Moments of Ingenious Captaincy

[vic_orthdox]

Look, we're just going around in circles, but I need to clarify two points:

1.

That was the Natwest cup not the Natwest challenge.

I said this series. Big deal. The major point was that you said that Solanki has never bowled in international cricket, which was false.

2. If you really want to find fault with Vaughan's policy, you could so easily manage to do so. But just as easily you could do so with Ponting's choices during the three matches, especially considering that England favour batting second as opposed to batting first.

Logic might well say that it would be much smarter to include a bowler as your super-sub against England, because this provide re-inforcements against them if they were to bat second (as they tend to choose to do), and means that they can't pick off a 5th bowler. Either way, in most cases you'll end up batting first against them, and be able to control the match with your choice of super-sub.

Simply, though, including that in this thread was a horrid, horrid misjudgement, and was merely sucessful because of which side of the coin faced up.

 

[Scallywag]

Look, we're just going around in circles, but I need to clarify two points:

1.
I said this series. Big deal. The major point was that you said that Solanki has never bowled in international cricket, which was false.

2. If you really want to find fault with Vaughan's policy, you could so easily manage to do so. But just as easily you could do so with Ponting's choices during the three matches, especially considering that England favour batting second as opposed to batting first.

Logic might well say that it would be much smarter to include a bowler as your super-sub against England, because this provide re-inforcements against them if they were to bat second (as they tend to choose to do), and means that they can't pick off a 5th bowler. Either way, in most cases you'll end up batting first against them, and be able to control the match with your choice of super-sub.

Simply, though, including that in this thread was a horrid, horrid misjudgement, and was merely sucessful because of which side of the coin faced up.

Ponting has won the toss 56 times and elected to bat 40 times, Vaughan expected Ponting to bat if he won the toss so he went in with the extra bowler and Ponting realised this so he sent England into bat eliminating Englands chances of using the super-sub and cornering Vaughan into losing a strike bowler to make up for the error.

Either Ponting out foxed Vaughan or Vaughan had a brain explosion and screwed up big time.

 

[C_C]

Ponting is a decent captain...so far...nothing extraordinary. I dont think he is one of those captains who can get the team to win consistently when not supported by a star-studded lineup.

 

[King_Ponting]

Ponting is a decent captain...so far...nothing extraordinary. I dont think he is one of those captains who can get the team to win consistently when not supported by a star-studded lineup.

And which captain can do that?

 

[Matteh]

I think Hussain was probably the closest to be able to do that in the (vauguely) recent years...

 

[marc71178]

Depends how smart you are, like I said if Vaughan had taken the extra batsman in the team then it would have put pressure on ponting to think a bit harder about sending them in.

Don't be stupid - England wouldn't ever go in with that side - and such bowling weakness.

Ponting stuck England in because when they set targets they're very proven to lose the game.

 

[marc71178]

I can see the day when a team realises that using the wicketkeeper for super-subbing is a big advantage.

And of course Haddin's selection was Pontings brilliance wasn't it?

Nothing to do with him being the only fit member of the squad not in the 11?

 

[marc71178]

Vaughan expected Ponting to bat if he won the toss so he went in with the extra bowler and Ponting realised this so he sent England into bat eliminating Englands chances of using the super-sub and cornering Vaughan into losing a strike bowler to make up for the error.

Absolute rubbish did Vaughan expect Ponting to bat first if he won the toss.

 

[King_Ponting]

i thought with the supersub most captains would think that the opposition would bowl first?

 

[marc71178]

I think with England's record setting a target (2 wins against the top sides since the World Cup, and the win there was because of Pakistan having to bat under lights) - any captain that bats first against them needs his head reading.

But because it's Ponting, some people decide that it's genius!

 

[Scallywag]

Don't be stupid - England wouldn't ever go in with that side - and such bowling weakness..

So now do you see my point. You say England would never go in with that side but that is the side they had to try and bowl Australai out. How on earth did they let themselves get into a position where they ended up with a side they would never go in with. Forward planning should have prevented that.

Ponting stuck England in because when they set targets they're very proven to lose the game.

Setting targets batting first is Englands weak spot so they boost the bowling instead of the batting, can you see the strangeness in that decision..

 

[luckyeddie]

The best thing Ponting did in the last 2 ODIs was win the toss, purely and simply (and yes, some of his on-field decisions were superb, they had less effect on the game I believe than the Big One).

Save this post and use it to beat me the next time someone wins the toss and elects to bat in a ODI (other than possibly a Durban day-nighter) under the current 12-man idiocy.

Not that Australia would necessarily have lost if they had batted against England, but the days of setting the target have gone, and the game is the worse for it.

 

[luckyeddie]

i thought with the supersub most captains would think that the opposition would bowl first?

Most?

I'd suggest 'all'.

My suggestion? Water the wicket at half time.

 

[Burpey]

Winning the toss is crucial with the supersub and has nothing to do with 'great captaincy'. However, Vaughan throwing Solanki in the third of the Challenge matches was a gamble and paid off, but easily could have been a waste of Simon Jones. As you can see, it's all 50-50

 

[luckyeddie]

Winning the toss is crucial with the supersub and has nothing to do with 'great captaincy'. However, Vaughan throwing Solanki in the third of the Challenge matches was a gamble and paid off, but easily could have been a waste of Simon Jones. As you can see, it's all 50-50

50:50?

One issue is forced, the other a matter of choice. Drafting in the extra batsman keeps you potentially in the game a little longer - a minimum of one delivery of course (the drafted batsman could get done first ball, but that's the nature of the 'last chance saloon'). Whatever his contribution, you are then deprived of a bowler. Your chance of winning now comes down to bowling the opposition out using the 2 or 3 mainline bowlers you have left, because you sure as hell aren't likely to restrict them.

90:10, more like.

Has it made the game more interesting? I suppose so.
Has it made it fairer? Not in a billion years.
Why do it then? Because Angus Fraser has to justify his existence somehow.

 

[Burpey]

50:50?

One issue is forced, the other a matter of choice. Drafting in the extra batsman keeps you potentially in the game a little longer - a minimum of one delivery of course (the drafted batsman could get done first ball, but that's the nature of the 'last chance saloon'). Whatever his contribution, you are then deprived of a bowler. Your chance of winning now comes down to bowling the opposition out using the 2 or 3 mainline bowlers you have left, because you sure as hell aren't likely to restrict them.

90:10, more like.

Has it made the game more interesting? I suppose so.
Has it made it fairer? Not in a billion years.
Why do it then? Because Angus Fraser has to justify his existence somehow.

Just of a matter of interest, what do you think would have happened if Solanki did not bat and Simon Jones was available to bowl ?

 

[luckyeddie]

Just of a matter of interest, what do you think would have happened if Solanki did not bat and Simon Jones was available to bowl ?

We'd have probably been bowled out, then we might have taken 1 wicket more than we actually did. Or less. Or not. Or something.

Either way, the result would have probably been the same.

Perhaps.

 

[Burpey]

We'd have probably been bowled out, then we might have taken 1 wicket more than we actually did. Or less. Or not. Or something.

Either way, the result would have probably been the same.

Perhaps.

Yeah, I agree. It'd be good if the supersub was designed to be very effective in a situation like this but I can't see how the ICC could do that

 

[marc71178]

Winning the toss is crucial with the supersub and has nothing to do with 'great captaincy'. However, Vaughan throwing Solanki in the third of the Challenge matches was a gamble and paid off, but easily could have been a waste of Simon Jones. As you can see, it's all 50-50

At 90-odd for 6, it wasn't a big gamble.

Had he not done it, Simon Jones wouldn't have made much difference defending 140 or so.

 

[Burpey]

At 90-odd for 6, it wasn't a big gamble.

Had he not done it, Simon Jones wouldn't have made much difference defending 140 or so.

So if the supersub can't make a difference unless they do something impossible, what is the point ?