Greatest cricketers since 1980

[silentstriker]

The funniest thing about that test was how every one was so desperate for Ponting to break the rules all of a sudden! We do all usually complain when Australia do the 'win at all costs' thing, but personally I actually secretly admire it.

It wasn't really breaking the rules. Plus if the match ended early, which is likely would have, there'd have been no fine.

 

[GIMH]

I don't think many here really rate over rate offences as "breaking" rules, tbh..

It wasn't really breaking the rules. Plus if the match ended early, which is likely would have, there'd have been no fine.

Clearly is breaking the rules to not bowl sufficient overs

 

[honestbharani]

Clearly is breaking the rules to not bowl sufficient overs

yeah.. in the literal sense.. I just meant in the normal way, which is not always exactly literal.

 

[silentstriker]

Clearly is breaking the rules to not bowl sufficient overs

Technically, if you win with overs to spare, you don't get in trouble because no rules were broken.

 

[Ikki]

That's "if" you win.

 

[silentstriker]

And that's why it was such a ****ty job. Completely released all pressure, gave India the game and the series, and for bonus captaincy points, pretty much said to his frontline bowlers that he didn't believe they could take anymore wickets....even though they were bowling well at that stage.

 

[silentstriker]

Basically, if you had asked the Indian team what would be the ideal scenario for them at that stage, the idea to bring on his bits and pieces bowlers on would be just slightly behind a the suggestion to forfeit the game due to a collective case of the flu.

 

[four_or_six]

Some kind of 'serious mistakes per test captained' and 'moments of inspiration per test captained' would be an awesome stat for all test captains, not just Ponting.

 

[Ikki]

Ponting has made questionable decisions, as have most captains. There's nothing new there. You're exaggerating a tad to say the least re his captaincy Manan.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, I'm just pointing out that in my cricket watching time, no captain has ever given India the game and a series on a platter like that. The first thing I thought of is match fixing. I am not claiming there was, and in fact, I'm sure there wasn't, but the tactical decision was so much in favor of the opposing team that it was the first thing that went through my mind.

You can say whatever you want, and obviously everyone has their opinions which I am not going to dispute, but those were my impressions on the day. No other tactical decision from an opposing team has ever made me as happy. Not even when visiting teams come and play two spin bowlers in India and leave a fast bowler averaging in the mid 20s on the sideline.

If a sign of good captaincy to do what the opposition least wants you to do, then the opposite is surely true as well.

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously, I am also not going to dispute that he has made good decisions in the past as well that may have won him a game or a series. I am sure he has, and I'm sure you can point it out.

How you want to weigh all that is up to you, but Ponting the batsman and fielder is excellent. Ponting the captain, in my opinion, negates some of that excellence.

 

[Jono]

The entire cricket world criticised Ponting's decision as horrible. There is no defending that specific decision really.

 

[Noble One]

The official tour thread at the time of Ponting bringing on White and Hussey captures the moment so well http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/39794-official-australia-india-683.html

 

[silentstriker]

Haha just reading through that thread, everyone was completely WTF over it...Matt79 summed it up from the Aussie PoV:

So annoyed. In the past I've been, if not a Ponting-as-test-captain defender, then at least not a critic, and have defended him from some of the bashers around here. But his captaincy in the last hour here defies understanding. Your opponents are collapsing, from no-where you've got a chance in the match and hence to retain the trophy, two of your quicks have been getting the ball to reverse, and you throw a ball to a guy who you not only shouldn't have selected in this match at all, but who has also through the series proven himself to be the third or fourth best (part-time) spinner in the team, ahead of those quicks and the other, better, part-time spinners. Then when that predictably takes the pressure off the batsmen and gets the runs flowing, you through it to a really-part-timer dibbly dobbler medium pacer. Unbelievable!

And Goughy echoes what I was thinking too:

Im not for one second suggesting anything here, but there has to be an investigation into why a captain intentionally gives away a potentially matchchanging position and surrenders all momentum.

Anytime there is strange behaviour like this then it is essential for the good of the sport that it is investigated properly, if only to 100% rule out wrongdoing.

 

[Jono]

Best moment

 

[Burgey]

Nah, Ponting did the right thing there in bowling the part-timers.

Where he completely ****ed up in an unforgiveable way was in getting 8 overs down in the first place.

It was hardly the first time there had beena problem with the over rate in the recent past either.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, Ponting did the right thing there in bowling the part-timers.

Where he completely ****ed up in an unforgiveable way was in getting 8 overs down in the first place.

It was hardly the first time there had beena problem with the over rate in the recent past either.

Obviously it's a mistake to go down a lot, but to me 90 overs is probably too much anyway. I don't like seeing field changes every ball but I'd rather see good bowlers than crap ones. However, can you elaborate on why, given the situation, bowling part timers was the right thing instead of trusting your frontline bowlers who had India under pressure to just finish the job before the day is over and removing any chance of being penalized for over rates anyway?

I know several people have said what you said, but most captains and others disagree, including me. I'm afraid I can't see the reasoning behind costing your team a chance to tie the series and retain an important trophy even if it may (just "may" - not a given) cost you one game in the future?

I am sure Pontign did it to show how they play within the rules, especially given Sydneygate and how their reputation as called into question, but I'm not sure he would have done it if Sydneygate had not happened (and the other former Aussie captains all agreed they wouldn't), and secondly, while I can sympathize with Ponting and his reasoning, I do think it displayed a shocking lack of sense.

 

[Matt79]

Looking back on that incident, I just can't believe I used "through" when I meant "throw"

 

[Top_Cat]

Nah, Ponting did the right thing there in bowling the part-timers.

Where he completely ****ed up in an unforgiveable way was in getting 8 overs down in the first place.

It was hardly the first time there had beena problem with the over rate in the recent past either.

Funnily enough, since Lee has left the team, no suggestions of any over-rate problems.

 

[Burgey]

Obviously it's a mistake to go down a lot, but to me 90 overs is probably too much anyway. I don't like seeing field changes every ball but I'd rather see good bowlers than crap ones. However, can you elaborate on why, given the situation, bowling part timers was the right thing instead of trusting your frontline bowlers who had India under pressure to just finish the job before the day is over and removing any chance of being penalized for over rates anyway?

I know several people have said what you said, but most captains and others disagree, including me. I'm afraid I can't see the reasoning behind costing your team a chance to tie the series and retain an important trophy even if it may (just "may" - not a given) cost you one game in the future?

I am sure Pontign did it to show how they play within the rules, especially given Sydneygate and how their reputation as called into question, but I'm not sure he would have done it if Sydneygate had not happened (and the other former Aussie captains all agreed they wouldn't), and secondly, while I can sympathize with Ponting and his reasoning, I do think it displayed a shocking lack of sense.

I think your last paragraph sums up the reasoning completely.

I think for a good while there the enitre team (not just Ponting's) heads were nowhere frankly. And asT-C says, Lee was the main offender here re. over rates.

So much was said in the aftermath of his decision to bowl the part-timers ( much of it justified, some of it shrill), but iirc he was told by either a match official or the umpires that he was miles down on the over rate. I think (again going off memory) that he'd been fined for it not long before and may have been facing a suspension.

I can see why he did it. A seriously bad look for him and the team if an Australian cricket captain is suspended in circumstances where he's been told to up the over rates and doesn't. Would also make the win a hollow one in some quarters, I guess.