Ponting The Captain

[Richard]

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

There was more fluke by Australia (ie, the opposite of fluke - but certain things happening at just the right time) than flike by England really: Gillespie losing it at just the wrong time; McGrath stepping on the ball; Martyn's Umpiring decisions; etc.

But the fact that England also exposed some inadequacies that had always been there in the Australian players and had simply not been exploited (Hayden and Gilchrist to the fore) means that any suggestions that it was pure fluke will always be sour-grapeish in the extreme.

England in 2006/07 were so much lesser than in 2005 it's untrue. Anyone comparing the two teams doesn't have a clue what they're on about.

 

[Uppercut]

There was more fluke by Australia (ie, the opposite of fluke - but certain things happening at just the right time) than flike by England really: Gillespie losing it at just the wrong time; McGrath stepping on the ball; Martyn's Umpiring decisions; etc.

But the fact that England also exposed some inadequacies that had always been there in the Australian players and had simply not been exploited (Hayden and Gilchrist to the fore) means that any suggestions that it was pure fluke will always be sour-grapeish in the extreme.

England in 2006/07 were so much lesser than in 2005 it's untrue. Anyone comparing the two teams doesn't have a clue what they're on about.

As is so often the case in cricket, there are so many key moments you can look at and say, "if that had went differently, Australia might've won". But as is almost always the case in cricket, noone could possibly say that the better team didn't win that series.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's more an indictment of cricket these days. John Buchanan, in the very late 1990s, was the first to come-up with the idea, and now anyone without a serious "logger" and "analyist" (the former is often referred to as the latter) is committing a considerable mistake.

Australia under John Buchanan were excellent at this, and Duncan Fletcher realised in no time what a good idea it was and used it for England too. Before long, other teams got in on the act as well.

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.

Pietersen and Malik have barely captained yet so I can't really make my mind up on them; Gayle still baffles me; Smith, Vettori and Jayawardene are all pretty good IMO; and Ponting as I say is middle-of-the-road. Kumble always used to strike me as pretty good but has apparently been poor of late.

 

[chaminda_00]

Katich, Clarke, White, Watson, Haddin and Mike Hussey are better captains then him. I would even say Voges and North are better captains. I always thought he was poor captain, captaining a gun side. When the performances of a couple great players don't carry him as captain, he looks useless. Very relient on the performances of others to make him look good.

 

[pup11]

Ponting is a safety first kind of an approach taking captain imo, he has a very defensive mindset for an aggressive player like him, at times even with lot of runs on the board he can have defensive fields, his bowling changes at times are senseless, so from where i see things Ponting makes a plan comes out on the field and tries to employ that plan, when it goes right all is well, but the bad thing is when it doesn't go right for him he lets the whole world know that through his piss-poor body language, that's one of the worst things about Ponting as a captain, he lets the situation get better of him and that is something he should look to change as that sort of thing rubs onto the other players too.

As a tactician Ponting is pretty average, but as an inspirational leader and as a captain who leads from the front, i don't think there have been many captains better than Ponting in that regard.

 

[Redbacks]

There was more fluke by Australia (ie, the opposite of fluke - but certain things happening at just the right time) than flike by England really: Gillespie losing it at just the wrong time; McGrath stepping on the ball; Martyn's Umpiring decisions; etc.

But the fact that England also exposed some inadequacies that had always been there in the Australian players and had simply not been exploited (Hayden and Gilchrist to the fore) means that any suggestions that it was pure fluke will always be sour-grapeish in the extreme.

England in 2006/07 were so much lesser than in 2005 it's untrue. Anyone comparing the two teams doesn't have a clue what they're on about.

there is just no comparison between the two bowling attacks, nothing overly challenging about facing Mahmood of Anderson after a good Flintoff spell as there is when Jones or a fired up Harmison comes into the attack with the ball swinging.

My old man thought that the aggressive tactics used in England to unsettle our bastmen, wouldn't occur in Australia, for fear of crowd/media backlash. To a point he was right, not much short bowling was used, but there was always an average end in that series.

I'm annoyed that nobody will agree with me that Australia actually played well to take the series to the last day, not forgetting Kaspa shouldn't have been given out and we could have gone 2-0 up.

 

[Richard]

Ah, but don't forget that same Umpire should've given Kaspa lbw 1st ball.

 

[Redbacks]

I must have conviniently forgotten that moment

 

[Uppercut]

Pietersen and Malik have barely captained yet so I can't really make my mind up on them; Gayle still baffles me; Smith, Vettori and Jayawardene are all pretty good IMO; and Ponting as I say is middle-of-the-road. Kumble always used to strike me as pretty good but has apparently been poor of late.

Gayle is incredibly inspirational, the difference between the team when he's captain and when Sarwan is captain is crazy. Nevertheless, Ponting's experience has to count for something, though, maybe if Gayle goes on a while longer one can look back on his career and rank him above Ponting but at this moment in time i'll still have Ponting ahead.

Kumble's captaincy has been horrific since the Australia series (wasn't too bad in England- nothing special though). In that series, he chased the field, obvious missed opportunities (no leg-slip to Clarke when he was walking across his stumps to the spinners and getting edges- mistimed two shots in the air there before Kumble shut the stable door). Poor bowling choices, and his own bowling and batting suffered as a result. And when Dhoni captains the team, in ODIs, against SA and now against Australia, the improvement is unbelievable.

Vettori does a very difficult job at an awkward time for NZ, particularly since he's followed the greatest captain of the modern era IMO. His methods aren't unique and ground-breaking, but he very rarely makes mistakes or loses his cool. His batting and bowling haven't suffered in the slightest either, despite the fact that on recent evidence he is literally the entire NZ team combined into one man. As with his bowling, though, his captaincy is world-class in ODIs.

Jayawardene is a good example of how a fairly negative captain can still be a very good one IMO. He knows the pitches in Sri Lanka like the back of his hand, and his management of Kevin Pietersen this time last year was ingenious. He also has a knack of timing a declaration perfectly, is very calm under pressure, and utilises his unusual array of bowlers very well. Outside Sri Lanka, though, he's not nearly as effective, and his job is made a lot easier by having the dream bowler to turn to on any surface.

Smith is another whose captaincy has improved a lot over time- and is one of the best men to have under pressure in the game. His man-management is much improved, and he rarely makes big mistakes. Nothing inspired- with the loss of Vaughan, there are no particularly eccentric captains in international cricket- but he sets good fields and lets his bowlers do the work, which is as much as he can realistically do.

None of them, however, are exceptional captains in the way that Fleming is. I would say, as a Hampshire fan, that not one of them would have been in the same league as Warne had he been given the opportunity to captain at test level.

 

[Mister Wright]

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.

Disagree again.

You have a great way of making so little sense with so many words.

The body language of both captains gave it all away in 2005. Vaughan had his troops in a huddle each time they went out in the field. He fielded mainly at mid off to support his bowlers, he always looked like he was thinking about the game. He rotated his bowlers very well, kept constant pressure with innovative field placings and was always talking to his bowlers.

Ponting, in contrast jogged out on to the field with his team behind him, and even though he's a slips fielder he always looked to be waiting for something to happen. Rarely changed the fields, bowled his bowlers for too long and relied on McGrath and Warne too often. The main factor was he always looked disappointed if something happened, where Vaughan always had the look of someone who was thinking, "What can I do now?"

 

[Richard]

England teams have used the huddle for years, in good times and bad. That really isn't of any great relevance. Overwhelmingly it's something that's done for the benefit of the cameras, to try to demonstrate "togetherness". Same as having everyone on the balcony all the time and making sure everyone applauds milestones. And being always talking to the bowlers is something that generally gets praised in good times and criticised in bad - remember Hussain being pilloried for doing it in 2002/03?

And as for relying on Warne and McGrath... well, I'm honestly struggling to see how that's bad captaincy. Your best two bowlers should be your most common go-to men.

 

[SJS]

I am not a great fan of Ponting the skipper although he is one of my all time favourites to watch while batting.

I think he is the most defensive Australian captain in recent memory. I think thats quite an indictment since it is Australian captains we are talking of.

The best of a captain is seen when they have relatively weak sides or in crisis situations. Ponting hasn't had a weak side for almost his entire tenure but in a situation where Australia have been struggling, he hasn't been inspirational.

Someone has mentioned his jogging out much ahead of his team as they go on to field. I did not think of that but I have noticed that when he has to talk to his bowlers, he runs across to them, says a few quick words and runs back. I may be wrong but I cant recall an occasion when a bowler has been in some grief and Ponting has walked over to him, put his arms around his shoulders (tough for a short captain you might say) and talk to him calmly with the comforting wisdom of an 'elder' (doesn't have to be older to do that) instead of the terse quick words that he seems to give with no expression on his face. It appears, one cant tell since you cant hear, that he is merely telling the bowler, do this or don't do this like a drill sergeant before running back to his place. Maybe it his nervous energy that makes him less than the calm reassuring presence which a Vaughan or a Brearley or a Mark Taylor brings. I am not comparing these three as captains, just discussing one aspect of their demeanour.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Ponting's an okay captain, certainly not a brilliant one, not terrible either. I think he's a better captain than Kumble, just as an example. Certainly he's a step down from the last few captains Australia has had, but I think he has some interesting ideas and plans from time to time that people tend to overlook in their criticisms, and he also makes some errors which tend to get focused on a lot. Just the nature of the player, perhaps.

One thing Ponting certainly does do is lead by example in the bat and in the field. It's part of the job, even if it's not tactical.

 

[Furball]

I'm still baffled as to what Ponting was playing at on the 4th morning.

Every man and his dog knew that India would be after quick runs to declare setting Australia a near impossible total, with as much time as possible to bowl them out.

Ponting aided them superbly by having the field set way back, allowing India to score quickly without any risk whatsoever. It was farcical.

 

[SJS]

I'm still baffled as to what Ponting was playing at on the 4th morning.

Every man and his dog knew that India would be after quick runs to declare setting Australia a near impossible total, with as much time as possible to bowl them out.

Ponting aided them superbly by having the field set way back, allowing India to score quickly without any risk whatsoever. It was farcical.

Exactly and India scored at such a brisk pace not because Sehwag and Gambhir were pelting boundaries and sixes (they scored fewer boundaries than they normally do and no sixes) and still the run rate was 4.35.

It was stupid to have that field besides a solitary slip in the very first over of Brett Lee. Any fast bowler would be put off by such treatment.

 

[Uppercut]

Exactly and India scored at such a brisk pace not because Sehwag and Gambhir were pelting boundaries and sixes (they scored fewer boundaries than they normally do and no sixes) and still the run rate was 4.35.

It was stupid to have that field besides a solitary slip in the very first over of Brett Lee. Any fast bowler would be put off by such treatment.

AWTA. You don't have to cover every boundary to defend, it can just mean having a point instead of a third slip. Ponting went far too defensive, or rather, he went defensive in the wrong way.

 

[Furball]

Not only that, but one thing the Indian middle order has been prone to doing in recent times is collapsing. A couple of early wickets could have changed the game.

Of course, the bowlers could have continued bowling poorly and got smashed around anyways, but Ponting didn't give his bowlers a chance. You can't legislate for poor bowling, but you can at least give them a chance to take wickets.

His treatment of Cameron White was poor as well.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I don't understand a number of ploys that today's captains seem to be using.


I can understand having a sweeper cover and a third man out but don't understand why the square leg and fine leg have to be out deep too. Plus, it was a 5-4 field with a midwicket and mid on as well... You only had 3 guys on the offside saving the singe and as such, it was basically an easy single every time the batsman played square of the wicket. The whole point of defensive field setting is to frustrate the batsman into doing something stupid because the runs are not coming. You are not going to choke them out of runs with that field setting...


It would be a lot better to have a 6-3 field, ask your bowler to maintain an outside the offstump line as much as possible, put the sweeper cover and third man and fine leg out, have the square leg and mid on and have a ring of 4 on the covers area. That way, the batsmen are choked of singles unless they play fine to third man or their really good shot, piercing the 4 man ring, will still get them only a single.. Need to take the risk about the onside field placing for it all to work though...


Also, what is up with setting everyone back when a batsman (even if he is just in) is batting with a tailender?? I mean, you won't do it if it was a batsman at the other end too, so then why do it just because it is a tailender at the other end???



This is not just about Ponting but about most of today's captains, including Kumble and even Dhoni...

 

[aussie]

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.

Pure hindsight that...

 

[Richard]

I don't really think it is. TBH, I'd not have been keen on fielding first on that pitch even with McGrath in the team - it slipped onto the bat so nicely that even he'd have struggled to contain (I reckon he'd have conceded 3.5-an-over or so in likelihood). Yet it also had a spot of unevenness and was only going to get worse. But every bowler, all through the game, conceded runs at a hefty rate.

Had Australia batted first, of course, the result could perfectly possibly have been the same, as England were easily the better side. But that opening day's play proved so pivotal as a pendulum shift - even let's say had England done the exact same thing batting second, it'd not have been quite so spectacular and who knows, may not have had the buoying effect it turned-out to have.