Isolator said:
"Pointing" isn't the smartest captain around, firstly. Secondly, it was a good move. Maybe they should have reversed the whole batting order. Bradman did that once on a tricky pitch, it paid off, and no one called him "yellow" for it.
I guess everyone will be switching to coffee, then...
I agree that Ponting isn't the best captain around, but he's a great player who would have come out at 3 regardless. I know about Bradman and him scoring 270-odd (or whatever it was) at 7 (or whatever position), although I can't remember the circumstances. So I won't try to compare them.
Who does everyone think is more likely to not get out in the circumstances last night? What kind of message does it send to Smith and the South Africans about our fighting ability? Who do you think Smith would have rather seen walking out: Mills or Fleming? I bet Ntini could not believe his luck. Richie's "Do what the opposition would like least" theory does actually make a lot of sense.
To me comments on this forum stating "I wouldn't mind seeing Mills opening" or "I don't mind him coming in at 3" are just ridiculous. He is a bowler. I don't know what it is with our obsession over the all rounder, but Mills is not an all rounder. Just like Franklin, Vettori, Adams, etc. And as such, he should not be batting higher than 9 in our line-up. We need to develop top-order batsmen, not look for stop-gap solutions by placing a guy at 3 who does not have the requisite skills. Part of those skills are being able to bat on a difficult track, and Fleming should have those skills by now. Why didn't Mills open to protect one of Marshall and Fulton?
Why was it Fleming needed protection?
Mills and Franklin etc. are not solutions to our top-order problems; they would only add to our problem. Yes, batting at in the top order on a pitch that's doing a lot might be hard, but we need our specialists to be doing it.
Kippax said:
The thing I don't get is what happened to Fleming's "technical transformation" often quoted around the time his book was released?
From various quotes lately we now seem to have the "just wanna have fun" Fleming back for the remainder of his career, familiar bad habits, a bit of dasher capable of the odd 60 or 70 in the middle-order with no genuine purple patches. Is this World Cup build-up, or Fleming simply looking to avoid 'doing a Rigor' and burning out his enjoyment of the game prematurely?
Regardless, I'm not sure the Fleming that you and I were pushing for to remain as an opening option exists any more.
It's funny you mentioning Fleming's book, because I re-read a couple of chapters last weekend. I guess no one knows what happened to that 18-month period where Fleming was scoring centuries consistantly and, wait for it, actually winning us matches. You could be right about Fleming. I honestly do not believe he is mentally strong enough to lead our side. Time and time again he simply does not stand up as a batsman. No other batsman mentally explodes between 50 and 100 quite like Fleming does. Surprised when he choked against the West Indies? I wasn't. And because he isn't scoring big runs, he isn't winning us matches. There it is: elegant in its simplicity.
What really vexes me is Fleming even having a spot in the side at the moment. There's guys out there who have actually... you know, won us matches lately by scoring runs. And we've got a guy in the side who won't even attempt to stand up as he should as captain.
