*Official* Pakistan in Australia

[BoyBrumby]

Just been watching the highlights. First proper butchers I've has at Umar; he's some talent the boy, clearly. His cut is just to die for.

Johnson seemed to serve up an Ashesesque combination of tripe and jaffas. You won't see a better delivery than the one that got Butt out, but sometimes he's just so wide it's buffet stuff.

 

[aussie]

And hence it was a horrendous decision. He should have bowled them anyway, like every other Aussie captain would have done.

There was no them - it was Watson the main wicket-taking threat who couldn't bowl. As i said Ponting had Krejza "the other main wicket-taking threat" on from one end all the time, while he brought on the part-timers. Two part timers never bowled in tandem

Lee couldn't bowl since he was injured & Johnson was ineffective.

I dont believe every other AUS captain would have bowled Watson since the situation clearly demanded of Ponting to get in those overs. That was just a situation where the appauling over-rate by AUS throughout that test had come back to haunt them at a bad time.

 

[silentstriker]

So every other Aussie captain who said they would have done exactly opposite of Ponting did was lying?

Like Waugh, Border, and Chappell?

 

[Sir Alex]

HAA, thats now how it went down.

- Firstly after tea on day 4 when IND where 166/6, Ponting didn't come out IMMEDIATELY & bowl the part-timers. I remember him starting with the main bowlers, before all the confusion started. Where he then he left the field, then when he came back on with seemingly talking to match refree or something & brought on those part-timers in a crazy few minutes..

He bowled the first over after tea with Johnson and immediately after that brought in White... I agree however Ponting was not in field after the tea break but he was back in an over. I don't see relevance of that.

- Lee also was injured as it was proven after the match, (that on-field spat ATT wasn't Ponting telling Lee you can't bowl because Lee wanted to) so Ponting couldn't even bowl him if he wanted to. Overall it was clearly a situation that Ponting was foreced into.

It doesn't explain why he couldn't have Mitchell Johnson bowling at Harbhajan and Dhoni. Or Shane Watson who bowling the best among the lot and had taken wickets of Vijay and Dravid. The only excuse Ponting had was to attain the required over rate but was hardly unpardonable given the series was in balance.

- Ponting main wicket-taking threats ATT where Krejza & Watson. Krejza was always bowling, even if Watson could have bowled after tea with the ball reversing & bowled IND out faster for lets say 200 & AUS had to chase 300. AUS still would not have been in a position of superiority, just in with "sniff" of victory.

So what? Sniff of victory is better than what they ended up with anyway. And India were 166/6 with a tail consisting of Khan, Mishra and Sharma. They could have been cleaned up for say 20 runs (which ultimately was the case after Dhoni was dismissed) and Australia would have been chasing 260odd.

So the cricticsm that Ponting was trying to avoid a fine & not looking to win the test is rubbish.

No your argument is rubbish. Because it still does not explain "how" Ponting was looking to "win" the test by having parttimers bowling.

 

[Sir Alex]

Edited.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ricky Ponting himself said after the match :

"To tell you the truth I'm a little bit disappointed with some of the criticism, particularly from former Australian captains and CA [Cricket Australia] board members," Ponting said. "I had Jason Krejza bowling at one end, who ended up taking 12 wickets in the game, and Cameron White - he'd been the No. 1-picked spinner in the first three Test matches - operating from the other end for a couple of overs.

"That didn't work out the way I'd have liked, Michael Clarke was the next choice, but he'd been off the field ill and couldn't bowl until 3.10pm. And in the situation we were nine overs down." If a team is six overs behind schedule the captain faces the possibility of a suspension.

Ponting said he had an obligation "to play the game in the right spirit" and try to bowl 90 overs in the day. "We speak about it at every team meeting," he said. "I've told the bowlers, the whole team, for a couple of years now that if we keep going the way we are there's going to be some time or moment where it's really going to come back and hurt us. I'm not saying that's right now, but there have been other times where we've had to do that."

I am not saying for one moment Ponting was being selfish by trying to put his suspension above the team;s victory chances. But he merely had a brain explosion and was somehow made nto thinking that keeping up with the overrate was as or more important than taking out the remaining 4 wickets quickly. It was more of a mistake than an intentional ploy.

 

[slowfinger]

I would think of in terms of the series. If Ponting would have quickly bowled the 90 overs and saved himself from getting suspended, is that going to hurt the team or just him? I don't think it is selfish to try and keep him from getting suspended.

 

[aussie]

So every other Aussie captain who said they would have done exactly opposite of Ponting did was lying?

Like Waugh, Border, and Chappell?

When they made those comments especially Border on commentary ATT...saying something like...'if ricky knew what i was thinking, he wont be please"...he was just like us fans watching on TV trying to understand WTF was going on.

All that was later proven, clearly indicated Ponting was compelled to bowling those part-timers & not Watson.

He bowled the first over after tea with Johnson and immediately after that brought in White... I agree however Ponting was not in field after the tea break but he was back in an over. I don't see relevance of that.

Him not being on the field pretty much proves that he had a serious discussion with the match ref regarding the over rate problem. Which no fan, commentator ATT had a clew about..

It doesn't explain why he couldn't have Mitchell Johnson bowling at Harbhajan and Dhoni. Or Shane Watson who bowling the best among the lot and had taken wickets of Vijay and Dravid. The only excuse Ponting had was to attain the required over rate but was hardly unpardonable given the series was in balance.

Because Johnson although he tried hard all series, wasn't looking like was going to get anyone out. Watson & Krejza where the main wicket-taking threats..

Watson couldn't bowl because of the over-rate issue. Simple.

So what? Sniff of victory is better than what they ended up with anyway. And India were 166/6 with a tail consisting of Khan, Mishra and Sharma. They could have been cleaned up for say 20 runs (which ultimately was the case after Dhoni was dismissed) and Australia would have been chasing 260odd.

All speculation. There was no guarnatee that Dhoni & Harbhajan couldn't have maintained a mini fightback even if Ponting could have bowled Watson straight after tea or continued with Johnson.

People have consistenly made the point since that Nagpur test that AUS where DEFINATELY going to win the test if Ponting had not bowled the part-timers which is rubbish. All they did was engineer a mini fight-back before tea.

No your argument is rubbish. Because it still does not explain "how" Ponting was looking to "win" the test by having parttimers bowling.

Well duhh his push to potentially winning the test was haulted by the fact that the situation demanded that he bowled the part-timers to improve the over-rate, which as i said was basically AUS appauling over-rate throughout the test, coming back to haunt them at a bad time.

IF the series was still alive in Nagpur (AUS winning the test, although a draw would have kept the BGT), i'm fairly sure Ponting would have bitten the bullet & if AUS had indeed managed to win that test via a historical run chase in IND. I dont believe Ponting would have been banned that easily

 

[Sir Alex]

When they made those comments especially Border on commentary ATT...saying something like...'if ricky knew what i was thinking, he wont be please"...he was just like us fans watching on TV trying to understand WTF was going on.

All that was later proven, clearly indicated Ponting was compelled to bowling those part-timers & not Watson.



Him not being on the field pretty much proves that he had a serious discussion with the match ref regarding the over rate problem. Which no fan, commentator ATT had a clew about..



Because Johnson although he tried hard all series, wasn't looking like was going to get anyone out. Watson & Krejza where the main wicket-taking threats..

Watson couldn't bowl because of the over-rate issue. Simple.

And what exactly was I intending all day long? Overrate indeed was the issue behind him persisting with parttimers. The argument is not whether he did to save his ass but that it was a stupid move. He in fact did it in Perth earlier that year having Symonds and Clarke bowl when India were 6 down for not many, again for the same reasons show he did not learn from his mistake either.

All speculation. There was no guarnatee that Dhoni & Harbhajan couldn't have maintained a mini fightback even if Ponting could have bowled Watson straight after tea or continued with Johnson. People have consistenly made the point since that Nagpur test that AUS where DEFINATELY going to win the test if Ponting had not bowled the part-timers which is rubbish. All they did was engineer a mini fight-back before tea.

Of course, but having Watson, the best bowler in that entire series and Krejza, the maverick wickettaker bowl in tandem against an unsettled and under pressure wicketkeeper and tailender was definitely a better bet to take wickets than bowling two raw parttimers. In hindsight it was a stupid decision. The partnership of 100+ was indeed the key why India won that match from a seemingly loseable position.

Well duhh his push to potentially winning the test was haulted by the fact that the situation demanded that he bowled the part-timers to improve the over-rate, which as i said was basically AUS appauling over-rate throughout the test, coming back to haunt them at a bad time.

Why did he fail to enforce overrates earlier? Because he was all the time discussing/setting elaborate field changes/arguing with umpires etc that he lost out when mattered. That again is his own fault.

IF the series was still alive in Nagpur, i'm fairly sure Ponting would have bitten the bullet & if AUS had indeed managed to win that test via a historical run chase in IND. I dont believe Ponting would have been banned that easily

Why was the series not "alive" in Nagpur? India were leading 1-0 only into that test and had Aussies won it, they would have retained BG Trophy. Ponting getting banned or not banned was not the question there.

 

[GIMH]

aussie defending Ponting, what next, me arguing about Flintoff?

 

[Furball]

Just been watching the highlights. First proper butchers I've has at Umar; he's some talent the boy, clearly. His cut is just to die for.

Johnson seemed to serve up an Ashesesque combination of tripe and jaffas. You won't see a better delivery than the one that got Butt out, but sometimes he's just so wide it's buffet stuff.

First time Johnson has bowled particularly badly this series tbf.

 

[Burgey]

So every other Aussie captain who said they would have done exactly opposite of Ponting did was lying?

Like Waugh, Border, and Chappell?

Not going to buy into this other than to note that since Lee hasn't played our over rates are generally a lot better.

 

[Burgey]

Suffice to say that our only hope is to be no more than 5 down at stumps. Given the pace our blokes normally bat, that would give us a lead going into day 4.

Anything worse than that for us and it's curtains imo.

Edit: Dougy! 4 for 72. Averaging less than 20 odd with the ball this summer.
Dougy.

Dougeh!

 

[GIMH]

What sort of target do you think you need to set to have a sniff?

 

[Burgey]

Who knows in 4th innings, but I'd want at least 250 tbh.

Watto apologising to Asif for last night's carry on when he clapped him after bowling. Bit of reverse douchebaggery.
Of course, Asif's been doing the same for a test and a half, but when you take 6 for 40 imo you can run around nude if you want.

 

[four_or_six]

Bloody hell Watto.

 

[Neil Pickup]

That is the third worst ball I've ever seen in Test cricket.

Tufnell and Ashraful.

 

[Johnners]

Take the Ponting/India discussion into another thread thanks, don't need the thread turning into a multi-quotathon on something that's of no relevance to this series whatsoever.

 

[Ausage]

Yeah loving how many wickets Dougeh is getting.

Depends what the pitch does, but it's unreasonable to expect us to defend less than 180. 250 would be a tough chase for Pakistan. Far from a foregone conclusion that we'll even send Pakistan in to bat again though.

Dougeh.

 

[four_or_six]

Hughes is so, so, ugly to watch.