What was he thinking?

[Son Of Coco]

The fool that is Glenn McGrath saying that Australia were going to with the '05 Ashes 5-0, and getting beaten.

Careful...I work for immigration.

 

[Matt79]

ok im sick and tired of people bringing this up as though its one of the biggest mistakes in his career. As i have pointed out several times before when he won the toss, there was enough cloud cover to suggest that the conditions might favor the bowlers. Further to back up my statements, this is from the cricinfo match report:
"It was partially cloudy this morning when Hussain won the toss. He may well live to regret his decision after the display by the English bowlers and fielders, and the fine efforts of the Australian batsmen.

Brilliant sunshine broke through within the first session and with the sun came runs for the Australians. Justin Langer (32) and Hayden made a terrific start, passing the fifty mark for the twelfth time from the past 20 occasions the two have paired up.

Andrew Caddick and Matthew Hoggard had the Australian openers jumping around in the first couple of overs, especially Hoggard who made Langer uncomfortable when swinging the ball away."

From the live reports:
"Hussain made the decision under slightly cloudy skies, which have now cleared to produce a sunny outlook."

I dont know about you, but this is a hardly a 'what was he thinking' moment because you can clearly see the logic behind his thinking in this case. Given Brisbane's history of being a seamers paradise under grey skies, its hardly surprising that he made that decision. Also, considering that 2 of his bowlers were swing bowlers- Hoggard and Caddick its quite clear why he opted to bowl. Whether or not Australia finished the day with 364/2 is hardly relevant, especially when you consider that Simon Jones was out of the game in the first session. It might not be the best decision he ever made as captain, and hes made some absolute brilliant ones, but its certainly not as poor as people keep making it out to be and nowhere near as bad as ponting's decision at edgbaston that cost Australia the series.

Aussies will stop mentioning it when Poms stop bringing up Ponting putting them into bat in the 2nd test last year.

 

[tooextracool]

The point was, I don't think they expected Vaughan to have the series he did, and because of those unexpected runs, that helped cover for the loss of Thorpe ( I did say a little). I did not mean he only played because of Thorpe missing.

I think whether or not people expected Vaughan to score that much is rather irrelevant. Fact is they would have scored more with thorpe than without. So i dont understand how that cancels out.

I did not say they were on an even footing, but I don't think things would have been as bad as they were except for the decision to put the Aussie in first in Brisbane (just my opinion).

Umm with one bowler off the ground, 2 specialist swing bowlers, one ashley giles and a finished craig white you think they would have competed with Australia if they had batted first? No they would have gotten hammered regardless.

I thought they looked okay in the 4th Test as well, fighting back well (although the series was over by then).

There were always going to be a few moments here and there, but a side that had lost Gough, Flintoff, Giles, Crawley(for part of it), Tudor, Silverwood, Thorpe, Jones and several others missed out.

"but then I made my big mistake. I should have gone to the middle, had a good look at the wicket and then had a chat with Duncan, as I usually do. I must confess I was looking for things that weren't there while trying to convince myself that we should bowl first". Nasser Hussain

Hah i knew you were going to bring that up. Look thats the sort of person Hussain is, he is extremely candid and if people told him something was his fault hed go on and admit it. Its one of the reasons why he got along extremely well with the press while he was captain.
Regardless my point is not that it was a brilliant decision, or even that it was the right one. My point is that there was enough logic behind that decision for it to not be as bad a decision as people keep making it out to be. People seem to associate his career with that decision, which is quite ridiculous.

 

[tooextracool]

Aussies will stop mentioning it when Poms stop bringing up Ponting putting them into bat in the 2nd test last year.

except one had logic behind it while the other had absolutely none? Pontings decision was atrocious, theres absolutely no way anyone could even try to explain it.

 

[Matt79]

Ponting had a smashing performance at Lord's and an opposition he thought were on the back foot. What did Nasser have?

 

[tooextracool]

Ponting had a smashing performance at Lord's and an opposition he thought were on the back foot.

Which obviously makes it excusable to make a poor decision?

What did Nasser have?

Ive already mentioned them earlier. He had a bowling attack that revolved largely around swing. At the toss it was overcast. Brisbane has a history of being swing friendly when overcast. At the toss Jones was fit.
In pontings case it was bright and sunny at the toss. The pitch was as flat as a pancake. He had just lost his best bowler. His best bowler left then was Warne, who you'd obviously want to bowl in the last inning rather than in the first.
Pretty obvious which one was the worse decision of the 2.

 

[archie mac]

I think whether or not people expected Vaughan to score that much is rather irrelevant. Fact is they would have scored more with thorpe than without. So i dont understand how that cancels out.

Again I didnot say it canceled out just helped cover the loss a little. We don't know how Thorpe would have played. In 1950/51 Compton was one of the three best bats in the World, his average for the series was less than 8.

Umm with one bowler off the ground, 2 specialist swing bowlers, one ashley giles and a finished craig white you think they would have competed with Australia if they had batted first? No they would have gotten hammered regardless.

I think they would have still lost, just not as bad

Hah i knew you were going to bring that up. Look thats the sort of person Hussain is, he is extremely candid and if people told him something was his fault hed go on and admit it. Its one of the reasons why he got along extremely well with the press while he was captain.
Regardless my point is not that it was a brilliant decision, or even that it was the right one. My point is that there was enough logic behind that decision for it to not be as bad a decision as people keep making it out to be. People seem to associate his career with that decision, which is quite ridiculous.

Well back to my first post: 'What was he thinking'

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Ricky Ponting said to his partner "If the ball goes anywhere near Gary Pratt there's an easy single to be had."
What was he thinking?

 

[Perm]

I'm sure that happened.

 

[tooextracool]

Again I didnot say it canceled out just helped cover the loss a little. We don't know how Thorpe would have played. In 1950/51 Compton was one of the three best bats in the World, his average for the series was less than 8.

yes but that is rather presumptious, much like saying that Australia did not miss Mcgrath in the last Ashes series because Warne covered for him. With Vaughan AND thorpe England would have had a greater chance of winning games than with Vaughan and Key.

I think they would have still lost, just not as bad
Well back to my first post: 'What was he thinking'

Well ive just explained to you what he was thinking. Hence its not really a 'what was he thinking' scenario which would only be the case for something like Fletcher picking Plunkett for this Ashes series.

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah, very interesting - this is a good lesson in how history gets written, in a lot of ways.

From my recall, the issue here was that the English touring party had been talking a lot about getting on the front foot and taking the initiative - putting runs on the board and subjecting the Aussie team to some pressure. Hussain and team management felt that in the past they'd played too defensively, hoping more not to lose rather than going for the throat, taking the Aussies on (particularly the bowlers) and seizing victory.

The skies were a little cloudy that day, and it was thought that the first hour or so there'd be a bit of help for the pacers, before the sun would come along and things would settle down a bit. The commentators before the toss were fairly certain that whoever won the toss would have a bat - so the reaction when Nassar inserted the Aussies was mostly groaning and talk of England losing their courage and not having any faith that their bats could weather the initial barrage. So the criticism was actually underway well before the end of the day's score was observed, and just got worse and worse as the day progressed.

It wasn't really what you'd call one of the stupidest decisions ever seen, and obviously would have been quite defendable had England reduced Australia to 3 or 4 for 80 in the first session - but it was pilloried as cowardly and defensive, and it set the narrative for the tour. Over time though, what was basically seen as an ill-advised backwards step gradually morphs into a laughable decision that nobody in their right mind would possibly make. Fact is, things were tough out there at first, even if Australia weathered that tricky period pretty well. Still, I think Hussain should have gone in and batted first. It would have looked positive and after the initial hour or so, the wicket really was a belter - if he was going to live up to the talk, he should have shown more faith in his batsmen to stick out any early difficulties. He didn't really play the percentages, and it looked to just about everybody like he blinked and showed he still had the fear In the end, it was England under pressure for nearly all the match, and by the time they faced up for their second innings. they had no real hope of winning, and appropriately they wilted in just over a session.

 

[Matt79]

Which obviously makes it excusable to make a poor decision?



Ive already mentioned them earlier. He had a bowling attack that revolved largely around swing. At the toss it was overcast. Brisbane has a history of being swing friendly when overcast. At the toss Jones was fit.
In pontings case it was bright and sunny at the toss. The pitch was as flat as a pancake. He had just lost his best bowler. His best bowler left then was Warne, who you'd obviously want to bowl in the last inning rather than in the first.
Pretty obvious which one was the worse decision of the 2.

So Ponting's reasons are "excuses" but Hussain's reasons are valid. Double standard there in my opinion.

 

[Craig]

England didn't help themselves with such poor fielding on day 1. Day 2 they go their act together though.