Ricky Ponting is the worst test captain in the history of modern Australian cricket. If this was ever in doubt, the final, irrefutable piece of evidence came in the recently completed test series in India.
While the pundits have found their voice following the second test, the momentum and the series was lost on day five in Mohali, in the first test.
When the 8th wicket fell it was going to take a miracle for India to chase the 92 remaining runs with only two wickets in hand. Australia had all but finished off its prey, standing over the lame body of the Indian batting line up. Ponting should have produced the lethal bullet, instead he glanced away and missed the moment.
From that point on the Punter had become the hunted.
The thing that makes test cricket so spellbinding is that despite being played over five grueling days, in close games, it is inevitably a fleeting moment that is decisive.
When those moments arrive the outcome is so often in the hands of the fielding captain. If the batsman makes an error and the ball catches the edge of his willow, will the ball fly into the waiting arms of the third slip or will it fly through the vacant third slip position for a pressure relieving boundary?
Ponting has too often opted for that one less slipsman and for conservatism when the game has called for attack. In Mohali he brought on second string bowlers and spread the field when Australia were dominating. The message Ponting sent was defensive, that the game was still in the balance – it soon was.
In contrast to his early career as captain where he refused to admit fault, Ponting of late has shown a penchant for a “mea culpe” in the aftermath of matches we should have won.
It has now got to the point where he has had too many chances. During his tenure Australia have lost the close tests in the big series against India, South Africa and England.
It seems the Australian test captain gets much more leeway than the Prime Minister to get it right before the apparatchiks move.
Now seems like the perfect time for Cricket Australia to act – just a few months ago it appointed Greg Chappel (one of the patriarchs of Australian cricket) as its first full time selector. Chappel has never been a man short of an opinion or scared of putting noses out of joint. He has the gravitas required to bring about generational change to the national side.
Ponting is the greatest batsman we have produced since Don Bradman, however, his cricket IQ is extremely low.
He lacks judgment when big games are on the line. Ponting’s win loss record looks good but if you dig deeper many of those wins are against lowly ranked test teams. It is his lack of self-awareness that makes me sure that he will need a push.
My call, it should be Pup and not Punter leading the boys out against England this summer.
Peter West
Guest
Will - you are in need of therapy. The aggressive bile that continually flows from your keyboard against anybody that does not agree with you shows deep insecurity. Why don't you just take your bat and ball and go home.
GG
Guest
Jacques - what do Frenchmen know about cricket?
sheek
Guest
FP, The episode of Australian cricket post the peace in 1979 reverberated for a long time afterwards. The dust probably didn't settle until about 1988/89 when the ban on the South Africa tourist rebels was lifted. So that's 10 years of ill-feeling between players themselves, & between players & the board. So the context of the rift between hughes & senior WSC players must be seen in that context. Not making excuses for the guys like Marsh & Lillee, but there were plenty of other people responsible for what happened. Hughes' own personality didn't help. Although basically a nice guy, he apparently could come across as a bit of a know it all, & an unwillingness to listen, which was like flagging a red rag to the senior guys.
Fisher Price
Guest
My point was that Hughes' wasn't given support by those senior players; on the contrary. From what I can ascertain, their behaviour was dreadful and so Hughes wasn't just hindered by his team's playing weaknesses.
Jaques
Guest
There are also some question marks over Clarke's 'women' management skills. Seriously though, after all this time as captain it would be pretty difficult for Ponting to step down as captain and remain in the side (as you said Joe - how could his pride not get the better of him). Although it would be great to see someone fresh in the role, if the consensus is that Ponting is needed as a batsman then probably best to keep him where he is for now. Who knows, with a bit more support, he might be able to prove that he is still right for the job. Probably deserves at least one more chance.
Ric G
Guest
Good perspective TrickieD, and, as an Aussie, I wholeheartedly agree.
GG
Guest
Solution: bring back Warney!!
Tony
Guest
If Ian Chappell doesn't like Steve Waugh because Waugh doesn't like a drink you'd think Chappell would like Ian Botham. But we all know what happened when Chappell and Botham had a drink together.
Joe Karsay
Expert
Some good points made. It is one thing to say Ponting should be sacked as captain (which I clearly believe) but another to come up with the solution. Tom, I agree Clarke probably is not the panacea. I think he would be tactically more aggressive but there are question marks over his man management skills. Katich is probably too old and Ferguson has not played a test. Also, GG makes a good point we need Ponting as a batsman more than ever. I doubt his ego would allow him to continue without the (c) next to his name and as Slats pointed out on radio this is not the Australian way. It has certainly worked for Tendulkar!
dasilva
Guest
My main problem with Chappell and his stouches with Waugh was it was completely unnecessary. It's one thing to question Steve Waugh judgement which he is entitled to. He could have easily say that Waugh should have batted at 3 instead of 5, shouldn't have got rid of the pull shot, shouldn't have announced his retirement date in advance, should have improve his scoring rate, should protect the tail more often etc as errors in Steve Waugh's judgement and criticised his decision. However he had to go personal and say that Waugh did all of those decision due to selfishness and self-preservation like there is no possible other reason why Waugh did that. It's like saying that because I disagree with you on the way you go about things, therefore you must have selfish ulterior motives as it is impossible for a person who both want the same thing (for the team to do well) to have differences in opinion to achieve the same goals. I think Chappell cross the line when he started to call Waugh selfish.
Whiteline
Guest
Yes Sheek, fair point. I didn't read the article but i hope Chappell argued for the positive aspects of Ponting's leadership rather than criticising Waugh to make Ricky's case brighter.
sheek
Guest
FP, This is totally incorrect. Hughes was never stabbed in the back. He was told to his face he wasn't up to being captain. There was nothing done behind Hughes' back. It was all to his face. This therefore doesn't constitute back-stabbing in any form. Were Marsh, Lillee, etc petulant? Perhaps, nay probably (they were 'ornery beasts) but there is cause & effect here. The ACB played politics, installing Hughes as their man (vice-captain) when clearly he didn't have the support of the team, most of whom were ex-WSC. Dumb decision on the part of the ACB. Hughes was their fall guy, both in 1979 & again in 1984.
sheek
Guest
Whiteline, I know we've discussed Chappell before. I think he's quite willing to accept he can be wrong. He just believes in strongly expressing an opinion, & I can relate to that! It's interesting that Chappell is revered by most of his former team mates. He led from the front, & went in to bat for his team mates not only on the field, but also in the boardroom. That's my kind of leader. I also don't have problems with Bradman the man being exposed as human, with human traits. Bradman held his own grudges, but wasn't upfront about it. He got even in the shadows, behind people's backs. Again, I would rather people be upfront than sneaky. With Waugh, I just think he's a different animal from Chappell, a personality trait difference, which I can accept. As for what it tells us, I would suggest the lines are still murky.........
Will
Guest
It also says a lot about the state of English cricket that your team is currently made up of overseas players, playing for the greatly devalued pound. Michael Clarke is the natural successor to take over once Ponting moves on. How anyone couldn't say Clarke is the 'natural successor' is beyond me. I can think of a lot more decisive factors that influenced both the 2005 and 2009 series then the captaincy of Ponting and Strauss. The same thing happened to Fletcher after 2005. The deluded English public and press thought that Fletcher could walk on water. Basically, he could turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. Of course, Fletcher had very little influence on what happend on the cricket field. So when England started to lose, the English press turned on him and threw him out. You can see the same thing happening to Flower in a few months time. It's just the way the English are. I suggest you look at your own backyard before worrying about the state of our team.
GG
Guest
Is Ponting more important to us as a batsman or captain or both? Whilst I read this and agree Ponting's captaining decisions are questionable at best sometimes, can Australia afford to lose him as a batsman and will he stay on if he loses the captaincy? Interesting times for the baggy green!
Whiteline
Guest
Sheek, you are entitled to your opinion about Ian Chappell. The problem I have with him is that he seems to have little tolerance for those that have a different view of the world to what he does. Why he gained great delight in publicly critising Donald Bradman whilst he was alive (and continues to do so) and also Steve Waugh is interesting. What is even more interesting is that Bradman never retaliated and to my knowledge Waugh has never stooped so low as to become involved in a public spat. What does that tell us I wonder?
TrickieD
Guest
Speaking as a Pom I would be delighted if Ponting continued as skipper. The gap in captaincy skills, general intellect and all round cricketing smarts between Ponting and first Vaughan and then Strauss in last two Ashes series in England was in my view decisive in both. The fact that Ponting won the series in Australia when England had Flintoff in charge is also informative. I would equally be delighted if the baton was passed onto Clarke who is no better than Ponting on the captaincy front and struggling to keep his place in the team as a batsman. It says an awful lot about the current state of Australian cricket that there is no natural successor. Now you Australians are beginning to understand what it has been like for us Poms for most of the last 30 years.
sheek
Guest
The problem that Chappell has with Waugh is personality, as well expressed by Punter below. They are simply very different kind of people. I admire them both greatly, & would happily follow both into battle. But Chappelli comes from my time, & is one of my early heroes, so I'm biased towards him. He's also the kind of leader I prefer - one who likes to be one of the boys, but is respected for his character & skills, & has the authority whenever it matters.
sheek
Guest
In the weekend papers, Ian Chappell pointed out that to the end of the 2006/07 series, Ponting's win ratio was 77% compared to Steve Waugh's 71%. Since then, without his stars retiring in increasing numbers, Ponting has a win ratio of 64%, which is still better than most Australian captains in history. So hardly a dud, even in the modern era. I would further suggest, for those happy to rely on the figures, Mark Taylor's win ratio was "only" 52%, while Border's was around 32%. I don't hear anyone saying Border was a dud captain, & Ponting's win ratio is roughly twice that of Border's. My point is, Ponting is not the dud some of you are trying to paint him as in order to promote your own skewered view of Australia's current woes.
punter
Guest
Steve was never the larrikin that Warnie was, he tries to empower his players, whereas Chappelli wanted to drink with them.