Ricky Ponting: worst Australian captain: EVER!

[Ridders]

Actually Gould and Stuart are mates again.. Chappell is jealous of Waugh's success and the fact that Waugh and not Chappell is seen by many as our best ever Captain.

No wonder Chappell is spitting chips. That statement even has me fired up.

 

[Eye_Shot_The_Sheriff]

ponting is great. you're a wanker gene

 

[Hanscholo]

Wow another Ponting basher. Is he the greatest tactical captain ever? No. One of the greatest let-downs in my lifetime was not seeing Warne captain Australia. After Warne was he the best candidate? I would say so. Tell me who else you would have opted for.

Gilchrist? I dunno, micky mouse? it was obvious to all concerned that those in the know, i.e. the senior players who deserted the sinking ship soon after all thought ponting wasnt up to it, and the media as well from the first instant he took over knew the bloke was not the right choice. So warne sent a few SMS messages to women, we have to put up with 8 years of this sh*t to suffer for it? Warne should have been made captain, and if he f**ked up, then sack him...but he was the right choice.

 

[Hanscholo]

Look at the strike players Ponting has had, a few guys nearing the end of their careers and a heap of youngish guys who are nowhere near as good.

Let us not forget that the standard of cricket in a lot of the countries has improved, while Australia has coasted at the same level for about 10 years now.

If Ponting had just one decent, reliable and consistent bowler he'd be winning more tests and threads like this would never start.

Instead hopeless hacks like Siddle and Hauritz keep getting picked. The only reason being that they are the best of the worst.

Waugh had an abundance of bowling options throughout his captaincy, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Bichel, Kasprowicz, Warne, MacGill to name the guys who played the most under his reign.

Ponting at present has Lee, Clark, Johnson and to a lesser extent Hilfenhaus. No decent spinner and no decent back up bowlers.

The fact he's won Test with that rabble is a f**king miracle alone.

Waugh was able to be aggressive, he had the best bowling line up in the world.

The bowlers did an oustanding job in the last two tests. It was our batting and in particular our selection of batsmen and the lack of a spinner that cruled us....R.Ponting is resposible for that, as he has said so himself.

 

[Hanscholo]

Ponting isn't the reason for this lost series.

The squad selected, the fact that not one effective spin bowler was selected, bringing Watson in as an opener (sure he may have gone ok, but everytime the pressure was on, he meekly submitted), having an inexperienced pace attack (Lee and Clark should have played as many tests as they possibly could).

Worse of all was the selection of Hussey. He should not have been selected at all. His failure at 4 constantly put the middle order under pressure. You can't expect the middle order to come up with the goods under pressure every time.

Siddle was too erratic, form wise and bowling wise.
Hauritz was pointless
Watson should have been in the middle order if selected
Hughes should not have been dropped
Clark and Lee should have played more
Michael Clarke should have bowled a sh*tload more.

Furthermore, Johnson showed that he's not the man to give the ball to when the pressure is on. He was given the opportunity to be our pace spearhead and he failed.

The only bowler who looked dangerous all series was Hilfy.

We needed more swing bowling.

When you have a mob of players whose performances were inept more often than reliable, it's ludicrous to go blaming the captain.

imo, the worst piece of captaincy was by Steve Waugh when he enforced the follow on to India in India.

As far as I'm concerned Ponting hasn't had a f**k up of those proportions as yet. And given he doesn't have the class players in their prime of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Gilchrist, Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Lehman, Bichel, Slater and Mark Waugh I think some people need to realise that Liz Ellis could have been the test captain of that side and we would have still won just as many tests.

The fact Ponting is able to take this young inexperienced untried mob and have them competing with a team like England and South Africa is quite impressive.

And you are all taking a lot away from Englands performance. This is the first time I've seen England with attacking bowlers. Their batting was very consistent from 1 to 9. Most importantly, the selected the right players for the wickets they were playing on, they used movement off the seam and pitch to their advantage and that enabled them to constantly apply pressure to the Australian batsmen.

England effectively played smart and simple, which is always hard to beat.

This bullsh*t about enforcing the follow on in India. The wicket had been a f**king nightmare for two days, we destroyed india very quickly. Nobody predicted that it would flatten out and become an absolute road only to once again turn into a nightmare two days later. Seriously, that was one of the poorest turns of luck i have seen in any sport. Any captain would have enforced that follow on. Ponting would have been raring to go with 5 seamers and enforcing it.

 

[Ridders]

Gilchrist? I dunno, micky mouse? it was obvious to all concerned that those in the know, i.e. the senior players who deserted the sinking ship soon after all thought ponting wasnt up to it, and the media as well from the first instant he took over knew the bloke was not the right choice. So warne sent a few SMS messages to women, we have to put up with 8 years of this sh*t to suffer for it? Warne should have been made captain, and if he f**ked up, then sack him...but he was the right choice.

Not arguing with you. You only have to listen to Warnie in commentary to see what a brilliant cricketing brain he has. It's a shame Cricket Australia didn't just grow a set and make the the hard, but right decision. Appointing Ponting was by far the easy way out.

 

[Broncodr01d]

Actually Gould and Stuart are mates again.. Chappell is jealous of Waugh's success and the fact that Waugh and not Chappell is seen by many as our best ever Captain.

Don't believe everything you read by Sydney's best gossip columnists.

 

[madunit]

The squad was more than adequate. Quite a few didn't perform as well as they should have but the touring squad was not the problem. Selections for certain tests yes.

If they were adequate, why did our batsmen get bundled out for 160 in the last innings against what everyone is suggesting is sh*thouse pommie bowlers. Ponting isn't repsonsible for how the other 10 guys bat.

Siddle performed much better than expected and there is a reason why he was the leading wicket taker for the series.

He may have improved, but he was still ordinary. Too many stray deliveries bringing too many easy runs.

Hauritz wasn't pointless but he isn't a first rate spinner. Still better than any spinner england sent up against us.

We played on a few spin friendly wickets and he wasn't selected. His place in the squad was pointless. Why take a spinner to play tests on some spin friendly wickets and not use him.

And when he did play he took way too long to get wickets.

Watson did a capable job. No qualms apart from wether Hughes should have been dropped.

Watson should have been in the middle to Lower order. Hughes should have stayed in the side, Drop Hussey and replace him with Watson. Gives you an extra pace bowler, drop one of the quicks, probably Siddle and replace him with a spinner.

Lee was injured.

He was fit enough for the last test by all reports.

Clark gave us one good innings out of three.

Which ultimately won us the game. His record and past performances speak for themselves. He should be the second person selected behind the captain.

Clarke had a back injury.

Why play him if he's injured? They keep Lee out with an injury but play Clarke with an injury.

The ridiculous thing is that he was clearly out of sorts from the get go yet they tried to bowl him into form.

Johnston appears unable to perform consistently outside of Australia.

Hilfenhaus stepped up big time. We need more practice matches and some preparation with the Duke. How they can go over for the most important test series we play and have trouble with the Dukes is a disgrace to the team management.

I agree. Hilfy was easily the best bowler, he was the only one who constantly had batsmen thinking. He was swinging it a fair bit and getting movement off the seam. We needed two of him out there.

Apart from Johnson and Haddin they weren't inept. Many times they were the sort of performances that we would of expected of england.

They were inept. You've already mentioned that Clarke and Lee were injured, hadding had a busted finger for the last test. If there are so many injuries, why not bring over a larger squad? Selectors are to blame solely for that, not Ponting.

I think this has been pointed out already as patently false.

That's not an argument.

So who is inexperienced? Hughes, North(?), Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Hauritz. Their inexperience had very little bearing on who won the ashes.

Experience is what wins the close games at the end of the day, Compared to past squads, this one has little Test match experience, especially against top test sides.

The majority of the team is quite experienced and on paper quite superior to what england had (with the exception of strauss, pietersen and flintoff)

The results and performances disagree with you wholeheartedly.

And let's get one thing straight - england did not play well.

They played better than Australia, and they won the series.

They bowled two good sessions all series.

And the fact our batsmen failed to compete is somehow Ponting's fault? Please.

Their mediocre batting lineup got away from us on too many occasions. What did ponting do when that happened? SFA.

Who was he going to turn to? Johnston was sh*thouse, Clark was stupidly omitted for too long, Hauritz was bowling turnips, Siddle couldn't keep a consistent line and length. His only way to stop the runs would have been to put everyone on the fence. We needed just one bowler who could bowl a consistent line and length. It's easy to set a field and gameplan when you can rely on your bowlers. It's a different story when the bowling is inconsistent.

england are still sh*t and apart from two good sessions with the ball they were mediocre.

Yet our batsmen failed to stand up and our bowlers failed to take wickets. To think anyone can blame an entire teams failure to perform squarely on the captain is ludicrous.

We have possibly the worst bowling line up of the past 20 years, our middle order can't handle pressure, Hussey was a handicap to the side. We had 3 decent capable bastmen in the team.

That's why everyone is angry.

everyone thats angry is stupid. They believe we should win every series to nil. They obviously aren't paying that close attention to the finer details of the games.

We were beaten by a sh*t team.

Who performed better than us. Who's sh*t now? They had simple and effective game plans, and they worked.

Broad is sh*t.
Harmison is sh*t.
Swann is doubly sh*t.
Flintoff has one knee.
Anderson is sh*t with sprinkles.
Pietersen is crap.
Bell is manure.
Bopara isn't worthy to be called sh*t.
Collingwood is a slightly higher grade of sh*t.
Prior? sh*t laughs at him.

Yet they all performed better than our players. And you feel thats Ponting's fault? Get your hand off it.

Ultimately ponting and the coaching staff have to bear the blame. No amount of swiss ultivites can save him now.

Ponting is responsible for the inept performances of his players or the selectors above him. The only people who should be under fire here are the selectors who named the squad and the selection committee who toured with the team.

Siddle, Johnston, Hussey and Hauritz should all be put on last chances.

One more sh*thouse performance and you'll be replaced.

 

[Slackboy72]

Well clearly I must have been watching the Ashes while you were watching something else.
There is a reason why everyone in this country from club cricket to pura cup want's Ponting gone.
He isn't a captain.

 

[madunit]

How can you blame Ponting for the sh*thouse performances of our batsmen and bowlers.

How is it Ponting's fault that Hussey constantly failed, that our middle order was pissweak, that Hauritz couldn't turn the bull, that Siddle bowled wide snot every over?

Enlighten me, please.

How is all that a direct result of Ponting's captaincy?

Maybe, just maybe, you might consider the fact that most of the test team is comprised of average players.

Aside from Katich, Ponting, Clarke, Clark and Hilfenhaus, everyone else failed to perform at a high enough level. Sure Siddle stepped up his form, But he's still not good enough.

Tell me, how do you set an attacking field for a bowler who strays it once or twice an over?

How did England perform when Harmison first came to Australia and he was straying them everywhere....they got soundly beaten.

It's not a captaincy thing, it's a lack of quality pace bowlers who can bowl a good line and length all the time.

How did England perform when Tuffnell was their spinner....f**k all.

It's not a captaincy thing, it's a lack of a genuine spin bowler who can constantly keep the batsmen questioning. As much as Swann is an average bowler, he managed to ask questions of the batsmen at times. Hauritz has never done that.

How have other sides performed with an inconsistent middle order which fails more often than not....they lose.

It's not a captaincy thing, it's a lack of expereinced batsmen with good techniques and the ability to not get frustrated during good spells of bowling.

It's abundantly clear that Ponting is not the reason why we lost this series, he's not even close to a quarter of the reason why we lost.

But my opinion differs to the majority of you, so you'll continue to try and ridicule me instead of realising that maybe, just maybe, you dumb merkins have no f**king idea at all.

You all expect Australia to win every test, you believe our test side is still better than all the others, when it is ever so f**king obvious that we have an ordinary side.

4th on Test Rankings. We were at first for quite some time under Ponting, don't forget. A lot of new and less talented players have come into the side now, and it's showing.

But you dickheads want a scapegoat for what reason is unknown. We were beaten by a better team who outperformed us in every aspect of the game through the majority of the series.

Instead of being sore losers, how about acknowledging that maybe, we just aren't that good anymore. No matter who the f**king captain is.

 

[Slackboy72]

Well let's just analyse his performance:
1st test: 11 overs at tail enders to win the match. Who does he bring on to bowl? Hilfenhaus? Siddle? No, he brings on North. Why?
2nd test: After dodgy 1st test Johnson just gets worse. What does Ponting do? Tries to bowl him into form during a test. Loses us the test. Why? Because Ponting loves Johnson. Clark was available...
5th Test: On a rapidly deteriorating pitch we have no spinner because that's what Ponting chooses. Then we bring on North on the first day and England score 332 when they should have been scuppered for 200. Day 3 and we are embarrassed in the field and Ponting has no idea what to do. Everyone in the field has their head down except Katich. What did ponting do? Wait for a declaration.

What you don't seem to understand is that ponting has to make some crucial decisions and show leadership when things go wrong. He has a record of making bad decisions and not showing any intiative or leadership when the opposition put up a fight.

You can't say the whole team played rubbish because apart from Johnson, Hussey and Haddin the rest performed admirably.

 

[superdog]

i wouldn't go outright and say ponting should be sacked, but a serious look does need to be taken at the leadership of the team

 

[hineyrulz]

Well let's just analyse his performance:
1st test: 11 overs at tail enders to win the match. Who does he bring on to bowl? Hilfenhaus? Siddle? No, he brings on North. Why?
2nd test: After dodgy 1st test Johnson just gets worse. What does Ponting do? Tries to bowl him into form during a test. Loses us the test. Why? Because Ponting loves Johnson. Clark was available...
5th Test: On a rapidly deteriorating pitch we have no spinner because that's what Ponting chooses. Then we bring on North on the first day and England score 332 when they should have been scuppered for 200. Day 3 and we are embarrassed in the field and Ponting has no idea what to do. Everyone in the field has their head down except Katich. What did ponting do? Wait for a declaration.

What you don't seem to understand is that ponting has to make some crucial decisions and show leadership when things go wrong. He has a record of making bad decisions and not showing any intiative or leadership when the opposition put up a fight.

You can't say the whole team played rubbish because apart from Johnson, Hussey and Haddin the rest performed admirably.

Stop talkiing sense, that is very uncommon in here.

 

[Ridders]

Well let's just analyse his performance:
1st test: 11 overs at tail enders to win the match. Who does he bring on to bowl? Hilfenhaus? Siddle? No, he brings on North. Why?

He bowled North because he wanted to get as many overs in before time ran up, plus the pitch was turning tons. Was it the most logical option (given that Hilfy had played great that game) no but i can understand the thinking in it.

5th Test: On a rapidly deteriorating pitch we have no spinner because that's what Ponting chooses. Then we bring on North on the first day and England score 332 when they should have been scuppered for 200. Day 3 and we are embarrassed in the field and Ponting has no idea what to do. Everyone in the field has their head down except Katich. What did ponting do? Wait for a declaration.

No thats what the Australian public wanted, including many on this very forum. I am 100% sure the selectors and Ponting wanted to play Hauritz at the Oval, as evidenced by the statement they released in between the 4th and 5th test's, but the sheer volume of outrage that that statement caused imo forced them to take the safe option. Very few people on here can be outraged that we didn't play a spinner, as most felt Stu Clark should have stayed in the side.

 

[Bazal]

Ponting isn't the reason for this lost series.

The squad selected, the fact that not one effective spin bowler was selected, bringing Watson in as an opener (sure he may have gone ok, but everytime the pressure was on, he meekly submitted), having an inexperienced pace attack (Lee and Clark should have played as many tests as they possibly could).

Worse of all was the selection of Hussey. He should not have been selected at all. His failure at 4 constantly put the middle order under pressure. You can't expect the middle order to come up with the goods under pressure every time.

Siddle was too erratic, form wise and bowling wise.
Hauritz was pointless
Watson should have been in the middle order if selected
Hughes should not have been dropped
Clark and Lee should have played more
Michael Clarke should have bowled a sh*tload more.

Furthermore, Johnson showed that he's not the man to give the ball to when the pressure is on. He was given the opportunity to be our pace spearhead and he failed.

The only bowler who looked dangerous all series was Hilfy.

We needed more swing bowling.

When you have a mob of players whose performances were inept more often than reliable, it's ludicrous to go blaming the captain.

imo, the worst piece of captaincy was by Steve Waugh when he enforced the follow on to India in India.

As far as I'm concerned Ponting hasn't had a f**k up of those proportions as yet. And given he doesn't have the class players in their prime of Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Gilchrist, Langer, Hayden, Martyn, Lehman, Bichel, Slater and Mark Waugh I think some people need to realise that Liz Ellis could have been the test captain of that side and we would have still won just as many tests.

The fact Ponting is able to take this young inexperienced untried mob and have them competing with a team like England and South Africa is quite impressive.

And you are all taking a lot away from Englands performance. This is the first time I've seen England with attacking bowlers. Their batting was very consistent from 1 to 9. Most importantly, the selected the right players for the wickets they were playing on, they used movement off the seam and pitch to their advantage and that enabled them to constantly apply pressure to the Australian batsmen.

England effectively played smart and simple, which is always hard to beat.

The problem, for me at least, was that Ponting had no answers to what was effectively simple cricket. He simply couldn't manufacture a wicket through either effective bowling changes or fielding plans. He's rarely been able to do it and as far as I'm concerned, that's a fatal flaw. His other major issue is his favouritism of certain players. I agree that Johnson has shown that he is far from the man to get the ball under pressure...but Ponting threw it to him without fail anyway. That last days play earlier in the series spoke volumes about his captaincy, where Hilfy bowled no overs in the last hour and a half of play despite taking the previous wicket and England's tenth wicket stand took them to a draw. The selectors have a hell of a lot to answer for too, for example not taking Bollinger was a terrible mistake, but Ponting lost us the series in that 90 minutes of cricket (not to mention his other mistakes) in my opinion and he should pay for that.

 

[hineyrulz]

The problem, for me at least, was that Ponting had no answers to what was effectively simple cricket. He simply couldn't manufacture a wicket through either effective bowling changes or fielding plans. He's rarely been able to do it and as far as I'm concerned, that's a fatal flaw. His other major issue is his favouritism of certain players. I agree that Johnson has shown that he is far from the man to get the ball under pressure...but Ponting threw it to him without fail anyway. That last days play earlier in the series spoke volumes about his captaincy, where Hilfy bowled no overs in the last hour and a half of play despite taking the previous wicket and England's tenth wicket stand took them to a draw. The selectors have a hell of a lot to answer for too, for example not taking Bollinger was a terrible mistake, but Ponting lost us the series in that 90 minutes of cricket (not to mention his other mistakes) in my opinion and he should pay for that.

Thats the main thing that pisses me off about him as well, how he plays favourites and puts the interest's of the team behind his Pets. They brought in Watson just to cover for Johnson who was bowling like a drain. So they sack young Hughes for team balance :? Watson bowled only 8 overs in 3 games anyway......

 

[bluesbreaker]

Siddle/Johnson should've been dropped for Clark, Hauritz to go home and Kreyza (sp?), the best spinner in the country by far, should've played.