On 24/03/2011 at 15:09, Axis of Bob said:

That's what Tait is there for. Picking up a well set Tendulkar who is on 50 during the middle overs.

Sure, he's spraying it, but it's tough to find someone that can do that.

According to Cricinfo, Lee would have had him at the 15th if Kreza had fielded a little better.

Anyway, as it happens your post is a nice segue into a comment I wanted to make re: Ponting's bowling changes. I was liking them until Tait was brought on.

Watson and Lee had 5 overs left and Johnson 3, with ~13 overs to go. These bowlers were all going at less than 5 per over and the run rate was ~6. All the spinners had plenty of overs too (including D Hussey, who has gone for less than 4 per over).

Tait was introduced into the attack and went for 19 off two overs. Not a choice I would have made, with Yuv and Raina at the crease. Anyhow, India's in the box seat from here - we need wickets quickly.

- - - - - - -

Ouch, Lee returned to the attack, was hit for six and the equation is now 16 off 29. I think it's curtains.

But they didn't need to constrict them, they needed wickets. Last two recognised batsmen at the crease so we needed to break that partnership quickly.

When the going gets tough the tough get going!

Clarke 8

  On 24/03/2011 at 17:17, Axis of Bob said:

But they didn't need to constrict them, they needed wickets. Last two recognised batsmen at the crease so we needed to break that partnership quickly.

You don't take wickets with wides. You do take wickets when the batsmen are under pressure though, and once Tait got smashed in those two overs the game was over - there was no pressure. Had we continued to build the pressure, as we had been doing up until that point (you would have noticed the run rate was constantly increasing, and weas up around 6), the batsmen would have been more likely to get out.

I also disagree with the implication that Tait was the most likely to break the partnership at that point in the game.

Each to their own, though. Ponting's played more cricket than me and he clearly thought the same as you.

As an aside, if Ferguson had faced 22 balls - the number White did - and scored at his average career strike rate the Indians would have been chasing 270, which would have made for a pretty interesting game. To chase 12 runs in the last 14 balls doesn't sound much, but that's not the scenario - with a larger total to chase there would have been more pressure on the Indian bats throughout the innings so who knows how it would have gone.

White did achieve a run out, which I saw someone tweet as the best (or was it only?) thing he's done all WC - perhaps a fair call (unfortuately, because I like White).

- - - -

Anyway, a shame about the result from an Australian perspective, but there were some good individual performances. D Hussey shone, and it was nice to see Ponting bat well. I think Lee's been pretty good since he came back into the side, too. It'll be interesting to see what the selectors do from here.

  On 24/03/2011 at 20:44, old dee said:

When the going gets tough the tough get going!

Clarke 8

It's very easy to be critical of someone's performance in one game in isolation.

Now observe and state his last recorded 15 innings at ODI, then try and support your reasoning !

You're as quiet as the Ponting critics right now.

  On 25/03/2011 at 02:15, High Tower said:

You're as quiet as the Ponting critics right now.

It is now time for Ponting to go, unless he wishes to be a number 6 Batsmen-regardless of his great innings last night.

Now is the time to step aside, as in reality he has been struggling to hit top form for the last 2 years.

It is now time for a complete clean sheet on & off the field.

Geelong had no idea it had a future Premiership captain when Tom Harley walked into the club from Port after one game, by this i mean-The Future Australian Test Side is out there, it has to be bought together.

The current Australian side has been running continuously in a way since 1989-A magnificent effort, but like an old family dog-The time has come for that last trip to the Vet.

It's Over.

Edited March 25, 201114 yr by why you little

Why is it an option that he either retire or bat six?

If that's the option then he should be retired. I dont think that the intent of the ACB yet.

I dont think there is a better and ready no 3 atm. This could change over the coming six months.

BTW, his innings was top shelf on a reasonable ordinary wicket. If he plays then he should be No 3....unless there is a better option.

If Ponting is not captain, I think Clarke will be captain for Bangladesh. White has blown a big opportunity from the start of 2011.

The following players from the ODI will pensioned off progressively...Ponting, M Hussey and Lee. Tait and Krejza should be sent back to Shield level. White has been in poor form but should not be overlooked because he is proven ODI player and a matchwinner.

We need to get a battery of fast bowlers and a spinner in place for next summer. Good chance for potentials to put their hand up.

  On 25/03/2011 at 04:22, Rhino Richards said:

Why is it an option that he either retire or bat six?

If that's the option then he should be retired. I dont think that the intent of the ACB yet.

I dont think there is a better and ready no 3 atm. This could change over the coming six months.

BTW, his innings was top shelf on a reasonable ordinary wicket. If he plays then he should be No 3....unless there is a better option.

If Ponting is not captain, I think Clarke will be captain for Bangladesh. White has blown a big opportunity from the start of 2011.

The following players from the ODI will pensioned off progressively...Ponting, M Hussey and Lee. Tait and Krejza should be sent back to Shield level. White has been in poor form but should not be overlooked because he is proven ODI player and a matchwinner.

We need to get a battery of fast bowlers and a spinner in place for next summer. Good chance for potentials to put their hand up.

i am not saying ponting's innings last night was not top shelf-but i do not want to wait another 12 months just in case he hits another ton.

He either retires now or is played at number 6 (not as captain)

I agree completely with the bowling...We went to the world cup with a Plan A, if that failed....we still went in with a Plan A.

  On 25/03/2011 at 04:35, why you little said:

i am not saying ponting's innings last night was not top shelf-but i do not want to wait another 12 months just in case he hits another ton.

He either retires now or is played at number 6 (not as captain)

Why does he bat six? You dont need to repeat the statement just provide a plausible reason why you would do the move. Ponting will be gone well before Christmas.

It would be disasterous for Ponting did hit another century...perish the thought.

  On 25/03/2011 at 04:35, why you little said:

I agree completely with the bowling...We went to the world cup with a Plan A, if that failed....we still went in with a Plan A.

So what was plan B??

  On 25/03/2011 at 05:15, Rhino Richards said:

Why does he bat six? You dont need to repeat the statement just provide a plausible reason why you would do the move. Ponting will be gone well before Christmas.

It would be disasterous for Ponting did hit another century...perish the thought.

So what was plan B??

Oh yes Ponting could hit a Ton against Bangladesh....But what's the point?? Time to go now, make room for the kiddies

PLAN B: There were quite a few bowling combinations that didn't get a run, even against the minnows....very Boring and conservative coaching i thought. The Batting middle order was only changed when it was too late, D Hussey left out the side

Did Hastings bowl at all? He couldn't have done a worse job than johnson sadly.

Mitchell can bowl superbly but he doesn't have the ticker to do it enough.

Edited March 25, 201114 yr by why you little

  On 25/03/2011 at 05:31, why you little said:

Oh yes Ponting could hit a Ton against Bangladesh....But what's the point?? Time to go now, make room for the kiddies

But didnt you want to bat him at six? Batting him at six only deprives someone else of the opportunity to be eased in. And No 6 is a great spot to bring in a green batsman. So why would you leave Ponting at six to block that spot. makes no sense when you really think about it.

  On 25/03/2011 at 05:31, why you little said:

PLAN B: There were quite a few bowling combinations that didn't get a run, even against the minnows....very Boring and conservative coaching i thought.

So there was no Plan B. Thanks for the confirmation.

Thats the challenge for Australia if they dismantle a Plan A that includes Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was picked ahead of Hastings because he has proven but inconsistent ability to run through batting line ups. He didn't fire like a number of players in the Aust team.

  On 25/03/2011 at 06:02, Rhino Richards said:

But didnt you want to bat him at six? Batting him at six only deprives someone else of the opportunity to be eased in. And No 6 is a great spot to bring in a green batsman. So why would you leave Ponting at six to block that spot. makes no sense when you really think about it.

So there was no Plan B. Thanks for the confirmation.

Thats the challenge for Australia if they dismantle a Plan A that includes Mitchell Johnson. Johnson was picked ahead of Hastings because he has proven but inconsistent ability to run through batting line ups. He didn't fire like a number of players in the Aust team.

If it was my choice Ponting would be gone. If he does not wish to walk, then i would say to him its Position 6 Ricky. But i would prefer him to walk right now.

That innings last night is a great way to say goodbye.

I am well aware johnson didn't fire, but the selectors refuse to make any changes-They wait & wait for the afore mentioned to fire. I would have played different bowlers against the minnows-It's not as if we would have lost.

  On 25/03/2011 at 06:08, why you little said:

If it was my choice Ponting would be gone. If he does not wish to walk, then i would say to him its Position 6 Ricky. But i would prefer him to walk right now.

That innings last night is a great way to say goodbye.

Glad we agree that the No 6 position is a furphy.

  On 25/03/2011 at 06:08, why you little said:

I am well aware johnson didn't fire, but the selectors refuse to make any changes-They wait & wait for the afore mentioned to fire. I would have played different bowlers against the minnows-It's not as if we would have lost.

Hindsight is wonderful tool but there is no evidence that Hastings would have done better than Johnson with bat and ball. And Johnson has form (albeit patchy) that he can rip through sides.

Its makes no sense to playing different (2nd string) bowlers in the lead up games if they deprive your preferred front line bowlers of match practice and opportunity to get form.

And given the closeness that the minnows went to pushing Australia and also other sides on ordinary wickets, why would you take the risk??

At least we aren't South Africa!

I usually think Peter Roebuck writes shallow emotional rubbish, but he made a good point today in his article. We simply weren't good enough but other teams still feared us. Not because we could bat or bowl, because we couldn't, but because we were Australia and teams knew that we would fight and fight. We fought, but it wasn't enough because we just weren't good enough.

Not being good enough is not a problem South Africa has. But they still can't win.

  On 25/03/2011 at 23:18, Axis of Bob said:

At least we aren't South Africa!

I usually think Peter Roebuck writes shallow emotional rubbish, but he made a good point today in his article. We simply weren't good enough but other teams still feared us. Not because we could bat or bowl, because we couldn't, but because we were Australia and teams knew that we would fight and fight. We fought, but it wasn't enough because we just weren't good enough.

Not being good enough is not a problem South Africa has. But they still can't win.

I think Australia and South Africa are somewhat opposites at the moment. We have little talent but still seem to strike fear into the hearts of any opponent. South Africa have ridiculous talent, but any team can go into a game thinking 'we can get them' with their fragile mindset.

Honestly, South Africa may as well not bother playing World Cups. They just cannot win games that mean something. That was a simple chase, and at 2/100-odd they were cruising. New Zealand isn't Pakistan, their bowlwers aren't much chop at all. That should have been simple, but they are so mentally fragile they are always prone to losing.

Loving seeing England get knocked out of the World Cup by 10 wickets. Couldn't get either opener out. They both made centuries and England were made to look second rate. Again.

You'd pick Sri Lanka to beat NZ, and comfortably I'd say, but the other semi is going to be a classic. India's not in the greatest form, despite their wins, and Pakistan can either be brilliant or insipid. Hopefully it's the former.

NZ getting over SA is why I didn't buy the idea that we couldn't win the World Cup - it's been a pretty open field (no pun intended).

  On 27/03/2011 at 00:18, titan_uranus said:

Loving seeing England get knocked out of the World Cup by 10 wickets. Couldn't get either opener out. They both made centuries and England were made to look second rate. Again.

You'd pick Sri Lanka to beat NZ, and comfortably I'd say, but the other semi is going to be a classic. India's not in the greatest form, despite their wins, and Pakistan can either be brilliant or insipid. Hopefully it's the former.

My tip is Sri Lanka to win the World Cup.

  On 27/03/2011 at 23:39, High Tower said:

My tip is Sri Lanka to win the World Cup.

looking good right now-Their effort against the Monarchy was superb.

Ponting's just announced his retirement from captaincy. He wants to play on.

  On 29/03/2011 at 02:08, Rogue said:

Ponting's just announced his retirement from captaincy. He wants to play on.

Is Hilditch walking as well??

  Quote

At the end of the 2006-07 Ashes clean-sweep, when Australia farewelled Warne, McGrath and Langer, Ponting had only endured three losses in his 35 Tests in charge. After that point, Australia played another 42 Tests under Ponting and won exactly half.

Compare that to Graeme Smith, whose South Africans have won only 45% of their Tests under his leadership. In their day, Michael Vaughan and Hansie Cronje were highly regarded leaders, the latter's match-fixing scandal notwithstanding, and they each only won 50% of their Tests in charge.

Interesting perspective.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/508563.html

  On 29/03/2011 at 14:05, why you little said:

Is Hilditch walking as well??

Hah. Hilditch has said he won't walk, but he will probably get bumped by the assertion that we need a full-time chief of selectors.

  On 30/03/2011 at 06:04, Rogue said:

Interesting perspective.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/508563.html

Hah. Hilditch has said he won't walk, but he will probably get bumped by the assertion that we need a full-time chief of selectors.

HaHa yep i think Andrew has super glued himself to that Part time chair.

So punter has given up the captaincy but still wants to play on. Will he slide down the order so we can blood a new young number 3 ?

Sure hope so, because if not the team doesn't look that different right now.

Oh except for Tait, who has retired from ODI...10 overs in a day is too much for him!!!! i did have to laugh

  On 30/03/2011 at 06:29, why you little said:

HaHa yep i think Andrew has super glued himself to that Part time chair.

So punter has given up the captaincy but still wants to play on. Will he slide down the order so we can blood a new young number 3 ?

Sure hope so, because if not the team doesn't look that different right now.

Oh except for Tait, who has retired from ODI...10 overs in a day is too much for him!!!! i did have to laugh

If I was him I'd do the same. He clearly doesn't love cricket, and T20 is far easier on the body etc. There's also less scrutiny, at least in one sense. Given he can make decent moolah as a T20 player, and is less likely to get injured, it's a smart career move.

  On 30/03/2011 at 07:30, Rogue said:

If I was him I'd do the same. He clearly doesn't love cricket, and T20 is far easier on the body etc. There's also less scrutiny, at least in one sense. Given he can make decent moolah as a T20 player, and is less likely to get injured, it's a smart career move.

oh i can see the motives as well, i just find it a little sad. I dislike T20 in a big way.