Players that are the most overated by CW posters.

[GIMH]

No, that's not the point. Nothing Ponting did guaranteed anything.

 

[Uppercut]

Ponting's comical ineptitude by itself turned a very decent chance at a drawn series into an almost guaranteed loss. It was comfortably the worst piece of captaincy I've ever seen, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything else before my time that would come close. AFAIC that incident alone is enough to justify Ponting's inclusion in the "worst captain ever" debate.

 

[GIMH]

It was poor captaincy, just to make it clear I am not remotely defending it, I loved it.

I think there was perhaps more than meets the eye going on there (probably been heavily reported on since tbf so I could be wrong) and I struggle with the concept that chimpy took that decision all by himself with no pressure from anywhere else.

Do we really count it as a 'tactical' decision, anyway? Given the reasons it was apparently made, I don't think it is really relevant when discussing his tactical prowess.

 

[vcs]

I agree with GIMH, it did not "guarantee" India anything... they were effectively 250/6 or thereabouts with competent lower order batsmen in Dhoni and Bhajji at the crease. The pitch was really turning as well, so India probably had more than enough runs to play with in any case. It was far from a given that Australia would have won if they had continued with their main bowlers. India put themselves in an unloseable position in that series when Dhoni choked them with the genius 8-1 field on day 3, thereby securing an 80 odd run lead.

 

[Jono]

Where did anyone say it was a given Australia would win? Absolutely manipulating the words of SS' post.

Fact is, all common sense says that India were not going to lose with Cameron White and Mike ****ing Hussey bowling. You don't need to know much about cricket to realise that.

Before they came on, i.e. before tea, India were collapsing and there was real panic (see Sachin's run out).

Ponting guaranteed India would not lose. Of course Australia may not have won, but he prevented any chance of that happening. Any chance at all.

 

[GIMH]

My interpretation of 'cheers for the series' is 'we definitely would not have won but for what you did.'

Absolutely not manipulating anything.

 

[Jono]

I think there was perhaps more than meets the eye going on there (probably been heavily reported on since tbf so I could be wrong) and I struggle with the concept that chimpy took that decision all by himself with no pressure from anywhere else.

Coaches play a part in plenty of bowling strategies, fielding placements and plans etc. Captain still bears the brunt when they go wrong and is sung in glory when they go right.

Same deal here. Ponting's team, he lives by the sword and dies by the sword.

 

[weldone]

India put themselves in an unloseable position in that series when Dhoni choked them with the genius 8-1 field on day 3, thereby securing an 80 odd run lead.

That was a masterstroke, quite a positive move hidden under the pretence of being defensive if you ask me.

 

[Jono]

My interpretation of 'cheers for the series' is 'we definitely would not have won but for what you did.'

Absolutely not manipulating anything.

Not really. It's "you just guaranteed us winning the series", which is exactly what he did.

 

[vcs]

my interpretation of 'cheers for the series' is 'we definitely would not have won but for what you did.'

absolutely not manipulating anything.

awta.

 

[Jono]

India put themselves in an unloseable position in that series when Dhoni choked them with the genius 8-1 field on day 3, thereby securing an 80 odd run lead.

It was not unloseable, and every post in the tour thread by both Australian and Indian posters will show you that. When Sachin was run out and with the way Watson and Krejza was bowling, there was definitely a chance of India losing that test.

And the bookies suggested so at the time.

Plenty of test matches have been won from far more perilous positions than what Australia were in when Sachin's wicket fell.

 

[GIMH]

Coaches play a part in plenty of bowling strategies, fielding placements and plans etc. Captain still bears the brunt when they go wrong and is sung in glory when they go right.

Same deal here. Ponting's team, he lives by the sword and dies by the sword.

Yeah, of course this is true, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is was it really Ponting's decision? I dunno.

Not really. It's "you just guaranteed us winning the series", which is exactly what he did.

Completely disagree, but there you go.

 

[Jono]

When Sachin fell India were basically 6 down with a lead of 272 with the last 6 wickets falling for 50 runs, and the last 3 wickets falling for 3 runs. Clearly invincible from that position

 

[Jono]

I also put into evidence the fact that India collapsed pretty much immediately after Watson was brought back into the attack following the fiasco.

 

[vcs]

When Sachin fell India were basically 6 down with a lead of 272 with the last 6 wickets falling for 50 runs, and the last 3 wickets falling for 3 runs. Clearly invincible from that position

Not invincible, but still favourites to set a 300+ target and win the game. Any bookie that thought otherwise is an idiot.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, of course this is true, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is was it really Ponting's decision? I dunno.

Was definitely a "leadership team" decision (i.e. Ponting, Nielsen and Clarke) but if Ponting had the balls he could have easily said no. He definitely had the authority.

I mean Ganguly has copped overrate bans like a man, on countless occasions

 

[vcs]

I also put into evidence the fact that India collapsed pretty much immediately after Watson was brought back into the attack following the fiasco.

Now, that I was unaware of.. you might have a point there. Anyway, we'll never know.

 

[silentstriker]

Well, that's revisionist. His decision were farcical but it's hardly conclusive that Australia would have gone on to win.

It removed any chance of them winning, and they had to win to draw the series and keep the trophy.

Hence, they gifted India the game, the series, and the trophy.

Ponting's comical ineptitude by itself turned a very decent chance at a drawn series into an almost guaranteed loss. It was comfortably the worst piece of captaincy I've ever seen, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything else before my time that would come close. AFAIC that incident alone is enough to justify Ponting's inclusion in the "worst captain ever" debate.

Yup.

No, that's not the point. Nothing Ponting did guaranteed anything.

Well, there are no 'guarantees' in the actual 'scientific' meaning of the term. Yes, Hussey could have taken 6/9 and won the series.

But it was just about as close as you can get to guaranteeing us the series. Hey you're one down and none of us can really play Lee at this panicky stage...OMG Sachin is run out, oh **** Media will burn all our effigies...we're all doomm....here comes Le......oh hello Mike Hussey - thank you very much. More please.

You know how the best captaincy decision is the one your opponents least want you to do? Ponting didn't just do the opposite of that, he did the opposite of that and then thought 'well how can I give them a surprise gift that even they wouldn't dare hope for?' and then went ahead and did that.

Not on purpose mind you, not implying that at all. But from an Indian fan perspective, it was glorious. One of the most beautiful things I've ever seen on a cricket field.

 

[Jono]

Not invincible, but still favourites to set a 300+ target and win the game. Any bookie that thought otherwise is an idiot.

See now you're changing your words.

No one is denying India were favourites. But Australia could have won. It was hardly impossible. In fact, it was not even that far fetched once Sachin's wicket fell.

You said the match was unloseable at the end of Australia's 1st innings, which is palpably wrong.

 

[silentstriker]

Oh and I stand by my words. At the time, it was certainly 'Cheers for the series'. He effectively removed his team from contention. I don't know how else to call that little gem of captaincy. It was stupid on so many accounts - least of which was that if they had bowled India out, there would have been no punishment for over rates.