Moments of Ingenious Captaincy

[chekmeout]

Ganguly making Sehwag open the batting in Tests

 

[Scallywag]

Or maybe Solanki had to be used because England collapsed?

Which is why a bowler should have been the supersub so if the toss was lost then Solanki could have batted then be subbed out in the second innings for the bowler.

If they won the toss then it would not have mattered because they would have got the better of the batting and bowling conditions. Vaughan put all his eggs in one basket and paid the price.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Which is why a bowler should have been the supersub so if the toss was lost then Solanki could have batted then be subbed out in the second innings for the bowler.

If they won the toss then it would not have mattered because they would have got the better of the batting and bowling conditions. Vaughan put all his eggs in one basket and paid the price.

But you can argue that Ponting did the same thing with naming Katich (and Haddin) as his super-subs.

 

[Scallywag]

But you can argue that Ponting did the same thing with naming Katich (and Haddin) as his super-subs.

Except that Katich is a handy spin bowler.

And Haddin only replaced McGrath after he had bowled his 10 overs and if Australia had batted first I'm sure that Haddin would have worn the gloves to rest Gilly. So both of Pontings supersubs could have been used regardless of the toss.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Except that Katich is a handy spin bowler

He's no better than Solanki.

And Haddin only replaced McGrath after he had bowled his 10 overs and if Australia had batted first I'm sure that Haddin would have worn the gloves to rest Gilly. So both of Pontings supersubs could have been used regardless of the toss.

Which would have only served the purpose of resting Gilchrist, and with Haddin being no better a gloveman than Gilchrist, wouldn't have furthered Australia's chances of winning the match.

 

[Scallywag]

He's no better than Solanki.

Which would have only served the purpose of resting Gilchrist, and with Haddin being no better a gloveman than Gilchrist, wouldn't have furthered Australia's chances of winning the match.

Solanki has never bowled in an internation match whereas Katich has and is regarded as a very handy partnership breaker. So that makes Katich much better than Solanki.

Of course Haddin would not have furthered Australias chances of winning but Vaughans decision to pull Jones out before he bowled a ball harmed Englands chances of winning.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Solanki has never bowled in an internation match whereas Katich has and is regarded as a very handy partnership breaker. So that makes Katich much better than Solanki.

Solanki has bowled this series.

Of course Haddin would not have furthered Australias chances of winning but Vaughans decision to pull Jones out before he bowled a ball harmed Englands chances of winning.

That is a very arguable point. Especially considering that it is fairly doubtful whether England would have ever posted a defendable score (considering that Solanki scored 50-odd, batted very well and their score was still never really defendable) if Solanki hadn't have been included, and by not including him they would have given themselves even less to defend.

Add to the fact that while S. Jones has bowled well throughout the series, he has never looked like running through the Aussies, and really through the batting collapse of England Vaughan was caught in a no-win situation - one (especially someone who is looking to criticise Vaughan's captaincy) could find fault with the decision either way.

 

[Blaze]

Scallywag has no idea what he is talking about. He is clutching at straws if he thinks that it was ingenious captaincy from Ponting.

Totally agree with you vic_orthdox btw.

How about when Martin Crowe opened the bowling with Dipak Patel in the 92 world cup against AUS.

 

[vic_orthdox]

How about when Martin Crowe opened the bowling with Dipak Patel in the 92 world cup against AUS.

Very smart. Completely caught the Aussies off guard. And it was to two Aussie batsman who really enjoyed the ball coming on early, too.

 

[Scallywag]

Solanki has bowled this series..

Err no he has not.

That is a very arguable point. Especially considering that it is fairly doubtful whether England would have ever posted a defendable score (considering that Solanki scored 50-odd, batted very well and their score was still never really defendable) if Solanki hadn't have been included, and by not including him they would have given themselves even less to defend...

Like I said Vaughan should have had the extra batsman so if Ponting won the toss he would have had a tough decision to make knowing that if he put England in first they would have been able to make good use of the super-sub. He made it easy for Ponting to put England in first with the conditions and that they would be screwed up with the super-sub. Not very good planning by Vaughan.

Add to the fact that while S. Jones has bowled well throughout the series, he has never looked like running through the Aussies, and really through the batting collapse of England Vaughan was caught in a no-win situation - one (especially someone who is looking to criticise Vaughan's captaincy) could find fault with the decision either way.

The previous two games in the series

Gough 10 overs 0-50
Jones 10 overs 0-28

Gough 6.2 overs 1-43
Jones 5 overs 0-29

Now considering that you will be trying to restrict Australia
Who would you sub out?.

 

[Scallywag]

Scallywag has no idea what he is talking about. He is clutching at straws if he thinks that it was ingenious captaincy from Ponting.

Totally agree with you vic_orthdox btw.

How about when Martin Crowe opened the bowling with Dipak Patel in the 92 world cup against AUS.

Yes Blaze I have no idea what I'm talking about and you seem to know a lot about how to use the super-sub.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Err no he has not.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWS_ODI3_19JUN2005.html

Like I said Vaughan should have had the extra batsman so if Ponting won the toss he would have had a tough decision to make knowing that if he put England in first they would have been able to make good use of the super-sub. He made it easy for Ponting to put England in first with the conditions and that they would be screwed up with the super-sub. Not very good planning by Vaughan.

The fact is that if England won the toss, then you'd find that England's choice of having an extra batsman would have paid off perfectly. On the assumption that Eng would have bowled first (which they seem to most often do) they would have been able to sub off one of the bowlers and put on Solanki, who is very good in the field for the late overs, and then have an extra batsman. And Australia, with Haddin/Katich, would have been at a severe disadvantage - just as bad as what England were.

Then again, maybe Vaughan should be apologetic about trying to think how he would win the game, as opposed to restricting the damage

The previous two games in the series

Gough 10 overs 0-50
Jones 10 overs 0-28

Gough 6.2 overs 1-43
Jones 5 overs 0-29

Now considering that you will be trying to restrict Australia
Who would you sub out?.

The day that we judge bowlers solely on their prior two games, then to quote a famous piece of poultry, "The sky is falling!".

Figures don't do justice to Gough's value to the English team. While Jones is being groomed for that same role, Darren's swagger and confidence at the bowling crease helps England's attitute no end, and his contribution to England cricket - you can debate whether it should or should not affect selection, but fact is that it does - counts for something.

In addition, in that situation it is foreseeable that the tail may have to scrounge as many runs as possible - in that situation Gough is more valuable than Jones.

 

[marc71178]

Ponting in the last ODI against England.

He completely bamboozled Vaughan into taking an extra bowler and using the supersub for a batsman. Ponting then elected to bowl so Vaughan had to drop Jones without using him to let Solanki bat.

You what?

How is that Ponting's brilliance?

Because he called right at the toss?!

 

[vic_orthdox]

You what?

How is that Ponting's brilliance?

Because he called right at the toss?!

Lol, we're currently going through this one, Marc
Mind you, I'm being sidetracked pretty well.

 

[Scallywag]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005/OD_TOURNEYS/NWS/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_NWS_ODI3_19JUN2005.html.

That was the Natwest cup not the Natwest challenge.

The fact is that if England won the toss, then you'd find that England's choice of having an extra batsman would have paid off perfectly. On the assumption that Eng would have bowled first (which they seem to most often do) they would have been able to sub off one of the bowlers and put on Solanki, who is very good in the field for the late overs, and then have an extra batsman.

Which proves my point that Vaughan put all his eggs in one basket.
Vaughan did not plan for losing the toss which is a mistake that cost them any chance of being competitive.

[And Australia, with Haddin/Katich, would have been at a severe disadvantage - just as bad as what England were.].

Haddin was not selected to bat or bowl he was there to give McGrath a rest if Aus bowled first or to give Gilly a rest if Aus batted first, in other words Ponting would use Haddin if he won or lost the toss.

Katich can bat and can bowl so he is just an extra player if Aus win or lose the toss.

Is that hard to understand.

Then again, maybe Vaughan should be apologetic about trying to think how he would win the game, as opposed to restricting the damage


The day that we judge bowlers solely on their prior two games, then to quote a famous piece of poultry, "The sky is falling!".

Figures don't do justice to Gough's value to the English team. While Jones is being groomed for that same role, Darren's swagger and confidence at the bowling crease helps England's attitute no end, and his contribution to England cricket - you can debate whether it should or should not affect selection, but fact is that it does - counts for something.

In addition, in that situation it is foreseeable that the tail may have to scrounge as many runs as possible - in that situation Gough is more valuable than Jones.

You and Vaughan may have trouble judging Goughs form from the last two games but most people watching the series had no problem.

 

[marc71178]

Lol, we're currently going through this one, Marc

Well that's the only thing he did there.

He didn't have anything to do with England's team selection at all, and when he won the toss he did the logical thing based on the 12 he had.

 

[Scallywag]

You what?

How is that Ponting's brilliance?

Because he called right at the toss?!

You probably wont understand Marc being a pommy git, but Ponting capitalised on Vaughans foolish decision to rely solely on winning the toss.

 

[marc71178]

The whole supersub thing is that you pick a player based on you doing what you want to do - ie winning the toss.

In the first ODI of the series, England won the toss, so were able to benefit from it, and Ponting wasn't, but did anyone say this was brilliance from Vaughan?

 

[Scallywag]

The whole supersub thing is that you pick a player based on you doing what you want to do - ie winning the toss.

Depends how smart you are, like I said if Vaughan had taken the extra batsman in the team then it would have put pressure on ponting to think a bit harder about sending them in.

By sending them in then Ponting would have given them the advantage of using the supersub to minimise the advantage of Aus bowling first. If Vaughan had won the toss he still had the option of keeping solanki in the team if another bowler was not required.

 

[Scallywag]

I can see the day when a team realises that using the wicketkeeper for super-subbing is a big advantage.