You have to remember with Australia and Ponting Jono - sometimes the most indefensible decisions (Edgbaston 05, Oval 09 spring to mind) are defended to the hilt.
Now this is ridiculous.
Firstly Egbaston 05 myth will never die. I will never understand how people have continued to claim that just because Ponting chose to bowl first on a seemingly flat wicket - if he had instead bowled first, given that McGrath was injured on the morning, AUS would have won the test. One of the greatest Ashes myths.
How could you bowl out a team for two sub-200 scores in the previous & not be confident in doing it again even with one of your main bowlers out?. For all those ofay with their recent Ashes history, England build up to the 2005 Ashes test was de ja vu to the build up to the 2001 Ashes test. In which like 01, England entered the 05 Ashes coming off a tremendous year of test success. Just like how ENG bubble was blown away in 2001 Egbaston 1st test - ATT it seemed like it would occur again after the AUS win @ Lords 05.
The way ENG counter-attacked on day 1 was totally down to them, showing an unusual steel againts AUS - when historically they would fold. So to say Ponting's decision to bowl first was the reason ENG won - is a total disrespect to how well ENG played.
Fact is the reason AUS lost @ Edgbaston 05 & the Ahses 05 was because their batsmen where exposed technically to reverse-swing of the ENG bowlers. Whether Ponting had batter first or second it would not have stopped the AUS batsmen from being exposed.
Oval 09 is even worse to critique Ponting - DEAR GOD. The dull consensus is that AUS should have played Hauritz given the turn that was present - if he had played AUS would have saved the Ashes.
Thats all dumb nostalagia. Australia had just won the 4th tests by an innings playing an all-pace attacks, Hauritz not playing in the Oval test was not the reason AUS lost that final test & the Ashes. It was Australia ridiculous 1st innings batting collapse in their first innings of the Oval test (which has been a trademark of Australia in this post McGrath/Warne era since Ashes 06/07). Thats what cost them that tests, since they couldn't play catch up from such a position after digging themselves into such a hole.
The pitch was even turning that much on the 4th & 5th days even though North took 4 wickets. Swann didn't exactly spin out Australia in their 2nd innings either.
Hauritz wouldn't have spun out England. Since in the 1st Ashes test @ Cardiff (on a similar wearing pitch to the Oval) when he had chances to do major damage on wearing 4th/5th day surfaces he didn't step up.Opposition batsmen played him fairly comfortably. Nor in the recent Australian summer @ Adelaide & Perth when he got wearing wickets - he couldn't spin out the Windies - nor in Wellington test vs NZ earlier this year. So the suggestion that Ponting should have played Hauritz - when he is proven failure on turning tracks - is madness.
