• 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.

A battle for the soul of Australian cricket

greg

State Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
I don't think England played particularly "nice" cricket. The provocation with sub fielders, pre-series comments from players, attempting to get given the light in an attempt to take time from the game when they were even batting and so on were pretty aggressive "win at all costs" sorts of acts.
Well we won't go back over the sub issue again (which was only "provocation" because the aussies decided to suddenly take issue with this decades old practice), but "attempting to get given the light in an attempt to take time from the game when they were even batting "? A slightly strange comment. I would have thought more outrageous would be attempting to get given the light when they were even fielding

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145273.html
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Emcee said:
. The problem with sacking him now is who will captain once Warne goes???
Why ? one of the others. Gilchrist and Langer are two main contenders I would say.
 

sqwerty

U19 Cricketer
Emcee said:
Yeah but how much control is Ponting allowed??? I think the major problem here is CA's desire to have a likeable captain rather than a winning one. I mean why wasn't Ponting vice captain to Waugh the whole time if they never intended to make Gilchrist captain, it was all about image. If CA went for the best captain Warne or Lehmann would have suceeded Waugh. I think when he was about Lehmann helped Ponting alot and now Ponting has been left all alone without a long stint as vice, without his mentors and with an inept coach, no wonder he is struggling. The problem with sacking him now is who will captain once Warne goes???
There's no way he'll get sacked.

If you're disappointed with Ponting, just think back to the World Cup final....That'll make you feel better about him.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
greg said:
Well we won't go back over the sub issue again (which was only "provocation" because the aussies decided to suddenly take issue with this decades old practice), but "attempting to get given the light in an attempt to take time from the game when they were even batting "? A slightly strange comment. I would have thought more outrageous would be attempting to get given the light when they were even fielding

http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/145273.html
Sorry, I meant when they weren't even batting. And with the sub fielders, I was referring to purposely putting Pratt on the field when Ponting came out to bat, sending Penney on straight away after the run out occured, and Duncan Fletcher (allegedly) baiting Ponting out of the window of the dressing room about the sub issue after he got run out.
 

Emcee

Cricket Spectator
Im not ready to write Ponting off yet I just think he has been given a rough go by CA's rubbishness and Buchanan's ineptness. Hopefully this is the end of Buchanan and we can get a decent coach. I think Border would be perfect and help Ricky alot.

Why ? one of the others. Gilchrist and Langer are two main contenders I would say.
If Warne is given the captaincy he would out last these two. Gilly has indicated he might not even make the next world cup and looked that disinterested on this tour and Langer has two years tops left. So after the 2007 World Cup and with Ponting deemed not good enough who is captain???
 

greg

State Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Sorry, I meant when they weren't even batting. And with the sub fielders, I was referring to purposely putting Pratt on the field when Ponting came out to bat, sending Penney on straight away after the run out occured, and Duncan Fletcher (allegedly) baiting Ponting out of the window of the dressing room about the sub issue after he got run out.
1) They didn't try and bug the umpires to go off for bad light when they were fielding. Whether they wanted to or not is somewhat irrelevant. Surely you can tell the difference between larking about (eg. Flintoff's comment about "putting lights on the bails") and actively bugging the umpires.

2) "purposely putting Pratt on the field when Ponting came out to bat". What? I think you're confusing the commentary box jokes with reality. And from what i recall, when he came on in the last test he spent most of the time at deep point.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
honestbharani said:
He was nice in the sense that he never said a word to the batsmen, unless it was a guy like Steve Waugh annoying him with his words... And he has been rated as extremely friendly by guys like Dravid and Sachin. Gavaskar was talking yesterday about how good a role model he was to all fast bowlers. I don't see why he can't be called 'nice and friendly'.
Because he wasn't.

You just picked a really bad example - particularly if you meant his conduct on the field, which, given the context of this thread, I presume you do. But further on from what Faaip has said about what happened on the field, Ambrose didn't tend to socialise with white players, and by some accounts he made his feelings on this clear. Perhaps that's why Sachin and Dravid have different recollections.

Incredible bowler - but not who you'd hold up as a nice, friendly cricketer. Unless you consider Javed Miandad one.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
greg said:
I would be interested in the thoughts of Australians about a possible crossroads (might it exist?) in the WAY that Australia play their cricket. I do not think it would be going too far that this tour represents the final end of the "Border approach" to test cricket. When histories are written about the dominance of Australia over England one of the factors often cited is the order by Border on that 1989 tour not to socialise etc with the England players. It was the epitomy of the "win at all costs" attitude (and is the basis for many of the English jibes whenever this current team have complained about upholding the "spirit of cricket). Over recent years and culminating in this tour one has got a very noticeable sense that many members of the australian team (with Gilchrist being the most obvious figure and leading figure) are fed up with their reputation and have been almost yearning for the days of the past. Some of them almost seemed to be enjoying the experience of losing to England, so much pleasure did it seem to be giving the English crowds.

Meanwhile one has heard mutterings from the likes of Border and Waugh, openly questioning whether the attitude that the Australian team has taken has been a major factor in their defeat.

Does this represent a crossroads for the Australian approach to cricket, especially once the losing of the Ashes, and the realisation that a golden era of great players may have passed sinks in?
This all suggests that the soul of Australian cricket has been corrupted whilst they've been winning, and redemption is offered by er, losing. I think you'll often find this perception exists between teams that crush others by large margins and teams that struggle to stay in matches and lose.

For the record, I think Border's edict was incredibly stupid - but it wasn't continued to my knowledge (I think it's been implied in this thread that Aussie players stopped socialising and having a beer after the match with the opposition, and to my knowledge that's not true, and this definitely applies to Taylor and Waugh's era, as well as Ponting's).

As to the current criticisms from Border and Waugh relating to Australia's performance in this series - are they so much about Australia not being "nasty" enough as much as just other areas that we obviously fell down in? This is a genuine question, BTW, it's quite possible I missed something that specifically inspired your charge in this regard.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Slow Love™ said:
Incredible bowler - but not who you'd hold up as a nice, friendly cricketer. Unless you consider Javed Miandad one.
Actually off the field Javed was a very friendly cricketer and I have heard stories about how he would invited visting teams at his place and being a very gracious host during their tours to Karachi. On field Javed was competitive, get-on-your-nerve type because of his constant chirping but hardly hostile like Ambrose.
 

Slow Love™

International Captain
Sanz said:
Actually off the field Javed was a very friendly cricketer and I have heard stories about how he would invited visting teams at his place and being a very gracious host during their tours to Karachi. On field Javed was competitive, get-on-your-nerve type because of his constant chirping but hardly hostile like Ambrose.
Yeah, I did mean on the field only, but you're right, he wasn't aggro in the the same sense as Curtley, and he apparently made good friendships with Lillee and other cricketers he'd sparred with.

It's probably hard to find a character similar to Ambrose on this level.
 

Top