• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Which was worse

Ponting by sticking to the spirit of the game and bringing on the part timers to bowl the allotted overs.

Or

Chappell for going against the spirit of the game to ball underarm to win the game.

I take it that most would agree that Chappell did the right thing by winning at all costs.
 

Spudsy2061

U19 Cricketer
Ponting by sticking to the spirit of the game and bringing on the part timers to bowl the allotted overs.

Or

Chappell for going against the spirit of the game to ball underarm to win the game.

I take it that most would agree that Chappell did the right thing by winning at all costs.
DWTA

Spirit of the Game >>> Winning

Chappell was worse.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Both were stupid.

While Ponting's was just plain **** captaincy (by both bowling the parttimers as well as putting himself in a situation where he had to do that) Chappell's was just mocking the spirit of cricket. Nobody want to be victors like that, certainly not a sporting public like Australi.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
The Ponting incident will probably be forgotten in a couple of years, I think the underarm incident has stood the test of time and will continue to do so.
 
Both were stupid.

While Ponting's was just plain **** captaincy (by both bowling the parttimers as well as putting himself in a situation where he had to do that) Chappell's was just mocking the spirit of cricket. Nobody want to be victors like that, certainly not a sporting public like Australi.
But you would have been happy to see Ponting break the rules to push for a win?.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
But you would have been happy to see Ponting break the rules to push for a win?.
I would've loved if he didn't let the over rate go so torrid.

Now having done that, I would've liked him to take a punt, and try and get India out cheaply and then win the match with half a day to spare, which would've negated over rate concerns.
 
I would've loved if he didn't let the over rate go so torrid.

Now having done that, I would've liked him to take a punt, and try and get India out cheaply and then win the match with half a day to spare, which would've negated over rate concerns.

He did take a punt by letting the fast bowlers try to get the wickets but when they couldent he then had to make sure that the overs were bowled.

If he didnt let the over rate go so horrid then Australia wouldent have been in a position to push for a win either.
 

weed wizard

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
spirit of game.

Well you can see the funny side.
In both incidents AUSSIES were involved.
I wish they abide by the spirit of game in coming series against INDIA and THE ASHES.

Punter's ashes prediction 5-0,
We will see that.
 
Well you can see the funny side.
In both incidents AUSSIES were involved.
I wish they abide by the spirit of game in coming series against INDIA and THE ASHES.

Punter's ashes prediction 5-0,
We will see that.
Hahaha, Ponting predicted a five nil win, what a laugh. Can you post a link to this please.
 

Flem274*

123/5
Ponting by sticking to the spirit of the game and bringing on the part timers to bowl the allotted overs.

Or

Chappell for going against the spirit of the game to ball underarm to win the game.

I take it that most would agree that Chappell did the right thing by winning at all costs.
Suspect this is a not very subtle wind up tbh.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Both aren't as simplistic as people paint them. Ponting is the captain but he can't control the run-ups of bowlers, the Aussies of that time were generally skirting the over-rate issue even when managed well. But in terms of what's more damaging for the game, even if they were 10 overs down, getting through 80 overs in a day is still far more than the WI used to get through at times and no-one (surely) argues they were damaging for the game. Even at the time, when the WI sometimes got through 60 overs in an entire day, I don't recall too many people calling them out for it.

The underarm was also a complex issue in some ways. Chappell was in the midst of what's recognised as an acute depression now and, well, people make mistakes. It was within the rules at the time so I guess he figured he could defend it on that basis which was also a mistake. But still, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Chappell did it purely to win at all costs.

This brings me to the crux of the issue I reckon. When people are under enormous pressure, they generally revert to self-interest. Chappell has certainly said as much and I think eventually we'll hear the same from Ponting. Chappell was under the pump in life in general, the game was close, etc. He simply had enough and did what was in his best interests so he could just make the situation go away and reduce the stress on him. This is what Chappell has put on the record. In short, he snapped.

Ponting, I think, also just wanted to make the situation just go away. It was a tough tour, he was under pressure from fans for team performance prior to that, he had team members who were hurting and he was under pressure from administrators because of the over-rate. I think he just snapped too and just wanted to make the situation go away. If he pushed for the W, he'd have been suspended for the first Test against Pakistan and probably been bollocked. He did what he did and whilst he still got bollocked, reckon the uproar is less than it would have been, mainly because he was on the losing side.

None of the above reasons, I might add, justify what happened and Chappell's, in my view, was the far more egregious error(s). They are, however, understandable and it just underscores what can happen to people when they're under stress. People make mistakes. Damage to the game long-term? Vastly over-played in my book on both counts.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Now having done that, I would've liked him to take a punt, and try and get India out cheaply and then win the match with half a day to spare, which would've negated over rate concerns.
There was no guarantee that was even a possibility. Yes Australia had bowled themselves back into the match but they had to absolutely bowl their balls off to do it and India went in the sheds 250 ahead. Ponting's captaincy did squander an opportunity to get back into the match, yes, but a win was still miles off, especially with Dhoni and Harbhajan still at the crease, the bowlers looking pretty sore and Australia down a bowler (Lee).
 
Last edited:

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
There was no guarantee that was even a possibility. Yes Australia had bowled themselves back into the match but they had to absolutely bowl their balls off to do it and India went in the sheds 250 ahead. Ponting's captaincy did squander an opportunity to get back into the match, yes, but a win was still miles off, especially with Dhoni and Harbhajan still at the crease.
Yep.
 

wpdavid

Hall of Fame Member
Both aren't as simplistic as people paint them. Ponting is the captain but he can't control the run-ups of bowlers, the Aussies of that time were generally skirting the over-rate issue even when managed well. But in terms of what's more damaging for the game, even if they were 10 overs down, getting through 80 overs in a day is still far more than the WI used to get through at times and no-one (surely) argues they were damaging for the game. Even at the time, when the WI sometimes got through 60 overs in an entire day, I don't recall too many people calling them out for it.
I remember a lot of fuss in the UK over the WI over-rates. LLoyd's defence at the time was that it ensured the games went the distance insetad of being over in four days, but that doesn't really stack up when you think about how his four-man pace attack might have fared bowling another 30 overs between them each day. Not that Lloyd has ever admitted to anything being wrong during his tenure, of course.

The other really shocking example was the infamous India vs England series in 1981/82.
 

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Ponting by sticking to the spirit of the game and bringing on the part timers to bowl the allotted overs.

Or

Chappell for going against the spirit of the game to ball underarm to win the game.

I take it that most would agree that Chappell did the right thing by winning at all costs.
What a weird post.

I'm not sure "sticking to the spirit of the game" is the defining characteristic of Ponting's actions in that case. I think "allowing the team to get behind on the over rate and then bowl part-timers to try to avoid a fine" is a little nearer the mark. How the "spirit of the game" enters into that is a mystery to me.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I'm loathe to criticise Chappell too much for the underarm incident. A ****ish thing to do - yes, without question.

However the underarm delivery was entirely within the rules of the game at the time.
 

fredfertang

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Just because something is within the rules doesn't make it right and all who were involved in this incident fully deserved to be censured - as for Greg Chappell much as I disliked the bloke who scored so many runs against England I think he's been unfairly villified for his incident
 

Top