Ponting doesn't learn from his mistakes

[Mr. Wicket]

At Nagpur he ****ed up big time. One-down against India, Australia took six wickets in a session and had the opportunity to claw back into the game and push for a dramatic comeback - and Ponting instead bowled trundlers who at best were steady and at worst were serving up very hittable shite for Dhoni and Harbhajan to get stuck into, all because of the threat of a suspension over a really pathetic over-rate. Less than a year later it's clear he's learnt nothing from that and the slamming he got in the media. An urgent need for wickets to claw back into the test and keep hold of the Ashes, and he's chosen to go the defensive route, refusing to bowl Johnson for more than an over despite him being the most dangerous bowler yesterday by FAR, choosing not to bowl Hilfenhaus much - his best bowler this series - and instead letting Clark trundle gently down one end, and North and Clarke rush through overs for the better part of the session. No surprise, Australia has been well behind the over rate. Selfish, negative captaincy has taken away whatever chance Australia had of making a match of this. The difference between the captains couldn't be greater right now - one is hungry and pushing for a win with a captain playing out of his skin and out-thinking Australia with shrewd tactics, the other playing to save his own ass.

[goose]

he also needs to stop getting hit in the face by the cricket ball.

[Bradman99]

I find it hard to argue..

[Dhondy]

Thal, you watch a lot of cricket, you are a student of the game. You answer this for me. A side outscores the opposition in terms of centuries 7-1, boasts the three highest wicket takers in the series, while the opposition is saddled with non-performing batsmen from numbers 2-5, having lost their best bat early in the series. Their best bowler averaged 40+ with the ball in Test cricket until a couple of Tests ago and was on the verge of being dropped. And yet, England are about to win the series. You give me a rational explanation of how this is possible.

[goose]

^ Australia won a lot of games. hit a lot of aces, but lost all the tie-breaks.

[Sachinism]

he also needs to stop getting hit in the face by the cricket ball.

Did he get hit in the face? Don't tell me I missed something so awesome.

[goose]

yeh i think one of the left-handers - must have been Strauss - smacked one into Ponting's face fielding at silly-mid-on i think. there was blood.

[Sachinism]

Damnnnnnnnnn *note to self, make sure you catch highlights*

[Desi Cartman]

he fu(ked it up by going in without a spinner on this pitch.

[Sachinism]

[Guest Gunner]

he fu(ked it up by going in without a spinner on this pitch.

That was the biggest strategic blunder of this game, going in with four pacers. It is quite hot in Europe this summer and the pitch clearly was a very dry one. That blunder might cost Australia this game and of course the Ashes.

[The Outsider]

Thal, you watch a lot of cricket, you are a student of the game. You answer this for me. A side outscores the opposition in terms of centuries 7-1, boasts the three highest wicket takers in the series, while the opposition is saddled with non-performing batsmen from numbers 2-5, having lost their best bat early in the series. Their best bowler averaged 40+ with the ball in Test cricket until a couple of Tests ago and was on the verge of being dropped. And yet, England are about to win the series. You give me a rational explanation of how this is possible.

Cricket is much more than simplistic statistics. If you want a half decent statistical model of cricket you would need to do a covariate analysis over 15-20 freedom of spaces. Statistics in cricket can be used to justify an observation, but it's foolhardy to build an observation and a conclusion based purely on statistics. Not saying it's an unsolvable problem but to get accurate results based purely on numbers and input conditions would require months of supercomputer time. The reason why Australia are losing this series and have lost 2 out of the last 3 competitive ones as well as 7 out of the last 16 competitive tests is because their batting is full of FTBs and they don't have McGrath and Warne to cover for them in bowling friendly conditions. The only cricket team to have as frequent collapses as Australia in bowling friendly conditions is Pakistan and we all know where they stand. Give them swing, seam, spin - they are a certainty to fold up and their ranking of number 4 will justify their stature in world cricket after this test match. It's an argument similar to quoting Ponting's 50+ average in the 4th innings and hailing him as some great batsman under pressure and in difficult conditions. He is anything but. If you want a 4th innings champion look no further than Gavaskar - can Ponting even dream of pulling off a 200+ like Gavaskar did 20 years back at this very ground??? This result backs up another one of my beliefs - tests are usually won and lost in the first innings. In the second innings you are either left with salvaging a draw or pulling of a miracle to win a match. After 3 first innings collapses(forget the statistics) in 5 tests do you think any team can win a series? In fact, I won't be surprised if WI(full strength) or Pakistan win a test here and there down under during the coming season.

[The Outsider]

yeh i think one of the left-handers - must have been Strauss - smacked one into Ponting's face fielding at silly-mid-on i think. there was blood.

Matt Prior it was who did the good deed!

[flamy]

Damnnnnnnnnn *note to self, make sure you catch highlights*

:itsme:

[Sachinism]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsoORF2uRgU]YouTube - Ricky Ponting tough as nails[/ame]

[Mr. Wicket]

This result backs up another one of my beliefs - tests are usually won and lost in the first innings. In the second innings you are either left with salvaging a draw or pulling of a miracle to win a match. After 3 first innings collapses(forget the statistics) in 5 tests do you think any team can win a series? In fact, I won't be surprised if WI(full strength) or Pakistan win a test here and there down under during the coming season.

Agree with your first point - first innings are so important, and that just highlights the excellent of a Sehwag or Tendulkar, batsmen who are able to really shine when the game is open and there to be won. (Compare and contrast with certain batsmen who have a reputation for extravagant knocks in the final innings, usually boy-on-a-burning-bridge type stuff when a game's gone and lost and the knock is irrelevant.) Re. Dhondy's question, I'll also add a couple of other things - a team is as good as its weakest link allows it to be, not as good as its stars. Australia may have some quality batting performers and a couple of very good bowlers this series but their side still has had some serious holes. Johnson in the first three tests was a liability with the ball. Siddle at points has been wildly inaccurate and expensive. Ponting as a captain has been thickheaded, reactive and unwilling to make tough calls. Mike Hussey has been a serious hole. How can a team carry a non-performing #4 like this in such a critical position? Or what about Hughes in the opening slot early in the series exposing the middle order with his frailty? England's players haven't done as outstandingly overall as Australia's - but they've kept their calm in the key pressure situations and tense moments that decide matches, and as a unit have been far more solid overall. Bopara was the only real weak link in the side. Collingwood has been a touch inconsistent, as have Broad and Anderson - but they like the rest have performed their duties in the side at least decently (at their worst) and superbly (at their best this series), leaving few gaps to fill. Australia's side hasn't played as a cohesive whole. The middle order has let down the top order when they've fired, other times the batting has let down wholehearted bowling efforts and vice versa. Leeds was the only emphatic team performance, the rest have seen some very good individual showings at points mixed in with average performances from the side overall.

[Dhondy]

Cricket is much more than simplistic statistics. If you want a half decent statistical model of cricket you would need to do a covariate analysis over 15-20 freedom of spaces. Statistics in cricket can be used to justify an observation, but it's foolhardy to build an observation and a conclusion based purely on statistics. Not saying it's an unsolvable problem but to get accurate results based purely on numbers and input conditions would require months of supercomputer time. The reason why Australia are losing this series and have lost 2 out of the last 3 competitive ones as well as 7 out of the last 16 competitive tests is because their batting is full of FTBs and they don't have McGrath and Warne to cover for them in bowling friendly conditions. The only cricket team to have as frequent collapses as Australia in bowling friendly conditions is Pakistan and we all know where they stand. Give them swing, seam, spin - they are a certainty to fold up and their ranking of number 4 will justify their stature in world cricket after this test match. It's an argument similar to quoting Ponting's 50+ average in the 4th innings and hailing him as some great batsman under pressure and in difficult conditions. He is anything but. If you want a 4th innings champion look no further than Gavaskar - can Ponting even dream of pulling off a 200+ like Gavaskar did 20 years back at this very ground??? This result backs up another one of my beliefs - tests are usually won and lost in the first innings. In the second innings you are either left with salvaging a draw or pulling of a miracle to win a match. After 3 first innings collapses(forget the statistics) in 5 tests do you think any team can win a series? In fact, I won't be surprised if WI(full strength) or Pakistan win a test here and there down under during the coming season.

Agree with your first point - first innings are so important, and that just highlights the excellent of a Sehwag or Tendulkar, batsmen who are able to really shine when the game is open and there to be won. (Compare and contrast with certain batsmen who have a reputation for extravagant knocks in the final innings, usually boy-on-a-burning-bridge type stuff when a game's gone and lost and the knock is irrelevant.) Re. Dhondy's question, I'll also add a couple of other things - a team is as good as its weakest link allows it to be, not as good as its stars. Australia may have some quality batting performers and a couple of very good bowlers this series but their side still has had some serious holes. Johnson in the first three tests was a liability with the ball. Siddle at points has been wildly inaccurate and expensive. Ponting as a captain has been thickheaded, reactive and unwilling to make tough calls. Mike Hussey has been a serious hole. How can a team carry a non-performing #4 like this in such a critical position? Or what about Hughes in the opening slot early in the series exposing the middle order with his frailty? England's players haven't done as outstandingly overall as Australia's - but they've kept their calm in the key pressure situations and tense moments that decide matches, and as a unit have been far more solid overall. Bopara was the only real weak link in the side. Collingwood has been a touch inconsistent, as have Broad and Anderson - but they like the rest have performed their duties in the side at least decently (at their worst) and superbly (at their best this series), leaving few gaps to fill. Australia's side hasn't played as a cohesive whole. The middle order has let down the top order when they've fired, other times the batting has let down wholehearted bowling efforts and vice versa. Leeds was the only emphatic team performance, the rest have seen some very good individual showings at points mixed in with average performances from the side overall.

I was hoping that you two wouldn't go for the obvious answers, but it was too much to hope for.:--D The fact is that you are being clever in hindsight because England are in a position to win, and because the weight of history is on england's side. I have seen many such analyses from sporting, financial and political pundits. It is essentially trying to fit the result to predictors rather than the other way round. Had the match been even, you'd have used those same stats which you decry to predict an Aussie victory. Well, the overwhelming superiority of the Aussie batsmen (No Salil, Collingwood wasn't simply inconsistent, he had a shocking series, as did Cook, Bopara and to a large extent, Bell), and their bowlers suggests that Australia are the superior team, the one with the better personnel, and regardless of the weight of history, the match situation loaded in favour of England, it is Australia who should win.

[The Outsider]

I was hoping that you two wouldn't go for the obvious answers, but it was too much to hope for.:--D The fact is that you are being clever in hindsight because England are in a position to win, and because the weight of history is on england's side. I have seen many such analyses from sporting, financial and political pundits. It is essentially trying to fit the result to predictors rather than the other way round. Had the match been even, you'd have used those same stats which you decry to predict an Aussie victory. Well, the overwhelming superiority of the Aussie batsmen (No Salil, Collingwood wasn't simply inconsistent, he had a shocking series, as did Cook, Bopara and to a large extent, Bell), and their bowlers suggests that Australia are the superior team, the one with the better personnel, and regardless of the weight of history, the match situation loaded in favour of England, it is Australia who should win.

Hindsight? Nope, I made these calls before the series, after Cardiff, and before Headingly. Headingly turned out to be the bang opposite but even so I saw a fair chance of Australia folding up at the Oval. The Australian batting line up, by and large, is simply not well equipped to handle bowler friendly conditions and they no longer have McGrath and Warne to shore them up from the collapses. You just have to look at the matches over the past year and a half : Perth - Pathan and RP Singh scythed through them with the Freemantle Doctor Mohali - Rookie Mishra spun webs around them Nagpur - An utterly confounded line up about how to play on a turning track got out to one laughable dismissal after another. Melbourne - Steyn cut through them with high quality swing and did an encore on a fresh Cape Town track Lords' - Anderson swung hoops around them under cloud cover Edgbaston - Onions and Anderson struck again Oval - Yet another collapse to spin and seam movement These are not coincidences. With Ponting not the same batsman as he was 2-3 years back, Hussey having lost it, and no Gilchrist in the lower middle order there is simply no one to hold up the ship in decidedly bowler friendly conditions like a Dravid, Tendulkar, Kallis, Smith, or Pietersen can do and have the others bat around them. I had predicted an Ashes loss for them way back in December when the English team showed much better fight and played much better cricket in India than Australia had. For England to have pulled it off without Pietersen was truly remarkable. Both are mediocre cricket teams who have found their middle rung rankings. With this loss, since Sydney they have played 17 tests against challenging opposition, won 4(1 of them a dead rubber with the best batsman of the opposition not able to bat) and lost 8 matches. How you continue to rank them as a team is beyond me!

[Mr. Wicket]

"The fact is that you are being clever in hindsight because England are in a position to win, and because the weight of history is on england's side. I have seen many such analyses from sporting, financial and political pundits. It is essentially trying to fit the result to predictors rather than the other way round." In my case I'm trying to still grope for answers through hindsight. Shwetabh called it ages back. Not a month or two before the Ashes, but ages ago.

[Dhondy]

Hindsight? Nope' date=' I made these calls before the series, after Cardiff, and before Headingly. Headingly turned out to be the bang opposite but even so I saw a fair chance of Australia folding up at the Oval. The Australian batting line up, by and large, is simply not well equipped to handle bowler friendly conditions and they no longer have McGrath and Warne to shore them up from the collapses. [/quote'] Sorry, Shwetabh, you are slipping. You got it completely wrong on both Headingley and Oval. Here's what you said:

The pitches have been deathbeds and without overcast conditions this would have been a nightmarish series to watch. Australian batsmen are really good at piling up the runs at a quick rate in good batting conditions but shy away like a dog which has been kicked given any lateral movement - pace or spin. Headingly will in all likelihood offer something for the bowlers and I don't see Australia scoring 350-400 they need to win a test. True the England batting is very flaky, but they are up against an attack which regularly leaks 4-5 RPO at crucial stages of a match. Prior has put the attack to the sword in the middle order and his effect invariably means crucial runs from the tail later on against a flagging attack. I feel in bowling friendly conditions, Australia just do not have it to outscore England. On a flattish Oval surface, I would take the punt on Australia because the England like up has no one to rub it in with the big hundreds like almost everyone in the Aussie line up can except Strauss.

Hate to blow my own horn, but this is what I said on the same thread:

And that English batting order looks very, very frail to me. Australia have worked out Cook & Bopara like a cheap clockwork toy. And how many times was Bell out LBW in that 2nd innings? I made it thrice. The odds are that England will be bundled out for a sub150 score in one innings at Headingley. It's almost inevitable.