Nothing tops the Healy/Slater scream team, for mine.
Yeah Healy could be painful depending on who he was on with. He's still been on some coverage I think but not as much.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Nothing tops the Healy/Slater scream team, for mine.
Also, Ponting had no ******* idea how to use a spinner not called S. K. Warne. His method for spinners was 'Give the ball to Shane and let him set his field'; no notion of how to force opposition to target regions of the ground bowling over or around the wicket as an offie, no real acceptance of offspin as a valid method within the Australian way.
Clarke gets a lot of credit as a captain, but I don't think he was really all that much better. He was willing to trust a spinner more than Ponting was - Ponting would only bowl a bowler he trusted, and if you weren't McGrath, Johnson or Warne he didn't trust you - but his plans for Hauritz and early Lyon (and Kreja) were pretty ******* pedestrian.
Only really under Langer did we begin to do what was necessary to really think about offspin in a subcontinental way.
I know that, my post probably wasn't clear enough in the demarcation between Ponting and Clarke's captaincy.Agree with your criticisms of Ponting's captaincy RE spin, but Ponting never captained Lyon, and Clarke never captained Hauritz/Krejza in Tests.
Really? My problem with Ponting was twofold:Clarke was a better tactician for the following reasons:
1) More inventive field placings (willing to use leg slips, fly slips and deeper slips, which I don't recall Ponting really doing)
2) Better at setting the bowler to the batsman (Pietersen to Siddle, Harris/Johnson to Cook, Johnson to the ENG tail)
3) Better at using part-timers (using Mike Hussey and David Warner to winkle out wickets when nothing was happening)
4) More willing to stick with plans (Ricky Ponting captained Tests like he did ODIs, which meant he tended to change the field constantly and set fields to bad bowling)
5) Having a better idea of how to use bowlers generally (Ricky Ponting seemed to think Johnson was an Akram/McKenzie hybrid; Clarke recognised that he was a shock bowler)
In a lot of ways, Clarke is Kohli.Clarke struggled to fully adapt to overseas conditions, however. The ENG 2015 tour was a disappointment, and the IND 2012/13 and PAK 2014/15 tours were a disaster.
Ricky Ponting was the better man-manager, but even then there were certain personalities he struggled with. He and Hauritz clashed, and by his own admission, he didn't understand Johnson.
I know that, my post probably wasn't clear enough in the demarcation between Ponting and Clarke's captaincy.
Really? My problem with Ponting was twofold:
He was the most rigid captain in my lifetime. We play my way. That's it. Never mind it not working; never mind plan A feeds into opposition's hands; never mind it never working in India. No. We play my way, and we just rely on being the best to see us through.
He had no reason to be so rigid, not when he was a part of the squad that went to India in 2001 and lost then modified their plans and preparation and won in 2004.
The other issue I had was that he clearly played favourites. He had go to bowlers; now granted, if you've got McGrath and Warne in your team you're probably going to them more often than not. But if he didn't trust you, the second he looked at you to bowl you were under pressure for your spot.
You cannot run a team that way. It's a s**t way to treat people, and it's akin to having a selection committee after the selection committee has already picked the team.
In a lot of ways, Clarke is Kohli.
Both players were the dominant figures of their countries before and during captaincy. Both were different fish in the changerooms, and changed their sides to make them more aggressive. Both sought to play cricket harder than their opponents, and both succeeded a formative leader. Both players were the dad for their sides with the vice captain (Haddin for Clarke and Rahane for Kohli) being the mum; the vices compensated somewhat for the poorer grasp of the interpersonal. Both saw tremendous overseas success, but both have also failed and failed badly when it counted.
Clarke gets a lot of credit for tactical acumen when IMO I don't think being a better captain than Ricky Ponting is all that hard a bar to clear.
I feel like Waugh's approach was significantly more calculated, thought through than Ponting's was. He and Buchanan got on and decided on a course of action and singlemindedly honed in on trying to do it; most of the time it worked. Ponting felt instinctive, and thus limited in that he didn't understand why what he did sometimes worked and when it didn't he had no recourse other than 'Warnie, any ideas?'I think this describes Steve Waugh, or even Steve Smith, far better than it does Ponting.
Steve Waugh's philosophy was 'attack, attack, attack' and when that didn't work, he'd do it some more. It almost always worked because we had an ATG side, but when it didn't, the consequences were disastrous (Calcutta 2001, Adelaide 2003, Sydney 2004).
See, I think this is due to who his role models were, Ponting and Clarke. He also had Lehmann sitting off his left shoulder and Warner on his right; enough words have been spoken about both Smith's obsessiveness around all things cricket and his weakness as a leader.Steve Smith struggled to think on his feet, so invariably the opposition lower-order would mount a fightback and he'd have no idea what to do.
That. It's ironic that I find Chappell very 'old man shakes fist at cloud', but I agree with him. Reactive to a fault.Ricky Ponting was perfectly willing to change field settings when things weren't working. The problem is, he did it too often, and in response to bad bowling. That works in ODIs, but not Tests. In truth, I reckon Ricky Ponting served too long as ODI captain before becoming a Test captain, and that affected how he captained Tests.
Interestingly, Ian Chappell thought that Ricky Ponting was too conservative in Test matches, and I think that's because he captained them like ODIs. In ODIs a more conversative approach works, which is why he excelled at that format.
I didn't really say his way was attacking, more that things were done his way without flex.I agree that Ricky Ponting's natural instincts are very attacking, but he didn't captain like that. So I don't think he really captained 'his way'.
Hmm...I think Ricky Ponting was an average Test captain who roughly performed to his side's ability. Sometimes better (SA 2008/09), sometimes worse (ENG 2010/11, arguably ENG 2005). The likes of Steve Smith, Kim Hughes and Tim Paine were clearly worse.
I was younger than 10 when Taylor ceased being captain, don't remember it.I'm surprised that people debate Clarke's tactical acumen. IMO he's at least on Taylor's level tactically, and I'd argue better given that he had less to work with. Taylor was very clever with field settings, but like Border/Ponting, he'd too often default to the "let's bowl Shane ad nauseum" tactic. It usually worked, but when it didn't (Edgbaston 1997, IND 97/98), things could get ugly. Clarke didn't have that issue, and he was quick on his feet.
.. out of a desire to be proactive, to set himself apart, to create a legacy for himself. It's why Kohli reminds me so much of him.EDIT: Also, IMO Clarke made bolder declarations than Taylor or Ponting (declaring when trailing against WI in 2012 - who else has done that?).
I feel like Waugh's approach was significantly more calculated, thought through than Ponting's was. He and Buchanan got on and decided on a course of action and singlemindedly honed in on trying to do it; most of the time it worked. Ponting felt instinctive, and thus limited in that he didn't understand why what he did sometimes worked and when it didn't he had no recourse other than 'Warnie, any ideas?'
Waugh also had a bit of rat cunning about him. He'd let sides back in to put pressure on them; go on, play exceptional, world record cricket to beat us. Go on, do it while staring down Matthew Hayden with the bat who can and will blast the ball straight back at you deliberately hard to try and knock your head off. Go on, take on Glenn McGrath or ******* Warne.
See, I think this is due to who his role models were, Ponting and Clarke. He also had Lehmann sitting off his left shoulder and Warner on his right; enough words have been spoken about both Smith's obsessiveness around all things cricket and his weakness as a leader.
Smith's leadership was a vehicle for Lehmann more than anything else, IMO. The side was built around Australia renewed, around conjuring the image of Waugh's Australia, and were all the more pugnatious out of imitation.
That. It's ironic that I find Chappell very 'old man shakes fist at cloud', but I agree with him. Reactive to a fault.
That'd be the difference between him and Clarke more than anything else. Clarke tried to be proactive where Ponting didn't.
I didn't really say his way was attacking, more that things were done his way without flex.
I think he'd have been similar to Nathan Buckley as a coach: I don't understand, just go out there and get 35 disposals and 8 clearances and kick two goals, it's not that hard, I used to do it every week. Why can't you just be like me? No real self awareness when it comes to the capabilities of others; no conception that there's something to learn from everyone, something that can be contributed from everyone.
I can talk about this stuff for hours.
Hmm...
Ponting had for the first half of his career a team of worldies and some pretty ******* incredible replacements. Stuart Clark has been somewhat forgotten, but as a bowler he just gave as McGrath figures for around 4-5 seasons. Lee became a very disciplined bowler. Imagine discovering a bloke who would average 80 for almost four years the way Hussey did. Clarke becoming the player he became when he grew up. Johnson.
While pure speculation, I think if you give any other captain in world cricket at the time the sides he had they've have given better results.
I was younger than 10 when Taylor ceased being captain, don't remember it.
.. out of a desire to be proactive, to set himself apart, to create a legacy for himself. It's why Kohli reminds me so much of him.
It was ego as much as boldness.
Taylor is comfortably the best Test Captain of my span watching the game - he had a flair for it, was attacking and inventive when it was demanded and rarely let the game drift - there is a big gap to the next best
Very surprised at some of the positive Ponting takes here.
He was reactive, caused unnecessary delays, and was rarely ahead of the game.
He was one for moving a fieldsman to where the boundary had just been hit.
He copied Vaughan’s use of the deep point sweeper just because Vaughan used it well against us in the ‘05 Ashes.
Ponting would have conferences to set the field with the bowler immediately after a drinks or lunch break, as if they hadn’t had enough time to work this stuff out.
The biggest stuff up of all was during the third test of the ‘08 tour of India. We had them on the ropes but he bowled Hussey for a spell because we had fallen behind the over rate.
This next part cannot just be slated home to the captain alone (some of it may be the coach), but standards in training and preparation dropped badly under Ponting, and I consider this why we lost the ‘05 Ashes.
Say what you want about Steve Waugh having a great team (and he did), he still took that team to unprecedented dominance.
He made difficult calls. It was his decision to try Gilchrist as an opener in ODI cricket. Tom Moody took it well.
He also made the call, and delivered the news, to drop Warne in ‘99, which obviously burnt their relationship and from which Warne never recovered emotionally.
Probably worth considering that many of the greats who played under Waugh became great under him. Gilchrist, Langer and Hayden in particular, and you could make a case for Gillespie and McGrath each improving too.
Contrast with Ponting, who churned through spinners, hamstrung several fast bowlers, and under whom probably only Hussey and Martyn (briefly) actually improved.
Michael Clarke was a breath of fresh air after Ponting (talking onfield only). Again, some of this is down to coaching because Clarke had Mickey Arthur, Darren Lehman and Craig McDermott, and Ponting had Tim Nielsen, but the transformation of Siddle and Hilfenhaus between those summers was incredible. A lot to be said for simple, full bowling with a 6-3 field.
Clarke also brought Warner on, and to a significant degree Steve Smith.
Players improving is in no small part down to leadership, culture and environment.
Potential to be in place for as long as Pigeon is still alive. Even then, one of his kids might take it over.The “Pink test” has run its course.
Let it go back to being a normal test and raise the money elsewhere.
Are we really going to be wearing pink hats in 50 years time?
“Dad what’s with all the Pink?”
“The wife of one of our bowlers 70 years ago died from breast cancer”
... and that's a problem, why?The “Pink test” has run its course.
Let it go back to being a normal test and raise the money elsewhere.
Are we really going to be wearing pink hats in 50 years time?
“Dad what’s with all the Pink?”
“The wife of one of our bowlers 70 years ago died from breast cancer”
so Test cricket in India sucks also for the same reason?Test cricket in Australia sucks because the touring sides can't win.
Test cricket in Australia sucks because the touring sides can't win.