Ricky Ponting Vs. Sachin Tendulkar - As Captains

[biased indian]

This is a pretty good example of the massive overstatement of Ponting's weaknesses as a captain. How can a captain with two world cup wins, a win in India and an Ashes clean sweep to his name be a "dismal failure"?

Measure success as a captain however you want, but there is no way Ponting can be considered a failure given what he's achieved, even if he never won another test as captain.

Victory alone is not the criteria to find a good captain ....if then all the austrlian captains since allan border will be the best the world has ever seen ....most of them have won world cup have won ashes clean sweeps and many a series wins ....

for simple example for me ganguly is a better captain than Kapil dev ever had been

and don't know how many here will say that ponting is a better captain than ,, ganguly or fleming

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Victory is certainly not the only way to measure a captain, but I don't see how a captain that wins all the time can be considered a dismal failure, especially not when they oversee the kind of remarkable success that Ponting has. No captain since Lloyd has overseen back-to-back WC wins, nobody had swept an Ashes series for almost a century, only Waugh's Australian team managed 16 consecutive wins, no Australian team had won in India for 40 years.

You can't erase that kind of success by pointing to some tactical shortcomings. Certainly those shortcomings do exist and they mean Ponting isn't a particularly brilliant tactical leader, but nobody is really suggesting that. Saying Ponting is better than Fleming is a totally different thing from saying Ponting isn't a dismal failure as a captain.

 

[biased indian]

Victory is certainly not the only way to measure a captain, but I don't see how a captain that wins all the time can be considered a dismal failure, especially not when they oversee the kind of remarkable success that Ponting has. No captain since Lloyd has overseen back-to-back WC wins, nobody had swept an Ashes series for almost a century, only Waugh's Australian team managed 16 consecutive wins, no Australian team had won in India for 40 years.

You can't erase that kind of success by pointing to some tactical shortcomings. Certainly those shortcomings do exist and they mean Ponting isn't a particularly brilliant tactical leader, but nobody is really suggesting that. Saying Ponting is better than Fleming is a totally different thing from saying Ponting isn't a dismal failure as a captain.

to be true was taking dig at social ...which you took for wrong...if you read my post in the first page i had acknowledged ponting as a better captian than tendulkar .but not great..

and what ever his victories so far may be most of the people are going to remember his last few matches as captains and if he is removed of his captaincy more so...still think he will have lot many bad series as captain ahead unless Australia suddenly are back to a good bowling unit

 

[Rant0r]

This is a pretty good example of the massive overstatement of Ponting's weaknesses as a captain. How can a captain with two world cup wins, a win in India and an Ashes clean sweep to his name be a "dismal failure"?

Measure success as a captain however you want, but there is no way Ponting can be considered a failure given what he's achieved, even if he never won another test as captain.

ponting has never won in india

A captain can never control his batsmen ....at the most he can do is bring confidence in his team ....the first 2 instance was both an example for that .think he was our best batsmen during both those things..

and for sri lanka scoring 1000 many a team could have done that if they decided to bat on rather than declare their inngs...there is nothing a captain can do about ...ya he could have tried to bowl them out .but then if the pitch remains the same for 5 days there is nothing much he can do ....

all said i wont even consider both as good captains ..there are lot many who have made their marks as captains .....and if i am not wrong ..pontings record is only going to get worse with each new match

if you want to get technical i dare say it can't/won't get better, but i see where you're going, unless they magically unearth another warne mcgrath or even a gillespie, that level of success is a thing of the past, perhaps not merely success, but that kind of success

Victory is certainly not the only way to measure a captain, but I don't see how a captain that wins all the time can be considered a dismal failure, especially not when they oversee the kind of remarkable success that Ponting has. No captain since Lloyd has overseen back-to-back WC wins, nobody had swept an Ashes series for almost a century, only Waugh's Australian team managed 16 consecutive wins, no Australian team had won in India for 40 years.

You can't erase that kind of success by pointing to some tactical shortcomings. Certainly those shortcomings do exist and they mean Ponting isn't a particularly brilliant tactical leader, but nobody is really suggesting that. Saying Ponting is better than Fleming is a totally different thing from saying Ponting isn't a dismal failure as a captain.

once again, ponting wasn't at the helm in india, and if you want to compare eras of captains, then comparing to lloyd, richards is a good way to start, lloyd made that team and richards carried it on, richards was a champion, but can you consider his success with the team as a majority of his doing, or simply carrying on the work like say waugh, ponting to taylor, border

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting was in charge of the team in the lead-up to the tour of India, and captain in the last test. Unless you think that Australia won that series solely because of Gilchrist's on-field decision making compared to what Ponting would have done, you've got to give some credit for the preperation the team did under Ponting and Buchanan. The work the team did as a unit and their individual plans for batsmen and so on weren't made on the spot, they were part of a long-term build up.

But yes, he wasn't actually captain on the field for the first three tests of that series.

 

[Rant0r]

which means he has never captained a win in india, i hear an echo

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sorry, I thought you actually trying to make a point and might have been worth replying to. Clearly I was mistaken.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Rant0r's right.

You can have all the backroom planning you want, but it amounts to nothing if the on-field captain is no good. I wouldn't have thunk it too, but the recent Aus tour here has made me a believer. The difference between the Indian performances under Kumble and Dhoni in the same series was so glaring despite Kumble being available throughout the series. Dhoni wouldn't have been in charge of the backroom planning until the last test after Kumble finally retired.

 

[Rant0r]

Rant0r's right.

You can have all the backroom planning you want, but it amounts to nothing if the on-field captain is no good. I wouldn't have thunk it too, but the recent Aus tour here has made me a believer. The difference between the Indian performances under Kumble and Dhoni in the same series was so glaring despite Kumble being available throughout the series. Dhoni wouldn't have been in charge of the backroom planning until the last test after Kumble finally retired.

thankyou

although i rate kumble as a captain kumble < dhoni

 

[Jono]

This is a pretty good example of the massive overstatement of Ponting's weaknesses as a captain. How can a captain with two world cup wins, a win in India and an Ashes clean sweep to his name be a "dismal failure"?

Ponting was in charge of the team in the lead-up to the tour of India, and captain in the last test. Unless you think that Australia won that series solely because of Gilchrist's on-field decision making compared to what Ponting would have done, you've got to give some credit for the preperation the team did under Ponting and Buchanan. The work the team did as a unit and their individual plans for batsmen and so on weren't made on the spot, they were part of a long-term build up.

But yes, he wasn't actually captain on the field for the first three tests of that series.

You can't claim Australia's win over India as one under "Ponting's captaincy" though. Ironically, Ricky has never captained a test victory on Indian soil.

India 04 was Gilchrist's series win, just like India's 3rd test win vs. SA and series win vs. Australia were Dhoni's, not Kumble. Most of the critical captaincy moves happen on the field anyway. Otherwise anything 'off the field' can be credited to the coach, hired consultants and management team just as much as the captain who wasn't playing, hence its impossible to pinpoint who was responsible for what.

That being said, he's obviously not a 'failure', which is the point you're saying. But there's no way Ponting can put conquering India on his resume yet.

 

[Rant0r]

it's kind of like being a part of the squad who plays in the grand final yet doesn't play.

 

[Ikki]

I am not sure the Gilchrist/Ponting vs Dhoni/Kumble is apt or clear-cut. We can easily see the difference between Dhoni and Kumble and their approaches but did Gilchrist really do anything Ponting wouldn't have? What was the substantial difference?

 

[biased indian]

I am not sure the Gilchrist/Ponting vs Dhoni/Kumble is apt or clear-cut. We can easily see the difference between Dhoni and Kumble and their approaches but did Gilchrist really do anything Ponting wouldn't have? What was the substantial difference?

Gilchrist won test matches in india

 

[Jono]

I am not sure the Gilchrist/Ponting vs Dhoni/Kumble is apt or clear-cut. We can easily see the difference between Dhoni and Kumble and their approaches but did Gilchrist really do anything Ponting wouldn't have? What was the substantial difference?

Gilchrist didn't bowl pie-chucking part-timers when the match was in the balance

 

[susudear]

Lots

I am not sure the Gilchrist/Ponting vs Dhoni/Kumble is apt or clear-cut. We can easily see the difference between Dhoni and Kumble and their approaches but did Gilchrist really do anything Ponting wouldn't have? What was the substantial difference?

For starters, Gilchrist coming in at No.3 at Chennai.

On-field captaincy is 80% of the what captaincy is about. Otherwise why designate a captain? Everything can be controlled from the dressing room by a non-playing captain right? Teams approach can change completely, a thing we saw in the Ind-Aus series, where in a match, (Delhi I think), Dhoni assumed captaincy for a brief period when Kumble was off, and the whole attitude of the team changed on the field, visibly. A thing observed and commented upon by Ian Chappell.

To say Ponting would have won the series in India had he instead of Gilchrist was captain is pure speculation. A thought as meaningless as "What if Tendulkar had McGrath and Warne in his side".

 

[Rant0r]

Gilchrist didn't bowl pie-chucking part-timers when the match was in the balance

hahahaha high 5

For starters, Gilchrist coming in at No.3 at Chennai.

On-field captaincy is 80% of the what captaincy is about. Otherwise why designate a captain? Everything can be controlled from the dressing room by a non-playing captain right? Teams approach can change completely, a thing we saw in the Ind-Aus series, where in a match, (Delhi I think), Dhoni assumed captaincy for a brief period when Kumble was off, and the whole attitude of the team changed on the field, visibly. A thing observed and commented upon by Ian Chappell.

To say Ponting would have won the series in India had he instead of Gilchrist was captain is pure speculation. A thought as meaningless as "What if Tendulkar had McGrath and Warne in his side".

i highly rated gilchrist as a captain, but he was very loathe to do it, whch i'm reading about in his book at the moment, and that indian series did his head in a bit i think.

anyone remember hansie cronje with the earpiece ?

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist won test matches in india

Gilchrist didn't bowl pie-chucking part-timers when the match was in the balance

Gilchrist didn't have pie-chucking part-timers. He had Gillespie, Kasper, McGrath and Warne.

For starters, Gilchrist coming in at No.3 at Chennai.

And that helped Australia win? How much of a difference did that make?

On-field captaincy is 80% of the what captaincy is about. Otherwise why designate a captain? Everything can be controlled from the dressing room by a non-playing captain right? Teams approach can change completely, a thing we saw in the Ind-Aus series, where in a match, (Delhi I think), Dhoni assumed captaincy for a brief period when Kumble was off, and the whole attitude of the team changed on the field, visibly. A thing observed and commented upon by Ian Chappell.

Again, point out what was so drastically different between Gilchrist and Ponting, that you liken them to Dhoni and Kumble.

To say Ponting would have won the series in India had he instead of Gilchrist was captain is pure speculation. A thought as meaningless as "What if Tendulkar had McGrath and Warne in his side".

They probably would have, to be honest. Ponting in the one game he played was 13 runs short, and had the same attack Gilchrist had minus Warne. Gilchrist was a solid vice-captain but nothing to suggest he was superior to Ponting. People are giving credit simply because of the result, it seems.

 

[susudear]

Absence

Again, point out what was so drastically different between Gilchrist and Ponting, that you liken them to Dhoni and Kumble.

Well, Gilchrist had one big boost to his batting lineup: "Absence of Ponting"

 

[Rant0r]

Well, Gilchrist had one big boost to his batting lineup: "Absence of Ponting"

don't knock that, it let clarke debut

 

[Ikki]

Well, Gilchrist had one big boost to his batting lineup: "Absence of Ponting"

touche.