Pontings captaincy

[tooextracool]

Showing your grasp of basic arithmatic.

have you heard of a typo?
or did you just not see how in the very next sentence i actually said 'all 3 of them'

 

[luckyeddie]

Showing your grasp of basic arithmatic.

Ahem....... Arithmetic

 

[tooextracool]

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..

they may have been the best but they didnt have much to show for it did they?
they lost 2 of the hardest tours in world cricket and won the easy ones.

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..

and as ive said before, there wasnt extraordinary performances in every test match which australia lost in those series. there was extraordinary performances in one test match, and steve waugh wasnt capable of raising his side's performance for the rest of 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.

the main argument is about waugh's captaincy. unless you seem to think that ponting is a better ODI captain than waugh

 

[tooextracool]

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

They did not rely on Walsh and Amrbose.

gives a lot of credibility to your argument when you cant spell.

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.

Lara didnt win the series on his own. it required some inept batting from australia to give WI the chance to win those games in the first place.

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

no, it was rated as a 50/50 chance by people who were under the misconception that the SA side was still very good. they werent. the side that played australia in 01/02 was quite different from the one that was having an incredible amount of success in the late 90s - early 2000s. for one thing, they didnt have hansie cronje as their captain. donald was pretty much finished. pollock was past his prime. Lance klusener for some reason was no longer the same player. daryl cullinan was gone. jonty rhodes was gone.
those are big voids to fill, and the likes of mckenzie, dippenaar, hayward and ontong are not fit to worship the ground on which those players walk on.

 

[Sanz]

gives a lot of credibility to your argument when you cant spell.

I cant believe you posted this especially you yourself posted this couple of posts earlier.

 

[Jamee999]

I actually just can't spell Sanz, but keep that quiet.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

That's not how it works though - the establishment of the Australian Cricket Academy in the mid to late 1980s is the major factor in the production of these players that you're talking about, not Border. This is the same Border who "valued" the Australian captaincy so highly that he threatened to quit numerous times throughout his tenure. And to credit him with bringing in players is pretty much completely false - the final decision in all of Australia's selections goes down to the selectors themselves, not the captain.

 

[tooextracool]

I cant believe you posted this especially you yourself posted this couple of posts earlier.

because accidentally typing '2' instead of '3' proves that i cant spell

 

[Jamee999]

He thought that I had made a typo, you see.

 

[Sanz]

because accidentally typing '2' instead of '3' proves that i cant spell

No, that means you dont know the difference between 2 & 3.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's not how it works though - the establishment of the Australian Cricket Academy in the mid to late 1980s is the major factor in the production of these players that you're talking about, not Border. This is the same Border who "valued" the Australian captaincy so highly that he threatened to quit numerous times throughout his tenure. And to credit him with bringing in players is pretty much completely false - the final decision in all of Australia's selections goes down to the selectors themselves, not the captain.

If anything, Bobby Simpson was a far larger influence on Australian cricket as a whole.

 

[deeps]

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

Well if it doesnt change the fact, then all 3 are still in the side. Mcgrath and Warne are still bowling extremely well.

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.

Williams was in excellent form at the time, and was opening the bowling ahead of Gillespie. He missed, not due to rotation policy, but due to a broken thumb.

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.

You said yourself, that the SA team, is not half the team it was before. Especially at the time that punter took the team there after the VB series.

 

[deeps]

they may have been the best but they didnt have much to show for it did they?
they lost 2 of the hardest tours in world cricket and won the easy ones.

being considered the best, if not second best side ever (only second to the invicibles), a world record winning streak in test matches, are just a few feathers in waugh's cap.

and as ive said before, there wasnt extraordinary performances in every test match which australia lost in those series. there was extraordinary performances in one test match, and steve waugh wasnt capable of raising his side's performance for the rest of the series.

Agreed, that if there was an extraordinary performance, ie. Laxman and Dravid 2nd test, or Lara 2nd test, the 3rd test would take some really good, but not superhuman effort to beat the aussies. They seemed drained from the ordeal on both occasions. And i've said before, the SL series should not count, as it was rained out and it was ONE test match.

the main argument is about waugh's captaincy. unless you seem to think that ponting is a better ODI captain than waugh

No, i think anyone could captain a one day side. Yes, tactics are involved, and you need some nous etc. but it's not all that much imo.

 

[deeps]

gives a lot of credibility to your argument when you cant spell.

it was a tongue in cheek comment, hence i put the :P after.

Lara didnt win the series on his own. it required some inept batting from australia to give WI the chance to win those games in the first place.

you'll find, that After Lara's great innings, that Australia had alot to do, to actually win the game. They could have played for the draw, but they went for the win. This was due to waugh's "win at all costs" attitude. This time, it obviously didn't work, as they went on to lose the match, but at least it gave a result, and they played positive.

no, it was rated as a 50/50 chance by people who were under the misconception that the SA side was still very good. they werent. the side that played australia in 01/02 was quite different from the one that was having an incredible amount of success in the late 90s - early 2000s. for one thing, they didnt have hansie cronje as their captain. donald was pretty much finished. pollock was past his prime. Lance klusener for some reason was no longer the same player. daryl cullinan was gone. jonty rhodes was gone.
those are big voids to fill, and the likes of mckenzie, dippenaar, hayward and ontong are not fit to worship the ground on which those players walk on.

agree, that the SA side from 96ish, was alot better, than the side of 01/02, but the 01/02 was still quiet good.

 

[deeps]

That's not how it works though - the establishment of the Australian Cricket Academy in the mid to late 1980s is the major factor in the production of these players that you're talking about, not Border. This is the same Border who "valued" the Australian captaincy so highly that he threatened to quit numerous times throughout his tenure. And to credit him with bringing in players is pretty much completely false - the final decision in all of Australia's selections goes down to the selectors themselves, not the captain.

well, now the captain is part of the selection committee, and they have a big say in who comes in and out. Waugh had alot to do with Lee making the team when he did. There are also a few other players, that he insisted come into the team. It's well documented. I'm not entirely sure if Border was part of the selection committee

 

[vic_orthdox]

well, now the captain is part of the selection committee, and they have a big say in who comes in and out. Waugh had alot to do with Lee making the team when he did. There are also a few other players, that he insisted come into the team. It's well documented. I'm not entirely sure if Border was part of the selection committee

I think even that's been changed in recent times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the touring captain nor coach have any say in selection these days.

 

[deeps]

I think even that's been changed in recent times. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the touring captain nor coach have any say in selection these days.

yeh i think that's true

however during waugh's tenure, i'm positive he was part of the selection committee and pushed for many players and more often than not, he got them

 

[Sanz]

If anything, Bobby Simpson was a far larger influence on Australian cricket as a whole.

No doubt about that and same Bobby Simpson said this about the Australian Cricket Academy :-

"WHILE the world cricketing nations are scurrying to copy the Australian Cricket Academy, back home in Australia, the Australian Cricket Board has set up an enquiry committee to investigate the future of the Australian Cricket Academy.

Surprising, well not really for those who know that the Australian Academy was not responsible for the success of Australian cricket over the past decade, but rather it is a very short term finishing school, which through self publicity and a old mates system has promoted itself beyond what it really has achieved.."

 

[vic_orthdox]

No doubt about that and same Bobby Simpson said this about the Australian Cricket Academy :-

"WHILE the world cricketing nations are scurrying to copy the Australian Cricket Academy, back home in Australia, the Australian Cricket Board has set up an enquiry committee to investigate the future of the Australian Cricket Academy.

Surprising, well not really for those who know that the Australian Academy was not responsible for the success of Australian cricket over the past decade, but rather it is a very short term finishing school, which through self publicity and a old mates system has promoted itself beyond what it really has achieved.."

How old is that quote? It's quite interesting how much the program has changed since, it used to be a whole year scholarship and now there are just two seven week blocks, plus a tour (usually to the sub-continent). Things up there are rather concerning, though - there seems to be no continuity, with staff and coaches leaving very regularly.

I guess it is inevitable that the Academy gets a bit more credit than it really deserves, as many of those players would have ended up playing for Australia even if they hadn't have had an Academy. But I think the ideal of the academy, and creating a system/pathway for the best young cricketers has been integral to the success of the Aus team, ensuring that talent isn't missed.

 

[Sanz]

That's not how it works though - the establishment of the Australian Cricket Academy in the mid to late 1980s is the major factor in the production of these players that you're talking about, not Border. This is the same Border who "valued" the Australian captaincy so highly that he threatened to quit numerous times throughout his tenure. And to credit him with bringing in players is pretty much completely false - the final decision in all of Australia's selections goes down to the selectors themselves, not the captain.

As far as Cricket Academy is concerned, let me tell you that none of the players were picked by it and groomed. All the Academy has done is picked the top performers from the domestic cricket and allowed them to spend 6 months in the academy. Incase you didn't know Players like Warne & Slater were dismissed from the academy because of poor conduct and later claimed as Academy product.

We have a similar useless academy in India(NCA) setup on the same model and does pretty much the same thing and you know what NCA expelled Harbhajan who is India's top spinner right now and NCA takes credit of his development.

As for Border threatening to quit the captaincy, well I dont know if he did it many times, but I am just aware of one time when he threatened to quit after poor performance of his players and It doesn't really mean much as it could have been just a tactic to fire up his players to perform well and you know what sometimes these tactics do work. Even after his retrement Border has been involved with the selction committee and regularly works with the Under 19 Aussie teams.