Pontings captaincy

[Sanz]

How can Waugh be blamed if there's not the replacements coming through?

Tait, Hussey, Clark etc aren't new comers ? If waugh had his way Lehman would still be playing.

 

[marc71178]

So how many of those newcomers are Test successes then (hint it's less than 1)

And how is that Steve Waugh's fault?

 

[deeps]

Steve Waugh inherited a great team, what has he left for the future ? Under him Aussie were the worst behaved team in the world. I haven't watched him much except against India and to be frank I wasn't impressed and I dont think he was better than Ponting.

waugh merely inherited a good team. Had talent, and won more than they lost. However it was only after Waugh became captain, that the side was compared with the invincibles. The 16 in a row, and all that jazz all came to after waugh took over the captaincy.

Until then, they were a very good team, but they were susceptible to losing. Under waugh, they were almost unbeatable

 

[social]

I dont think Ponting is hopeless, but he is rather ordinary.

Oh and win-loss record as a captain means zilch. Clive LLoyd was one of the greatest captains ever in the game and Ritchie Richardson one of the poorest.
Stick Richardson into the invincibles side and Lloyd into current-day Zimbabwe and i dont think anyone would argue that Ritchie would have a record far superior to that of Lloyd.

Lloyd was a great man manager but tactically had literally nothing to do.

He simply threw the ball to any of 7 or 8 great fast bowlers and stacked everyone around the bat except cover and fine leg.

When it came to batting, he had a top class line-up including one of the best opening pairs ever and possibly the 2nd greatest batman ever, all playing at their peak.

His skill was in being being able to cause a group of unbelievably talented individuals from disparate island nations to take the field with a common goal. Once over the ropes, my cat could have captained that side to victory.

 

[deeps]

yea i agree totally TEC, because Big Waugh had a great bowling attack he looked such a superb skipper that his last test series againts India showd that he wasn' that great after all & aslo has you pointed out the 2001 VB series. Well isn't that a strange coincidence in both Waugh's last series has TEST & ODI skipper he showed that he wasn't such a superb leader after all

Allan Border & Mark Taylor were top class skippers for sure

Waugh had a great bowling attack? He had Mcgrath, Warne, Gillespie.. then he had the in's and outs : Lee, Bichel, Macgill, not to mention countless others that came in and out of the side. Most of those bowlers are still available and playing good cricket

His last test series, he was under pressure himself, and was missing two of his world class bowlers in Mcgrath and Warne. Take the two frontline bowlers out of any side and they will struggle.

If you remember correctly, in the 2001 VB Series, the two other teams played in such a manner that australia would not make the finals. I believe New zealand it was, slowed down their game, so that they would not get the bonus point, which would allow australia into the finals. So really, if not for these tactics, they would have made the finals.

Moreover, Waugh was a proven captain, who had one series that wasn't up to the high standard of the other series he'd captained. This is seen as a blemish on his career captaincy, but remember, there wasnt any TERRIBLE series under his tenure. Neither was there any losses to Bangladesh, which would have been simply unheard off under Waugh

 

[deeps]

if ricky ponting has benefitted from the efforts put into the side by steve waugh, then steve waugh benefitted even further from the influence that mark taylor had on the australian side.

again, he inherited a decent side and made it into a great side. he did not inherit a great side.

If the Australian side was rated 8/10 under border, it only went up under waugh. say 9.5/10.. under punter, it's gone back to 8/10

Surely Waugh must've done something right to get the side up that little bit more

 

[deeps]

Waugh's tended to occur when his bowlers failed and he was on the receiving end of some absolutely memorable and game-turning knocks, or on tracks that were very bat-friendly (against India at home in 03/04 being a good example, being without his two top bowlers and having Lee in such terrible form). In general, his handling of his bowlers was actually very good, and he gave off the vibe that he knew what he was doing. He also seemed to react to events in front of him more. Certainly, we didn't require a rush of senior players to defend him in the press and insist that he was consulting with them as often as possible, and they were helping in every way they could.

It more often than not, took a monumental innings from one of the opposition batsman, to beat australia. Laxman and Dravid for example. It always took something extra special. A normal century, or even a 150 wouldn't be enough to beat Waugh's australia

 

[social]

again, he inherited a decent side and made it into a great side. he did not inherit a great side.

If the Australian side was rated 8/10 under border, it only went up under waugh. say 9.5/10.. under punter, it's gone back to 8/10

Surely Waugh must've done something right to get the side up that little bit more

IMO, Waugh should've inherited the captaincy from Border - it's well chronicled why he didnt and much of the issue was for reasons outside the ropes.

Taylor and Waugh both had the advantage of captaining sides containing great players and made the most of their abilities.

Ponting has the same advantage but the players are older and possibly past their best to some degree.

Despite this, he has compiled an extremely impressive captaincy record albeit from a limited number of matches (ODIs excepted).

Ponting has definitely made a number of mistakes in this series but neither Taylor or Waugh were faultless either.

However, Ponting has been unfortunate enough to make these mistakes in an Ashes series and in situations where his team is being out-played. As such, the mistakes have proven more costly than they might otherwise have been and have been focused upon to a greater degree.

It will be interesting to see whether the OT result and, in particular, his contribution to it will inspire his captaincy and his players' support of him.

 

[Sanz]

waugh merely inherited a good team. Had talent, and won more than they lost. However it was only after Waugh became captain, that the side was compared with the invincibles. The 16 in a row, and all that jazz all came to after waugh took over the captaincy.

Until then, they were a very good team, but they were susceptible to losing. Under waugh, they were almost unbeatable

Unbeatable ?? How many series win did Waugh have in India, SL ? Waugh failed to win a series in WI when Ambrose/Walsh were playing. It was only after their retirement he was able to win against WI. He had Mcgrath/Gillespie/Warnie at their peak. Waugh failed to win the series against India at home.

 

[Slow Love™]

I think Steve Waugh was a better player than Border but as captain he was no where near. Border took over the worst Aussie team and made them World Champions. Australia are still reaping the benefits of the players drafted by him(First as captain then as selector).

Steve Waugh inherited a great team, what has he left for the future ? Under him Aussie were the worst behaved team in the world. I haven't watched him much except against India and to be frank I wasn't impressed and I dont think he was better than Ponting.

Border's influence on the game overall has been immense. He had a very, very long career, and was a well-liked, nuggety character.

But I really don't see what you are talking about regarding Border's captaincy skills. He was extremely defensive, lacked imagination, and this is pretty much how everybody saw him upon his retirement, although he had everybody's respect as a player (and person). Australia improved quite a bit over time, but let's remember, his was a very long tenure, and we had a lot of failure over those years. Waugh had as much to do with us becoming world champions as anybody (and we didn't really become world champions until Taylor's time, unless you are just talking about the '87 World Cup).

Yes, Waugh came in with a powerful side, and he knew it, and his tactics changed test cricket radically. It all obviously seems very blase to everybody now, but at the time it was considered revolutionary. That combined with his obvious leadership qualities, the respect he commanded and his fostering of talents still in the side now (even if Hayden is in rapid decline) as well as his regular ability to lead by example counts for a lot in my book. And like it or not, the concept of mental disintegration was extremely effective (and it's this, I believe, that's caused some of the refusal to acknowledge his talents as time has passed). The constant maligning of his name - as a batsman as well as captain - since he's left the scene is a real source of frustration for me, because I think he was genuinely one of the greats of the game.

Another source of frustration is the repeated implication in these parts by some that somebody who has a powerful team can't be a good captain, or that somebody who oversees an improvement in results with an ordinary team must be good. Surely what people actually see in front of them should have more to do with their opinions? In some ways it seems to follow a compatible logic to the "your batters can't be the best in the world because they don't face their own bowlers and vice versa" argument.

 

[Sanz]

If the Australian side was rated 8/10 under border, it only went up under waugh. say 9.5/10.. under punter, it's gone back to 8/10

How so ?? Because of one ashes test loss ? Ponting won a series in India, SL(3-0) I dont remember any team beating SL 3-0 in SL. He lost one test against by 2 runs and he suddenly becomes worse than Waugh ?

 

[Anil]

again, he inherited a decent side and made it into a great side. he did not inherit a great side.

If the Australian side was rated 8/10 under border, it only went up under waugh. say 9.5/10.. under punter, it's gone back to 8/10

Surely Waugh must've done something right to get the side up that little bit more

mark taylor made the australian side great, steve waugh to his credit carried on the traditions and the team even made some improvements under him, but he wasn't half the captain taylor was....

 

[Slow Love™]

Unbeatable ?? How many series win did Waugh have in India, SL ? Waugh failed to win a series in WI when Ambrose/Walsh were playing. It was only after their retirement he was able to win against WI. He had Mcgrath/Gillespie/Warnie at their peak. Waugh failed to win the series against India at home.

Well, he did say almost unbeatable, and during a particular run of form, they were considered that.

As to Waugh's failure in his first series away, he most definitely did NOT have Warne at the height of his powers that tour. It's well-documented how close Warne came to retirement after his poor form and subsequent drop from the side in the Caribbean. And really, the reason Australia didn't win that series came down far more to herculean efforts by Brian Lara than Ambrose and Walsh (who got savaged by Waugh's Australians a year and a half later). Certainly they didn't shut us down the series previous.

Also, Sri Lanka? Well, yeah - we lost a test, and the next two were rained out to draws.

Waugh did have problems in India, but to be fair, so did Taylor, and Australia hadn't won a series there for around thirty years. He certainly managed to take care of South Africa home and away during a period where they were definitely a big challenge for the number one spot.

 

[Sanz]

Yes, Waugh came in with a powerful side, and he knew it, and his tactics changed test cricket radically. It all obviously seems very blase to everybody now, but at the time it was considered revolutionary. That combined with his obvious leadership qualities, the respect he commanded and his fostering of talents still in the side now (even if Hayden is in rapid decline) as well as his regular ability to lead by example counts for a lot in my book. And like it or not, the concept of mental disintegration was extremely effective (and it's this, I believe, that's caused some of the refusal to acknowledge his talents as time has passed). The constant maligning of his name - as a batsman as well as captain - since he's left the scene is a real source of frustration for me, because I think he was genuinely one of the greats of the game.

I dont think I have ever questioned Steve Waugh's greatness or have tried to malign his name (not that I could). He was/is one of the greatest cricketers I have watched. Btw I dont believe there is any conspiracy going on to malign his name.

But I simply dont consider him a great leade based on the 2 series I watched. I do not agree with his mental disintegration either, in the name of mental disintegration his players abused opposition players, heckled them and he stood aloof or defended them most of the time and at other times he even encouraged them. I dont care how effective it was. Yes he led by example, but so is Ponting. Under ponting Aus have lost only 2 tests one in Mumbai and the other at Edgbaston one by 13 runs, the other by 2 runs.

 

[Adamc]

How so ?? Because of one ashes test loss ? Ponting won a series in India, SL(3-0) I dont remember any team beating SL 3-0 in SL. He lost one test against by 2 runs and he suddenly becomes worse than Waugh ?

It's worth pointing out that Gilchrist captained Australia during the first three Tests in India - Ponting captained the last Test, which was their only loss of the series.

 

[Sanz]

But I really don't see what you are talking about regarding Border's captaincy skills. He was extremely defensive, lacked imagination, and this is pretty much how everybody saw him upon his retirement, although he had everybody's respect as a player (and person). Australia improved quite a bit over time, but let's remember, his was a very long tenure, and we had a lot of failure over those years. Waugh had as much to do with us becoming world champions as anybody (and we didn't really become world champions until Taylor's time, unless you are just talking about the '87 World Cup).

To be fair, Border played against much stronger teams and with much lesser talents compared to Waugh/Talor.

 

[Sanz]

It's worth pointing out that Gilchrist captained Australia during the first three Tests in India - Ponting captained the last Test, which was their only loss of the series.

Well, it was still Ponting's team

 

[Adamc]

Well, it was still Ponting's team

Doesn't alter the fact that Gilchrist was on the field the whole time, and in charge of all the on-field decisions. I'm sure there was some input from Ponting, Buchanan and co., but Gilchrist was the captain, Ponting wasn't.

 

[Slow Love™]

I dont think I have ever questioned Steve Waugh's greatness or have tried to malign his name (not that I could). He was/is one of the greatest cricketers I have watched. Btw I dont believe there is any conspiracy going on to malign his name.

Sorry, mate, the "maligning of his name" was a general comment, and not directed specifically at you. I don't believe there's a conspiracy, but I do believe his captaincy record (and motivations as a player - I have frequently seen him derided as a "selfish" batsman) is unfairly treated.

To be fair, Border played against much stronger teams and with much lesser talents compared to Waugh/Talor.

Sure, and I haven't argued otherwise. I'm just trying to bring a little more to the discussion (in terms of my observed positives or negatives to their captaincies) than "well, he had a powerful side" or "well, he started with a weak team, and...".

 

[luckyeddie]

Once over the ropes, my cat could have captained that side to victory.

At last, Australia have found the natural successor to Waugh - Ricky can play as a batsman alone.

LE's Aussie team for Trent Bridge...

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Social's Cat(ish)*
Clarke
Adam's Goldfish
Warne
Lee
Kasprowicz
McGrath