Why didn't Ponting enforce the follow on?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well Glenn Mcgrath is a liar then.
Quoted from BBC:
"All the bowlers were ready to go if required, but we thought we'd let the sun get on the wicket a bit more and let the cracks open up a bit more."

and gotta love Ponting the hypocrit. Wasnt he the one that said that Lara was selfish for scoring 400 instead of trying to win the game? Yet he waits until Langer gets a century before he can declare.

Yeah, I saw that McGrath interview as well, but realistically the decision not to enforce the follow-on was a combination of factors. Just because McGrath said that he didn't need a rest doesn't mean that Ponting didn't think that he did, and Ponting has never enforced the follow-on except when time is a factor anyway. Add in the fact that the pitch was also detiorating and the desire to beat England by the biggest margin possible, and you've got your reasons. McGrath is hardly going to come out and say "yeah, we're protecting Warne and I from bowling too many overs since we're old".

Anyway, I believe the Ponting comment about Lara was related to the fact that Lara was captain, and chose himself to bat on into the third day of the test for no reason other than breaking the record, and the fact that the game ended up a draw. If Lara had kept batting because, say, Chanderpaul had chosen not to declare it could hardly have been called a selfish decision. If Ponting had continued batting today to get his own century you'd have a point, and in all probability he would have if he hadn't hurt his back, but he didn't.

 

[Johnners]

Well Glenn Mcgrath is a liar then.
Quoted from BBC:
"All the bowlers were ready to go if required, but we thought we'd let the sun get on the wicket a bit more and let the cracks open up a bit more."

and gotta love Ponting the hypocrit. Wasnt he the one that said that Lara was selfish for scoring 400 instead of trying to win the game? Yet he waits until Langer gets a century before he can declare.

Pffffft.... completely different situation. I'm Sick of all those who made up their mind that ponting's a **** captain based on 2005 ashes series digging to find things to criticise him on which are completely irrelevant.

His Captaincy since the 2005 series has improved outta site, he has proven himself to be a very astute captain. As Fuller said, McGrath is not Ponting, and whilst what he said may have been part of the reason why Punter declared, i doubt very much whether ANY of the Australian team is going to say to the Media that "We declared to give McGrath & Warne a rest because they're 36/37", pride alone would stop them.

On the subject of not declaring until Langer had hit his century, imo Ponting was never going to declare last night, he was always going to wait until sometime in this mornings session. Langers century came at the right stage as they'd had the english team out for 30mins, enough time to make them all hot and sweaty, and make Strauss & Cook wait.

The Lara situation was completely different. He was the captain, and he batted onto his own milestone, which gave his team NO chance of winnings, instead the match petered out to a draw. If Australia can't win from this situation, it's not because Ponting waited until Langer reached his century, but it will be because of either a terrific reargaurd from the english batsmen, or a woeful bowling performance from the Aust. attack.

 

[Johnners]

What is so wrong with opening the bowling with Clark and Lee?

Clark had just completed a spell a few overs beforehand.

 

[Son Of Coco]

quite a stupid move IMO. Ok i can understand wanting to give his bowlers a rest and what not, but if thats the case he should have batted about an hour yesterday and then put England back in for a few overs at the end of the day. If England miraculously bat till tomorrow and we see a thunderstorm, i will certainly LMAO.
the 'Waiting for the cracks to open up' is a ludicrous reason, If Australia cant defend 500 with or without cracks they dont deserve to win.

They're not worried about defending 500...the worse the wicket gets, the harder it will be to bat on. How hard is that to understand?

 

[tooextracool]

They're not worried about defending 500...the worse the wicket gets, the harder it will be to bat on. How hard is that to understand?

Firstly your 2 sentences are contradictory. If you're not worried about defending 500 then why do you care whether it gets hard to bat on or not?
Secondly, even if it gets harder to bat on, England would still have to bat on it on the last day if they were to have any chance of saving the game. At least if Australia had declared earlier it would have taken rain out of the equation.
P.S- forecast for tomorrow involves possible thunderstorms in the afternoon. If England miraculously survive until then, Ponting is going to look like an even bigger idiot than he looked like at edgbaston last year.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah, I saw that McGrath interview as well, but realistically the decision not to enforce the follow-on was a combination of factors. Just because McGrath said that he didn't need a rest doesn't mean that Ponting didn't think that he did, and Ponting has never enforced the follow-on except when time is a factor anyway. Add in the fact that the pitch was also detiorating and the desire to beat England by the biggest margin possible, and you've got your reasons. McGrath is hardly going to come out and say "yeah, we're protecting Warne and I from bowling too many overs since we're old".

Unless you happen to be personal mates with Ponting theres no way you can categorically state that it wasnt the reason for his decision, especially when one of the players in the squad has claimed it is. And also like i claimed earlier, if the bowlers wanted a rest, then he should have batted for an hr or so and given England at least half an hour yesterday evening with 500+ runs on the board with his bowlers sufficient rested, which he clearly didnt do. Forecasts for thunderstorms tom afternoon,and if england batted with common sense they could easily have lasted until then.

Anyway, I believe the Ponting comment about Lara was related to the fact that Lara was captain, and chose himself to bat on into the third day of the test for no reason other than breaking the record, and the fact that the game ended up a draw. If Lara had kept batting because, say, Chanderpaul had chosen not to declare it could hardly have been called a selfish decision. If Ponting had continued batting today to get his own century you'd have a point, and in all probability he would have if he hadn't hurt his back, but he didn't.

its still playing for players' self interest rather than than the team's. and like you i wouldnt be surprised either if he batted until he got a century as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Pffffft.... completely different situation. I'm Sick of all those who made up their mind that ponting's a **** captain based on 2005 ashes series digging to find things to criticise him on which are completely irrelevant.

His Captaincy since the 2005 series has improved outta site, he has proven himself to be a very astute captain. As Fuller said, McGrath is not Ponting, and whilst what he said may have been part of the reason why Punter declared, i doubt very much whether ANY of the Australian team is going to say to the Media that "We declared to give McGrath & Warne a rest because they're 36/37", pride alone would stop them.

First if you'd bother looking up some of my past posts, you might actually realise that even during his worst days as captain(while everyone was asking for his head during the last ashes), ive often defended him as being an above average captain. However as a person ive always felt that hes nothing more than an a****** and an arrogant ***** and i certainly have 0 respect for him nor will i ever at any point change my opinion on that.
Secondly theres nothing wrong in a player saying " we wanted to have a bit of the rest before we could have another shot at them in the 2nd inning", even the fittest players get tired and need some respite.

On the subject of not declaring until Langer had hit his century, imo Ponting was never going to declare last night, he was always going to wait until sometime in this mornings session. Langers century came at the right stage as they'd had the english team out for 30mins, enough time to make them all hot and sweaty, and make Strauss & Cook wait.

The Lara situation was completely different. He was the captain, and he batted onto his own milestone, which gave his team NO chance of winnings, instead the match petered out to a draw. If Australia can't win from this situation, it's not because Ponting waited until Langer reached his century, but it will be because of either a terrific reargaurd from the english batsmen, or a woeful bowling performance from the Aust. attack.

Lara gave his team no chance of winning? He gave them over 2.5 days(About 250 overs) to dismiss England twice.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Firstly your 2 sentences are contradictory. If you're not worried about defending 500 then why do you care whether it gets hard to bat on or not?
Secondly, even if it gets harder to bat on, England would still have to bat on it on the last day if they were to have any chance of saving the game. At least if Australia had declared earlier it would have taken rain out of the equation.
P.S- forecast for tomorrow involves possible thunderstorms in the afternoon. If England miraculously survive until then, Ponting is going to look like an even bigger idiot than he looked like at edgbaston last year.

They're looking to take 10 wickets...so there's nothing contradictory about that. I live an hour south of the gabba...thunderstorms in the afternoon here usually turn up in the late afternoon...if England survive until then good on them.

I get the feeling you don't like Ponting much...which probably explains your strong feelings re: his declaration. It's not really that important.

 

[tooextracool]

They're looking to take 10 wickets...so there's nothing contradictory about that.

No, what is contradictory is that you first stated that they werent worried about defending 500, then you said they were waiting for the wicket to deteriorate which shows a lack in confidence of their own abilities.

I live an hour south of the gabba...thunderstorms in the afternoon here usually turn up in the late afternoon...if England survive until then good on them.

i wouldnt put anything down to chance. Thunderstorms may 'usually' occur late in the afternoon, but its not impossible for them to happen a bit earlier in Brisbane either.

I get the feeling you don't like Ponting much...which probably explains your strong feelings re: his declaration. It's not really that important.

And it also explains why i rate him as a better tactical captain than Steve Waugh. Oh wait.
Look, ive never let personal dislike for a players character cloud my opinion about their skills as a player or captain or vice versa. For me i cant help seeing how anyone can like Ponting as a person after the countless number of times that hes made a fool of himself, but to each his own.
As far as the declaration is concerned, whatever way you look at it, there was no point in it(it should have happened on the day before).

 

[UncleTheOne]

Pffffft.... completely different situation. I'm Sick of all those who made up their mind that ponting's a **** captain based on 2005 ashes series digging to find things to criticise him on which are completely irrelevant.

His Captaincy since the 2005 series has improved outta site, he has proven himself to be a very astute captain.

He has been a bit harshly done by the 2005 Ashes series, although the Edgbaston decision ranks up there with Nasser in '02. TBF to Ponting, in the '05 Ashes he was just out done by a far supeior captain in Vaughan.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

He has been a bit harshly done by the 2005 Ashes series, although the Edgbaston decision ranks up there with Nasser in '02. TBF to Ponting, in the '05 Ashes he was just out done by a far supeior captain in Vaughan.

There were some real problems with his captaincy in '05, Vaughan and the Edgbaston decision aside. He's vastly improved however, and that's the point. Very few captains are instantly adept in the job really, especially when they haven't had a tenure as vice-captain and so on. Ponting was never a terrible test captain, but he was certainly an average one for a time. He is now quite a good one.

 

[pietersenrocks]

I think it was a poor decision for Ponting and he left the chance for the Englishmen's.

 

[Tomm NCCC]

Odd decision, very odd decision. Looks like he may just pay for it. Im still on for my "geraint to make 100" bet, and KP looks in good touch. Giles played sensibly (untill his last stupid shot) Hoggard can stick around, Harmison is prone to make a good 20, and Jimmy Andersons due a few runs.

 

[sqwerty]

oh well.....

Looks like Cricket Australia's decision to instruct Ponting not to enforce the follow on ALMOST completely paid off for them

A full days play was enjoyed by the capacity crowd on day 4.
Only problem was England couldn't last 25 overs on day 5 which means all spectators receive their money back.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, what is contradictory is that you first stated that they werent worried about defending 500, then you said they were waiting for the wicket to deteriorate which shows a lack in confidence of their own abilities.



i wouldnt put anything down to chance. Thunderstorms may 'usually' occur late in the afternoon, but its not impossible for them to happen a bit earlier in Brisbane either.



And it also explains why i rate him as a better tactical captain than Steve Waugh. Oh wait.
Look, ive never let personal dislike for a players character cloud my opinion about their skills as a player or captain or vice versa. For me i cant help seeing how anyone can like Ponting as a person after the countless number of times that hes made a fool of himself, but to each his own.
As far as the declaration is concerned, whatever way you look at it, there was no point in it(it should have happened on the day before).

If I was looking to take 10 wickets I'd be doing it the easiest way possible, not the hardest. I doubt England getting the runs regardless of what option he took ever entered Ponting's mind.

It's not impossible no, but do you suggest captaining based on what occurs 99% of the time or do you make your decision based on the other 1%. I've lived here my whole life and if a storm turns up in the morning it doesn't hang around all day, a majority of our storms come in late afternoon and provide some fireworks and entertainment as the sun goes down. If the forecast had been 'rain' Monday then that might have been different.

I don't like Ponting as a person, but I don't find questioning his every move based on that to be very productive. I still have no idea what all the fuss is about.

 

[Son Of Coco]

First if you'd bother looking up some of my past posts, you might actually realise that even during his worst days as captain(while everyone was asking for his head during the last ashes), ive often defended him as being an above average captain. However as a person ive always felt that hes nothing more than an a****** and an arrogant ***** and i certainly have 0 respect for him nor will i ever at any point change my opinion on that.
Secondly theres nothing wrong in a player saying " we wanted to have a bit of the rest before we could have another shot at them in the 2nd inning", even the fittest players get tired and need some respite.



Lara gave his team no chance of winning? He gave them over 2.5 days(About 250 overs) to dismiss England twice.

Would you honestly expect McGrath to say "I've got a bruised heel and I'm struggling to bowl"?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Would you honestly expect McGrath to say "I've got a bruised heel and I'm struggling to bowl"?

Nah. There'd be at least one "mate" and two f-words in a sentence of that length.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Unless you happen to be personal mates with Ponting theres no way you can categorically state that it wasnt the reason for his decision, especially when one of the players in the squad has claimed it is. And also like i claimed earlier, if the bowlers wanted a rest, then he should have batted for an hr or so and given England at least half an hour yesterday evening with 500+ runs on the board with his bowlers sufficient rested, which he clearly didnt do. Forecasts for thunderstorms tom afternoon,and if england batted with common sense they could easily have lasted until then.

Just on this, they showed Ponting's post-match press conference on Inside Cricket tonight, and he gave three reasons for not enforcing the follow-on. They were that he felt the bowlers could have used a rest, that the pitch was "only going to get harder to bat on", and that he felt the English bowlers looked tired at the end of the Australian innings and he wanted to make them bowl again and "wear them down".

 

[PhoenixFire]

Nah. There'd be at least one "mate" and two f-words in a sentence of that length.

And it would start with 'Look mate.............'

 

[JF.]

quite a stupid move IMO. Ok i can understand wanting to give his bowlers a rest and what not, but if thats the case he should have batted about an hour yesterday and then put England back in for a few overs at the end of the day. If England miraculously bat till tomorrow and we see a thunderstorm, i will certainly LMAO.
the 'Waiting for the cracks to open up' is a ludicrous reason, If Australia cant defend 500 with or without cracks they dont deserve to win.

Couldn't agree more. I've been debating this in another forum for the past couple of days and people over there love nothing more than to hang s**t on me for disagreeing with Punter's decision. The cynic in me, along with McGrath's comment about how there are no bonus points for finishing a test early, feels that Cricket Australia TOLD them to bat on so they didn't have to refund tickets for Day 4!