael Clarke was a breath of fresh air after Ponting (talking onfield only). Again, some of this is down to coaching because Clarke had Mickey Arthur, Darren Lehman and Craig McDermott, and Ponting had Tim Nielsen, but the transformation of Siddle and Hilfenhaus between those summers was incredible. A lot to be said for simple, full bowling with a 6-3 field.
Clarke also brought Warner on, and to a significant degree Steve Smith.
Players improving is in no small part down to leadership, culture and environment.
He was reactive, caused unnecessary delays, and was rarely ahead of the game.
He was one for moving a fieldsman to where the boundary had just been hit.
He copied Vaughan’s use of the deep point sweeper just because Vaughan used it well against us in the ‘05 Ashes.
Ponting would have conferences to set the field with the bowler immediately after a drinks or lunch break, as if they hadn’t had enough time to work this stuff out.
The biggest stuff up of all was during the third test of the ‘08 tour of India. We had them on the ropes but he bowled Hussey for a spell because we had fallen behind the over rate.
This next part cannot just be slated home to the captain alone (some of it may be the coach), but standards in training and preparation dropped badly under Ponting, and I consider this why we lost the ‘05 Ashes.
Great player, enjoy his commentary and analysis, may be a good coach, but not a great captain.
Say what you want about Steve Waugh having a great team (and he did), he still took that team to unprecedented dominance.
He made difficult calls. It was his decision to try Gilchrist as an opener in ODI cricket. Tom Moody took it well.
He also made the call, and delivered the news, to drop Warne in ‘99, which obviously burnt their relationship and from which Warne never recovered emotionally.
Probably worth considering that many of the greats who played under Waugh became great under him. Gilchrist, Langer and Hayden in particular, and you could make a case for Gillespie and McGrath each improving too.
Contrast with Ponting, who churned through spinners, hamstrung several fast bowlers, and under whom probably only Hussey and Martyn (briefly) actually improved.
Michael Clarke was a breath of fresh air after Ponting (talking onfield only). Again, some of this is down to coaching because Clarke had Mickey Arthur, Darren Lehman and Craig McDermott, and Ponting had Tim Nielsen, but the transformation of Siddle and Hilfenhaus between those summers was incredible. A lot to be said for simple, full bowling with a 6-3 field.
Clarke also brought Warner on, and to a significant degree Steve Smith.
Players improving is in no small part down to leadership, culture and environment.
Last edited:
eth-dog
Tier 1 WW Player
The evasive maneuver rule for leg byes is dumb and should be a dead ball.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,894
- 56,299
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #5,412
God they were awful.
Yep, but nobody's perfect. If he had a flaw, it was (apparently) relying a little too much on Shane Warne at times. Allan Border did the same thing, so it's hardly a cardinal sin.
What sets Taylor apart from someone like Clarke was his exemplary man-management skills. Clarke put a number of his teammates offside, whereas from memory the only person who really dislikes Mark Taylor is Matthew Hayden (which speaks for itself, really).
Yeah, I forgot about the time delays. Good call on that.
Definitely. But I don't really blame Ponting for that, because he was notoriously driven and a seriously hard trainer. I find it hard to believe that he didn't expect the same of his charges. The only thing I'd fault him in this aspect is playing favourites with certain personnel (preferring Doherty over Hauritz).
I blame other factors:
- James Sutherland was really a CFO acting as CEO. He cared more about the bottom-line than maintaining our high standards. Cutbacks were such that the academy was neglected, and support staff were made to sleep on the floor (absolutely inexcusable IMO). If our support staff are taken for granted like that, then no wonder our standards slipped.
- Tim Nielsen was apparently a good analyst, but The Peter Principle hit him hard when he coached. Not that I think John Buchanan would have fared that much better (Buchanan was a theorist, not a technician).
- Troy Cooley never seemed to grasp bowling Australian lengths and couldn't coach Johnson or Hilfenhaus out of their technical deficiencies.
- Justin Langer was more about mentality than technique, and in retrospect his intensity no doubt unsettled many in the setup.
- Our selection panel at the time descended from complacency into insanity.
Yep, Waugh deserves credit for all this. But Ponting did do some worthy things in ODI cricket - backing in Symonds and Brad Hogg, for example.
Gilchrist debuted under Waugh, and his decline had more to do with eyesight and reflexes than Ponting.
Langer and Hayden, I agree with.
McGrath was already world-class, and Gillespie wasn't so much better as simply more reliable. I also don't think Waugh used Lee or (briefly) Bracken particularly well. Bichel improved, though.
Slater, Warne and Blewett all regressed, albeit to various degrees because of personal issues.
Mostly agree, with the caveat that Katich, Lee, Warne and Kaspr (briefly) improved as well. He also used Stuart Clark quite well.
I'd blame him for Johnson/Siddle/Hauritz not fulfilling their potential, but the other quicks had other issues. Their skillset didn't necessarily suit Test cricket (McKay), Bollinger and Tait's issues were really fitness-related (and neither could bat or field), and Hilfenhaus was often hamstrung with niggling injuries which disrupted his action. Fitness and technical issues are more down to the support staff than the captain himself.
EDIT: MacGill did OK under him; Hogg's skillset didn't suit Tests, and none of the other spinners were likely to be Test-standard even under a more supportive captain, barring Hauritz - who even then was just a holding bowler.
Agree with this, with the caveat that Clarke was a worse man-manager than Ponting (who kept the side fairly united even when they were performing badly). Which was a shame, because tactically Clarke was far superior.
Last edited:
Potential to be in place for as long as Pigeon is still alive. Even then, one of his kids might take it over.
- May 1, 2016
- 28,894
- 56,299
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #5,416
... and that's a problem, why?
Tell me, do you know who E.J. Whitten is? What about Charles Brownlow? Can you remember John Coleman well?
Traditions have a way of moving in and out of relevance.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,392
- 152,133
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #5,417
Hopefully they cure the disease
- Mar 20, 2007
- 28,285
- 24,806
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Smith and Labuschange's tendency to get bogged down and not rotate the strike has been a net negative for the team this series.
SleazySimon
Club Legend
Should have a test series against Afghanistan if we have them against the Windies and Pakistan
Around the Wicket
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 8, 2021
- 5,948
- 3,911
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Test cricket in Australia sucks because the touring sides can't win.
Cleavy
Hall of Famer
so Test cricket in India sucks also for the same reason?
- Sep 15, 2005
- 13,075
- 20,637
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Short memory.
