Ponting The Captain

[archie mac]

I must admit I have never been impressed with Ponting the captain, even when Aust are winning, but especially when they are struggling. I would rate him well below Waugh and Taylor

And no one loves the little devil more than me

 

[Richard]

Ponting as a captain <<<<<<< Taylor as a captain.

Ponting as a captain < Stephen Waugh as a captain.

Ponting as a captain = nowhere near as bad as some like to make-out. He's not a particularly good captain, nor is he a particularly poor captain. He has the very undesireable quality of losing his cool when things aren't going his team's way far too often (something Daniel Vettori has been very impressive with early in his career) but he's not the woeful tactician some have tried to paint him as. He makes the odd mistake (like continuing with the plan of fielding first at Edgbaston rather than changing when McGrath was injured), as does any captain. And he seems to have the respect of his players, which is obviously the most important thing.

In short, Ponting is a captain from the middle of the road. Nice'n'simple. But especially over here, where we've been perceived to have suffered at the hands of Stephen Waughs, Taylors and Borders, the chance to term an Aussie captain rubbish just because his team lost a series is something that cannot be refused, even if there's little to recommend it.

 

[archie mac]

Ponting as a captain <<<<<<< Taylor as a captain.

Ponting as a captain < Stephen Waugh as a captain.

Ponting as a captain = nowhere near as bad as some like to make-out. He's not a particularly good captain, nor is he a particularly poor captain. He has the very undesireable quality of losing his head when things aren't going his team's way far too often (something Daniel Vettori has been very impressive with early in his career) but he's not the woeful tactician some have tried to paint him as. He makes the odd mistake (like continuing with the plan of fielding first at Edgbaston rather than changing when McGrath was injured), as does any captain. And he seems to have the respect of his players, which is obviously the most important thing.

In short, Ponting is a captain from the middle of the road. Nice'n'simple, and especially over here, where we've been perceived to have suffered at the hands of Stephen Waughs, Taylors and Borders, the chance to term an Aussie captain rubbish just because his team lost a series is something that cannot be refused, even if there's little to recommend it.

He frustrates me with his bowling choices quite often, even when they beat England 5-0 he seemed to wait far too long to bowl Warne, and at the MCG his field was so defensive for Warne you would think it was his first Test

He actually asked Warne was he happy with the field, and Warne said tiredly 'What ever you want mate"

 

[NUFAN]

I don't really rate his captaincy at all in Test Cricket.

I really am not a fan of the fielder on the cover boundary, and also not a big fan of a captain who chases aeriel shots. He's not ahead of the game at all with his thinking. Need to stress that I am talking about Tests here, because he's been a fantastic ODI captain in my opinion.

 

[Redbacks]

His early leadership was backed by action. He would go out and regularly get runs, leading by example. Whether he can remain as respected a figure amoungst his team mates when his own form suffers is a different question.

Obviously it takes a fair amount of skill to lead the team to high standard of performance.

 

[S.P. Fleming]

Ive always held a common thought about Ponting the captain. He never has been a good one, hes just had some pretty amazing bowlers to get him out of the ****s. That might be changing though as the Australian bowling attack gets weakened.

 

[Redbacks]

I don't really rate his captaincy at all in Test Cricket.

I really am not a fan of the fielder on the cover boundary, and also not a big fan of a captain who chases aeriel shots. He's not ahead of the game at all with his thinking. Need to stress that I am talking about Tests here, because he's been a fantastic ODI captain in my opinion.

Even if it were a well though out tactical move to unsettle the ego of the batsmen?

 

[Richard]

I really am not a fan of the fielder on the cover boundary, and also not a big fan of a captain who chases aeriel shots. He's not ahead of the game at all with his thinking.

Agree completely with the second (chasing the ball is never a good idea), disagree with the first. The sweeper on the point boundary is a very important position at the current time and it took captains in general far too long to realise the need for it. Third-man also remains a criminally underused position.

 

[Polo23]

but he's not the woeful tactician some have tried to paint him as..

I disagree. I'd say he's a worse tactician than people seem to realise.

In the past he hasn't had to be very tactically astute due to the fantastic bowlers he had at his disposal (McGrath, Lee, Warne), not to mention Warne half captaining the side anyway.

On the odd occassions when Australia has been under pressure, his captaincy has really been found wanting.

 

[Richard]

If he was such a dreadful tactician there'd be balls going into gaps where fielders should be constantly.

But there aren't.

Nor are there bowlers constantly grazing in the outfield when they should be bowling. Ponting rarely gives bowlers spells which are too long or too short.

For all you can say a captain doesn't need to be that good tactically when his bowlers are outstanding (that's the reason I've never thought Clive Lloyd was actually that good) it's also true that no captain will ever look that good with an inept attack. To judge a captain by his poor-quality bowlers is badly mistaken. You cannot do anything - not a thing - when bowlers are spraying it around the park.

 

[Mister Wright]

AWTA. Have never really understood people's thinking that he is a fantastic captain. Often, he is tactically found out. Vaughan had it all over him in 2005, and Dhoni to a lesser extent in the last game. However, on both those occasions his players have very much underperformed on him, so I guess it's a tough call on him. However, one thing I do like about his captaincy is one thing I think he learnt from Steve Waugh is that you get a lot more out of your players when you back them. I think Andrew Symonds was his pet project and Symonds has flourished under his captaincy, much like Hayden flourished under Waugh's.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan had it all over him in 2005

That's something of a fallacy. There is no time in a game of cricket where the two captains go head-to-head in terms of captaincy skills so it's really not possible for a captain to outdo another captain.

Yes, Vaughan's captaincy was better than Ponting's that series but a) it wasn't by the collossal gulf that some over here tried to suggest and b) Vaughan by that stage was an outstanding captain and most would suffer in comparison to him.

 

[Redbacks]

AWTA. Have never really understood people's thinking that he is a fantastic captain. Often, he is tactically found out. Vaughan had it all over him in 2005, and Dhoni to a lesser extent in the last game. However, on both those occasions his players have very much underperformed on him, so I guess it's a tough call on him. However, one thing I do like about his captaincy is one thing I think he learnt from Steve Waugh is that you get a lot more out of your players when you back them. I think Andrew Symonds was his pet project and Symonds has flourished under his captaincy, much like Hayden flourished under Waugh's.

care to justify these statements with some reasons. In my opinion the plans for the Ashes in 05 were a big factor, so was this from the coach or the skipper initially?

 

[Mister Wright]

That's something of a fallacy. There is no time in a game of cricket where the two captains go head-to-head in terms of captaincy skills so it's really not possible for a captain to outdo another captain.

Yes, Vaughan's captaincy was better than Ponting's that series but a) it wasn't by the collossal gulf that some over here tried to suggest and b) Vaughan by that stage was an outstanding captain and most would suffer in comparison to him.

I disagree. And your point (b) negates your point (a).

 

[Mister Wright]

care to justify these statements with some reasons. In my opinion the plans for the Ashes in 05 were a big factor, so was this from the coach or the skipper initially?

Who cares who it from initially? Ponting is solely responsible for what happens on the field. Fair enough you could argue the coach and captain didn't have a good enough plan b or plan c or even plan z. But, a good captain can always do something to at least change things up. A different field placing or bowling change. I always find Ponting lets the game drift far too much and waits for things to happen, whereas I always have felt that Vaughan is 2 or 3 overs ahead of the game.

 

[Richard]

I disagree. And your point (b) negates your point (a).

Not really. Vaughan, an outstanding captain, captaining better than Ponting, a middle-of-the-road captain, doesn't mean there's a massive gulf in their captaincy.

Ponting made no more than the odd error in 2005 - like continuing with the plan of fielding first at Edgbaston when McGrath was injured. He also lost his cool too easily. It's not like he was constantly clueless. The bowlers at Vaughan's disposal were vastly superior to those at Ponting's in 2005 and to the uninitiated that can make one captain look like he's in control while the other has lost control. In reality, it's the bowlers that do such a thing. And in reality, no side had much control at all in that series - it's just England's lack of control barely mattered as a sensational delivery was usually just around the corner.

 

[Polo23]

If he was such a dreadful tactician there'd be balls going into gaps where fielders should be constantly.

But there aren't.

Nor are there bowlers constantly grazing in the outfield when they should be bowling. Ponting rarely gives bowlers spells which are too long or too short.

You judge a good captain on whether batsmen hit the gap or not, and how long he gives bowlers spells?

That isn't quite what I meant by tactician mate.

 

[Redbacks]

The most disastrous thing for me was the media in Australia putting the Ashes in 05 down as a fluke by England, using the 5-0 whitewash to justify the statement

 

[Richard]

You judge a good captain on whether batsmen hit the gap or not, and how long he gives bowlers spells?

The length of spell you give a bowler is vital - how you initially plan it and how you adjust to the day's events. Not overbowling or underbowling bowlers (and bowling the right bowlers at the right time) is the most critical part of captaincy.

And certain batsmen have a tendency to hit the ball in certain areas - when the ball's coming at you at 85mph, you can't pick the gap and put it there every time, there's a large element of instinct. How good you are at putting the fielders where certain batsmen regularly hit the ball (either off face or off edge) is another critical part of captaincy.

In fact with the above two you've pretty well summed-up most of what captaincy is about. In fact, with a good backroom staff, you can be a good captain with that and little else.

That isn't quite what I meant by tactician mate.

What did you mean then? There isn't a lot more to it.

 

[Uppercut]

One thing about Ponting- although it may reflect more on Australian cricket than on him- is that he very seldom goes into a game without a plan for each and every batsman. His problems are with thinking on his feet, that he isn't the best under pressure or that he can't come up with a plan B. But as preparation goes, there aren't many teams that do it as well as Australia.

Anyone care to try to rank the current international test captains- Vettori, Pietersen, Kumble, Ponting, Jayawardene, Malik, Smith and Gayle- on their captaincy ability? I'd have Ponting above Kumble, Gayle and Malik (not in that order), and Pietersen can't really be judged yet. So basically he's 4th out of 7- precise mediocrity.