aussie
Hall of Fame Member
in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.marc71178 said:So in other words he didn't rate Tait enough then!
in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.marc71178 said:So in other words he didn't rate Tait enough then!
I always thought his stock ball was the beamer.PY said:What would you say is Lee's stock delivery or does he not have one? I agree, considering how dangerous he looked at some stages, he shouldn't have gone for so many runs like he did.
No, most captains would not have persisted with Lee when he was being smashed all round the park by Pietersen.aussie said:in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.
Exactly. No bowler should be allowed to go at 8 an over for more than two overs - Lee went at about 12 an over for four overs or something. Stupid captaincy. The gamble clearly hadn't worked - just accept you were wrong, bring on McGrath and try to rescue the situation.marc71178 said:No, most captains would not have persisted with Lee when he was being smashed all round the park by Pietersen.
Marcus Trescothick would agree with you. Either that, or he'd tell you it was the half-volley just outside off.luckyeddie said:I always thought his stock ball was the beamer.
The only thing a decent captain would have done the same as Ponting is bowled Warne a hell of a lot. And even then Ponting should probably have given him a rest at some point.aussie said:in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.
I think so. It was certainly worth doing something, especially while Collingwood was blocking for his life at the most crucial point of the day - maybe giving Clarke or Katich a couple of overs, or even himself - he should have tried something. Yet another example of Ponting's inability to think of his feet like Vaughan can.marc71178 said:Even with Warne, might it not have been worth switching his end at some point during the day?
come on mayn it has nothing to do with Ponting not rating Tait its all about the situation at the Oval, think about lets say it was England bowling on the last day of the test trying to bowl Australia out & they had picked Tremlett dont you think Vaughan would have relied on Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Giles to do most of the bowling & Tremlett would have been underused????Tom Halsey said:The only thing a decent captain would have done the same as Ponting is bowled Warne a hell of a lot. And even then Ponting should probably have given him a rest at some point.
What's the point of playing a specialist bowler if he's not going to bowl? I agree with Mr. Rubble, Ponting quite obviously doesn't rate Tait.
I think part of chappell's argument was that giving him the captaincy might encourage Warne to prolong his test career. It won't happen though.Craig said:Once again we have Ian Chappell and Neil Harvey advocating Shane Warne to be captain and replacing Ricky Ponting, now as someone with an obvious limited cricket knowledge,, but wouldn't this be a short term thing since Warne has perhaps 18-24 months left at the most in his Test career and be a backward step then a forward one since we are only going to have to find a new one inside two years?
I agree with Ian Chappell though - he needs to go out and lead the team his way.
So how come he didn't bowl him then?aussie said:come on mayn it has nothing to do with Ponting not rating Tait its all about the situation at the Oval
Which is why MacGill should have played.aussie said:in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.
he could have at least had more fielders around the bat, given that collingwood wasnt going to have a hit.Barney Rubble said:I think so. It was certainly worth doing something, especially while Collingwood was blocking for his life at the most crucial point of the day - maybe giving Clarke or Katich a couple of overs, or even himself - he should have tried something. Yet another example of Ponting's inability to think of his feet like Vaughan can.
Good call - 10 off 50 balls, and yet still Ponting persisted with the same line and the same field.tooextracool said:he could have at least had more fielders around the bat, given that collingwood wasnt going to have a hit.
1. Again situation of the game at that stage if i'm write listening on the radio in school he went back to McGrath, Ponting just didn't trust the youngster at that stage he was always going to bowl Pigeon/Lee/Warne for most of the day, most captains would have done the same so it would be wrong to say Ponting doesn't rate him.marc71178 said:Considering Lee was giving away runs the way he was, and yet Ponting STILL didn't give Tait a go?
If a player's picked in the 11 then he needs to be used, or what's the point of picking him in the first place?
yea probably....Mister Wright said:Which is why MacGill should have played.
No, I honestly don't think Tremors would have been under-bowled.aussie said:come on mayn it has nothing to do with Ponting not rating Tait its all about the situation at the Oval, think about lets say it was England bowling on the last day of the test trying to bowl Australia out & they had picked Tremlett dont you think Vaughan would have relied on Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Giles to do most of the bowling & Tremlett would have been underused????