By Greg Russell
September 2nd 2009 @ 5:33am
Australian cricket just needs a new captain
Australian captain Ricky Ponting, left, and bowler Brett Lee confer during the fourth day of the second cricket test match between India and Australia, in Mohali, India, Monday, Oct. 20, 2008. AP Photo/Gautam Singh
Let’s be honest: the England side that recently won the Ashes is a very modest one. Dispute this? Well ask yourself this question: who from the 2009 English side would make the 2005 English side? Matt Prior for Geraint Jones,
Graeme Swann for Ashley Giles, while Strauss the 2009 batsman would dead heat the 2005 version (remembering he faced higher quality bowling in 2005). And that’s about it.
Or have a look at where England are in the ICC’s test rankings: 5th, a long way behind the 4th-placed country (which shall not be named!).
So if Australia lost to this mob of Poms, then surely a radical shake-up of personnel is warranted, yes?
I’d like to argue that it’s not so simple.
I have been a trenchant critic of the current Australian selection panel, and in particular its chairman, Andrew Hilditch.
However, for once I am going to express sympathy for them, and admit that they are now confronted by a very unclear picture. While there are many changes they could reasonably make, I would demand only one.
To understand why the way forward is unclear, one first must recognize that the 2009 Ashes series was a highly unusual one: Australia thoroughly dominated almost all of the standard statistical measures of performance, and yet they lost.
In my previous article on this series, I explored some of the reasons put forward for this anomaly. I rejected all these theories, and instead concluded that it was primarily down to good fortune – this from the person about whom Brett McKay once wrote “Greg, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but do you ever tire of being the voice of reason?”
Given such an unusual landscape, how indeed should Australia’s selectors react?
I would argue that only the positions of Ponting, Clarke, North and Haddin are indisputable in going forward.
First of all I will deal with the bowling, because the issues here are most simply stated.
We would love to have a better spinner than Nathan Hauritz, but he showed this series that he is better than we had thought, and the plain truth is that probably there is no-one superior.
I personally had hopes for Bryce McGain, but they have faded. What genuine evidence is there that Jason Krejza would take enough wickets to compensate for all the four-balls that he bowls? And that’s about it. What more can the selectors do about this but wait and hope?
With fast bowling the situation is more or less the other way around: too many options without it being clear which the best ones are.
Lee and Clark have the track records in test cricket, but they are on the wrong side of 30, and they have been through major injuries. Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus did a sterling job against South Africa, but they were inconsistent in England, in particular the enigmatic Johnson.
Who can honestly divine the right mix from this list of candidates, especially when there is little telling which version of a player will show up for a match? The Johnson of South Africa would be the first player chosen, while the Johnson of Lord’s would be relegated to park cricket.
One thing I will say: I do not see any need to go outside this “pack” (to use Troy Cooley’s word). Doug Bollinger is a name that often is put forward. Many of the people who do so were also assuring us a year ago that Beau Casson was the successor to Shane Warne – ’nuff said.
Moving to the batting, let’s open at the top.
On strict numbers, there’s no question that Katich and Watson deserve to be retained. However the cases of Brad Hodge and Phil Hughes evidence a penchant of the Australian selectors to look beyond batting statistics.
Certainly I was not alone in feeling frustrated at the failure of our openers to convert 50s (or thereabouts) into centuries over the last three tests, and in identifying this as a significant factor in the series defeat. Here is what Geoff Lawson wrote in The Roar:
“Please don’t tell me that Shane Watson was a success at the top – when you get away to as many starts as he did you need to convert a fair number of those into big scores, scores that make team first innings big enough for winning comfort.Watson’s consistent failure to go on past the half century was maddening
… The sign of a true opener is one who battles through the new ball and prospers against the old.”
All true.
But why does Henry not find his mate Katich similarly culpable? After all, he also got starts in these matches, and he is the senior partner, whereas Watson is – literally – still learning his new trade.
I am a big fan of Phil Hughes – a player who definitely knows how to score a century – but I admit I would be uncomfortable dropping the incumbents, and I really don’t have a firm opinion on what the Australian selectors should do at this stage.
And so to Mr Cricket.
Here is Mr Lawson’s take on him:
“Mike Hussey may have extended his career after the gutsy and lengthy hundred (219 balls for 100) after being dropped four times. A ton in a big losing margin, hmmm, whether this innings will keep a younger man from the middle order must be thoroughly discussed.”
In some ways this assessment is charitable, because he does not apportion any blame for the crucial running out of Ponting.
And yet, at almost exactly the same age, Matthew Hayden saved his career with a hundred at The Oval, an innings that ushered in a purple patch that lasted three summers and saw him score another ten test centuries. Why not Hussey also?
Besides, who would replace him? I guess I’ve always said that Shane Watson is a no. 4, but am I convinced he’s ready?
All of which brings me to my one demand. I have been an unabashed fan of Ponting, but he must be dropped as captain.
This might sound inconsistent with my view that the series was lost primarily because of rotten luck – why hold a captain responsible for that? I do not.
Rather, my view is one of principle. Australia has been the greatest cricketing nation over the history of the game, and it has been top dog for the last 15 years. Its aspiration must be to maintain this status. Retaining as captain someone who has twice lost the Ashes is incompatible with this aspiration, regardless of whether or not these defeats are his fault.
To put it simply, to keep Ponting on as captain is to send a message to the vast Australian cricket community that something less than excellence is acceptable. Do that, and you might as well admit that the game is up.
So, just like Dravid and Tendulkar, his great batting contemporaries, Ponting should resign the captaincy and concentrate his total effort on scoring runs. This is what he does best (which is not to deny that he has been a very good captain), and runs are what his country most needs from him at the moment.
Meanwhile, Michael Clarke should assume the captaincy. I was very disappointed with his soft dismissals in the fifth test, at moments when he really needed to stand up. However he did exactly that in the middle three tests of the series, a sustained period over which he functioned as the leader of Australia’s batting.
It would be folly to guarantee that appointing Clarke will see our fortunes improve, but he is ready to give the job a go, and it is imperative for this necessary statement to be made.
Can the leadership of Cricket Australia recognise this necessity? This is a litmus test of them too. Captain, chairman of selectors, and CEO – with one decision, we’ll know about them all.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(34)
DT said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
While I agree with your ultimate conclusion, I can’t say I agree with much else.
Certainly Ponting is not in the same league as Taylor, Border or even Waugh among the modern Australian captains. While I appreciate that more runs and more wickets would have changed things, I would put down Australia’s losses in England in 2005 and 2009 to a lot of bad on-field decisions. A lack of imagination and some ultra-defensive field placements cost us dearly in Cardiff. So I agree he shouldn’t be captain, but I wouldn’t be demoting him because he happened to captain the side through some ‘rotten luck’.
Bollinger shouldn’t be considered because some of his supporters also liked Casson? That would be pretty dismal logic even if it were accurate. He’s a wicket-taker and with a strong start to the shield season should find himself on the list as well.
While Watson did reasonably well, he is clearly not an opener and I struggle to see him as one of the top 6 batsmen in the country. If he was bowling consistently well he would sit nicely at 6 or 7. Let’s face it, dropping Hughes was a terrible, short-sighted decision that was never going to achieve anything, not even in the short-term. He is potentially a superstar and while he wasn’t in top form, no-one else had the weight of runs to displace him. He is exactly the type of player we should be giving opportunities to with an eye to the future.
davido said | September 2nd 2009 @ 5:07pm | Report comment
Im sorry but this is factually incorrect. Ponting is in fact in a league of his own as a captain. He is undisputeably a much better captain than Taylor, Border or even Waugh. None of these captains have a 100% record at the world cup. None of these captains have won an ashes 5-0.
If you want the facts read this assessment http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/30/ponting-for-the-record/
Ponting’s record of 134 wins to 39 losses in ODI – some 72.83% of matches won. Far exceeds that of Taylor, Border or Waugh.
sledgeross said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
Greg, travelling on an extended holiday in the US via Fiji, I was horrified when I arrived in England to see Watson opening at the expense of Hughes. If Hughes would have played all 5 tests, history shows that he probably would have scored a hundred. Maybe in the 5th test
I dont know why we are so enamoured with an allrounder, when we have ‘keepers who can hit hundreds, and bowlers who are useful down the order. No player has had more of a saloon ride that Shane Watson. Why dont blood a young allround3r who can grow into the role like Moises Henriques?
Mushi said | September 2nd 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
The “converting a start” argument to me is one I’ve always found frustrating and counter intuitive as it punishes consistency by encouraging variability.
For some reason we think a guy who has a 50 run average with a bunch of centuries is a better batsman than the guy with a 50 run average and next to no 100s. So basically we ignore that for the batsman to have the same average he must have failed to score runs on as many occasions as he got a century.
We throw up averages and number of hundreds etc in the statistical analysis of the ashes series yet ignore how variable our results were. Part of the reason we had ‘rotten luck” is we chose a side that delivers variable results. We had an attack which produces variable results to go with several variable batsmen that formed the heart of the batting lineup.
Get enough people firing in one match and only the weather can stop us, get enough failing and only the weather can come to our aide.
Given we already have a few erratic batsmen (more commonly referred to as those who convert their starts) down the order (Ponting, North, Hussey, Haddin) isn’t the logical choice to surround them with stable players?
Isn’t this as important a part in striking the balance in the side as picking a spinner?
Ian said | September 2nd 2009 @ 11:05am | Report comment
I am far from convinced Clark is up to the task of captaining from a mental point of view. Watch how often he loses his wicket just before lunch, or tea, for that matter. In my humble opinion, he is vastly overrated and has a soft underbelly. He is far too inconsistent, and seems to be mentally vulnerable when the pressure is on (e.g. 5th test). Luke him or hate him, Ponting is still the best choice. Once he retires, then we’ll be in for a bit of strife. Mark my words, if Clark gets the captaincy, our results will go from bad to worse.
If Katitch were younger, then he would be my choice for the job. He seems to the mentally toughest player on the filed.
Greg Russell said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
The Australian T20 and one-day sides have performed better of late under Clarke than Ponting. For example, in hindsight the one-day series win over Pakistan in the UAE was very meritorious (soon after Pakistan won the T20 WC with the same players).
Having said this, I did write in my article “It would be folly to guarantee that appointing Clarke will see our fortunes [in test cricket] improve.”
My argument reallly is one of statement of intent. As a commenter elsewhere expressed it (in response to my argument), “I have a tendency to agree – if we are to applaud mediocrity we are to become the English Cricket team.”
Viscount Crouchback said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
So poor old Ponting is to be the 21st century version of Admiral Byng, shot to encourage the others? You would have made a fine Head of the Admiralty, Greg – or perhaps a political commissar in a Soviet WWII regiment. One encounters such cold-blooded ruthlessness seldom in life, and rarely in the guise of a gentle academic!
I admire – and, like Odysseus, am almost tempted by – your siren call. But do you not think that such emphatic affirmations of one’s commitment to excellence might be rather troublesome in an era when excellence can by no means be guaranteed? If every Australian captain is to be defenstrated the moment he loses the Ashes, then there will be more Baggy Green captains in the next ten years than Prime Ministers of Italy. And the results, I imagine, would be similarly unimpressive.
Tigerface said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
When will the Aussies stop crying “Australia thoroughly dominated almost all of the standard statistical measures of performance, and yet they lost.”
Yes, you lost. To the Poms. Deal with it.
Australia – appalling winners, even worse losers. It’s a national character flaw.
Greg Russell said | September 2nd 2009 @ 12:59pm | Report comment
VC (Vice Chancellor?) – I wrote (adding emphasis) “Retaining as captain someone who has TWICE lost the Ashes”. I was all for giving Ponting one stay of execution, and that turned out to be the right decision. My “cold-blooded ruthlessness” now is based only on the fact that this is the second time.
As this makes clear, I am not arguing for the guillotine to be brought out after every single failure, so I am aware of not degenerating into the situation of Italian politics (notwithstanding the relative longevity of their current Lothario!).
Incidentally, the 2006-7 Ashes were good fun, but in a way they were sad in that they really emphasized how badly Australia had failed in 2005. I mean, both teams were largely the same, and the relatively small changes in personnel and conditions were not nearly enough to explain such a massive turnaround in results. In an odd way Ponting’s failure in 2005 was greater than his failure in 2009, but it’s now after the second one that he must go (I find) … because it’s the second time.
Viscount Crouchback said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Yes, obviously the Italian comparison was rather over-egging the pudding given that only one other Australian captain has twice lost the Ashes in England in over a century of cricketing battle. Employing your logic, the next possible defenestration would be that of Michael Clarke in 2017. How I should love to be standing in the courtyard as Mr Lara Bingle came clatttering through the window! That said, I still can’t approve your conclusion. Once, twice, thrice: if it’s not Ponting’s fault, then spare him.
I’m not sure I agree with you about 2006-7 – not, at any rate, if you mean that it proves the 2005 defeat to be some kind of aberration. The losses in personnel were debilitating enough – Vaughan, Trescothick, S Jones – but even the players who did ship out to Australia were pale shadows of their 2005 selves – notably, Harmison (form, lack of pluck) and Flintoff (injury, lack of professionalism). Add into the mix bad luck, fate – how might the series have been different if England hadn’t imploded at Adelaide? – and England’s appalling lack of morale, and the turnaround seems rather easily explicable.
That’s not to say that 2005 Australian team was not better than the 2005 England team. I think it was probably better to the extent that it would have won the series six and a half times out of ten. But the cracks exposed in the technique and character of the Australians in 2005 were by no means illusory.
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:52pm | Report comment
Quite so re: Adelaide. England fought back valiantly at Brisbane and then were bossing the match at Adelaide. Then it all went pear-shaped. I mean, even Symonds got big runs. Symonds!
Greg Russell said | September 2nd 2009 @ 4:07pm | Report comment
I like to say that England’s win in 2005 was “skinny”, in that some small things turned out to be hugely influential: McGrath treading on a cricket ball as he warmed up, Billy Bowden discerning that a ball brushed Kaspa’s glove on day 5 at Edgbaston, and so on. Of course England were the better team throughout the Edgbaston test, but it was only a line-ball umpiring call that delivered them the win in the end. If Billy didn’t raise his finger, then would England have come back from 2-0 down?
Notwithstanding the above, with my earlier comment I do NOT “mean that it proves the 2005 defeat to be some kind of aberration.” Rather, all I mean is that if Australia played to its potential in 2005, then as a team stacked with all-time greats, it had to win. But with the exception of Warne, those greats played well short of their potential in 2005, and the series was (not undeservedly) lost. No question, sport is about what happens, not what happens if everyone plays to their potential.
Incidentally, comments about Adelaide in 2006-7 seem to me to involve a rewriting a history. Yes, England had a horrible choke on day 5, but that only cost them a draw, not a win. I don’t really see any evidence that a draw in Adelaide could have transformed the series. Apart from having Australia 4/50 in Melbourne (but even this was after a very poor England score), I don’t remember any other promising positions for England in the rest of the series.
Viscount Crouchback said | September 3rd 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
Oh, indeed. I don’t suggest that England would have won the series if they’d held on in Adelaide. I just think it would have been the usual 3-1 rather than the unusual 5-0.
Home advantage seems to be becoming more and more important in the Ashes. I suspect that this has something to do with the increasingly shrill and unsportsmanlike behaviour of the local population in both countries. I know that the England players were absolutely stunned by the ferocity of the locals in 2006/7 and, regrettably, the Aussies seem equally uncomfortable in the Mother Country.
I make Australia heavy favourites for 2010/11. Yours is a harsh land for the uninitiated.
Greg Russell said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
I agree that 5-0 in 2006/7 was misrepresentative, and I have always thought this. That Australian team had a habit of doing that. In 2005/6 they beat South Africa 5-0 in 2 series spread across the two countries, but the difference between the teams was not nearly that great, as last summer made all too evident.
In response to our exchange, I thought more about 2005 vs 2009 Ashes last night. Really they were completely different series. In 2005 Australia won the first test but after that they had barely any periods of dominance. They were well outplayed at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, but due to final-day jitters by England, these both ended up very narrow wins (by 2 runs and 3 wickets respectively). At Old Trafford England were on top for most of the match, but Australia clung on for a draw. The Oval was more even, but England were never in any danger after Warne at slip dropped his mate KP on day 5. So although a lot of the scores were close, there’s no question England were the better side, and the series statistics squarely reflected this.
Although the overall result in 2009 was the same (2-1 to England), it was a very different series. Australia won considerably more sessions than England (cf. 2005), and “won” virtually all the statistics for the series, in many cases quite heavily.
Of the recent SL-Pak series (in SL), cricinfo reported that Pak won 12 out of 19 sessions in the first 2 tests, yet SL won them both (the third test was even more strongly dominated by Pak, but ended in a draw). Earlier this year in the WI, Eng were the better side and won a lot more sessions, but lost the series 0-1 due to one absolutely disastrous session at the end of the first test (all out for 53 I think it was). And now a similar pattern in Ashes 2009.
Home and away is the common factor in the above three tales, but is the cause the crowds, as you, VC, suggest? Without question it’s a factor, but I find it hard to believe it’s anything like the full story. Bring in the shrinks!
Viscount Crouchback said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:19pm | Report comment
I agree whole-heartedly with your analysis. Australia has always possesed that rather Germanic type of ruthlessness which enables it to turn a moderate advantage on paper into an overwhelming advantage on the field. There is no better example than 2006/7.
As for the home-away issue, it is not merely the crowds, of course. I suspect that each team has specific technical problems which devil them away from home: in the case of England this takes the form of a terrible lack of patience and application on the part of its batsmen on slow pitches (as Michael Vaughan observed last week, England are always competitive on 350 pitches but seldom competitive on 550 pitches); for Australia, it takes the form of terrible difficulties against old-fashioned swing bowling; for Sri Lanka and India and Pakistan, they simply are not used to pitches with pace and bounce.
So conditions are probably the key factor. But the Ashes is unique in the extent to which it generates outside interest and distractions. Brett Lee wrote, during his first Ashes tour in 2001, that he felt “the entire nation of England was against him”. I suspect that this is a common feeling on the part of both team’s players when on tour, and that it is doubly magnified by the limitations and pressures of enduring hotel life for months on end in a (nominally) foreign land.
I suspect that nowadays both teams feel like they are trying to uphold their nation’s honour. This has probably always been the case for the Aussies (quite naturally seeking to put one over the Mother Country) but it is now also the case even for England. Such is the lamentable importance which the modern, sport-obsessed generation (wholly ignorant of war) invests in a ball game. It is no coincidence, I suspect, that so many fine cricketers of recent vintage – Trescothick, Johnson, Martyn, Slater, Harmison, Gillespie – have capitulated during the unique pressure of an Ashes series rather than any other.
Greg Russell said | September 3rd 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
VC – the observation by Vaughan is very thought provoking; thanks for that!
Re playing for your country, I have a theory. I have watched at close hand a succession of NZ teams fail at rugby World Cups. I am convinced that a major reason for this is because they feel they are playing for every person in their country. If you think about it, that is an unbearable pressure. On the other hand, I had an epiphany in 2003 when Australia were in the West Indies. Darren Lehmann scored his maiden test century, and when he did so, Ponting, the batsman at the other end (also a century maker), exploded with joy, and hugged Boof as if he was his bride. Firstly this made me realise that even though Steve Waugh had the ‘c’ next to his name, Ponting was already the ’spiritual’ leader of the team. But even more so it made me realise that these guys were doing it primarily for themselves. To see the look on Ponting’s face, he could hardly have been happier if he had broken a cherished record himself – he was simply overjoyed that his mate Boof had finally made it in test cricket. He was not overjoyed for his country, but simply for his team. What motivated that group of players to do so well was simply that they wanted to do it for themselves. Yes, they also wanted to do it for their country, but above all it was for themselves. I am convinced that this is the key to success in team sport.
To give another example, ‘dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’ sounds beautiful but it was a bloodbath of a failure in WW1.
Viscount Crouchback said | September 3rd 2009 @ 1:45pm | Report comment
A marvellous post, Greg. I think you are quite right. Indeed, I believe the key to playing well at the highest level is to dismiss outside concerns and to concentrate solely on the group and its goals. England’s record in football World Cups is very similar to New Zealand’s in rugger World Cups: they know how badly their countrymen want it, and this causes the poor chaps to lose focus in the heat of the moment. It is a testament to the players’ humanity, I suppose, but such concerns seldom succour the disappointed supporter.
Fascinatingly, the West’s finest military minds have discovered that the key to fostering a killer instinct in one’s troops is to inculcate a “whatever” frame of mind – that is, to make the process of killing seem mundane and ordinary, as if one was merely pushing buttons on one’s Playstation. This, apparently, is much, much more successful than the alternative approach of encouraging one’s troops to feel active hatred towards one’s opponents.
One generalises at one’s peril, but I suspect that the military approach might have something to teach our sporting folk.
Hammer said | September 2nd 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
“That’s not to say that 2005 Australian team was not better than the 2005 England team. I think it was probably better to the extent that it would have won the series six and a half times out of ten” …
really VC – I’ve often felt that by the end of that series England were growing as a side … and if there was another 5 test series straight after – they’d have won more convincingly … of the Australains Warne really was the only one showing some fight
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
I agree totally on Ponting who I rate not at all as a skipper.
However, I take issue with the dismissal of Bollinger’s credentials. I feel this bowler has been a victim of his lefthandedness, for there’s been a certain southpaw always standing in his way.
Bollinger is better than Johnson. Has been for a few years. But Punter backed the latter by pushing for him and taking him on all manner of one-day tours while Bollinger prospered at Shield level; a feat Johnson has yet to manage.
Johnson improved dramatically through continued exposure at the highest level, as borne out in his efforts in India and results against South Africa. He’s now come back to the field and retains a very flawed bowling action; the very same one which saw him spray deliveries all over the shop at home against NZ.
Johnson is a decent number eight who bowls quickly and with stamina, but a reliable spearhead I’m not convinced he is.
sheek said | September 2nd 2009 @ 2:15pm | Report comment
Greg,
You may have committed the error here of over-cooking the ‘voice of reason’.
I sometimes say to my wife (no, often), you might have something very sensible to say, but you then spoil it by going on & on about it!
Of course, such straight-forwardness doesn’t win me any accolades!
Ricky Ponting is still the best credentialled candidate for captain. Losing two Ashes series in England needs to be seen in context. Just as it was with Billy Murdoch all those years ago. Or was it John Scott (all before my time, of course).
All said in the context that “I love your work”.
Nug said | September 2nd 2009 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
Michael Clarke should never ever be made Captain of any Australian side. He is too immature and lets personal problems interfere with his cricket and those of the team. What is needed is someone with a bit of mongrel in them to be Captain. It is a well known fact that Clarke had a personality clash with Andrew Symonds which resulted in CA backing Clarke to get rid of Symonds from Australian cricket altogether. A Captain must put all personality clashes aside and do what is best for Australian cricket. This means he has to look at all the positives and encourage his players to lift their game by being just that – a good Captain. An old Chinese Proverb says – “there is no such thing as bad players, only a bad Captain”. So give Michael Clarke the boot and either stick with Ricky Ponting or bring Simon Cattick to the fore. Someone with some mongrel in them.
davido said | September 2nd 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Mongrel is essential indeed.
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Much better to blindly back players until they get out of hand – a la Punter with Symonds…
Mushi said | September 3rd 2009 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Well now I know why the chinese don’t play cricket.
sledgeross said | September 2nd 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Didnt Marcus North win the leadership battle with Langer in WA? I heard Langer said he would play again but only as captain, and the WACA declined, as they would rather North?
Katich seems the best credentialled after Ponting, but you cant give it to a bloke who is nearly as old as Punter. A Keeper captain is a tough job, but Haddin probably has a few years left in him, and has handled being NSW skipper with aplomb. Other than that, who is there? Good young skippers in SA, VIC and Qld, but they are not international class.
Brett McKay said | September 2nd 2009 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
to quote Pippinu a few months back in a similar situation “hey, i got a mention!” cheers Greg!
I’m not sure about dumping Ponting, but Greg I think you’ve highlighted a bigger problem: there probably isn’t a lot of options available to make mass changes even if we wanted to, and that’s where the blueprint must be wiped (and I think it was Fred McGee who had this idea early this week).
We might see the likes of Hughes, Ferguson, and even Manou again, but apart from the spin merry-go-round and some tinkering with the quicks, is there much scope for change?
Phil Coorey said | September 2nd 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
When Michael Clarke becomes captain I will be dedicating my summers to becoming an intense NBA fan. Go Celtics
Hansie said | September 2nd 2009 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
The strongest argument for change is that Ponting is the first captain in over 100 years to hand the Ashes back, twice. He has to be accountable for the performance of his team.
FIsher Price said | September 2nd 2009 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
The home series loss to SA should have been the final straw.
Knives Out said | September 3rd 2009 @ 1:39am | Report comment
Mr Russell,
I don’t want to take up space on your cricket thread (I just don’t understand the game) but I have a little nugget of information from you.
John Kendall-Carpenter won his first two (Oxford) Blues as a prop in 1948 and 1949 and was capped by his country in the front-row in between. After three more caps at prop in 1950 he stepped back to the No 8 position for the 1950 Calcutta Cup match and captained Oxford from the back of the scrum in the Varsity Match later the same year. Thereafter he was England’s regular No 8 for four more seasons, winning the last of his 23 caps in 1954. All told he played five times as prop and 18 as No 8.
Greg Russell said | September 3rd 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Knives,
Indeed, a nugget, and I swear it took me only 30 seconds to work out the relevance (I spent the first 29 thinking “What on Earth does this have to do with the present cricket issue?”). Now you just have to find an example of a FR to BR conversion that has occurred less than 59 years ago … rugby has changed somewhat since then! Or has it?
Sam said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
Oh how great it is to see this, the Aussie supporters at each other after losing 3 out of the last 4 test series, calls for the captain to go, for the moisturizing metrosexual Clarke to be given the job, that Bollinger should be in, Hauritz in, drop this guy and that. As a non Aussie supporter it is fantastic to see them knocked off the perch by what has already been established in this article, a frankly pathetic English side minus their best bat KP. Heres what I think should happen
Ponting should let go of some power. He already doesnt play T20 which is good, now it’s time to give up the ODI team as well. Yes he is scoring runs and wants to be part of the 2011 World Cup etc, but if he stops thinking about himself for a moment he will realise that he is probably not the best man for the job in the long term, let Clarke take the ODI reigns now and watch the team propser in 2011, 2015 and beyond. This leaves Ponting as test skipper, this summer they should have no problems rolling over the Pakis and the Windies (which resemble a Club 5ths team sometimes)..but if they do somehow draw one series, then wowza, watch out Punter, his days will be up. He probably has 1 more slip up free year to go I would think.
In terms of the makeup of the squad it’s pretty simple, Mr Cricket seeya later. Hughes back in, stick him there because he is one of the long term and has proven he can do it at international level, consistency with the bat will come, let him iron out his technical flaws and he has the attacking game to smash attacks worldwide. Drop Watson down to four, in between Punter and Clarke, he has a solid technique and has batted middle order for his various state teams before and averages 45 at first class level with 13 tons and 27 50’s. North at 6 as the all rounder, Haddin in at 7. Johnson must be kept as he is the only world class bowler, give Brett Lee this summer to say goodbye as a test player, Bollinger, Siddle and Hilfy will compete for 2 spots, and just keep playing Hauritz as a spinner until a better option comes along or by some miracle he improves.
Stuart Clark, M Hussey thanks for your time and contributions but you are surplus to requirements starting this summer. The depth is there in Australian cricket, it just chooses to be ignored by the selectors. D Hussey, Hodge, Cam White, Nannes, Klinger, Rogers, Voges, Mcdonald, they can all play some part in one of the 3 Australian teams, instead we just see the same players rotating through the 3 squads. No other country does this, but somehow the Aussies think it should work. It doesnt, as I said many months ago on this website when Australia got bundled out of the T20 and I voiced my concern over the English summer ahead, everyone poo poohed my comments and said ‘ Don’t worry mate, its the Ashes were more worried about, who cares about this hit and giggle T20′…well that didn’t work out too well for you did it gents?
sledgeross said | September 3rd 2009 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Maybe we should be like England and start importing South Africans! I believe the Waratahs are starting to do it
sittingbison said | October 6th 2009 @ 9:59pm | Report comment
its not that the ashes, home series SA or away to India were lost, its the way they were lost and what Pontings thought processes were at those crucial match turning moments. He was clearly befuddled and clueless for lengthy periods, his face painting a thousand words. Each of these series he was not necessarily outplayed, but was certainly out-thought.
And Clarke is without doubt the only player in Australia that should NOT be considered for the job. He does not have the temperament.
Ian Chappell always said the Australian way is to pick the best team of 11, and then select the captain. With Ponting and Clarke not considered for the role, who is left from the other 9? Of the current team it could only be Katich or Haddin. I would go with Katich, he has matured immensely in recent times, he is hard boiled. Doesn’t matter the age, replace him when he is finished with someone else from within the next team in a few years time. It does not have to be a dynasty.