Who was Australia's greatest ever captain?

[Starfighter]

Not sure how you can say this. The 2005 team were good on paper but were outplayed in a close fought series that could have gone either way. You can't blame Gilly's sudden declines/newly exposed weakness on Ponting. You can't blame McGrath tripping on a ball on Ponting. Similarly for 2009/10. If you can isolate certain instances or moments where Ponting's leadership cost his side a game and thus the series, then sure. But it's not as simple as blaming a captain. You have all sorts of coaches and support staff, and sometimes players just suck.

Add Gillespie absolutely sucking too. I don't think that was Ponting's fault.

 

[cnerd123]

Even the final Kasporwicz wicket was a bad umpiring decision. Australia could have very well won that game. Can't blame Ponting surely.

 

[stephen]

"We'll have a bowl"

 

[OverratedSanity]

"We'll have a bowl"

*****'s word salads conveniently sidestepped this.

 

[vcs]

The over-criticism of that Edgbaston decision to bowl first at the toss is ridiculous. They ended up losing by 2 runs FFS. Agree with ***** here.

Don't think Ponting was all that great as a captain, but it's stupid to blame him too much for 2005. If you're doing that, you also have to credit him for the way they bounced back by winning 16 (or whatever it was) in a row after that.

 

[Starfighter]

Is Ponting making England bat at Edgbaston really that much worse than Waugh making India follow on in Calcutta?

 

[vcs]

Both decisions were fine. They're only blamed in hindsight.

 

[SteveNZ]

Even the final Kasporwicz wicket was a bad umpiring decision. Australia could have very well won that game. Can't blame Ponting surely.

You cannot be a qualified and standing umpire, as I believe you are, and say that. Kasper's glove exited the bat handle a millisecond before the ball struck it. No third umpire available for such decisions at the time. It was out all day long. I cannot fathom you'd think that Billy Bowden saying out to that after five days out there is a 'bad' decision.

 

[Victor Ian]

In the case of Waugh I think the list would appear something like this.

Adam Gilchrist
Scott Muller
Brett Lee
Simon Katich
Martin Love
Brad Williams
Nathan Bracken

You should add Hayden and Langer. Those guys didn't debut under him but certainly flourished under him.

 

[subshakerz]

INot sure how you can say this. The 2005 team were good on paper but were outplayed in a close fought series that could have gone either way. You can't blame Gilly's sudden declines/newly exposed weakness on Ponting. You can't blame McGrath tripping on a ball on Ponting. Similarly for 2009/10. If you can isolate certain instances or moments where Ponting's leadership cost his side a game and thus the series, then sure. But it's not as simple as blaming a captain. You have all sorts of coaches and support staff, and sometimes players just suck.

It's hard evaluating captains - going simply off their win/loss record is just the lazy way out IMO.

Several points here:

- It is by definition the captain's job to take the team he has on paper and make them perform as a unit and get as good or better results than you would expect out of them. If he fails to do so and they underperform as a unit, then that is a legitimate criticism. Yes, there are other factors, coach, staff, etc, but in the end, the best assessment of a captain's merit in my book is how effectively he improves the performance of the team under his helm.

- The 2005 team were favorites to win, yet ended up losing the series. On paper, even without McGrath, they were arguably the stronger team. So it should never have been that close a series to begin with. England were superbly led by Vaughn but they definitely punched above their weight whereas Australia were on the backfoot after the first test. You can argue that one or two players lost form, but the point is that under a truly great captain, they manage to get the team collectively to lift their performance when faced against similar opposition.

- This doesnt mean that every loss means a demerit for a captain. Obviously, NZ under Fleming and Sri Lanka under Ranatunga could not be expected to beat Australia in their backyard, but if the team's performance can be made more competitive under one captain then credit to him.

 

[subshakerz]

Several points here:

- It is by definition the captain's job to take the team he has on paper and make them perform as a unit and get as good or better results than you would expect out of them. If he fails to do so and they underperform as a unit, then that is a legitimate criticism. Yes, there are other factors, coach, staff, etc, but in the end, the best assessment of a captain's merit in my book is how effectively he improves the performance of the team under his helm.

- The 2005 team were favorites to win, yet ended up losing the series. On paper, even without McGrath, they were arguably the stronger team. So it should never have been that close a series to begin with. England were superbly led by Vaughn but they definitely punched above their weight whereas Australia were on the backfoot after the first test. You can argue that one or two players lost form, but the point is that under a truly great captain, they manage to get the team collectively to lift their performance when faced against similar opposition.

- This doesnt mean that every loss means a demerit for a captain. Obviously, NZ under Fleming and Sri Lanka under Ranatunga could not be expected to beat Australia in their backyard, but if the team's performance can be made more competitive under one captain then credit to him.

I dont fault Ponting for losing to India in 2008 and 2010, for example, since those series you could not really honestly expect Australia to draw much less win. But his Ashes record does indicate that against winnable opposition he couldnt close the deal (would also bring up the 2008 home series against SA he lost) . In 2010 against England at home, his team definitely wasnt poor enough to suffer three innings losses.

Yes, winning 16 tests in a row was a commendable achievement, but its worth pointing out how his team was far superior to all those opposition. This tells me that Ponting was very good in keeping his team on top when all the big guns were there.

 

[Burgey]

You cannot be a qualified and standing umpire, as I believe you are, and say that. Kasper's glove exited the bat handle a millisecond before the ball struck it. No third umpire available for such decisions at the time. It was out all day long. I cannot fathom you'd think that Billy Bowden saying out to that after five days out there is a 'bad' decision.

Bowden was terrible that series, even leaving aside that decision.

 

[cnerd123]

You cannot be a qualified and standing umpire, as I believe you are, and say that. Kasper's glove exited the bat handle a millisecond before the ball struck it. No third umpire available for such decisions at the time. It was out all day long. I cannot fathom you'd think that Billy Bowden saying out to that after five days out there is a 'bad' decision.

Dont get me wrong, I'd have given that out 100/100 (even if it wasn't an Aussie on the receiving end), and there have been far worse decisions made. But with the benefit of hindsight we know he wasn't out, and if that exact moment happened in this day and age with the benefit of DRS he survives and Australia could win.

All I mean to illustrate is that something as narrow as that could have cost Australia the series. Harsh to blame Ponting.

 

[stephen]

The over-criticism of that Edgbaston decision to bowl first at the toss is ridiculous. They ended up losing by 2 runs FFS. Agree with ***** here.

Don't think Ponting was all that great as a captain, but it's stupid to blame him too much for 2005. If you're doing that, you also have to credit him for the way they bounced back by winning 16 (or whatever it was) in a row after that.

It wasn't just deciding to bowl. It was the context. Your premiere bowler had just trodden on a cricket ball and rolled his ankle and now has to be substituted.

Then they went wickets l wicketless until lunch time and didn't even bowl Warne.

It was one bad decision after another.

Much better to have batted, put a total on the board and then defended it with the bowlers who have then had time to make some plans with the changed situation.

I absolutely blame Ponting for that decision, after which England got on top in the series and stayed there.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I dont fault Ponting for losing to India in 2008 and 2010, for example, since those series you could not really honestly expect Australia to draw much less win.

Australia were in with a big chance to square the series in the final test in 2008 when Ponting decided it was a good idea to bowl Camroon White and Michael Hussey. Border basically frothing at the mouth while on commentary while Dhoni and Harbhajan slowly ended Australia's chances was hilarious viewing.

His captaincy was rubbish in the Laxman chase at Mohali in 2010 too. Both very very winnable tests.

 

[Spark]

2010 was also a genuinely very close series too, obviously Mohali could have easily gone the other way had Smith been marginally more accurate with his throw and Bangalore was actually quite competitive until the customary 3rd innings collapse. Even then, Australia weren't that far from putting a genuinely tricky 4th innings chase on the board.

Although, now that I remember it, that would have required Ponting using Hauritz properly...

Bowden was terrible that series, even leaving aside that decision.

The umpiring in Ashes series was properly abysmal until (and indeed even after) the introduction of DRS. Damien Martyn and Simon Katich were particularly hard done by in 05.

It wasn't just deciding to bowl. It was the context. Your premiere bowler had just trodden on a cricket ball and rolled his ankle and now has to be substituted.

Then they went wickets l wicketless until lunch time and didn't even bowl Warne.

It was one bad decision after another.

Much better to have batted, put a total on the board and then defended it with the bowlers who have then had time to make some plans with the changed situation.

I absolutely blame Ponting for that decision, after which England got on top in the series and stayed there.

Eh, I agree with the underlying logic but it doesn't automatically mean you have to bat first (although it mostly does). What you really need in those circumstances is a sense of calm and stability; nothing is worse in that situation where you've suddenly had a massive wrench thrown in the works of a campaign that had otherwise gone very smoothly at Lord's than a sense of crisis and panic. And nothing engenders a sense of crisis and panic more than an early collapse, particularly given that the batting had seemed the only weakness in the first Test on the first day. On balance the fact that the disruption was to the bowling unit probably means he really should have batted anyway but IMO it's not quite so clear cut.

I agree though that the "Aus only lost by 2 runs" argument is spurious, though. The point is that it was a big big big shift from what happened at Lord's which was frankly a hammering after all of two sessions.

 

[cnerd123]

Plenty of good reasons to not rate Ponting as a skipper. I don't rate him either. I just think the series won/loss method is a weak one. These detailed examples of his captaincy in various situations are much better for proving the point and can be so easily drawn upon instead

 

[subshakerz]

Australia were in with a big chance to square the series in the final test in 2008 when Ponting decided it was a good idea to bowl Camroon White and Michael Hussey. Border basically frothing at the mouth while on commentary while Dhoni and Harbhajan slowly ended Australia's chances was hilarious viewing.

His captaincy was rubbish in the Laxman chase at Mohali in 2010 too. Both very very winnable tests.

Yeah now I remember. So that just reinforces my opinion of Ponting.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bowden was terrible that series, even leaving aside that decision.

Not to mention the decision to give Kasprowicz not out LBW in his first couple of balls.

 

[Top_Cat]

The umpiring in Ashes series was properly abysmal until (and indeed even after) the introduction of DRS. Damien Martyn and Simon Katich were particularly hard done by in 05.

Sure they weren’t out technically but Martyn only made his decisions close because he wasn’t picking up the reverse. Was a borderline walking wicket all series and Katich wasn’t much better so it’s doubtful DRS would have resulted in many more runs for them.

I agree though that the "Aus only lost by 2 runs" argument is spurious, though. The point is that it was a big big big shift from what happened at Lord's which was frankly a hammering after all of two sessions.

I don’t think the Aussies believed that, though. The whole summer was close and it was clear England weren’t going to roll over. They came out of a 100+ run loss at Lords with an unchanged side so it’s clear they thought they had the right team. So I doubt the Aussies were walking out thinking they were so far in front that they didn’t see how good the England side were.

My personal read is simpler, that Ponting misread the conditions. Birmingham rags on day 1 but that’s it, leaving the guys batting day 2-4 to cash in. He had two swing-reliant bowlers of the three so probably thought they’d do well against a somewhat inexperienced line-up and the cloud early on day 1 probably tipped him over the line to bowl first. Unfortunately for him, probably due to the Test series starting later and (I think) was a drier summer than usual, the clouds burnt off and there was almost no seam movement.