Ricky Ponting Vs. Sachin Tendulkar - As Captains

[Ikki]

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

False. When new leadership comes in things are bound to change. When temporary leadership comes in it's probably a safe bet they'll try to keep things familiar.

 

[Anil]

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.

hauritz bowled well on a helpful wicket but did not have a significant impact on the match and karthik, kumble and harb were bowling to the aussies, not the indians...spinners have certainly made an winning impact against the indians(saqlain mushtaq is one such) before but the point is warne wasn't able to do that until that match, i don't see too many reasons why he would have in that instance even considering most of the indian batsmen outside of sehwag perforrmed below-par for that series...and my point is that even a so-called in form warne(bowled well of course) didn't impact the series in the matches he played...and as to the other series he played, warne didn't hide behind the labels that his fans continue attaching to him(injured, out of form, unlucky, blah, blah, blah...)...he was always forthright in admitting that the indian batsmen completely outthought and outplayed him...

 

[Ikki]

Answer the question: would Warne have done well in that last test match considering part-time spinners took more than half of the wickets on hand?

That pitch was destined to be owned by spinners. Warne HIMSELF said that had he bowled he would have gotten a good share there. The difference was the pitches. Nagpur was nothing like Mumbai for example.

 

[Anil]

Answer the question: would Warne have done well in that last test match considering part-time spinners took more than half of the wickets on hand?

That pitch was destined to be owned by spinners. Warne HIMSELF said that had he bowled he would have gotten a good share there.

i did answer the question multiple times...it is a hypothetical and the only way(for me) to reasonably gauge how he would've done is to extrapolate from his past performances against the indians in india(all of which he bowled in very spin-friendly conditions)...and that's what i did..of course you can randomly make any kind of statement and hold on to it, it is impossible to prove definitively either way because he simply didn't play...

 

[Ikki]

Langer writing about things in Mumbai as it occured:

Although the final result is a major disappointment, the greater disappointment to me is that the final Test match was reduced to the standard of cricket witnessed in Mumbai.

Two days before the Test, I wrote for a different publication: "If the pitch in Nagpur came as a surprise, the one here in Mumbai hasn't come as any surprise at all. In fact, it looks like such a typical Indian pitch that it won't surprise anyone if the ball turns square on it from the first ball of the match.

"So much has been made here in India about the healthy covering of grass in Nagpur, that the dust bowl we witnessed this morning - two days out from the Test - is exactly what the Indian spinners, and to a lesser degree batsmen, would have been praying for since we arrived.

"Traditionally, touring teams expect these type of pitches when they visit India. There is no doubt it makes for intense and difficult conditions for the opposition batsmen, who simply aren't used to combating this style of spin-friendly cricket; especially when India tend have world class spin bowlers at their disposal."

Experience suggested to me that this pitch for the final Test could be a handful for any batsman, but I could never have predicted just how difficult a surface this was to play on. It has been suggested that batting was a bit like a lottery, as it was at times impossible to read the bounce, turn or seam produced throughout the two days of Test cricket.

Sure India won the match and I wouldn't like to think that my disappointment sounds like sour grapes, but I would hope that the articles I have written in the past show that I am not one for making excuses, criticizing anyone or anything, or displaying anything but a balanced account of what goes on as an international cricketer.

It is just that a Test match between two great teams shouldn't be over in two days, and if it is, there must be a contributing factor that has made such a scenario occur. After one of the best series I have been a part of, it is bitterly disappointing and frustrating that the players, the supporters and the administrators of the game weren't entertained and captivated by twenty-two of the best players they are likely to see.

The battle was so one-sided in favour of ball over the bat that I would challenge anyone who suggests such a game is good for Test cricket. It is always my belief that the bigger picture should be always be considered and I am not sure that in the greater scale of things the game of cricket has been fairly portrayed in this instance.

It will be a pity flying back to Australia feeling this way because, overall, this tour has been one of the best of my career. We arrived determined and focussed on achieving a series win and we can proudly say this ambition was achieved.

Every game has been a titanic struggle. India are a great side and regardless of the way this final Test was played, the score line of two one is arguably a fair representation of the series. There is no tougher cricket than the Tests I have played against India and I feel the rivalry between our countries is getting healthier after every encounter.

Our respect for each other is strong and it is through this respect and admiration for each other's abilities that the battle line has been drawn for future confrontations.

All in all, I have loved my time in India and while I am looking forward to getting home to my family and the faster bouncier pitches of Australia, I am already looking forward to my next visit.

Thanks from the Australian team for your wonderful hospitality and love for your country and the game of cricket. We have enjoyed almost every minute of it.

From Mumbai,

JL

 

[Ikki]

i did answer the question multiple times...it is a hypothetical and the only way(for me) to reasonably gauge how he would've done is to extrapolate from his past performances against the indians in india(all of which he bowled in very spin-friendly conditions)...and that's what i did..of course you can randomly make any kind of statement and hold on to it, it is impossible to prove definitively either way because he simply didn't play...

I am not asking you to prove conclusively or definitely, just the likelihood. You look at the type of pitch that was prepared that day and everybody and their mother knew the test match wasn't going to last long. That it spun heavily from the first ball and would only get worse. The fact that part-timers who have no business getting those kind of figures did in the same match shows more than a little bit of help or coincidence. Everybody including Warne himself pretty much said that had he been there he would have taken a good chunk of the action.

Now, I am not talking about the fact that bowlers may bowl brilliantly and still get nothing. Or that Lillee could bowl in Perth in 1978 and still take nothing. I am talking about the likelihood. When you question that, with all due respect, I have to question your judgment.

 

[Rant0r]

False. When new leadership comes in things are bound to change. When temporary leadership comes in it's probably a safe bet they'll try to keep things familiar.

yeah so no one took into that series what they'd learnt under border ? or course they bloody did fool, that's not what i'm saying, keep up, i'm saying that it was taylor not border that won the series as did gilchrist not ponting and i don't care that it was a temporary fill in, ponting wasn't there when the heat was on, and when he was there they lost

 

[susudear]

Fair enough

Langer writing about things in Mumbai as it occured:

What's new in that?

We all know Mumbai pitch was not in the best interests of test cricket.

The point is whether Warne's inclusion would have changed things.

That leads to another question, Why did Warne sit out in the last game?

If Ponting really wanted to go for the kill, after seeing the pitch, shouldn't he had included Warne in the XI?

Or that means Ponting misread the pitch, or placed enoromous confidence in Hauritz?

Both shows Ponting in lesser light.

 

[Ikki]

yeah so no one took into that series what they'd learnt under border ? or course they bloody did fool, that's not what i'm saying, keep up, i'm saying that it was taylor not border that won the series as did gilchrist not ponting and i don't care that it was a temporary fill in, ponting wasn't there when the heat was on, and when he was there they lost

You don't seem to understand. If a new captain comes and is given the reigns, of course he will take the prerogative and change things with due authority and with the knowledge that he can test and try what he wants as his future will evolve. A captain who is in charge for 3 days is unlikely to do that. It is unlikely he'll attempt things that won't have a long future anyway or try to deviate much from that norm.

Again, you fail to mention, what did Gilchrist do in those 3 tests that were so different to what Ponting would have done that makes you think the result would have been drastically different enough for it to matter who the captain was?

You see, it's not about having it "on your record" that you defeated X as captain. We are discussing Ponting's ability. What makes you think that had he been captain things would have been done so differently that it would have altered the result?

 

[Ikki]

What's new in that?

We all know Mumbai pitch was not in the best interests of test cricket.

The point is whether Warne's inclusion would have changed things.

That leads to another question, Why did Warne sit out in the last game?

If Ponting really wanted to go for the kill, after seeing the pitch, shouldn't he had included Warne in the XI?

Or that means Ponting misread the pitch, or placed enoromous confidence in Hauritz?

Both shows Ponting in lesser light.

You don't even know why Warne missed it? INJURED. Broken thumb. Hauritz was only picked because Warne was injured. Are you suggesting it was that far out to say he would have done better than Hauritz? I guess because Ponting decided not to play Warne with a broken thumb he is a poor captain now.

 

[susudear]

Oh really

You don't even know why Warne missed it? INJURED. Broken thumb. Hauritz was only picked because Warne was injured. Are you suggesting it was that far out to say he would have done better than Hauritz? I guess because Ponting decided not to play Warne with a broken thumb he is a poor captain now.

So what's the point of starting this stupid argument "What if Warne had played" then?

 

[Anil]

I am not asking you to prove conclusively or definitely, just the likelihood. You look at the type of pitch that was prepared that day and everybody and their mother knew the test match wasn't going to last long. That it spun heavily from the first ball and would only get worse. The fact that part-timers who have no business getting those kind of figures did in the same match shows more than a little bit of help or coincidence. Everybody including Warne himself pretty much said that had he been there he would have taken a good chunk of the action.

Now, I am not talking about the fact that bowlers may bowl brilliantly and still get nothing. Or that Lillee could bowl in Perth in 1978 and still take nothing. I am talking about the likelihood. When you question that, with all due respect, I have to question your judgment.

and when you focus just on one match(which he didn't play in), pretty much ignore or make excuses for every other unimpressive performance by warne in india and randomly hypothesise that he would have made all the difference had he played, what does that say about yours? the indians would certainly have played warne more cautiously than they played hauritz or clarke and there is no guarantee that just because of clarke's freakishly good figures, warne would have done the same or better...

 

[Rant0r]

You don't seem to understand. If a new captain comes and is given the reigns, of course he will take the prerogative and change things with due authority and with the knowledge that he can test and try what he wants as his future will evolve. A captain who is in charge for 3 days is unlikely to do that. It is unlikely he'll attempt things that won't have a long future anyway or try to deviate much from that norm.

Again, you fail to mention, what did Gilchrist do in those 3 tests that were so different to what Ponting would have done that makes you think the result would have been drastically different enough for it to matter who the captain was?

You see, it's not about having it "on your record" that you defeated X as captain. We are discussing Ponting's ability. What makes you think that had he been captain things would have been done so differently that it would have altered the result?

what makes you think him being captain the results would have been the same ?

 

[susudear]

Add to that

and when you focus just on one match(which he didn't play in), pretty much ignore or make excuses for every other unimpressive performance by warne in india and randomly hypothesise that he would have made all the difference had he played, what does that say about yours? the indians would certainly have played warne more cautiously than they played hauritz or clarke and there is no guarantee that just because of clarke's freakishly good figures, warne would have done the same or better...

Also the fact that the 2001 series was contested on pitches very suitable for spin, and yet Warne failed to make half the impact that Harbhajan did.

In Mumbai, the Indians approached Clarke rather casually. And gifted him wickets they shouldnt have if they had played with the same amount of caution as they would have approached Warne.

To argue that Warne would have won the match because Clarke had better figures on it is laughable, as Ikki is doing here.

 

[Ikki]

and when you focus just on one match(which he didn't play in), pretty much ignore or make excuses for every other unimpressive performance by warne in india and randomly hypothesise that he would have made all the difference had he played, what does that say about yours? the indians would certainly have played warne more cautiously than they played hauritz or clarke and there is no guarantee that just because of clarke's freakishly good figures, warne would have done the same or better...

False. If you are going to generalise my argument, at least give me the respect and do it properly. If ever I have said Warne would have fared better had he not been in strife one way or another, I say he would have done decently and certainly better than he had actually done. A fit and in-form Warne never faced India really till 2004. Maybe he would not have averaged in the 20s but certainly he would not have been in the 40s.

The point is you can hypothesis or reason out that Indian batsmen got out to part-timers because they played them less cautiously...well if that was it, why wouldn't Australia just always bring those? That's because it isn't it, it never was. The reason why those two stocked up on wickets was because of the pitch. It was unplayable.

Warne wouldn't have to do better than Clarke because he wouldn't be replacing Clarke anyway - it would have been Hauritz. My point was Warne would have done much better on that pitch and in that form than any other time prior. Yet you dispute that.

 

[Ikki]

what makes you think him being captain the results would have been the same ?

I don't know if they'd be the same. What I do know is that Gilchrist's captaincy and Ponting's was not drastically different enough to suggest it was because of Gilchrist that we won. That he was the determining factor. So I say, if the captaincy was replaced and the players performed the same way, we'd still have likely won. You may suggest that the players would have performed differently; again I'd ask "why?". There really wasn't much different to Gilchrist's approach at all.

 

[Ikki]

So what's the point of starting this stupid argument "What if Warne had played" then?

Because people here are saying Ponting never won a Test in India and keep mentioning Gilchrist all the while failing to realise they didn't have the same bowling attack. There is a big leap from Warne to Hauritz. And even that wasn't the difference as the batsmen failed to register 13 more runs - 106 was needed.

 

[Rant0r]

and when you focus just on one match(which he didn't play in), pretty much ignore or make excuses for every other unimpressive performance by warne in india and randomly hypothesise that he would have made all the difference had he played, what does that say about yours? the indians would certainly have played warne more cautiously than they played hauritz or clarke and there is no guarantee that just because of clarke's freakishly good figures, warne would have done the same or better...

right on

I don't know if they'd be the same. What I do know is that Gilchrist's captaincy and Ponting's was not drastically different enough to suggest it was because of Gilchrist that we won. That he was the determining factor. So I say, if the captaincy was replaced and the players performed the same way, we'd still have likely won. You may suggest that the players would have performed differently; again I'd ask "why?". There really wasn't much different to Gilchrist's approach at all.

we've been through this on field off field captain debate, i don't know that gilchrist definitely made the difference, but it is quite likely he did, if captaincy is based solely on planning off field then why don't they just make the best player/best looking player the captain and let a bunch of cricket buffs plan the game and pass him a love letter, but there's a lot of variables too, if ponting played, clarke wouldn't have

Because people here are saying Ponting never won a Test in India and keep mentioning Gilchrist all the while failing to realise they didn't have the same bowling attack. There is a big leap from Warne to Hauritz. And even that wasn't the difference as the batsmen failed to register 13 more runs - 106 was needed.

probably because he hasn't, and is unlikely to do so anytime soon

 

[Anil]

False. If you are going to generalise my argument, at least give me the respect and do it properly. If ever I have said Warne would have fared better had he not been in strife one way or another, I say he would have done decently and certainly better than he had actually done. A fit and in-form Warne never faced India really till 2004. Maybe he would not have averaged in the 20s but certainly he would not have been in the 40s.

injuries could certainly have affected his performances to a certain extent although if you are fit enough to play, injuries shouldn't be used as an excuse and sounds like a cop-out(not by warne but by his fans), the out-of-form argument is the most vague and bogus-sounding...he was out of form for the series because the indian batsmen never allowed him to get into any decent rhythm and he clearly acknowledged that...only his most blind fans can argue otherwise...

The point is you can hypothesis or reason out that Indian batsmen got out to part-timers because they played them less cautiously...well if that was it, why wouldn't Australia just always bring those? That's because it isn't it, it never was. The reason why those two stocked up on wickets was because of the pitch. It was unplayable.

that is not a hypothesis, they actually played clarke and hauritz in that match, remember? and obviously the indian batsmen have a significantly higher degree of respect for warne than the other two and would have played him with greater caution...and the point is pretty much all the indian batsmen read spinners off their bowling action and defend extremely well...

Warne wouldn't have to do better than Clarke because he wouldn't be replacing Clarke anyway - it would have been Hauritz. My point was Warne would have done much better on that pitch and in that form than any other time prior. Yet you dispute that.

here you are saying this(see bolded part above) as a definitive statement although you also agree nothing can be said conclusively one way or the other about a hypothetical situation, that is a contradiction that you need to resolve by yourselves...

 

[susudear]

Fine

Because people here are saying Ponting never won a Test in India and keep mentioning Gilchrist all the while failing to realise they didn't have the same bowling attack. There is a big leap from Warne to Hauritz. And even that wasn't the difference as the batsmen failed to register 13 more runs - 106 was needed.

But all these excuses wont make Ponting a captain to have won a test match in India?

He had his chance in 2008, and had full 4 test matches, and yet failed.

Oh, and he didnt lead by example also, given his average was in the mid-thirties.