Australia do not have a good enough captain to lead the next generation

[marc71178]

What, then, prey?

You might have forgotten but he's lead England to a convincing win in SA then a convincing win over Australia.

 

[Autobahn]

Inzy isn't a great captain, obviously. Would he still be in the job if Javed or someone was coaching Pakistan at present? Anyone's guess.
Seriously, though - Dravid has barely captained for long anyhow so we can't judge him fully, but Vaughan must be the most overrated captain ever. Except maybe Mike Gatting. English people are too quick to praise Ashes-winning captains - especially in 1986\87 when The Ashes was a battle for the wooden-spoon of Test-cricket.

Wooden-spoon of test cricket!? I mean Aus might not have been too hot at the time, but at that time england where certainly not at the bottom of the table, they where at least equal to NZ and India and surely better than Sri Lanka at that time and the same would be true for aus i would bet.

The thing about inzy is that his on field captaincy isn't his best card, it's his efforts in uniting the team that's been the big improvement, for pak has the talent it's just getting it organised properly that's the been the big headache since Imran Khan retired.

And anyway i remember gatt being a very decent captain actually.

 

[Mister Wright]

Would Symonds seriously have been any better? Or Clark?
I reckon it's pretty likely whoever got bowled then would've got absolutely murdered.

Who know? Maybe, maybe not. The point is nothing else was tried, when it should have been. If the result still ended in a loss, then fair enough at least Ponting could say he changed things up, but keeping Lewis on just because he is 'the death bowler' when he's getting smacked is just not good enough.

 

[honestbharani]

Ponting is the worst Australian captain I have seen in my time of watching cricket. Period.

 

[Slats4ever]

yeah but how long have you been watching

 

[Mister Wright]

Ponting is the worst Australian captain I have seen in my time of watching cricket. Period.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Francis]

Waugh may be as tough as they come with the bat, but he had little test as captain because his attack was so strong and his batting-line-up so destructive. He rarely had to control tight situations (two occasions he failed to were in the subcontinent in 1999\2000 and 2000\01). How does that 150-odd* say anything about his captaincy.

His 150-odd says his courage rubbed off on the boys. When Taylor was captain, he seemed content drawing dead rubbers, and saying that Australia didn't lose a game. Waugh hated draws and always wanted to win. Ponting had almost the same line-up as Waugh and hasn't done as well. Waugh had good instincts and knew how to inspire his team mates. And his team mates delivered perfection because they knew he'd accept no less. It's one thing to have talent, it's another to utilise them correctly. The super test in an example of a bunch of all-stars who couldn't play as a team.

And yes, Waugh saved his team with the bat as well. His last ball of the day century came when Australia needed a hero. I don't understand how anybody can call Waugh a bad captain solely off the fact that he lost the odd game with a great team. The fact that he united a team of great talent speaks volumes. The 80s West Indies were a better team, yet they never had a streak like that. They had series where they lost games and nearly lost against Pakistan and salvaged a 1-1 series draw. It takes a great leader to lead a great side. Ponting was shocked at what was happening to his team... he wasn't used to it. Waugh never panicked.

Yes, in case you've missed it, Fleming is a very good captain.

Why? By the way, Fleming tried to mold himself after Steve Waugh.

Vaughan did little better than Ponting in The Ashes. It's just propaganda.

Vaughn was brilliant. He was like Steve Waugh in that his team showed so much attrition. They set out plans and kept to them. Vaughn was always asking questions about weather or not the ball was swinging because he wanted to know if his plans would work. His bowling changes were fantastic. Simon Jones was used perfectly. He remained focused and acute in his plans and their execution. His fields to Hayden were ingenius and he tried new things to Gilchrist, like fly slips. He set aggressive fields but didn't allow leakidge of runs. He demanded a quality from his bowlers and they delivered. You could see the team unity going into Edgbaston as well... takes a lot of character to come back from where they were.

Atapattu and Smith certainly aren't mediocre captains, both are perfectly solid.

Meh. I'll accept that. They don't capture the imagination.

Having grit is all well and good - you can't do anything without good players and this is easily the poorest Australian Test team since 1989 and the poorest ODI team since 1986\87.

I'd take this current Australian team over the 90s Australians for most of the 90s. Looking back at the 1999 World Cup shows perfectly how awesome Steve Waugh was. Australia did poorly and barely made it to the next round. They literatly put themselves in a position where they had to win every game from an early stage to get there. Steve Waugh set out acute plans that were to be executed properly. Like when they played Pakistan in the final, Waugh knew Australia needed to play like South Africa, who had an awesome streak against Pakistan. Waugh noticed those things about teams.

And before you get into it, South Africa, not Australia, were the most talented team in the 1999 world cup. Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock were on fire. Gary Kirstin is SA's best ever one-day opener. Names like Cronje, Rhodes, Gibbs and Kallis in your middle order are amazing. And best of all, Lance Klusener was performing, in a brief period, better than any ODI player I've ever seen. I remember that world cup distinctly... SA were hot favorites to win it... and in truth, they really should have.

Steve Waugh's plans for every team were clearly set out and he wanted them executed properly. Just a flukish comeback.

Slight problem with that - can't play a banned cricketer as captain.

Warne lost the vice captaincy long before that.

PS - can't you just use the quote system like everyone else, rather than just using bold-type?

There's nothing wrong with using bold letters. It allows me to quote things from different posts as well.

 

[age_master]

IMO Langer is the best captain in the test side. The way he used power plays against South Australia to win one of their ING games was amazing. That day he just seemed to read things before they happened, Ponting reads things after they have happened.

yeah Langer or Warne would be the best, but neither is going to happen.

 

[andyc]

There's nothing wrong with using bold letters. It allows me to quote things from different posts as well.

You can simply use the [q.u.o.t.e.] [/q.u.o.t.e.] command. It just means that people don't misconstrue it as something you're highlighting, rather than something you're quoting.

 

[Francis]

Thanks brother.

 

[Matt79]

Steve Waugh was an excellent captain. It's one thing to say "well he just had an excellent team for a prolonged period of time", its being superficial to deny what input waugh as captain had in maintaining that excellent team for such a relatively long period. Waugh brought to the team the attitude of never taking results for granted, of understanding just how hard winning can be.

Ponting hasn't had the experience of international downs that a Border, Taylor or Waugh has had. The Ashes were uncharted territory for him - no McGrath in the tests we lost, Gillespie having a total form break-down, an inspired opposition. I hope he'll learn as a captain from this and become a better leader. My impression is that he's a little too reticent in demanding performances from his team, a bit too passive - his ashes diary keeps on saying "I feel its not my role to tell players what's required - they should know", etc. Probably a product of him instinctively understanding things, and previously having a team that were all either taught by hard experience.

As for the fuss about failing to defend 434, I think you have to look at the bigger picture. Was Punter possibly compromising one game, and a fairly meaningless ODI series (in terms of how much generic one day cricket is played) in order to ascertain whether some of the possible bowling options for WC2007 are the right stuff. Probably. Much as many of the selections of bowlers this summer have been experiments. I think the team leadership is taking a long view to trying to identify replacements (as much as is possible) for McGrath and Gillespie. Obviously some experiments are going to go wrong. I think everyone knows Mick Lewis and Mitchell Johnson aren't the best bowlers in the country AT THIS MOMENT. Not down playing SA's achievement, but get a grip everyone - its one obviously freaky game. We lost the two earlier in the season because Ponting and Symonds were out.

 

[Richard]

You might have forgotten but he's lead England to a convincing win in SA then a convincing win over Australia.

And what, prey, did he demonstrate in the way of outstanding captaincy in those series?
Results aren't what make a good captain - good captaincy is.

 

[Richard]

Wooden-spoon of test cricket!? I mean Aus might not have been too hot at the time, but at that time england where certainly not at the bottom of the table, they where at least equal to NZ and India and surely better than Sri Lanka at that time and the same would be true for aus i would bet.

Whaaaat? NZ were infinately better than England (Crowe, Coney, Wright, Smith, Bracewell, Hadlee) - they beat them comfortably the previous summer! So, incidentally, did India - the last Tests India won outside the subcontinent for fifteen years.
Only Sri Lanka could possibly be considered below England and Australia in 1986\87 - between 1985\86 and 1989 England lost 7 series out of 8, winning just a single Test outside The Ashes 1986\87 (against Sri Lanka). This culminated in successive hammerings by West Indies and Australia in 1988 and 1989. The 2nd half of the 1980s was comfortably the blackest period in English cricket history.
Australia, meanwhile, between 1983\84 (in West Indies, post-triple-retirement) and 1988\89, played 46 Tests and won just 7 (in 12 series, won 1 and lost 8), of which 3 were dead-rubbers.
Everyone knows that Australia were in the doldrums in the mid-1980s.

And anyway i remember gatt being a very decent captain actually.

Oh, quite, but he wasn't a miracle-worker and that team was about the worst England have ever had.
Even so - he'll probably be remembered best for the Shakoor incident. Whatever mitigation there was, he was seriously in the wrong there.

 

[Richard]

Who know? Maybe, maybe not. The point is nothing else was tried, when it should have been. If the result still ended in a loss, then fair enough at least Ponting could say he changed things up, but keeping Lewis on just because he is 'the death bowler' when he's getting smacked is just not good enough.

Haven't you ever seen it before?
I certainly have?
It's none-too-great captaincy but it's certainly not dire.

 

[luckyeddie]

And what, prey, did he demonstrate in the way of outstanding captaincy in those series?
Results aren't what make a good captain - good captaincy is.

Stop being a blooming prairtle all your life, you dozy bogger.

It's about leadership on and off the field, knowing how to get the best out of your players, how to come up with a plan 'B' when plan 'A' doesn't work and then - and here's the big one - being able to execute that plan.

 

[Richard]

His 150-odd says his courage rubbed off on the boys. When Taylor was captain, he seemed content drawing dead rubbers, and saying that Australia didn't lose a game. Waugh hated draws and always wanted to win. Ponting had almost the same line-up as Waugh and hasn't done as well. Waugh had good instincts and knew how to inspire his team mates. And his team mates delivered perfection because they knew he'd accept no less. It's one thing to have talent, it's another to utilise them correctly. The super test in an example of a bunch of all-stars who couldn't play as a team.

And yes, Waugh saved his team with the bat as well. His last ball of the day century came when Australia needed a hero. I don't understand how anybody can call Waugh a bad captain solely off the fact that he lost the odd game with a great team. The fact that he united a team of great talent speaks volumes. The 80s West Indies were a better team, yet they never had a streak like that. They had series where they lost games and nearly lost against Pakistan and salvaged a 1-1 series draw. It takes a great leader to lead a great side. Ponting was shocked at what was happening to his team... he wasn't used to it. Waugh never panicked.

The 1980s West Indies certainly did have a streak like that - it was theirs Australia beat. In any case - by 1986\87 West Indies were on the way down, which was when they started having problems.
I haven't called Waugh a bad captain, I've said he was never massively tested as a capain. And he wasn't. Because he had a far better team than Ponting, Border or even Taylor. It wasn't difficult to know who to toss the ball to, or who to send in next.
Yes, Waugh deserves some praise for the downgrading of the "not in dead-rubbers" attitude, but really - dead-rubbers are dead-rubbers - they're Tests that don't really matter much.
Hence losing a few doesn't really blot my perception of Taylor unduly.
Ponting, meanwhile, certainly hasn't had the same team as Waugh - most importantly, he didn't have Waugh himself. Nor did he have his brother, as Stephen did 1998\99-2001. Nor did he have Slater. And it's no coincidence that Ponting started-off very well - twin victories in Sri Lanka and India, something neither Taylor nor Waugh managed. Before The Ashes, in fact, Australia lost just 1 Test in the Ponting-captaincy period, that a dead-rubber on the Mumbai minefield. The downfall coincided with the loss of Gillespie and Kasprowicz (and 2 crucial Tests missed by McGrath), plus 1 or 2 other things.

Why? By the way, Fleming tried to mold himself after Steve Waugh.

Did he? Fleming captained NZ long before Waugh captained Australia.

Vaughn was brilliant. He was like Steve Waugh in that his team showed so much attrition. They set out plans and kept to them. Vaughn was always asking questions about weather or not the ball was swinging because he wanted to know if his plans would work. His bowling changes were fantastic. Simon Jones was used perfectly. He remained focused and acute in his plans and their execution. His fields to Hayden were ingenius and he tried new things to Gilchrist, like fly slips. He set aggressive fields but didn't allow leakidge of runs. He demanded a quality from his bowlers and they delivered. You could see the team unity going into Edgbaston as well... takes a lot of character to come back from where they were.

I assure you - Vaughan didn't need to "demand" quality - and even if he had, it wouldn't have come if Jones, Flintoff and Hoggard didn't possess the skill.
I found the bowling-changes obvious. Take Harmison off after he's been belted early, take other bowlers off when they're not looking great, don't bowl Hoggard if the ball's not swinging conventionally, don't bowl Giles if it's not turning - that's the good thing about having a 5-man attack. No coincidence that when they bowled rubbish at Lord's, no amount of changes could make anything happen.
Whether or not he tried "new" things to Gilchrist, the fact is it was conventional attacking swing-bowling that got Gilchrist mostly. Vaughan IMO deserves little credit. As for Hayden - always been vulnerable to good swing.

I'd take this current Australian team over the 90s Australians for most of the 90s. Looking back at the 1999 World Cup shows perfectly how awesome Steve Waugh was. Australia did poorly and barely made it to the next round. They literatly put themselves in a position where they had to win every game from an early stage to get there. Steve Waugh set out acute plans that were to be executed properly. Like when they played Pakistan in the final, Waugh knew Australia needed to play like South Africa, who had an awesome streak against Pakistan. Waugh noticed those things about teams.

And before you get into it, South Africa, not Australia, were the most talented team in the 1999 world cup. Allan Donald and Shaun Pollock were on fire. Gary Kirstin is SA's best ever one-day opener. Names like Cronje, Rhodes, Gibbs and Kallis in your middle order are amazing. And best of all, Lance Klusener was performing, in a brief period, better than any ODI player I've ever seen. I remember that world cup distinctly... SA were hot favorites to win it... and in truth, they really should have.

Steve Waugh's plans for every team were clearly set out and he wanted them executed properly. Just a flukish comeback.

South Africa lost to Australia because of a fluke... nothing more. If Klusener had called properly, SA would've won. In any case, we're discussing Waugh's captaincy in Tests, not ODIs.
Australia's side of 1999\2000 was IMO better than any side of the 2001-onwards period. The Waughs and Slater were IMO better than anything they managed to replace them with, even if the results still kept coming for a while.

Warne lost the vice captaincy long before that.

Yes, for good reasons.

There's nothing wrong with using bold letters. It allows me to quote things from different posts as well.

You can do that using quotes, too. There's nothing wrong with using bold type, but there is something wrong with not using quotes - it makes it much harder to reply to you.

 

[Richard]

Stop being a blooming prairtle all your life, you dozy bogger.

It's about leadership on and off the field, knowing how to get the best out of your players, how to come up with a plan 'B' when plan 'A' doesn't work and then - and here's the big one - being able to execute that plan.

The execution is down to the men in the ranks (esp. if the captain is a batsman).
In case you've missed it, it's almost always Duncan Fletcher who comes-up with the plans in the England dressing-room - that much has been evident by the amount Hussain has said.
As far as I can see, in any case, Hussain didn't often fail in getting the best out of his players. Indeed, his captaincy fleetingly made some pretty ordinary players look a bit less bad than they were.

 

[Francis]

I haven't called Waugh a bad captain, I've said he was never massively tested as a capain.

His streak says differently. England tested Australia in 2001. By Waugh's own admission, he felt Australia won the series 4-1 with a few crucial sessions. Australia had to stand up at tough moments and did so. They could have crumbled under the pressure like Ponting's team did, but they didn't.

Because he had a far better team than Ponting, Border or even Taylor. It wasn't difficult to know who to toss the ball to, or who to send in next.

Ponting has a weaker team? Both Waugh and Ponting had Hayden-Langer as openers. Ponting as number 3. Ponting's had it easier with Martyn at number four. Martyn was gold in 2004 touring the sub-continent. Steve Waugh, in tests, had a washed-up twin. Of course Steve Waugh had Steve Waugh. Both had Gilchrist. You can argue Australia was at their peak in bowling when Warne returned in 2004 and they had Warne, McGrath and Gillespie... all in great form. Their donkey bowler, Kasprowitz, was doing fine too.

Yes, Waugh deserves some praise for the downgrading of the "not in dead-rubbers" attitude, but really - dead-rubbers are dead-rubbers - they're Tests that don't really matter much.

Winning is a habbit you need to keep up with.

Ponting, meanwhile, certainly hasn't had the same team as Waugh - most importantly, he didn't have Waugh himself.

One of the reaons Waugh was a great captain. He was a great player and it rubbed off on players.

Nor did he have his brother,

Mark Waugh was useless in the late 90s and was dropped quickly after the turn of the century. Having Damien Martyn make six centuries in the sub-continent was the number one reason Australia conquered there.

Nor did he have Slater.

I like Slater, but he's not close to Matthew Hayden as an opener. I'd take Langer, who's figures are skewered because the second part of his career is much better, over him as well. Seriously, if I'm rating the 10 best Australian batsmen ever I have Hayden in there...

And it's no coincidence that Ponting started-off very well - twin victories in Sri Lanka and India, something neither Taylor nor Waugh managed.

Warne bowling on the uber dusty pitches helped. The spin bowlers are impossible there. Martyn making centuries Mark Waugh couldn't make helps as well.

The downfall coincided with the loss of Gillespie and Kasprowicz (and 2 crucial Tests missed by McGrath), plus 1 or 2 other things.

Agreed to an extent. People don't realise the value of Gillespie. Then again, Ponting handed England a great advantage at Edgbaston. Ponting even did things that made no sense. At Trentbridge, the pitch was dusty and Warne was his only striker. Defending a small total he should've given the ball immediately to Warne. Michael Holding was dumbfounded.

Did he? Fleming captained NZ long before Waugh captained Australia.

Yep Fleming captained long before Waugh captained. Back in the day where Michael Crowe gave him great criticism thinking he shouldn't be captain. He used Waugh as a model for improvment.

I assure you - Vaughan didn't need to "demand" quality - and even if he had, it wouldn't have come if Jones, Flintoff and Hoggard didn't possess the skill.

He knew how to use them.

I found the bowling-changes obvious. Take Harmison off after he's been belted early, take other bowlers off when they're not looking great, don't bowl Hoggard if the ball's not swinging conventionally, don't bowl Giles if it's not turning - that's the good thing about having a 5-man attack

Huh? Vaughn did way more than that. There were periods where England needed Flintoff and Jones... yet he'd wait for the new ball. He did bowl Hoggard when the ball wasn't swinging at times. Giles isn't a big turner of the ball and had never been. I'm sorry but that part of the post came off trying to dumb down Vaughn's contibutions by saying basic things when they hardly skim the surface of what Vaughn did. You can make anything sound simplistic and easy... a lot harder to do in person.

No coincidence that when they bowled rubbish at Lord's, no amount of changes could make anything happen.

When he changed the bowling and put Simon Jones on, he had plenty of catches dropped. I still remember a fuming Jones storming off the ground.

Whether or not he tried "new" things to Gilchrist, the fact is it was conventional attacking swing-bowling that got Gilchrist mostly. Vaughan IMO deserves little credit. As for Hayden - always been vulnerable to good swing.

Vaughn was always asking weather the ball was swinging to see how it would react to different opponents. Hayden was put under pressure by attacking fields, not just swing. Hayden looked to help had a lazt preparation to the Ashes because I've seen him walk down the pitch to swing before. Hayden was a bully with the bat and England cut him off.

South Africa lost to Australia because of a fluke... nothing more. If Klusener had called properly, SA would've won. In any case, we're discussing Waugh's captaincy in Tests, not ODIs.

Australia getting that far was nothing short of incredible. And for the record, there's something that not a lot of people realise about that run-out. The previous ball went to mid-off and Donald wanted the run before realising he was never gonna get it and would have been run-out off a direct hit. Because Donald was so eager to run, the next ball Klusener expected Donald to run, while Donald knew he did the wrong thing the previous ball and stayed in his crease. Sort of a weird moment where their communication failed. It was a choke though. Best ODI game I've ever seen though.

Australia's side of 1999\2000 was IMO better than any side of the 2001-onwards period. The Waughs and Slater were IMO better than anything they managed to replace them with, even if the results still kept coming for a while.

Slater's not one of Australia ten best batsmen ever. Hayden and Ponting are. Slater's not there with Bradman, Chappell. Waugh, Border, Harvey, Ponting, Boon, Hayden or probably even Langerr. For a brief period, Hayden and Langer were the best opener pair ever (statisticly). I don't agree with that. Greenidge and Haynes as well as Hobbs and Sutcliffe were better. But on average, they were up there.

Yes, for good reasons.

Never understood why something he did off-field changes what he does on-field.

You can do that using quotes, too. There's nothing wrong with using bold type, but there is something wrong with not using quotes - it makes it much harder to reply to you.

I made a hash of it in another thread.

 

[Richard]

His streak says differently. England tested Australia in 2001. By Waugh's own admission, he felt Australia won the series 4-1 with a few crucial sessions. Australia had to stand up at tough moments and did so. They could have crumbled under the pressure like Ponting's team did, but they didn't.

Not really, England were never close to being up to it in that series. Dropped catches cost an absurd amount in the First and Second Test and as a result we never came close. Only time we ever really gave Aus a run for their money was in the Third Test - that was nip-tuck for most of the game.
Fourth Aus were on top throughout until the enforced declaration, and Fifth was one of the most comprehensive thrashings ever.
England didn't test Australia in 2001 and nor did any team (aside from India in India 2000\01) between India 1999\2000 and West Indies 2003. Even New Zealand in 2001\02 Australia would almost certainly have won comfortably but for rain.

Ponting has a weaker team? Both Waugh and Ponting had Hayden-Langer as openers. Ponting as number 3. Ponting's had it easier with Martyn at number four. Martyn was gold in 2004 touring the sub-continent. Steve Waugh, in tests, had a washed-up twin. Of course Steve Waugh had Steve Waugh. Both had Gilchrist. You can argue Australia was at their peak in bowling when Warne returned in 2004 and they had Warne, McGrath and Gillespie... all in great form. Their donkey bowler, Kasprowitz, was doing fine too.

Mark Waugh only got washed-up in 2001\02. For his twin's first 3 years he was still in the top class. I'd say M Waugh was a better player than Martyn is.
Ponting, very briefly, had a better attack than Waugh and it's no coincidence that in that short period Australia accomplished two things Waugh's team never did. In that period, their record was p17 (1 seriously disrupted by rain), w13, l1, d2 (1 of those 2 with the last day washed-out too).
As soon as Gillespie and Kasprowicz lost it, though, something had to give.

Winning is a habbit you need to keep up with.

Hardly caused Taylor any problems - only series he lost were in the subcontinent, which had more to do with weakness than lack of winning-habit.
I maintan - dead-rubber Tests aren't really that important in terms of results.

One of the reaons Waugh was a great captain. He was a great player and it rubbed off on players.

No, talent doesn't rub-off. Only a player can make themselves good - even good captaincy can't make bad players into good ones.

Mark Waugh was useless in the late 90s and was dropped quickly after the turn of the century. Having Damien Martyn make six centuries in the sub-continent was the number one reason Australia conquered there.

Mark Waugh was useless in the late 1990s, what planet are you on? Aside from Sri Lanka 1999\2000, Waugh's form was perfectly fine between 1999 and 2001 - he had 2 other moderate series (WI and Pak).
Martyn only made 4 centuries on the subcontinent (at least 2 of them involved dropped catches anyway) and clearly it made a difference, but even so - elsewhere Martyn lacked in comparison.

I like Slater, but he's not close to Matthew Hayden as an opener. I'd take Langer, who's figures are skewered because the second part of his career is much better, over him as well. Seriously, if I'm rating the 10 best Australian batsmen ever I have Hayden in there...

Slater isn't close to Hayden, what madness is this? Slater could actually score runs in all conditions, not like flat-track-bully Hayden who has barely conquered seaming conditions in his Test-career.
Slater was a better Test opener than Hayden will ever be and probably better than Langer, too - Langer is only a manufactured opener in any case.

Warne bowling on the uber dusty pitches helped. The spin bowlers are impossible there. Martyn making centuries Mark Waugh couldn't make helps as well.

Warne's bowled crap in India before, remember? Mark Waugh never had much problem in India, it was Sri Lanka where he struggled, and that was probably more coincidence than anything, as conditions in India and Sri Lanka are generally negligably different.

Agreed to an extent. People don't realise the value of Gillespie. Then again, Ponting handed England a great advantage at Edgbaston. Ponting even did things that made no sense. At Trentbridge, the pitch was dusty and Warne was his only striker. Defending a small total he should've given the ball immediately to Warne. Michael Holding was dumbfounded.

What, Warne should've opened?
I doubt he'd have been very effective then. Few if any spinners can bowl too well with a brand-new ball.
Aside from the error in fielding at Edgbaston, Ponting's captaincy was nowhere near as poor as it was painted to be.

Yep Fleming captained long before Waugh captained. Back in the day where Michael Crowe gave him great criticism thinking he shouldn't be captain. He used Waugh as a model for improvment.

That'd be Martin Crowe.
I never remember Fleming being criticised too much, nor do I remember him mentioning Waugh much as a model.

He knew how to use them.

Which I maintain that I could have done quite easily. It's not difficult to manage a high-calibre attack.

Huh? Vaughn did way more than that. There were periods where England needed Flintoff and Jones... yet he'd wait for the new ball. He did bowl Hoggard when the ball wasn't swinging at times. Giles isn't a big turner of the ball and had never been. I'm sorry but that part of the post came off trying to dumb down Vaughn's contibutions by saying basic things when they hardly skim the surface of what Vaughn did. You can make anything sound simplistic and easy... a lot harder to do in person.

He hardly bowled Hoggard when the ball wasn't turning, which wasn't rocket-science. Giles turned the ball enough in the first-innings' at Edgbaston and Old Trafford, as he has plenty of times before.
I don't find that Vaughan's captaincy was outstanding - good, yes, no basic errors, yes, but certainly not the magnificence it's been painted to be.

When he changed the bowling and put Simon Jones on, he had plenty of catches dropped. I still remember a fuming Jones storming off the ground.

By that time the game was gone.
The only significant drop in the game came from Pietersen off Clarke. The other 5 didn't matter at all.
The bowlers still bowled crap, even if there were lots of dropped catches.

Vaughn was always asking weather the ball was swinging to see how it would react to different opponents. Hayden was put under pressure by attacking fields, not just swing. Hayden looked to help had a lazt preparation to the Ashes because I've seen him walk down the pitch to swing before. Hayden was a bully with the bat and England cut him off.

No, you've simply hardly seen anyone bowl swing at Hayden because hardly anyone has in the last 4 years. If we'd seen him face it more, his average wouldn't be anywhere near what it has been since 2001\02. We've seen Hayden walk down the pitch when there's no swing before, plenty of times, but put swing into practice and bully becomes bullied.

Australia getting that far was nothing short of incredible. And for the record, there's something that not a lot of people realise about that run-out. The previous ball went to mid-off and Donald wanted the run before realising he was never gonna get it and would have been run-out off a direct hit. Because Donald was so eager to run, the next ball Klusener expected Donald to run, while Donald knew he did the wrong thing the previous ball and stayed in his crease. Sort of a weird moment where their communication failed. It was a choke though. Best ODI game I've ever seen though.

I know that - but had Klusener assumed less and concentrated more the run would've been completed easily.

Slater's not one of Australia ten best batsmen ever. Hayden and Ponting are. Slater's not there with Bradman, Chappell. Waugh, Border, Harvey, Ponting, Boon, Hayden or probably even Langerr. For a brief period, Hayden and Langer were the best opener pair ever (statisticly). I don't agree with that. Greenidge and Haynes as well as Hobbs and Sutcliffe were better. But on average, they were up there.

There is absolutely no way Hayden is one of Australia's best batsmen ever. Slater is a better Test opener anyday, because he was actually challenged and came through with flying colours. Hayden since 2001\02 has very, very rarely been challenged.

Never understood why something he did off-field changes what he does on-field.

Wasn't referring to that - he was dropped as vice-captain because he wasn't suitable.

I made a hash of it in another thread.

Just let the forum do it for you - click on the "QUOTE" button and use the prompt, rather than trying to do it yourself.

 

[steds]

[Q.U.O.T.E=andyc]You can simply use the [q.u.o.t.e.] [/q.u.o.t.e.] command. It just means that people don't misconstrue it as something you're highlighting, rather than something you're quoting.[/Q.U.O.T.E]

Couldn't have made it any clearer