5th Ashes Test England v Australia July 27-31 1930hrs @ The Oval

[eddiesmith]

... as a batsman.

As a captain, he was extremely conservative, and was a worse captain than both of the two he succeeded and the one who followed him.

One could make the argument he underachieved badly with the side he had available. Michael Clarke would've killed for bats of the caliber of Martyn, Langer, Hayden, Gilchrist and for McGrath and Warne.

Now, does he provide insights we don't usually get in comms? Absolutely he does, but that makes how conservatively he captained worse, not better.

Why is he tactically brave only from the position of pundit?

Didn’t Clarke follow him?

 

[frankrizzo]

One got beaten by a better team and Patty bottled it with some shocking tactics.

Although interestingly I saw something the other day that the formidable and unbreakable fast bowling trio of Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood have led Australia to just 1 series victory outside Australia in their careers together.

The bowlers have done well enough to win more overseas in that time it's clearly inconsistent batsmen that have been bigger issue.

 

[frankrizzo]

Didn’t Clarke follow him?

Clarke was a dickhead but he was a great on field skipper.

 

[Partridge]

Bairstow was picked as a keeper. He kept like an amateur 3rd grade cricketer.

Don't know why anyone is surprised. Teams have been picking the best batsman instead the best keeper for decades now. Still remember shaking my head at England leaving out Chris Read when he was clearly their best keeper by a long way.

 

[sherb]

No, he's being judged because his tactical acumen as captain was reserved solely to 'give the ball to Shane and let him set the field' and nothing else.

There'd be more than a few captains who'd have been able to get that kind of results with his batting ability and the side he had around him.

But you could argue that about any captain with a talented side.

How much tactical nous did Clive Lloyd need or display when he had a bowling side including Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Croft (etc) and a batting lineup of Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, himself, Gomes, Richards, Dujon (etc)?

 

[TW Sherrin]

He really wasn't a great tactical leader, also look at how many people are calling Cummins a terrible skipper yet he retained ashes, ponting went over as skipper twice in 05 09 and surrendered ashes both times why does he get a pass for that?

maybe have a look at the England team Ponting played compared to the team Cummins just saw.

chalk and cheese imo.

 

[TW Sherrin]

No, he's being judged because his tactical acumen as captain was reserved solely to 'give the ball to Shane and let him set the field' and nothing else.

There'd be more than a few captains who'd have been able to get that kind of results with his batting ability and the side he had around him.

so he's being judged for having the greatest spinner of all time in the team?

that's silly. every captain would be doing the same and you're also disrespecting Warnes cricket IQ.

 

[PhatBoy]

But you could argue that about any captain with a talented side.

How much tactical nous did Clive Lloyd need or display when he had a bowling side including Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Croft (etc) and a batting lineup of Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, himself, Gomes, Richards, Dujon (etc)?

Lloyd’s legacy as captain was based around uniting a group that had a ton of talent but that didn’t really have an identity prior to the mid 70s.

 

[Gethelred]

Didn’t Clarke follow him?

Clarke was a better captain than Ponting was.

 

[Gethelred]

But you could argue that about any captain with a talented side.

How much tactical nous did Clive Lloyd need or display when he had a bowling side including Holding, Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Croft (etc) and a batting lineup of Greenidge, Haynes, Richardson, himself, Gomes, Richards, Dujon (etc)?

I can't judge Clive Lloyd nor his team as I never saw them play. I did watch the entirety of Ricky Ponting's captaincy, so I can judge him against his contemporaries, his predecessors and his successors.

Of the Australian captains I've seen, only really Paine and Smith are worse than Ponting was, IMO.

 

[Gethelred]

so he's being judged for having the greatest spinner of all time in the team?

that's silly. every captain would be doing the same and you're also disrespecting Warnes cricket IQ.

You respond selectively to the points made in the posts you quote.

 

[sherb]

Lloyd’s legacy as captain was based around uniting a group that had a ton of talent but that didn’t really have an identity prior to the mid 70s.

My point remains. A captain's success/otherwise relies heavily on how talented his side is.

It's a dig at Ponting's captaincy ("oh he was only successful because of the quality of the team he led") that I've never understood. Of course a captain with a talented side can, and should, do well. As a captain with a s**t side will likely struggle.

A far bigger criticism of Ponting's captaincy would be if he hadn't been successful with the side he had.

But back to Lloyd - how do you reckon he would go leading the current West Indian Test side?

 

[sherb]

I can't judge Clive Lloyd nor his team as I never saw them play. I did watch the entirety of Ricky Ponting's captaincy, so I can judge him against his contemporaries, his predecessors and his successors.

Of the Australian captains I've seen, only really Paine and Smith are worse than Ponting was, IMO.

I was likening the assessment of Lloyd to your assessment of Ponting. Ie, he had bowlers (not one, but multiple) who he could throw the ball to knowing they were champions who would do the job for him. They probably set their own fields too.

Not much tactical nous required for "here Malcolm/Michael/Joel/Andy/Colin, do your thing".

 

[Gethelred]

I was likening the assessment of Lloyd to your assessment of Ponting. Ie, he had bowlers (not one, but multiple) who he could throw the ball to knowing they were champions who would do the job for him. They probably set their own fields too.

Not much tactical nous required for "here Malcolm/Michael/Joel/Andy/Colin, do your thing".

But that's the thing I mean: I didn't see any of it.

When Australia struggled under Ponting, I saw him go to Warne and give him the ball and watched Warnie be captain. It's something that Cummins - for example - gets criticized for doing; 'Might as well let Smith be captain if he's going to make all the decisions.' There was zero bravery when it came to selection, zero courage on when/how to use a spinner when Warne retired; it was 'give the ball to Shane' or it was 'you need to go for below two runs an over regardless of conditions or you're out of the attack.'

Hauritz outbowled Graham Swann in the Ashes tests they played against each other, but where Swann was feted and used to maximize his strengths Hauritz was treated as a hanger on, not worthy to fill Shane's spot and certainly operating without the confidence of the captain. He was a better bowler than that, and the statistics bear that out.

The bloke had no idea how to use a spinner in test match cricket, or how to play to a template other than 'have the best players in the world and get them to do their thing'.

Now, you might've seen Clive Lloyd having similar issues when Marshall, Holding et al weren't available or they went to someone else, but I didn't so I can't make that claim with any degree of certainty. What I can say is that according to series reports the bowlers were capable of changing their lengths and strategies depending on where they were (Australia, India, England) and the sheer number of world class quicks coming into that side - as well as those kept out - suggests that his captaincy with the ball was more flexible than Ponting was. That is about as far as I'm willing to go there, because I've not seen it.

However, some caveats. Ponting mightn't have been the best Test captain, but I'd have no other - except for maybe MS Dhoni - as an ODI captain in his era. He knew how to release tension or tighten it, he knew how to bring out the best in his squad and managed to harness Tait for an ODI world cup. He was a brilliant bat, and I rate that Edgebaston 2005 ton as inside the best 2-3 knocks I've ever seen from an Australian captain (2017, Smith in India on that rancid thing in Pune, and Clarke's ton in Columbo 2012 in the 4th dig to draw a series on a pitch later graded as unsafe that I watched with a shitty stream that made me wonder whether it was the stream skipping or was the ball actually spinning that far) but as a test captain he was unimaginative and deeply conservative with a team that could've galavanted with the best.

 

[swingdog]

Best Australian captains I've seen in order:

1. Taylor
2. Chappell I
3. Border
4. Waugh
5. Clarke
6. Chappell G
7. Ponting
8. Smith
9. Cummins
10. Hughes
11. Paine

Doesn't include the stand-ins though special mention for Gilchrist in India. I feel like I've missed someone...

 

[PhatBoy]

My point remains. A captain's success/otherwise relies heavily on how talented his side is.

It's a dig at Ponting's captaincy ("oh he was only successful because of the quality of the team he led") that I've never understood. Of course a captain with a talented side can, and should, do well. As a captain with a s**t side will likely struggle.

A far bigger criticism of Ponting's captaincy would be if he hadn't been successful with the side he had.

But back to Lloyd - how do you reckon he would go leading the current West Indian Test side?

I think he would be able to imbue them with a lot more focus and spine and identity than what they have at the moment.

It’s no coincidence that they play better against England than most other teams: they hate them. England have made the mistake of mouthing off about them in the past and it seems to drive them and they actually play with steel and focus.

There is no shortage of talent in and around west Indian cricket and I don’t doubt for a second that Lloyd would be able to unite them to some degree

 

[kickazz]

Best Australian captains I've seen in order:

1. Taylor
2. Chappell I
3. Border
4. Waugh
5. Clarke
6. Chappell G
7. Ponting
8. Smith
9. Cummins
10. Hughes
11. Paine

Doesn't include the stand-ins though special mention for Gilchrist in India. I feel like I've missed someone...

Yallop?

 

[swingdog]

Yallop?

Thanks, told you I miss someone, was doing it off the top of my head.

Would have him rent fairly low. Still have nightmares about that 5-1 loss to England. Also, Simpson would be reasonably high for his efforts in coming out of retirement during Packer. Good series win against India, and then a loss against the West Indies. But then everybody lost against the West Indies.

 

[burge13]

Where does BAZBALL go next?

I am keeping my Kayo sub running specifically for this!

I wouldn't be surprised if Baz is the number 1 name for boys and girls in England 12 months from now.

BAZBALL

 

[melanChronic]

*the weighting of losing points for slow over rates hurt england, australia and india most as they play 19-22 tests and present more opportunities for slow over rates compared to the others who play 12-15.

Good point. It also skews in the favour of those nations that play on spin friendly pitches a lot.

I think there should be harsh penalties for slow play, but it is a little rigid just viewing getting through the overs as the fielding side's job. Batters waste a stack of time with the sightscreen, movement of spectators, glove changes etc.

I could envision some kind of chess clock system where the umpire can start the clock for either side when they determine that the play should be occurring. Some kind of high tech stopwatch that could be conveyed to the screen as well so that the crowd is aware. One umpire could be in charge of the batting side clock, and one for the fielding side (and they keep those roles across innings to ensure consistent interpretation).

 

[FredLeDeux]

Good point. It also skews in the favour of those nations that play on spin friendly pitches a lot.

I think there should be harsh penalties for slow play, but it is a little rigid just viewing getting through the overs as the fielding side's job. Batters waste a stack of time with the sightscreen, movement of spectators, glove changes etc.

I could envision some kind of chess clock system where the umpire can start the clock for either side when they determine that the play should be occurring. Some kind of high tech stopwatch that could be conveyed to the screen as well so that the crowd is aware. One umpire could be in charge of the batting side clock, and one for the fielding side (and they keep those roles across innings to ensure consistent interpretation).

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, "it's the runs, stupid".
Penalise them in runs, and the problem will disappear overnight.

 

[peetoo]

And we would have - correctly - copped more deductions if Bazball meant England consistently batted for more than 80 overs.

Just reading a bit more, if you bowled a team out in under 80 overs you couldn't receive deductions for that innings. If you bowled a team out twice in under 160 overs you couldn't receive deductions for the match. That's a very dubious sub-clause the ICC has put in there.

EDIT: A bit of a * you to the fans who have been complaining about over rates for years now, and so they should be. That's such a nothing clause really from the ICC. "We've put this in to penalise teams" but in reality, those are pretty massive get-out clauses for fielding teams. Not too mention they give teams about a five-over leeway on bowling their 90 overs in a day (which already has a 30 minute leeway built into the day now).

Are there spirit if the game points.

Series, though flawed attracts massive interest. Body judges it to have been boring.

 

[King Elvis]

I think they asked for a ball change an absurd amount of times across the series - at least it felt that way. I was surprised the umpires allowed it, given how often they had to check the ball and confirm that it was fine.

As much as we were stitched up by this ball change, I think it does raise a valid, separate issue.

If the ball goes to shit because the batting side is tonking it, isn't that an advantage that the batting side has earnt?

Why does the bowling side get to change the ball if they have their arses handed to them, and the batting side losing that benefit?

 

[King Elvis]

that's gonna hurt - or push both australia and england right until their last test series in the cycle to finish top 2.

australia will have to win 10 of their remaining 14 matches and could and should still win those , but we can't control the sydney weather and we still have 2 tests there in this cycle.



*the weighting of losing points for slow over rates hurt england, australia and india most as they play 19-22 tests and present more opportunities for slow over rates compared to the others who play 12-15.

And I am absolutely fine with these sanctions - teams don't give a shit about the over rate, a financial penalty isn't going to change that; it needs to be a heavy penalty, like this.

Perhaps now in the future, sides will take the over rate requirement seriously (I read somewhere that one afternoon when we were 9 for, England took 28 minutes to bowl 4 overs, to avoid having to bat for the last half hour the day).

 

[King Elvis]

His last 7-8 years would contend with almost anyone. It's actually a bit of a shame how poor he was this series.

I mean, the instruction was for dead tracks to support Bazball - Anderson was always going to battle in that context.