Ricky Ponting will retire as one of the giants of his era. The stats say it all, an average of 52.21, 41 centuries and 62 half centuries.
As a teenager Ponting was identified by Rodney Marsh, the then-head of Australia’s storied cricket academy, as the best prospect with a willow in hand he had seen.
In retirement, Ponting will go down Australia’s leading run scorer and arguably our best batsman since the Don. From his era, only Lara and Tendulkar can be mentioned in the same breath.
He has some chinks in his defensive armor and is a nervous starter. These two demons have ultimately ended his career. Although, once settled in, there has not been a more awesome sight in modern Test cricket.
His straight-on-drive and pull-shot are stolen from the text book. Along with Matty Hayden and Justin Langer, he was part of a top order that changed how the ancient, long from of the game is played.
As he was at pains to point out in countless interviews over the years, team success was more important than any of these individual achievements. In that light, he will be remembered as a key part of the most dominant Test XI the game has known. Stories of Warne the bowler and Ponting the batsman are what my generation will regale our grandchildren with.
However, it was not all plundering and plaudits for the diminutive Tasmanian over that journey. It is somewhat surprising that a cricketer of his stature was not an effective tactician.
The raw results were very good including 48 Test wins as captain (yet another record). But in the series that really counted, in the moments that mattered, his lack of poise and tactical nous were painfully palpable.
One moment sticks out more than any other, the first morning of the second Test of the 2005 Ashes at Edgbaston.
We had held the urn since 1989 and had won the first Test convincingly. Ponting decided to put England in to bat, despite Australia having lost Glenn McGrath, its bowling talisman, only minutes earlier. We lost the Test (by two runs), the series, and our air of invincibility.
While we regained the Ashes and won plenty more Tests under his stewardship, history will judge him as a poor captain.
Perhaps we would have been more forgiving of his fumbling captaincy if Ponting was more likeable as a leader. His explanations after defeat lacked self-awareness and the teams he led, at times, lacked humility.
The best of the man and the character has emerged since he handed the ‘c’ to Michael Clarke. Paradoxically, the real leader has emerged when the formal leadership duties ended.
He has provided the bridge from the former era to the current and has stayed with this team as it regenerated. As Adam Gilchrist pointed out in a television interview last night, the little scrapper from Tassie has never run away from a fight.
Rather than sulking about his demotion, Ponting has mentored his replacement and set an example for the new generation. The confused frown has been replaced with a content smile. How fitting it would be then, if this his final Test in Perth sees this new generation regain the number one Test ranking.
Even if they do, it is unlikely in our life time we will see a team as good as the ones that ruled the world in the Taylor/Waugh/Ponting era.
Mitch
Guest
You guys still happy with this article?
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Joe, you could also mention Dravid and Kallis in the same breath. I agree that Ponting was not a good captain. He showed this by his bad temper in England in 2005. Tactically he was not great, remember in India when he put the spinners on because he was more worried about the over rate than he was about finishing off the opposition. That was often labelled a selfish decision. I think he got better as a captain as he went along and his best leadership has come since he gave up the captaincy. You can call it the Warne era if you like because he was the only player who could do what Shane Warne could do. Ponting was the best of a group of 4 batsman who were all great.
buddha9
Guest
nice blog and comments but i think that ponting had the unfortunate experience to meet the best english side for a long long time and aussies don't appreciate how good the english team were and still are especially under english conditions. They were a superb side and some of the aussie batsmen proved to be a little bit over-rated. They had played a lot of second rate test sides and got used to taking a big step and hitting through the line against sub standard test bowling -- of course the late swing of the english bowlers found them out and it took them too long to adapt only langer who played a lot tighter was capable and consistent through out that 2005 series -- whatever ricky P's failings its hard to blame him for that -- what happened in aussie after that the 5-0 was an aberration -- england were a mess and flintoff should never have been made captain -- i know lots of aussies like to believe that 2009 was unfair and the pommies were lucky but thats not true, they were by far the better team and dominated 3 of the 5 games -- the aussies were only in it because of their spirit and fight -- 2010 was a much better reflection of the difference -- no matter how good the captain he can't compensate for a lack of talent.
Frank O'Keeffe
Guest
Watch 1:15:00 for an example of Warne's captaincy. They're pretty harsh on Punter... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCNoKQABZEs
Neuen
Roar Rookie
He is Australia's most successful test captain after passing Steve Waugh's 41 wins in the 2009-10 Boxing Day Test. Also overtook Shane Warne with highest individual victories in that match. Led his side to 34 consecutive undefeated World Cup games. He only had a that wonderful side for 3 years where he did not have to do much, But after that he had to mould the side. So he lost 3 Ashes and to India and SA in rebuilding phase. Does not make him a bad captain. He did a lot with what he had and he lead from the front.
Jason
Guest
Warne was made ODI captain many times AFTER the bookie thing.
dasilva
Roar Guru
It's possible that if Warne was given captaincy he would have knew about the WADA prohibited drug list (perhaps the captain are responsible for informing the other team mates of drug policy as well) and therefore be more careful about what he is putting in his body. However it's also possible that his mum would have offered him a diuretic pill and Warne took it regardless as well. We can't be sure but it's still a plausible scenario. However I'm putting a scenario that if the only thing that change was that Warne was captain and his off field demeanor remain the same. now that may not have happen and it's possible that Warne would have matured in the role but there's a possiblilty and risk that he doesn't as well and I'm just giving the worst case scenario The worst case scenario of warne captaining is that he tested positive for diuretics as a captain and he would have been sacked as captain in 2003. Because of that risk, I do think that in hindsight the selectors were right in not giving warne the captaincy due to that risk.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Yeah that bookmaker dealing was a black mark and if that happen in the post Cronje he would have been far more scrutinised Bookmakers like to develop relationship with cricketers by giving them easy money initially. So giving cricketers easy money for pitch reports would have been a way to butter them up before introducing them to spot fixing and match fixing. There's no evidence that Warne and Waugh got any further than pitch report but it was naive of him to do business with the bookmaker like that. The diuretics use. I think if that happen in the post-Armstrong era where we are far more cynical of drug used. He would have been raked in the coals for that and he may not have escaped with a one year ban (a two year ban is supposed to be the minimum for suspension of postiive drug use). Shane Warne had a shoulder injury and he recovered quickly to be fit for the world cup and he was guilty of taking diuretics that could remove illicit drugs likes steroids that could potentially assist his injury recovery from his system to undetectable levels. now i don't think Warne did drugs and I give him the benefit of the doubt and accept his story but I think the public reception would have been far more cynical with a case like that if it happen today and I don't think he would have gotten a reduced sentence if that happen today.
whaler
Roar Rookie
No doubt SK Warne would have made a great captain, however I would say that his dealings with Indian bookmaker "John" would have counted against him significantly. His later 12 month ban for using a banned substnace proved that not appointing him because of his off field carry was a correct one. At the time there every second week he was all over the newspapers for jumping into bed with young ladies, old ladies, married ladies ...etc etc. This was a distraction they didn't need. I think Warnie would have prospered in the 70s with Chapelli and Dougie etc. when the press wrote about cricketers form on the pitch, not betwen the sheets..... Joe perhaps Gilly was the man, would the combined pressure of captaining, keeping and opening in the ODI had an affect on Gilly's form over time?
Jason
Guest
You're assuming that if he were captain he would have tested positive for diuretics. I don't think loyalty to Warne would have been a problem. I look at Clarke and see the makings of a genuinely great captain and note that Clarke and Warne are besties. Indeed, captaincy might well have resulted in him toning down the off field behaviour.
dasilva
Roar Guru
I mention my problem with Warne above. He would have been a great on field captain but I think his off field behaviour would have been a distraction If warne was captain of the national team he would have lost his captaincy after testing positive for diuretics and was suspended for a year his captaincy career would have ended in disgrace. I really don't think he would have regained the captaincy after being suspended for a year especially if Australia kept on winning when he was gone under another captain Australia recovered after losing Warne and won the world cup and they were fine despite losing their star bowler. however I have doubts whether Australia would have recovered to win the world cup if they lost their star bowler and captain due to a drug ban. Having another leader coming in in short notice would have been disruptive I think Gilchrist could have been a compromise between the professionalism and elder statesman of Ponting and the cricket intelligence of Warne
Kevin
Guest
I think the issue is the perception of the Australians attitude / behavior during the ponting years, were they gracious? We're they humble ? Did they respect the unpires decision ?
Jason
Guest
That title probably belongs to Warne.
AdamS
Roar Guru
Outstanding Frank. You should delete it and repost as an article.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Actually good point regarding Gilchrist i think with Dhoni showing that it is possible to captain as well as keep wickets by winning the world cup in India Perhaps Gilchrist being overlook for the captaincy because he was the keeper was a bit unfair. Gilchrist led Australia to the most important series win in the entire decade perhaps he is the best player to never captain Australia on a permanent full time basis (so caretaker for injury doesn't count)
Joe Karsay
Expert
I agree with the comments about Warne, to the extent that he has a great cricket brain. However, a leader also has to set the example and put team over self. I wonder whether Warne's larrikin streak and ego/celebrity would have caused ructions in the dressing room. One of the features of Australian cricket has been a very harmonious dressing room over the last two decades. Compare this to the Windies and even England who just had a captain retire, due in part, to a personality clash. The forgotten man in the captaincy debate is Gilchrist. Gilchrist proved his value when captaining Australia to the series win in India in 2004. Arguably the most important series win of the era (and what Steve Waugh had described as the last frontier). Gilly had the cricket brain and the right personality.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The english has a fair pack of seamers in 2005, not just Flintoff.
Dasilva
Guest
I'll add that Australia responded to win the 2003 World Cup without Warne. However I'm uncertain whether Australia would have recovered to win the World Cup if we lost our captain. Losing your captain due to a drug ban may of be too much of a distraction for Australia to recover
dasilva
Roar Guru
There's a reason why Gideon Haigh believed we shouldn't call it the Taylor era or the Waugh era or the Ponting era. We should call it the Warne era Although saying that although warne would probably be a great on field captain I believed that if he was given captaincy and the diuretic controversy happen, he would have been sacked from captaincy and his captaincy career would have ended in disgrace. If only we can combined the onfield leadership ability with Warne with the off field professionalism of Ponting, we would have potentially the greatest captain. However I will say that solely due to the diuretics and positive drug test that the selectors has made the right choice in selecitng Ponting instead of Warne I will also add that ponting is our greatest ODI captain As a test captain he wasn't that great but he should be proud of his ODI achievements
The Bush
Roar Guru
What a fantastic comment. I don't really associate Ponting with the "rise" of Australian Cricket as I considered us the No.1 side after beating the Windies in the West Indies in '95, something Punte wasn't apart of. The real rise had taken place before that under the last years of Border and the first and second year of Taylor. On Warne, I too think that Warne would have made a far, far better captain than Ponting. Warne was not only our most gifted Cricketer since Bradman, he was also probably the finest reader of the game I have ever seen in my life. Shane Warne has forgotten more about cricket than most Test players will ever know. It is probably one of the great tragedies of sport that Warne didn't get the gig in 2004 due to politics. I think that not only would he have made a fantastic captain, but he would have played on for a few more years too, at least till around 2009 and we've seen over the last five years with his many spells in Twenty20 that he had more left in him. Back to the man at the centre of the conversation, perhaps because Ponting, for me, is so associated with our dominance in World Cricket, he just couldn't ever come to terms with our fall from grace under his stewardship. You've said that "Alan Border squeezed more juice out of mediocre Aussie sides than Ponting did. Yes it’s been a hard transitioning phrase for Ponting and the Aussie side, but other Aussie captains got something out of “so so”, but remember Border only knew one way to go about it, he entered an average side and the only way was up - it must have been quite different to see it go down. It must have been personally frustrated for a bloke who is such a winner and such a team man to be unable to stay at or regain the heights that his teams had known only a few years before. Perhaps the weight of this crushed him ultimately?