Australia's Post Ashes Blueprint

[aussie]

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.

 

[luckyeddie]

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.

I always thought his stock ball was the beamer.

 

[marc71178]

in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.

No, most captains would not have persisted with Lee when he was being smashed all round the park by Pietersen.

 

[Barney Rubble]

No, most captains would not have persisted with Lee when he was being smashed all round the park by Pietersen.

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.

 

[Barney Rubble]

I always thought his stock ball was the beamer.

Marcus Trescothick would agree with you. Either that, or he'd tell you it was the half-volley just outside off.

 

[Tom Halsey]

in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.

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.

 

[marc71178]

Even with Warne, might it not have been worth switching his end at some point during the day?

 

[Barney Rubble]

Even with Warne, might it not have been worth switching his end at some point during the day?

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.

 

[greg]

The problem, it seemed to me, was that Ponting semed terrified of the consequences of taking Warne off (this was true throughout the series, not just on the last day). England had repeatedly shown that they were capable of fundamentally changing the balance of a match in half-an-hour to 45 mins when the pressure was lifted. Such was the lack of control exerted by Australia's back up bowlers that "giving Warne a rest" was just a gamble he was not prepared to take. It's easy, with hindsight, to say he made a mistake but really I think he was justified in what he did. As long as Warne was capable of bowling, he had to bowl. Arguably the only mistake he made was not biting the bullet and opening the bowling with him.

EDIT: Incredible to think how times have changed with modern scoring rates. Take a look at the Headingley scorecard in 1981. Can you really imagine the equivalent of Peter Willey being given 3 overs in a similar situation today?

 

[aussie]

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.

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????

 

[Craig]

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.

 

[greg]

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.

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]

To be honest two years is long enough for him and then will probably be a good time to gout when he is out on top (assuming he still bowling well).

He also another good point though as their is no 20/21 year version of Clarke or Ponting coming through right at this moment, there are potentially some future options (ie Mark Cosgrove) but he still no where near international level and will need a very good year to force himself into the selectors minds.

 

[marc71178]

come on mayn it has nothing to do with Ponting not rating Tait its all about the situation at the Oval

So how come he didn't bowl him then?

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?

 

[Mister Wright]

in a way but in the situation i reckon most captains would have done the same.

Which is why MacGill should have played.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

he could have at least had more fielders around the bat, given that collingwood wasnt going to have a hit.

 

[Barney Rubble]

he could have at least had more fielders around the bat, given that collingwood wasnt going to have a hit.

Good call - 10 off 50 balls, and yet still Ponting persisted with the same line and the same field.

Every time someone points out something else he did wrong, he goes down in my estimation. And yet I have yet to find one error that Vaughan made all summer that had an effect on the match.

 

[aussie]

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?

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.

2. lets say Tait had played like 10-15 tests before the oval ponting would have bowl him more...

 

[aussie]

Which is why MacGill should have played.

yea probably....

 

[Tom Halsey]

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????

No, I honestly don't think Tremors would have been under-bowled.