Pontings captaincy

[tooextracool]

Remember, Waugh captained against the West Indies when they were still a pretty damn good side, and also South Africa when they were considered equal with australia. He took the quality opposition head on, and showed Australia were top..

come off it, the WI side in 99 good? they relied on 2 players- walsh,ambrose and lara and its not like all 3 were in their prime at the start of that series.
as far as SA being quality opposition in 2001 is concerned, that was simply a rumour, because they'd lost pretty much half their side by then. the best SA side that australia played against, was the one in 97/98, which mark taylor captained.

 

[social]

Umm... thats like saying Mark Taylor was a tactical doofus.
He is the one who took the 'pace like fire' to the n-th level and he personally pushed for the inclusion of Holding and Marshall from when they were playing club cricket and barely any FC experience.
He was also extremely adept at rotating his bowlers and he devised the Holding-Marshall partnership, perhaps the deadliest new ball pair to have bowled in the history of this game... took considerable nous, considering that Garner was ahead in seniority stakes.

Lloyd didnt inherit a great side like Punter did, he built it from scratch pretty much. That is the key difference and that is why his genius is widely acclaimed. Bobby Simpson and Imran Khan apart,i dont think there has been anyone who can challenge Lloyd in his tactical nous and bowling changes..... he was simply excellent at figuring out the batsmen's weaknesses and used considerbly different field placements for established batsmen than used ever before. For eg, no one before had tried to choke Greg Chappell's square cut, forgetting that it was his 'confidence shot' and not his silken drives that he was renowned for. Second time around, thats what Lloyd used. Result ? Chappell bombed out.

If you've seen Marshall and Holding's early test matches, you'd know that they were almost fully developed test bowlers on debut, i.e. not a great stretch to include them.

Marshall, in particular, was nominated by Boycott as the best bowler in the West Indies some 12 months prior to making his debut.

Tactics, what tactics? Throw the ball to any of the 6 or 7 95 mph bowlers you have at your disposal and tell them to go for the throat. Unlimited bouncer rule + no minimum no. of overs for the day+great batsmen+happy team (by far, Lloyd's greatest contribution) = world domination for 10 years.

Tactics vs Chappell - the guy wasnt in long enough to play the cut shot (or any other shot for that matter). He got a succession of throat balls and made 4 or 5 ducks in 6 or 7 innings lasting less than 20 balls IN TOTAL.

As I said before, Lloyd's strength was man management not tactics. In fact, on the odd occasion that teams stood up to the Windies juggernaut, he was roundly criticised for having no Plan B at all.

Fortunately for him, he hardly ever needed one.

 

[C_C]

If you've seen Marshall and Holding's early test matches, you'd know that they were almost fully developed test bowlers on debut, i.e. not a great stretch to include them.

Marshall was nowhere close to being fully developed when he made his debut...Him and Imran Khan went from being medium pace bowlers in the mould of Pollock today to extremely fast bowlers in the mould of Waqar Younis in his heydeys.

Tactics, what tactics? Throw the ball to any of the 6 or 7 95 mph bowlers you have at your disposal and tell them to go for the throat. Unlimited bouncer rule + no minimum no. of overs for the day+great batsmen+happy team (by far, Lloyd's greatest contribution) = world domination for 10 years.

That is world domination for almost 20 years, not 10 ( lost 1 series between 1975 and 1994)
And you forget, this isnt like throwing the ball to established alltime bowlers like Ponting does, apart from Roberts, all of them were newbies under Lloyd who Lloyd had to develop and figure out the conditions that would suit them and all that pizzazz.


Oh and regarding Chappell's horror run, i wasnt speaking about that. The next series Gregory played against WI was in 1979/80, where he scored a ton and a fifty in the first test and then Lloyd neutralised him by choking his runs through the square cut.
Next four innings, he scratched around and square cut it straight to a fielder and then got out.
Gregory's horror run was in 81/82, where he scored 18 runs and 3 ducks in 5 innings.

 

[social]

Marshall was nowhere close to being fully developed when he made his debut...Him and Imran Khan went from being medium pace bowlers in the mould of Pollock today to extremely fast bowlers in the mould of Waqar Younis in his heydeys.



That is world domination for almost 20 years, not 10 ( lost 1 series between 1975 and 1994)
And you forget, this isnt like throwing the ball to established alltime bowlers like Ponting does, apart from Roberts, all of them were newbies under Lloyd who Lloyd had to develop and figure out the conditions that would suit them and all that pizzazz.


Oh and regarding Chappell's horror run, i wasnt speaking about that. The next series Gregory played against WI was in 1979/80, where he scored a ton and a fifty in the first test and then Lloyd neutralised him by choking his runs through the square cut.
Next four innings, he scratched around and square cut it straight to a fielder and then got out.
Gregory's horror run was in 81/82, where he scored 18 runs and 3 ducks in 5 innings.

Marshall played 1 or 2 tests when he was 18 or 19 and came back as the finished article 12 to 18 months later.

Holding had all the tools but was thrown in vs Aus in 75/76 and struggled a little bit on the mental side but went on to smash Eng months later with another new boy, Daniel.

Garner and Croft came in with no experience against Pakistan and immediately struck fear into their batsmen - I think Croft took 8/30 or so in one innings - and they were not a bad side at all.

The point is, there have really only been 2 captains in WI history (Lloyd and Worrell) that have got the players together as a unit. For that alone, Lloyd should be held in the highest esteem. But with the players he had at his disposal, anything more than the most fundamental tactics were largely superfluous.

BTW, Chappell's run of outs in the earlier series included a couple of ducks in the ODIs.

Cant really remember 79-80, so I'll take your word for it but the fact that GSC was restricted to cut shots is indicative of the hold their bowlers had over him.

 

[deeps]

Yeah right !! Warnie was lowest during the india series under Mark Taylor not under Steve Waugh. And making a sweeping statement like 'It takes an excellent performance' doesn't work with me, they were a great team and obviously it will take great performances to beat them. And I dont know how it proves that he was a great captain.

Warne was actually dropped from the test side for the only time in his career, in that series in the west indies.. how can you say that was not the lowest point in his career. Never mind what you think, here it is from the man himself

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/odd-turn-to-warne-career/2005/08/13/1123353542047.html

and it is not merely a sweeping statement, saying that it takes a super human effort to beat waugh's aussies. Except of course for the dead rubber syndrome which plagued Waugh's aussies, you will be hard pressed to find a loss by the team, that did not involve a member or two of the opposition doing something extraordinary.

Border didn't tour India with the greatest team of decade and with bowlers like Mcgrath/warne/Gillespie etc. Ye Border didn't lose the test series in India, Waugh did. Not only that Waugh even failed to win the series against India in Australia without Mcgrath.

Waugh had bowlers like Damian Fleming, Michael Kasprowicz, paul Reiffel, Andy Bichel etc. as well as Mcgrath, Gillespie and Warne. Border had Mcdermott, Hughes etc. The team being the greatest team of the decade had ALOT to do with waugh. It wasn't merely a coincidence

Waugh lost the series in india due to the extra-ordinary performance of Laxman and Dravid. If you say that their performance was nothing short of super human, then we may as well end this discussion here

 

[aussie]

CC & Social hold old are you 2, you 2 are arguing about some olddddd stuff here

 

[deeps]

umm last i checked not too many sides have 3 world class bowlers amongst their ranks, let alone the fact that all 3 were at the peak of their powers and 2 were/are all time greats.

True, though to say Warne was at the peak of his powers is wrong. And the pitches being heavily spinner friendly was not helpful to Mcgrath nor Gillespie

actually if australia hadnt screwed up so miserably and fallen to every one of NZs traps, they would not have been in that position ITFP.

In their 2nd match, they were missing Mcgrath and Brad Williams, who were the opening bowlers for Australia at the time. Williams did not play again in the series, as he had a broken thumb. Not making excuses though, that was a series they should have won.

no waughs side may not have lost to bangladesh, but they certainly managed to lose to both SL and india in the subcontinent, despite having a superior side in both series.

beating india in india has long been considered one of the hardest tasks in cricket. Not many teams have been able to do it until very recently, due to india struggling more than anything else. The SL series, was 1 match. the other 2 were rained out. Didnt really give australia much of an opportunity, so i don't think that should be used as an argument. and again, the india series was won off the bat of Dravid and Laxman. Simply brilliant batting.

I never said they were unbeatable..i said almost unbeatable, and if they are to be beaten, it takes almost always takes a superhuman effort. I am referring of course to test matches when i say that.

 

[deeps]

actually he inherited what was already the best side in the world, that maintained its standard, only for the rest of the teams around the world to get worse. to say that it went up to 9.5/10 under waugh, despite the fact that they couldnt win in india, SL or in the WI in 99 is ludicrous. and i for one find it especially strange that if australias side got worse under ponting how did they thrash SA in SA in the ODI series just after having a miserable time in the vb series, and how in the world did they go through the entire world cup undefeated.

Waugh inherited the best side in the world, and made it BY FAR the best side in the world. Taylors australians were number 1, but not by much. Waugh's australians were by far the best.

Already explained the india and SL losses, and again, in the West Indies, it was pure brilliance by Brian Lara that stopped Australia from winning. See the pattern? It's always been some brilliant extraordinary performance, that has stole the series.

You talk about the VB series in SA and the world cup undefeated, the main argument was began about test matches though it wasn't very clearly specified.

 

[deeps]

come off it, the WI side in 99 good? they relied on 2 players- walsh,ambrose and lara and its not like all 3 were in their prime at the start of that series.
as far as SA being quality opposition in 2001 is concerned, that was simply a rumour, because they'd lost pretty much half their side by then. the best SA side that australia played against, was the one in 97/98, which mark taylor captained.

gives alot of credibility to your argument when u can't count :P

They did not rely on Walsh and Amrbose. They relied on Lara. I never said that the west indies in 99 were good. I said it was due to the hercuelean effort of bcl, that won the series for australia.


as to say it was merely a rumour... That's bs. South Africa was playing some awesome cricket and were beating everyone around the world as well. Going into the series, it was rated a 50/50 chance

 

[social]

CC & Social hold old are you 2, you 2 are arguing about some olddddd stuff here

Put a dvd of the windies into your PS2, Junior.

Aside from a weakness against spin on turning wickets (basically because they were hardly ever exposed to it), they were unbelievable and even their fielding was 10 - 15 years ahead of its time.

Think faster, smarter, more consistent versions of Harmy at his best but with stamina and the ability to bowl as many bouncers as they liked without having to worry about over rates and * 4. Then back that up with brilliant fielding and some great batsmen.

 

[Sanz]

Warne was actually dropped from the test side for the only time in his career, in that series in the west indies.. how can you say that was not the lowest point in his career. Never mind what you think, here it is from the man himself

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/odd-turn-to-warne-career/2005/08/13/1123353542047.html

It was Steve Waugh's first series and Warnie was dropped for only one test after being hammered by Brian Lara and his team. Apart from that Warnie was part of almost every series win under Steve Waugh except the home series against WI because he broke his finger in a domestic game. So to say that Warnie was at his worst under Steve Waugh is utterly ridiculous.

and it is not merely a sweeping statement, saying that it takes a super human effort to beat waugh's aussies. Except of course for the dead rubber syndrome which plagued Waugh's aussies, you will be hard pressed to find a loss by the team, that did not involve a member or two of the opposition doing something extraordinary.

??? WTF ? Why do you have keep repeating this ? I mean how about If I make a stupid statement like India were beaten by australia in almost every test only because of super human effort by some players ? Like in Banglore 98, due to KAsper's effort in second inning, at Adelaide 1999-00 S Waugh came at 50/4 and when he was finally out, aussie score was 400+, or the double century by Langer @ Sydney, or in Mumbai Gilchrist coming in @ 99/5 and hammering a century in 90 balls along with Hayden or Ponting's double century at Melbourne. It's really a ridiculous logic.

Waugh had bowlers like Damian Fleming, Michael Kasprowicz, paul Reiffel, Andy Bichel etc. as well as Mcgrath, Gillespie and Warne. Border had Mcdermott, Hughes etc. The team being the greatest team of the decade had ALOT to do with waugh. It wasn't merely a coincidence

Yes it wasn't a co-incidence that all these players were drafted by Border. Border left a great world class talent pool for Taylor/Waugh. Of Course Waugh was the reason , but Waugh the batsman not Waugh the captain.

Waugh lost the series in india due to the extra-ordinary performance of Laxman and Dravid. If you say that their performance was nothing short of super human, then we may as well end this discussion here

Dude If you think that Gilchrist's effort at Mumbai after Aus were 99/5 wasn't extra-ordinary then yeah feel free to drop this discussion right now. If India won @ Calcutta due to VVS's effort, then Mumbai test win was because of Gilchrist's effort. Now What did VVS do at Chennai ??

 

[Sanz]

Just because you do not agree with mental disintegration, doesn't mean he's a bad captain. He has a great disciplinary record, and played within the rules. If someone gave him flak, he was ready to give it back. It didn't matter who it was. Curtly Ambrose or Harbajan Singh, he would speak his mind.

That's utter crap. It is a well documented fact that Aussie team under Waugh could dish out abuses but couldn't take. Dont make it sound as if it was other way round.

Yes, ponting's record is good, but he really hasn't captained many games against a quality opposition.

Ponting has lost only 2 tests one by 13 runs @ Mumbai, the other at Edgbaston by 2 runs. And If Ponting hasn't captained against a quality opposition then let me say this Waugh didn't play against any quality opposition either (Except SA)

Remember, Waugh captained against the West Indies when they were still a pretty damn good side, and also South Africa when they were considered equal with australia. He took the quality opposition head on, and showed Australia were top.

Waugh didn't win against WI when they were on top, it was only in 2000 under Padams that Waugh was able to beat WI. SA yes they were quality opposition but that's it.

Atm, England are rated as high as South Africa was back then, and Pontings team is crumbling. They have a severe lack of spirit, seem to have lost enthusiasm and dont' have that killer instinct. Ponting has not been able to get the Australians up mentally. Waugh was a master at this. Second to none, even Taylor and Border included.

Ponting's team is crumbling ?? Let me see Hayden, Gillespie, Mcgrath, Warnie all are aging and it is Ponting's fault, isn't it ?

 

[honestbharani]

It was Steve Waugh's first series and Warnie was dropped for only one test after being hammered by Brian Lara and his team. Apart from that Warnie was part of almost every series win under Steve Waugh except the home series against WI because he broke his finger in a domestic game. So to say that Warnie was at his worst under Steve Waugh is utterly ridiculous.



??? WTF ? Why do you have keep repeating this ? I mean how about If I make a stupid statement like India were beaten by australia in almost every test only because of super human effort by some players ? Like in Banglore 98, due to KAsper's effort in second inning, at Adelaide 1999-00 S Waugh came at 50/4 and when he was finally out, aussie score was 400+, or the double century by Langer @ Sydney, or in Mumbai Gilchrist coming in @ 99/5 and hammering a century in 90 balls along with Hayden or Ponting's double century at Melbourne. It's really a ridiculous logic.



Yes it wasn't a co-incidence that all these players were drafted by Border. Border left a great world class talent pool for Taylor/Waugh. Of Course Waugh was the reason , but Waugh the batsman not Waugh the captain.



Dude If you think that Gilchrist's effort at Mumbai after Aus were 99/5 wasn't extra-ordinary then yeah feel free to drop this discussion right now. If India won @ Calcutta due to VVS's effort, then Mumbai test win was because of Gilchrist's effort. Now What did VVS do at Chennai ??

Scored a couple of very vital 69s.

 

[Slow Love™]

actually to put taylors loss in india to the same level as waughs loss in india in 2001 is unfair. taylors bowling attack was seriously depleted, so much so that they toured india with kasparowicz as their main strike bowler. there was no glenn mcgrath, and there was no jason gillespie. instead there was paul wilson, adam dale, gavin robertson and paul reiffel.

Yes, although I guess we also got creamed back in '96 in the one-off test over there with McGrath. But my point wasn't to have a go at Taylor on this basis (because I've already said I consider Taylor a better captain than Waugh anyway), but to make the point that India hadn't been a happy hunting ground for Australia for decades. And Waugh did come perilously close to winning there.

 

[Slow Love™]

Continuing from my comments regarding Buchanan's accountability, Ian Healy has just had some words on this very subject. Of particular interest are his comments related to the dropped catches, going back to 2001 and the decline in fielding/catching drills.

Perhaps they ate into the time reseved for Sun Tzu lectures.

Ian Healy - Too many catches going down

 

[Slow Love™]

It was Steve Waugh's first series and Warnie was dropped for only one test after being hammered by Brian Lara and his team. Apart from that Warnie was part of almost every series win under Steve Waugh except the home series against WI because he broke his finger in a domestic game. So to say that Warnie was at his worst under Steve Waugh is utterly ridiculous.

I don't really know why you appear to be so drastically misunderstanding this. You seem to be saying that Warne was at his lowest against India under Taylor, and deeps is saying (and I agree) that he was at his lowest in the Caribbean under Waugh. I don't believe that he is saying that Warne was generally at his worst under Waugh. Given that it was the only time he was ever dropped from the side for poor form and his confidence was shattered to the point of contemplating retirement, it seems a fair comment.

 

[Sanz]

Well Deeps said "Warne was far from his peak, and was probably at his lowest ever in his entire illustrious career." and it gave the impression that Warne was at his worst during Steve Waugh's entire tenure as opposed to just the tour of WI.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, although I guess we also got creamed back in '96 in the one-off test over there with McGrath. .

and even that one included a seriously depleted bowling attack which was nowhere near the quality of bowling which waugh went in with in the series in 01.

But my point wasn't to have a go at Taylor on this basis (because I've already said I consider Taylor a better captain than Waugh anyway), but to make the point that India hadn't been a happy hunting ground for Australia for decades. And Waugh did come perilously close to winning there.

but the point is that waugh easily had the better side compared to both taylor and border, especially compared to the ones that toured india. waugh's side was considered to be one of the best of all time, and it couldnt beat india in india.

 

[Jamee999]

come off it, the WI side in 99 good? they relied on 2 players- walsh,ambrose and lara .

Showing your grasp of basic arithmatic.

 

[tooextracool]

True, though to say Warne was at the peak of his powers is wrong. And the pitches being heavily spinner friendly was not helpful to Mcgrath nor Gillespie

mcgrath and gillespie are good enough to succeed on any wicket, and it doesnt change the fact that all 3 are world class.

In their 2nd match, they were missing Mcgrath and Brad Williams, who were the opening bowlers for Australia at the time. Williams did not play again in the series, as he had a broken thumb. Not making excuses though, that was a series they should have won.

umm brad williams? brad williams was part of the silly rotation policy that they followed. brad williams maybe a fairly decent ODI bowler, but hes no better than gillespie, mcgrath, lee, bichel or warne and 4 out of those 5 bowlers were involved in every one of the losses to NZ.
if you ask me that australian bowling attack is far better than the one thats playing ATM. and lets not forget that ponting went into the SA series with precisely the same bowling attack and absolutely destroyed SA.

beating india in india has long been considered one of the hardest tasks in cricket. Not many teams have been able to do it until very recently, due to india struggling more than anything else. The SL series, was 1 match. the other 2 were rained out. Didnt really give australia much of an opportunity, so i don't think that should be used as an argument. and again, the india series was won off the bat of Dravid and Laxman. Simply brilliant batting..

and great players will always perform. theres no excuse for losing to SL, india, or the WI at the time.
i do find it a bit odd that every time waugh came up against a quality opponent, his team lost.

I never said they were unbeatable..i said almost unbeatable, and if they are to be beaten, it takes almost always takes a superhuman effort. I am referring of course to test matches when i say that.

there was no superhuman effort in the 3rd test in india, nor was there a super human effort in SL. and really if australia had batted well enough in that 2nd test match, they might well have come out with a draw.