Ricky Ponting Vs. Sachin Tendulkar - As Captains

[biased indian]

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

ya when you compare his record in india then ...

 

[ret]

If I had to group the top Indian captains then the list would be like the one below:

Tier 1

- Pataudi ----> rated amongst the best by many despite having a poor win record .... I will respect the legend

- Dhoni ----> top performer on the field

- Shastri ----> probably the most deserving vice captain to not get enough opportunities to captain India .... to me, his case is more like Warne not getting enough opportunities to captain Australia

- Tendulkar ----> amongst the best for his cricketing intelligence, motivational skills and so on. his record is poor like that of Pataudi but we know captaincy is not just abt numbers. To his credit, he kept the Indian team competitive despite having a poor team and more importantly somewhat clean in the midst of the match-fixing saga. He is also amongst the few, if not only, to captain a Ranji team to victory over a formidable test team like Australia. The master delivered a master stroke when he recommended Dhoni for captaincy when the BCCI chief asked him to take over the captaincy. for those who know how to read b/w the lines, his this gestures shows a lot abt his leadership skills


Tier 2

- Ganguly ----> top motivator with an excellent record .... loses out on the tactics front and cause of his fight with one of the coaches .... you could bank on him to not bat first in an ODI, if the pitch had something in it for the quicks in the first hour. took some bad decisions like putting Australia in the WC03 final

- Gavaskar ----> would have been in tier 1 if not for his bashing of Kapil in public and taking his team off the field when he thought he got a wrong decision

- Dev ----> amazing ability to motivate his team and lead from the front .... loses out on tactics front .... who can forget his unbeaten 175 against Zim in WC83 after Ind was reduced to 17/5 and faced a possible elimination. Motivated his team to win in the final against the WI after Ind were bundled out of 183. Repeated the same when he motivated Ind to win in Sharjah by bundling out Pak of 87 after India was cleaned up for 125 with Imran picking 6/14

As far as I see this is a hilarious thread trying miserably to portray a top tier captain like Sachin as poor based on his win record. If records meant everything, Pataudi would not be in most people's list while Azhar would have. Such threads probably show that there are a lot of things to cricket that many don't seem to get. I am not complaining because threads like this give me a good laugh

 

[Sanz]

Australia lost Mumbai Test 2004 because of Ponting. Clarke bowling only 6 overs in that match is a perfect example of Ponting's inability to understand the pitch and use his bowlers. A major tactical mistake

 

[Ikki]

Australia lost Mumbai Test 2004 because of Ponting. Clarke bowling only 6 overs in that match is a perfect example of Ponting's inability to understand the pitch and use his bowlers. A major tactical mistake

He bowled Hauritz for 28 overs though. He got India all out for 104 in the first innings and 205 in the next. The batting simply crumbed in the 2nd innings and Australia were all out for less than 100 losing by 13 runs.

 

[susudear]

No

Australia lost Mumbai Test 2004 because of Ponting. Clarke bowling only 6 overs in that match is a perfect example of Ponting's inability to understand the pitch and use his bowlers. A major tactical mistake

That pitch was a big lottery... Had Australian batsmen shown a bit of verve they would've crossed the line. To blame the captain for the batsmen failing to chase down a target of 100 is laughable.

 

[Anil]

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.

not really warne was not likely to prove to be a match-changer in india against india(that series was his best in india and he still did not have 1/5th the impact he has against some of the other teams)...

 

[Ikki]

not really warne was not likely to prove to be a match-changer in india against india(that series was his best in india and he still did not have 1/5th the impact he has against some of the other teams)...

Are you freaking kidding me? Clarke got 6 for 9 on that pitch. Hauritz got 5 for 103. It was a spinner's paradise. 29/40 wickets fell to spinners. Had Warne played he'd have cleaned up and would have finished with a great series average.

 

[susudear]

Purely conjecture

Are you freaking kidding me? Clarke got 6 for 9 on that pitch. Hauritz got 5 for 103. It was a spinner's paradise. 29/40 wickets fell to spinners. Had Warne played he'd have cleaned up and would have finished with a great series average.

That Warne would have bettered 6 for 9??? You are kidding here.

Had Warne be there in the team, it would have been unlikely that Clarke was brought on at all. And since it is Warne bowling, Indians would have played him more cautiously than they approached Clarke.

 

[Sanz]

That pitch was a big lottery... Had Australian batsmen shown a bit of verve they would've crossed the line. To blame the captain for the batsmen failing to chase down a target of 100 is laughable.

The pitch was a lottery only against spinners, and Ponting should have known after watching two innings of play. I am not blaming the captain for not being able to chase down 100 runs, I am blaming him for allowing India to set that target, Let's not forget that after first inning, Australia were ahead by almost 100 runs.

He waited for 55 over before bringing in another spinner from the other end. If you dont think that was a captaincy blunder then I must say we should just agree to disagree. I dont believe Gilchrist (watching from the behind as WK) would have waited that long to bring in Clarke.

 

[Anil]

Are you freaking kidding me? Clarke got 6 for 9 on that pitch. Hauritz got 5 for 103. It was a spinner's paradise. 29/40 wickets fell to spinners. Had Warne played he'd have cleaned up and would have finished with a great series average.

clarke has just been a freakishly lucky bowler on a couple of occasions against india, doesn't mean anything in connection to warne...warne played on spin-friendly wickets in india several times and came up with next to nothing...either way it is a hypothetical but going by his test track record in india, it is a safe bet that he wouldn't have made a significant impact..

 

[aussie]

The pitch was a lottery only against spinners, and Ponting should have known after watching two innings of play. I am not blaming the captain for not being able to chase down 100 runs, I am blaming him for allowing India to set that target, Let's not forget that after first inning, Australia were ahead by almost 100 runs.

He waited for 55 over before bringing in another spinner from the other end. If you dont think that was a captaincy blunder then I must say we should just agree to disagree. I dont believe Gilchrist (watching from the behind as WK) would have waited that long to bring in Clarke.

I would say that Mumbai pitch was just as much a lottery againts the pacers as it was againts spin.

Lets be honest what Clarke did was utter fluke. So Ponting was in rights at the time to back his dynamitc pace trio to rap India up in the second innings ahead of the young Haurtiz or the partime option of Clarke.

 

[Sanz]

I would say that Mumbai pitch was just as much a lottery againts the pacers as it was againts spin.

Really and why would you say that ?

Lets be honest what Clarke did was utter fluke. So Ponting was in rights at the time to back his dynamitc pace trio to rap India up in the second innings ahead of the young Haurtiz or the partime option of Clarke.

Fluke, yes. Noone knew that Clarke was going to take 6 wickets in 5 overs or so, but come on If you have a spinner, even if a part timer, you got to bring him in when you see how many wickets Kumble and Co. took. Ponting waited 55 overs before trying another spinner.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

Of course you can't give Ponting all the credit for the India win, but I don't think he deserves none either. I mean, if Ponting and Buchanan came up with a plan and Gilchrist went out there and put it into action, I see it as being a victory for the off-field planning as much as Gilchrist's tactics. And it was still Ponting's team in the sense that he was the captain of the side the rest of the time, just injured. I view the Dhoni/Kumble thing as a bit different because there's a visible change in style in the team when Dhoni is out there leading. In the Australia series recently it really felt like a different side with Dhoni in charge. I never felt that way about Gilchrist being in charge instead of Ponting, but I guess that's a subjective call.

Either way, the rest of his achivements do make him a "non-failure", in my mind.

 

[Rant0r]

funny how warne was so often absent against india

gilchrist is probably more the sort of character that when he was in charge, he would simply try to smoothly run the team in the image of the incumbent captain rather than stamp his own mark on the team, but it's still different when you're in the middle, i rate him as a captain, and i realise that particular tour was not all his doing, but it's quite possible the result could have been different had he not been captain, but there's a lot of factors too.

 

[Anil]

Of course you can't give Ponting all the credit for the India win, but I don't think he deserves none either. I mean, if Ponting and Buchanan came up with a plan and Gilchrist went out there and put it into action, I see it as being a victory for the off-field planning as much as Gilchrist's tactics. And it was still Ponting's team in the sense that he was the captain of the side the rest of the time, just injured. I view the Dhoni/Kumble thing as a bit different because there's a visible change in style in the team when Dhoni is out there leading. In the Australia series recently it really felt like a different side with Dhoni in charge. I never felt that way about Gilchrist being in charge instead of Ponting, but I guess that's a subjective call.

Either way, the rest of his achivements do make him a "non-failure", in my mind.

first of all if the aussies had a basic plan, gilchrist would have been involved in formulating it as the v.c and senior member of the side...and cricket on the field never follows a preset script to the letter...gilchrist was the captain, stand-in or otherwise and it was his victory, giving some credit to ponting for a plan is one thing, going so far as to say this shows he captained a winning team in india doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

 

[Rant0r]

exactly, its like saying allan border won the frank worrell trophy in '95 after he just retired

 

[honestbharani]

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 was gonna say the exact same thing.. That move at Chennai was an amazing one and I am sure I have posted on it sometime back.. I will try to find it and put it here but that was a really great move. He only made 40 and he didn't exactly smash a lot of boundaries whilst he was there but it made a statement and he got the Indians down for a period of time which, in the end, at least to me, proved crucial..

 

[Sanz]

Of course you can't give Ponting all the credit for the India win, but I don't think he deserves none either. I mean, if Ponting and Buchanan came up with a plan and Gilchrist went out there and put it into action, I see it as being a victory for the off-field planning as much as Gilchrist's tactics. And it was still Ponting's team in the sense that he was the captain of the side the rest of the time, just injured. I view the Dhoni/Kumble thing as a bit different because there's a visible change in style in the team when Dhoni is out there leading. In the Australia series recently it really felt like a different side with Dhoni in charge. I never felt that way about Gilchrist being in charge instead of Ponting, but I guess that's a subjective call.

Either way, the rest of his achivements do make him a "non-failure", in my mind.

On-Field spontaneous bowling changes, field settings which IMO are the most important part of the on field captaincy and I believe it is the captain on the field that makes those decisions.

And Ponting barely captained in that series hence the 'visible change' argument doesn't have much ground here.

 

[Ikki]

That Warne would have bettered 6 for 9??? You are kidding here.

Had Warne be there in the team, it would have been unlikely that Clarke was brought on at all. And since it is Warne bowling, Indians would have played him more cautiously than they approached Clarke.

Er, where did I say that? I said had Warne bowled, by the evidence of Hauritz, Clarke and Kartik who took 7/76 Warne would have done very very well and would have come out with great series figures.

 

[Ikki]

clarke has just been a freakishly lucky bowler on a couple of occasions against india, doesn't mean anything in connection to warne...warne played on spin-friendly wickets in india several times and came up with next to nothing...either way it is a hypothetical but going by his test track record in india, it is a safe bet that he wouldn't have made a significant impact..

And what about Hauritz and Kartik? Not great spinners yet 3 took extremely good figures. Kumble also took 6/95 and Harby 5/82. I think it's a bit more than a coincidence. It was the only time Warne toured when not injured/**** out of form - well, at least for the other Tests.