Ricky Ponting Vs. Sachin Tendulkar - As Captains

[Rant0r]

he may never live that '01 series down, he could make 15 hundreds in a row but people will say 'remember when he was ravaged by harbhajan in '01' people have long memories

 

[susudear]

Micheal Clarke

The point is you can hypothesis or reason out that Indian batsmen got out to part-timers because they played them less cautiously...well if that was it, why wouldn't Australia just always bring those? That's because it isn't it, it never was. The reason why those two stocked up on wickets was because of the pitch. It was unplayable.

Ponting did that in Sydney to win the test match.

And also he bowled (overbowled to say the least) Clarke in the 2008 India series.

Not unsurprisingly he ended up with a 100+ average.

Clarke is a shock bowler and Ponting erred hugely by making him a stock bowler.

He not only overestimated Clarke's ability with the ball, but underestimated the Indian batsmen.

 

[Rant0r]

i must admit i overestimated his ability, he didn't look like getting a wicket in india, yet previous he looks gun

 

[biased indian]

The difference was the pitches. Nagpur was nothing like Mumbai for example.

The mumbai pitch as well as the Nagpur pitch was same both had result thats what every one want

its not that the home team is batting first and the visiting team is chasing all the time there is toss...Why is it called test you have to bat in all conditions...

 

[Ikki]

Ponting did that in Sydney to win the test match.

Which Sydney test? Was Warne still playing?

And also he bowled (overbowled to say the least) Clarke in the 2008 India series.

Not unsurprisingly he ended up with a 100+ average.

Clarke is a shock bowler and Ponting erred hugely by making him a stock bowler.

He not only overestimated Clarke's ability with the ball, but underestimated the Indian batsmen.

That's because he had no Warne - which is my point exactly. Part-timers are of little use and the only reason we fired well with them in Mumbai was because the pitch was unplayable.

 

[Ikki]

injuries could certainly have affected his performances to a certain extent although if you are fit enough to play, injuries shouldn't be used as an excuse and sounds like a cop-out(not by warne but by his fans), the out-of-form argument is the most vague and bogus-sounding...he was out of form for the series because the indian batsmen never allowed him to get into any decent rhythm and he clearly acknowledged that...only his most blind fans can argue otherwise...

Warne was bowling hurt and injured but the extent of which was not realised till after they opened him up. It was a surprise he could bowl at all, it was that bad.

that is not a hypothesis, they actually played clarke and hauritz in that match, remember? and obviously the indian batsmen have a significantly higher degree of respect for warne than the other two and would have played him with greater caution...and the point is pretty much all the indian batsmen read spinners off their bowling action and defend extremely well...

Um, it is a hypothesis because the reasoning you put forth is that they played them less cautiously. Well, I don't know about that because if such reasoning was good and would yield wickets we would field part-timers against India regularly. The real reason was the pitch was not playable. Both teams were struggling to make 100 runs.

) as a definitive statement although you also agree nothing can be said conclusively one way or the other about a hypothetical situation, that is a contradiction that you need to resolve by yourselves...

You cannot definitively say anything in Cricket but that Bradman is number one. Lillee may face a high school attack and I may not definitely be able to prove that he'd run through them but I can call the likelihood of it happening. Likewise, on that pitch, in that form, knowing what we know happened, it would have been likely for Warne to have done better than Hauritz. We don't need to add the tag "but it could happen otherwise". We know that, we're talking about the probability of it happening being greater.

 

[Ikki]

But all these excuses wont make Ponting a captain to have won a test match in India?

He had his chance in 2008, and had full 4 test matches, and yet failed.

Oh, and he didnt lead by example also, given his average was in the mid-thirties.

You don't seem to understand. I don't care if Ponting won in India or not. If simply having a tick on your record is all there is then Ponting's record puts him up with the very best there has ever been in terms of captaincy.

Just as people are dissecting his success by saying his record was such and such because of the many positives he had in his team...I am saying him not winning in India is because of the aforementioned reasons. So when you use "the ends justify the means" approach in one place and then in another place try to build an argument on the workings of why that "end" took place, you are being hypocritical.

If all you can care about is that he lost, then all you should care about is that he won everywhere else.

 

[Ikki]

The mumbai pitch as well as the Nagpur pitch was same both had result thats what every one want

its not that the home team is batting first and the visiting team is chasing all the time there is toss...Why is it called test you have to bat in all conditions...

When teams are struggling to make 100 runs...that is NOT a "test". That is the ball being dominant over the bat. That is NOT the kind of test I want to see. The right kind of test strikes a balance, not one completely dominant over the other.

 

[susudear]

You don't have a clue

You don't seem to understand. I don't care if Ponting won in India or not. If simply having a tick on your record is all there is then Ponting's record puts him up with the very best there has ever been in terms of captaincy.

Just as people are dissecting his success by saying his record was such and such because of the many positives he had in his team...I am saying him not winning in India is because of the aforementioned reasons. So when you use "the means justify the ends" approach in one place and then in another place try to build an argument on the workings of why that "end" took place, you are being hypocritical.

If all you can care about is that he lost, then all you should care about is that he won everywhere else.

There should be hardly any doubt as to Ponting's one of the most successful captains of all time.

However the question is, how much of that success can be attributed to his captaincy skills?

There is no definitive answer. Ponting succeeded in winning series in South Africa without McGrath (though he had Warne).

However, his record since Ashes 07 is not exactly as awe-inspiring as it was prior to that.

If Ponting qualifies as a good captain because of his success, then his failures since Ashes 07 also should be taken into perspective.

Not to say that he has been found terrible wanting in his decision making in India, and arguably against South Africa, where his team found it hard to defend a record 4th innings total.

And the less said about his captaincy in Nagpur the better.

Ponting's real test is now. He needs to make Australia win again, and show the world that they can be a formidable force even without McGrath or Warne.

So far, he has not shown it, but he still has time. A win in the return series in SA and an Ashes win should say that he has successfully turned his team around.

It is not impossible. And history shows it is not unachieved earlier.

And that will be his legacy.

 

[susudear]

Not exactly

When teams are struggling to make 100 runs...that is NOT a "test". That is the ball being dominant over the bat. That is NOT the kind of test I want to see. The right kind of test strikes a balance, not one completely dominant over the other.

I agree that Mumbai pitch was not everyone's example of a test pitch.

But it was not worse than Nagpur pitch.

Don't forget that India made a 200+ score in the third innings.

However, it is safe to say the batsmen of both teams had collective brain freeze when they saw such a track.

 

[Ikki]

I agree with most of that. I just think some people should put the team in perspective right now. It really is one of the worst - and I don't like saying that because it's through sheer inexperience than inability - squads we've had for a long time.

 

[biased indian]

When teams are struggling to make 100 runs...that is NOT a "test". That is the ball being dominant over the bat. That is NOT the kind of test I want to see. The right kind of test strikes a balance, not one completely dominant over the other.

if a team batting in third inngs could score 200 runs ..its not that bad a pitch ...

i will take that pitch over any other any day.... its better if ball dominate than bat in cricket it always makes it interesting to watch

 

[Ikki]

if a team batting in third inngs could score 200 runs ..its not that bad a pitch ...

i will take that pitch over any other any day.... its better if ball dominate than bat in cricket it always makes it interesting to watch

Innings:

Ind 1: 103
Aus1: 203
Ind 2: 205
Aus: 93

The fact that they "could" score it hides the fact that it was unbelievably hard to. All up, each wicket in that test had a value of 15 runs. And pretty much every bowler averaged under 20 so it's not like one person took all the wickets.

 

[biased indian]

Innings:

Ind 1: 103
Aus1: 203
Ind 2: 205
Aus: 93

The fact that they "could" score it hides the fact that it was unbelievably hard to. All up, each wicket in that test had a value of 15 runs. And pretty much every bowler averaged under 20 so it's not like one person took all the wickets.

why should runs scoring be always easy???

i would take such wickets over dead roads any given day

 

[Ikki]

why should runs scoring be always easy???

i would take such wickets over dead roads any given day

Why should wicket taking be so easy?

 

[Cevno]

I never have rated ponting as a great captain,but then i have never rated sachin either as great captain.
Just voted on the enormity of the task each had to face.While ponting being groomed under steve waugh had a settled and succesful team to inherit with very good players in the team at most positions.
Tendulkar had to inherit cpatiancy in situation of turmoil most of the time and at a time when he did not want the captaincy .He never was groomed for it under any captain and due to removal of other captains suddenly had to take charge(match fixing etc..).He also had a team to take over which was not a successful one and had faliures in the recent past.
Not too forget the immense pressure he was under to carry the batting of the team almost singlehandedly and also had the face the scrutiny of his captaincy of a failing team by a cricket crazy billion people at the same time.On the second occasion he also had to deal with the huge damage which had been done due to the match fixing scandal to the indian team and the image of the captain,but he did a okay job of it and set the base for ganguly to take over before he quit.

 

[biased indian]

Why should wicket taking be so easy?

at least we would get a result...even if it rains or fog or bad light

 

[honestbharani]

I never have rated ponting as a great captain,but then i have never rated sachin either as great captain.
Just voted on the enormity of the task each had to face.While ponting being groomed under steve waugh had a settled and succesful team to inherit with very good players in the team at most positions.
Tendulkar had to inherit cpatiancy in situation of turmoil most of the time and at a time when he did not want the captaincy .He never was groomed for it under any captain and due to removal of other captains suddenly had to take charge(match fixing etc..).He also had a team to take over which was not a successful one and had faliures in the recent past.
Not too forget the immense pressure he was under to carry the batting of the team almost singlehandedly and also had the face the scrutiny of his captaincy of a failing team by a cricket crazy billion people at the same time.On the second occasion he also had to deal with the huge damage which had been done due to the match fixing scandal to the indian team and the image of the captain,but he did a okay job of it and set the base for ganguly to take over before he quit.

I agree with most of your points but Sachin was groomed for the captaincy quite a bit.. He was always consulted by Azhar and he had been vice captain for quite a while before he became the captain.


He may have been too young when he was made captain but that is a different point altogether.

 

[aussie]

Really and why would you say that ?

Well remembering the match. Australia's pace trio was equally as dangerous as India's spinners. That was one weird pitch.

Fluke, yes. Noone knew that Clarke was going to take 6 wickets in 5 overs or so, but come on If you have a spinner, even if a part timer, you got to bring him in when you see how many wickets Kumble and Co. took. Ponting waited 55 overs before trying another spinner.

Not really. Especially given that Hauritz although bowling apreciably ATT wasn't as threatening as the Indian spin trio. So really what Clarke did was a fluke, Ponting was always in his rights to back his seamers to fold IND in the second innings.

 

[aussie]

On the Ponting/Gilchrist argument on who deserves more credit for winning in India 04.

I'd 100% behind the notion that although Gilchrist captained the team to victory in Ponting's absense. Ponting definately deserves equal credit for the victory. Given Australia coming off of the success in Sri Lanka in 04 & learning from the mistakes of 96, 98 & 01 set a blue-print off how they wanted to win in 04 that really couldn't fail.

Even if Warne or Lehmann (other captain ready individuals of the 04 side) could have lead that team to victory in that series.