Australia's worst captain of the last 25 years?

[Electric_Eels]

Ponting has a pea-sized cricket brain. Why you would set the Proteas 500 odd in 4 sessions is beyond me. Another hour could have made the difference. Didn't Dravid declare when Tendulkar was on 196 n.o? What a goose Ponting is. It's not just Edgbaston and Perth though. His powerful side has covered up some bad mistakes in both forms of the game. Not saying we would have won today but I think an extra 15 - 20 overs could definately have made the difference. Some bad mistakes in the field too...what with 2 men out for the hook when Kemp hadn't played one in the air the whole innings and sacrificing a short leg which would have swallowed one when Kemp was on about 30.

What a nuffy Ponting is! Who would take over though?

yeah Tendulkar was 194*

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/IND_IN_PAK/SCORECARDS/IND_PAK_T1_28MAR-01APR2004.html

 

[NPK]

I think alot of skippers would have done the same thing, its a big decision to make, either let Hodge get his 200 or declare at 180

I would have thought 4 sessions and with the detiorating wicket and Warnie, we should have won. I didn't see the last session, but I couldn't see much wrong with what Punter did for the first two sessions, I thought his field placings were faily aggressive.

Rather than blame punter, I would have thought more people should be giving credit to the determination shown by the RSA defence, I thought they defended rather well

However, true to form, most cycnics have to make it all about Australia.

Yep, he gave the bowlers enough overs to get them out...they just couldn't do it. That is normally more than enough overs to bowl a team out on the fifth day with Warne. South Africa just defended really well.

 

[JJ]

yeah, but should we have needed more than 120 overs?

probably not, but you could have had them, and having a huge number of overs to see out could have affected them psychologically... and you need to remember their best player and mainstay of thir batting lineup wasn't there

Also, aside from the debate over field setting, Ponting was reluctant to bowl Bracken and Symonds - neither Lee (he was poor IMO) nor McGrath were threatening, and he didn't try anything...

RSA were never going to score 400, let alone 450 or 500 - I didn't see the point of setting them 500 in 120 odd overs..

 

[fish eel]

probably not, but you could have had them, and having a huge number of overs to see out could have affected them psychologically... and you need to remember their best player and mainstay of thir batting lineup wasn't there

Also, aside from the debate over field setting, Ponting was reluctant to bowl Bracken and Symonds - neither Lee (he was poor IMO) nor McGrath were threatening, and he didn't try anything...

I thought Lee was very good in his first spell, which kemp and rudolph did well to keep out.

not sure whats wrong with mcgrath, to be blunt, thats two tests in a row were he has looked lethargic and ordinary.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Ponting is by far and away our worst ever captain. Setting them 500 is ridiculous enough as it is, but then he backs it up by not even having a 3rd slip or short leg for the quick bowlers. Why the f**k did he not put 7-8 men around the bat all day?? who cares if they get boundries. Instead he has men out on the hook?? Mcgrath was bowling to Rudolph when he was on 60 and he bobbled a simple bat pad catch up to short leg but there was no one there!!

It makes the job easier for SA when they know they can not win. That is why you always need to give the opposition a sniff of getting the runs. It puts the batsmen in 2 minds and you are much more likely to get the wickets. Setting 500 just puts defense in the batsmens mind and they can concentrate on it.

Ponting needs to go. He has been found wanting too many times and his own personal feelings for other members of the team e.g Hodge getting a double tonnw are clouding his judgemnt. Now Hodges double tonne will go down as the double tonne that cost us the match.

 

[Kiwi]

Didn't Ponting have a go at Lara for not declaring to win the match rather than going for the 400 runs he got? It's very clear ponting declared for Hodge and not the match. 490 runs in 4 sessions, he basically left the proteas one option, play for the draw and thats what they did. Sure teams batting last generally get bowled out in 4 sessions, but generally they have a run chase that they can have a go at. Ponting is easily the worst captain australia have had for a long time.

And gee I wonder why there is no whinging about the wicket being prepared to best suit the australians? We heard whinges about india doing it, sri lanka doing it, and shock horror gasp, the perth wicket which is always a bouncy pace bowlers wicket is suddenly a spinners wicket to the point they should have picket McGill in the side with Warne and not a word said.

 

[fish eel]

Didn't Ponting have a go at Lara for not declaring to win the match rather than going for the 400 runs he got?

Yes he did.

He said something like 'we dont play for milestones in Australia'.

I think we still had enough time to win, and rather than the charge of poor captaincy, Punter should be asked about that statement.

And, I still dont think enough people are giving credit to the south africans....

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Yes he did.

He said something like 'we dont play for milestones in Australia'.

I think we still had enough time to win, and rather than the charge of poor captaincy, Punter should be asked about that statement.

And, I still dont think enough people are giving credit to the south africans....

They batted superbly. But the match was there for Australia to take, but because Ponting wanted Hodge to get his double tonne we didn't take it. 20 more overs on Monday night and the game probably would have been over.

Steve Waugh was always good at setting great declarations. He almost always gave the opposition a sniff. That is why he has such a huge percent of test wins. Unfortunatley Punter didn't learn too well

 

[Kiwi]

They batted superbly. But the match was there for Australia to take, but because Ponting wanted Hodge to get his double tonne we didn't take it. 20 more overs on Monday night and the game probably would have been over.

Steve Waugh was always good at setting great declarations. He almost always gave the opposition a sniff. That is why he has such a huge percent of test wins. Unfortunatley Punter didn't learn too well

I am actually going to agree with you on something cricket ( it's not the end of the world but you an see it from here ).

Ponting never gave the a sniff. IT was always going to be very hard to bowl them out when they weren't really going for their shots in an attempt to win.

 

[JJ]

I thought Lee was very good in his first spell, which kemp and rudolph did well to keep out.

yep - but I thought he showed nothing later on - it seems to me that he's often very dangeous when fresh, but not terribly good when backing up - hence his great ODI record, and mediocre test record

 

[Eddie.]

I think Ponting has had 3 losses from 24 tests in charge. I thought out 3-0 in Sri Lanka was one of the great performances by a cricket team, coming behind in the first innings in every test.

Just goes to show as cricket fans, we are a little spoilt.

Steve Waugh often escaped this sort of attention. He used to bowl the abserlout sh*te out of Mcgrath and Warne if things were not working, similarly he would stick to his ultra aggessive fields even when the opposition were on top.

Ive been reading Nasser Hussain's book. I agree with him in which he says Steve lost a bit of touch with reality in always claiming England had to back themselves and play more attacking cricket. Well thats fine steve if you have 4 world class bowlers at the top of their game. Hussain likened it a bit of Man United playing Bolton and telling Bolton to go out there and beat Man United at their own game - not possible.

To my point, whilst most these bowlers are still there Ponting has had to deal with bowlers such as Bracken, Clark, Tait as well as an out of sorts Lee, Gillespie and Kasper for periods of his captaincy.

Its all well and good to cry attack, attack, attack but lets realise the circumstances, and the fact that Steve Waugh never game up against Harmison, Flintoff and Jones, a very good England side.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

In some situations it is not appropriate to be over attacking, however yesterday, having set SA a ridiculous 500 runs to win, he had to be all out attack all day. There was nothing to lose by being attacking. The batsmen were mostly defensive all day. Who cares if they get the odd boundry. almost the whole team should have been around the bat yesterday. It was terrible captaincy. If he knew he was going to set the feild the way he did yesterday he should have set SA around 350 to win.

Fact is, the 12 year old captain of the cricket team I coach would know that. Ponting has no idea. He makes bad calls and his gut instincts are always wrong. We have far better options as captain in Warne, Gilly and Langer.

 

[JJ]

A number of us outside Australia were less than impressed with Waugh's captaincy...

 

[The Colonel]

Its all well and good to cry attack, attack, attack but lets realise the circumstances, and the fact that Steve Waugh never game up against Harmison, Flintoff and Jones, a very good England side.

Waugh played against Harmison and Jones in 2002/2003. Unfortunately Flintoff toured and never played....

 

[The Colonel]

A number of us outside Australia were less than impressed with Waugh's captaincy...

A number of them even have some idea what they are talking about......

 

[JJ]

A number of them even have some idea what they are talking about......

Waugh was not a great captain tactically...

A great leader, a great player (one of my favourites), but tactically a bit naive, and shown up by Fleming in one memorable tour...

Taylor was a much better captain, but didn't have as good a side

As for Waugh not having to face Harmison and co - he had Walsh and Ambrose, Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar, and even Hadlee very early on. Harmison and Flintoff are not in the same league...

 

[The Colonel]

Taylor was a much better captain, but didn't have as good a side

Taylor had both Waughs,Slater, Healy, McGrath and Warne at their best......I'd rate some of the sides Taylor had higher than many of the ones Waugh had.

 

[JJ]

Taylor had both Waughs,Slater, Healy, McGrath and Warne at their best......I'd rate some of the sides Taylor had higher than many of the ones Waugh had.

fine, I still rate Taylor as the better captain, Waugh was very inflexible - he just seldom faced sides good enough to exploit that

I'd argue that Hayden and Langer are much better than Slater and taylor, Healy's not worthy of comparing with Gilchirst, and McGrath is a better bowler now - Warne is different, whether he's better or not I am not sure

 

[Eddie.]

Waugh was not a great captain tactically...

A great leader, a great player (one of my favourites), but tactically a bit naive, and shown up by Fleming in one memorable tour...

Taylor was a much better captain, but didn't have as good a side

As for Waugh not having to face Harmison and co - he had Walsh and Ambrose, Donald and Pollock, Wasim and Waqar, and even Hadlee very early on. Harmison and Flintoff are not in the same league...

Not having to face them, meanign his team didnt come up against them too much under his reign, thus making victories easier to come by. Ambrose and Walsh were inthe twilight when Waugh took over, same with Donald, same with Wasim and Waqar. Taylor and Border had the full force of them in the early 90's.

Waugh's team came up against Harmison and Jones in their first tests, hardly a comparion to now.

 

[The Colonel]

fine, I still rate Taylor as the better captain, Waugh was very inflexible - he just seldom faced sides good enough to exploit that

I'd argue that Hayden and Langer are much better than Slater and taylor, Healy's not worthy of comparing with Gilchirst, and McGrath is a better bowler now - Warne is different, whether he's better or not I am not sure

Taylor was far too conservative, too happy to start out playing for a draw instead of looking to win from the outset and working from there. Sure Waugh may have been inflexible at times but more often than not it worked....

Hayden and Langer are better now, true. Early on though I would easily have Taylor and Slater ahead of both.

Healy sh*ts on Gilchrist as far as a keeper goes. His batting of course would have Gilchrist ahead but in terms of the team at that stage Healy was a better fit.

Warne in Taylor's time was a much better bowler as he wasn't carrying the wear and tear he did then.

McGrath is much better now however the likes of Reiffel, McDermott and Fleming then would be just as comparable to some of the attacks Waugh captained.