Ricky Ponting should be sacked

[Top_Cat]

Been wondering about something and excuse me if it's already been discussed earlier in the thread but imagine you're Ricky Ponting at tea and your team has wrested back some momentum. You're well aware you're behind in overs and have just been warned for it. You know you'll miss a Test and, as stated in the article below, that was Ricky's primary fear.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/11/2415982.htm?section=sport

You also know that if you bowl India out relatively soon after tea, it won't matter anyway. So why would you bowl part-timers if you knew bowling India out would negate the possibility of being penalised for over-rates?

I reckon Ponting, deep down, didn't think his bowlers had it in them to bowl India out in time. He's been guilty of not backing his bowlers before so this isn't new and with one quick feeling under the weather you could say his worries weren't unfounded but, to me, this is more damning of his captaincy than his worrying about a suspension in some ways.

 

[Precambrian]

Been wondering about something and excuse me if it's already been discussed earlier in the thread but imagine you're Ricky Ponting at tea and your team has wrested back some momentum. You're well aware you're behind in overs and have just been warned for it. You know you'll miss a Test and, as stated in the article below, that was Ricky's primary fear.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/11/2415982.htm?section=sport

You also know that if you bowl India out relatively soon after tea, it won't matter anyway. So why would you bowl part-timers if you knew bowling India out would negate the possibility of being penalised for over-rates?

I reckon Ponting, deep down, didn't think his bowlers had it in them to bowl India out in time. He's been guilty of not backing his bowlers before so this isn't new and with one quick feeling under the weather you could say his worries weren't unfounded but, to me, this is more damning of his captaincy than his worrying about a suspension in some ways.

Yep, that's it. Ricky didnt trust his quicks to hasten the end of Indian second innings. Sad, but true. And that's his failing as a captain.

 

[Johnners]

Been wondering about something and excuse me if it's already been discussed earlier in the thread but imagine you're Ricky Ponting at tea and your team has wrested back some momentum. You're well aware you're behind in overs and have just been warned for it. You know you'll miss a Test and, as stated in the article below, that was Ricky's primary fear.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/11/2415982.htm?section=sport

You also know that if you bowl India out relatively soon after tea, it won't matter anyway. So why would you bowl part-timers if you knew bowling India out would negate the possibility of being penalised for over-rates?

I reckon Ponting, deep down, didn't think his bowlers had it in them to bowl India out in time. He's been guilty of not backing his bowlers before so this isn't new and with one quick feeling under the weather you could say his worries weren't unfounded but, to me, this is more damning of his captaincy than his worrying about a suspension in some ways.

I said it to someone last night, can't remember who, but It's quite possible that he was silly enough to think that Hussey/White/Clarke could provide enough pressure at one end, whilst Krejza picked up the remaining wickets, thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[Prince EWS]

I said it to someone last night, can't remember who, but It's quite possible that he was silly enough to think that Hussey/White/Clarke could provide enough pressure at one end, whilst Krejza picked up the remaining wickets, thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone.

That's just as bad though. It may not be as selfish as the other situation but it's terrible captaincy.

 

[Johnners]

That's just as bad though. It may not be as selfish as the other situation but it's terrible captaincy.

Yeah, it's certainly terrible captaincy, but I'm just throwing up ideas, because I'm less inclined than most to think he was actually putting himself before the team.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah, it's certainly terrible captaincy, but I'm just throwing up ideas, because I'm less inclined than most to think he was actually putting himself before the team.

Yeah exactly. Shouldn't instantly attribute to malice, etc.

 

[Burgey]

Personally, I don't think Ponting has been the same since Sydney, and the impact that saga has had on him is understated dramatically.
The Australian media and public went for him full on after that test, including comments about sportsmanship and winning at all costs.
The team and its captain have seemed to me far more timid since that test.
I imagine what would have happened in the press had he persisted with his quicks on day 4, been asked about the over rates at the end of play and said "Well, winning was more important to me than bowling enough overs".
He'd have been slaughtered. See, we want him and them to play more fairly, and not win at all costs, but then we expect him to set aside a playing condition/ rules in order to secure a win - at all costs, and not worry about being suspended for a test.
The thought of an Australian captain being suspended for a test is a ****ty thing for me to contemplate frankly. It would be a huge set back in my eyes for the game.

 

[silentstriker]

First, I think Ponting messed up big time. But I am not sure if that translates to him needing to be sacked. People learn, he became stronger post-2005 Ashes.

I imagine what would have happened in the press had he persisted with his quicks on day 4, been asked about the over rates at the end of play and said "Well, winning was more important to me than bowling enough overs".

I don't think so because the reaction against Ponting was immediate and universal. In this thread, in the media, in the commentary box, all of it. I don't think it would have been like that. They would have taken shots at him but for being behind generally and letting this situation even come into play, but that's fair enough and it is his fault. Chappelli was fuming when Dhoni seemed to be using slow overs as a deliberate tactic, and that's fair enough - you should NOT ever have a situation where a team can choose not to bowl as a strategy. THAT is negative cricket IMO. Of course, considering the penalty, he would be stupid not to do it, but it's the penalty that should increase to make sure captains don't do it.

Seriously, every session runs are added. No make up sessions allowed. Five overs behind this session? Congrats, you've just conceded 25 byes. There'll be a fire under everyone's arse.

See, we want him and them to play more fairly, and not win at all costs, but then we expect him to set aside a playing condition/ rules in order to secure a win - at all costs, and not worry about being suspended for a test.
The thought of an Australian captain being suspended for a test is a ****ty thing for me to contemplate frankly. It would be a huge set back in my eyes for the game.

I don't see how it benefits the fans or the game to see lesser quality bowlers over your best. Plus the way he was going, India would have been bowled out quickly and over rates might not have mattered.

 

[howardj]

See, we want him and them to play more fairly, and not win at all costs, but then we expect him to set aside a playing condition/ rules in order to secure a win - at all costs, and not worry about being suspended for a test.
.

Yeah, but they had set aside that playing condition for whole series - they were quite happy to set aside that playing condition and were never concerned about keeping up with the overs...until Ponting was at risk of suspension.

My take on the whole thing was that it did not even occur to Ponting to just cop the suspension in the name of winning the Test. He was threatend with suspension and just freaked out (as Burgey said, it's a massive thing for the captain to be suspended for a Test). I'm a pretty smart guy and, until it was raised on Fox yesterday, I too hadn't thought about just copping the suspension and going for the win anyway.

However, I didn't have six support staff with me. One of them should have thought about going for the win instead of avoiding suspension.

 

[SJS]

Personally, I don't think Ponting has been the same since Sydney, and the impact that saga has had on him is understated dramatically.
The Australian media and public went for him full on after that test, including comments about sportsmanship and winning at all costs.
The team and its captain have seemed to me far more timid since that test.
I imagine what would have happened in the press had he persisted with his quicks on day 4, been asked about the over rates at the end of play and said "Well, winning was more important to me than bowling enough overs".
He'd have been slaughtered. See, we want him and them to play more fairly, and not win at all costs, but then we expect him to set aside a playing condition/ rules in order to secure a win - at all costs, and not worry about being suspended for a test.
The thought of an Australian captain being suspended for a test is a ****ty thing for me to contemplate frankly. It would be a huge set back in my eyes for the game.

Its not just about bowling spinners instead of pacers. One needs to understand everything thats gone haywire in this slow bowling rates.

Even when he was trying to "improve" the run rate and brought Clarke on to bowl, they spent an inordinate time getting the field right. Sivaramakrishnan who had been timing each over just then calculated that it took 1 minute and 50 seconds between two deliveries. This is crazy.

When you talk of lower over rates, the pacers or medium pacers instead spinners make only a marginal difference, the speed with which fielders move between overs and even deliveries, the ridiculous number of times captains seem to want to tinker with the fields (and still leak runs at alarming rates) and the prolonged conferences with bowlers and others is the basic problem.

For so long has this ridiculous over rate been around that it has been accepted and even the public, mostly unaware that better rates are actually possible having never ever seen them, accepts them as inevitable and the players, captains, bowlers, fielders et al have just moved to a different mode in permanence where they just don't know how to do things differently. For most of them, this is how it has been all their cricketing lives. They will feel completely disoriented if they were made to hurry up beyond a point.

This is the price you pay for allowing a bad practice to continue for so very long. It becomes ingrained.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, but they had set aside that playing condition for whole series - they were quite happy to set aside that playing condition and were never concerned about keeping up with the overs...until Ponting was at risk of suspension.

Exactly. If he was so concerned about doing right by the game, he would have kept up with the over rates session by session.

They just don't care IMO. None of them. And that's the issue.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, but they had set aside that playing condition for whole series - they were quite happy to set aside that playing condition and were never concerned about keeping up with the overs...until Ponting was at risk of suspension.

My take on the whole thing was that it did not even occur to Ponting to just cop the suspension in the name of winning the Test. He was threatend with suspension and just freaked out (as Burgey said, it's a massive thing for the captain to be suspended for a Test). I'm a pretty smart guy and, until it was raised on Fox yesterday, I too hadn't thought about just copping the suspension and going for the win anyway.

However, I didn't have six support staff with me. One of them should have thought about going for the win instead of avoiding suspension.

But I think they were concerned in the sense they bowled PTers earlier, like when Lee and Ponting had their disagreement in the earlier game. They also did it in Perth this year IIRC.
True he's at fault in getting into the situation in the first place though.

 

[Burgey]

Its not just about bowling spinners instead of pacers. One needs to understand everything thats gone haywire in this slow bowling rates.

Even when he was trying to "improve" the run rate and brought Clarke on to bowl, they spent an inordinate time getting the field right. Sivaramakrishnan who had been timing each over just then calculated that it took 1 minute and 50 seconds between two deliveries. This is crazy.

When you talk of lower over rates, the pacers or medium pacers instead spinners make only a marginal difference, the speed with which fielders move between overs and even deliveries, the ridiculous number of times captains seem to want to tinker with the fields (and still leak runs at alarming rates) and the prolonged conferences with bowlers and others is the basic problem.

For so long has this ridiculous over rate been around that it has been accepted and even the public, mostly unaware that better rates are actually possible having never ever seen them, accepts them as inevitable and the players, captains, bowlers, fielders et al have just moved to a different mode in permanence where they just don't know how to do things differently. For most of them, this is how it has been all their cricketing lives. They will feel completely disoriented if they were made to hurry up beyond a point.

This is the price you pay for allowing a bad practice to continue for so very long. It becomes ingrained.

Indeed. Also annoys the hell out of me when they have a drink run on at every available opportunity. Yesterday they timed a drinks break at 7.5 minutes!!!! After that, why would you need another drink 5 overs later?
Should add that all teams do this, not just the two on display here.

 

[SJS]

I dont understand why Ponting should be sacked for lower over rates. He isn't the only one who is guilty of it. Its an epidemic - nay its in our genes now.

What Ponting is guilty of is using terrible tactics. Not going for the kill and finishing off the Indians after tea or at least trying to, irrespective of whether he was behind or ahead in over rates. Its just terrible tactics on the field. So bad in fact that one would have said, if the over rate issue wasn't in the picture, that he did not want to win and if he was a Pakistani, the anti-corruption squad of the ICC would have been snooping around!

 

[silentstriker]

I dont understand why Ponting should be sacked for lower over rates. He isn't the only one who is guilty of it. Its an epidemic - nay its in our genes now.

What Ponting is guilty of is using terrible tactics. Not going for the kill and finishing off the Indians after tea or at least trying to, irrespective of whether he was behind or ahead in over rates. Its just terrible tactics on the field. So bad in fact that one would have said, if the over rate issue wasn't in the picture, that he did not want to win and if he was a Pakistani, the anti-corruption squad of the ICC would have been snooping around!

Hehe, Goughy called for an investigation, just to clear everything. That is how perplexing they were.

 

[pasag]

I dont understand why Ponting should be sacked for lower over rates. He isn't the only one who is guilty of it. Its an epidemic - nay its in our genes now.

What Ponting is guilty of is using terrible tactics. Not going for the kill and finishing off the Indians after tea or at least trying to, irrespective of whether he was behind or ahead in over rates. Its just terrible tactics on the field. So bad in fact that one would have said, if the over rate issue wasn't in the picture, that he did not want to win and if he was a Pakistani, the anti-corruption squad of the ICC would have been snooping around!

The call for the sacking isn't about bad overrates, it's regarding his decision to put his personal welfare over that of the side and in doing so giving up the opportunity to level the series.

 

[SJS]

The call for the sacking isn't about bad overrates, it's regarding his decision to put his personal welfare over that of the side and in doing so giving up the opportunity to level the series.

Yes I realise that but why must his decision (to bowl no-regulars) be linked to over rates? There could be other mischief afoot.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes I realise that but why must his decision (to bowl no-regulars) be linked to over rates?

Because he came out and said it was, and so did the coach.

 

[honestbharani]

Indeed. Also annoys the hell out of me when they have a drink run on at every available opportunity. Yesterday they timed a drinks break at 7.5 minutes!!!! After that, why would you need another drink 5 overs later?
Should add that all teams do this, not just the two on display here.

Julian made an interesting point on commentary. He said take out the mandatory drinks break.. The players get a drink as and when they want and anyways, they call out for drinks every 30 mins or so.. So why waste another 5 mins on a regulation drinks break? Just take that out of the playing conditions overall.. Let drinks breaks be ad-hoc with some proviso that you cannot demand one within half hour of the previous one.. That might be a small step to help the over rates a little bit...

 

[SJS]

Because he came out and said it was, and so did the coach.

Well. One didn't expect them to say any different. But you have a point.