Nah look that isn't the point.
Have no issues with people writing an opinion piece saying why they don't like Ponting, but to blatantly misrepresent the truth like basically imply that he did none of the work and it was because of the other good players that made his record as captain look good is total rubbish.
And how many respected publications would actually write about them thinking he looks like George Bush? I'd say none, because it's a pretty amateur thing to write about.
And wtf is this:
There was also a common strategic mind-set that was all too often rigid and created an inability to handle setbacks (in one case Iraq, in the other Gary Pratt)
Not only is it ridiculous to compare the Iraq war to Ponting being unhappy that England were flaunting the substitute fielders rule, but it makes no sense. How is being unhappy being 'rigid' and an 'inability to handle setbacks'. Absolutely nonsensical.
And then we have:
and defeat was met with graceless sulking.
Absolutely blatantly wrong. If you watched any of Ponting's press conferences you would know he's more than happy to heap praise on the opposition.
And along with that, the last two paragraphs give no mention to cricket at all.
As a whole, the article has a strong tone of bitterness and bad will towards Ponting. I understand it's not meant to be a glowing piece which shows all his stats, but it's bad reading and reeks of ignorance.
Look, as I said before, it's not a personal attack. I'm sure David is a decent journalist, but this piece is not very good at all. And would be given the same treatment if it was posted on the forums.