Rhino Richards

Your comments about not winning the toss lacked emoticons. FWIW, I think Ponting has received a bum wrap on this site. He not a great captain but he is not a bad captain either. HT's comments were about the first compliment I have seen anyone give Ponting around here. Obviously one to many for some. Every captain looks bad if his bowlers fail their task. Just my opinion

Captaincy is more than just the toss in both ODI and Tests. Who is the person that controls the bowling changes and the field in ODI? Bollinger should be congratulated ...but then again so should Ponting for excatly the reasons HT gave. The fact that he was prepared to back Johnson (incredibly inconsistent) and Bollinger (young, inexperience) is a credit to Ponting.

Some of the stats from the game.... WOW Prime Numbers All five of Australia's batsmen had strike-rates of 100 or more. Cameron White's 57 off 33 balls at 172.72 was the best. Shaun Marsh's 112 is his maiden ODI hundred. His 145-run partnership with Watson is the highest opening stand in the series. Sachin Tendulkar's 175 is the third-highest score in an ODI defeat, behind Charles Coventry's 194*, and Mathew Hayden's 181*. The match aggregate of 697 is the highest in India and the third highest overall, after 872 by South Africa and Australia in Johannesburg, and 726 by New Zealand and India in Christchurch. India's total of 347 is the third-highest score in the second innings of an ODI, after South Africa's 438 for 9 in Johannesburg, and New Zealand's 350 for 9 in Hamilton. It is also the highest second-innings total in a defeat. Also, Shane Watson 93 at better than a run a ball and 3-47....Great effort in a mentally tough game with a depleted side...Great win. While I am not mad on ODI this is one of the few I would watch a replay of.

Any credit to the captaincy and the selectors for cobbling a side together with all those injuries? I expect not.

Yes....but..... They're injured. Harris from SA??? I have not checked others. But Hodge at 35.........

The number of injuries is worthy of an inquiry as to why highly paid professional sportsmen were not fit and able to play. Assessment is right on Hodge. If we dont have more inspiring choices for the Test than Brad Hodge at 35 then Australian cricket is looking bleak indeed. A weak Windies outfit is an ideal platform to bring on promising players of tomorrow not proven and ageing tweeners. And if Hodge is picked in the Tests, I will also take back my past criticism of the Poms in full for recalling Brian Close and Colin Cowdrey all those years ago.

At 35yo, the selectors maybe looking at younger options. Mind you if you are ever going to bat your way into form then its gotta be in a series against the Windies at home. Funny, I would never have said that 15 years ago

My understanding is that he had always had that teflon perspective and his rise to fame only added fuel to the fire. His long litany of embarrassing and unacceptable behavioural events in public and private destroyed any chance he had of ever being Australian captain. Its a pity. He was a great bowler with an enterprising cricket brain. It gave him longevity in the game where just one of his embarrassing gaffes would have sunk the careers of lesser mortals.

There is no doubt Warne sees himself in that light too.Through the difficult times in his life, drug taking, teammate sledging, accepting bribes, serial womaniser and cheating that Warne has this surreal ability to brush these issues off as something thats neither here nor there when all the world realises its different and has serious implications about judgement and good character. Its a quality that has allowed him to endure personally the strain of public life in his own unique way. In another way it shows he repeatedly does not understand the fundamental responsibilities and accountabilities he has to people in his cricket life and his private life. Deep down he is a simple bogan from the burbs who just does not get it. He is respected and revered as a cricketer but not on the same level as a person. There is a number of skills Warne has on the field that dont translate off it...one of them is character. FWIW, Warne is the best bowler I have ever seen and the demonstration of his rare skills to world cricket came at a price.

Agree that he had brilliant cricket mind and was a great bowler but.... Not a leader's bootlace who was a loner with litle rapport with teammates and few if any real friends in cricket. And after Tubby and S Waugh were both made Australian of the Year it is hard to think that a serial pants man, a smoker, a pathological liar and a convicted drug taker was ever going to be the high profile and high prestige captain of Australia. Unfortunately brilliance in some areas was countered by an perpetually embarrassing personal profile that makes Wayne Carey look like a Saint.

Blah Blah Blah. He won the Test at Melbourne so how could it possibly be a mistake? The follow on and the amazing freakish comeback by the Indians in a record stand does not negate the argument about batting first and is irrelevant to the the discussion. However for all of Waugh's alleged greatness, the decision cost us that series in India. Nobody is criticising SR Waugh. They just recognise he was a captain with a great team (one of the greatest ever at his disposal). Was he a great captain? Gien the side he had it hard to tell. He rarely had the pressure on him (ex India) during his captaincy. And for the record Warne made four captains look better than they were....Border, Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. Great players do that. Just spare us the meldramatic crap.

S.R. Waugh had McGrath, Gillespie and Warne at his disposal in the fourth innings and then he had Hayden, Langer, Ponting and Gilly ably supported by M Waugh and Martin. I like Steve Waugh but honestly it was easy to Captain a side with 4 all time greats in it ably supported by another four very good players. And a quick scan of Cricinfo shows that SR Waugh as captain of the Test team won the toss in the 2nd Test at Melbourne in 2000/2001 and bowled. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63965.html Who would have thunk it? HT is right. "The crux of my post is, in Test Matches (5 day format) you analyse the pitch first and look/consider at the pitch & weather conditions. Including forecasts. It helps determine results." Winning the toss and deciding correctly does have a huge bearing on a Test. While the majority of time the winner does bat it is not a golden rule and it is feasible to bowl given certain circumstances and conditions.

I trust you are not judging B'desh on the effort against sub club X1 from Zimbabwe. They are a third rate country that was given first class status a generation before it should have. Zimbabwe cricket mirrors the country itself. An appalling tragedy being destroyed by Mugabe and his goons.

I said I dont think its a given that you bat first every time in a ODI. How much is the pitch going to deteriorate over 8 hours when it has been specifically made for a run feast? And there is only 4 hours in duration difference between a 20/20 and a 50 over game so if it doesnt matter for a 20/20 then the it should hardly matter for a ODI. And the main issue with the pre Test series games is not so much the 20/20 (and its not good) but the lack of quality opposition games. Without looking at the fixture there was British Lions 3 dayer and a game against a watered down county side. It affects the start of a series but is no excuse for the player's peformance over the whole of the series. Exactly

Its another celebration of the malaise that is international cricket managed by the ICC. To think a game involving either or both teams is accredited as a first class match is the embarrassment

The conditions cancel each other out because the moisture in the air also causes moisture on the ball which destroys the laquer on the ball. The conditions vary between countries but there is not the same "bat first" mentality in ODI as there is in Tests. Katich has sealed one of the opening positions and come out of the Ashes OK. Hughes is young but a wonderful talent with a couple of tchnique problems. They should have taken an extra batsman to the Ashes and piffed McDonald. I am no fan of Hussey's but given the injuries to Clarke and Ferguson and co and the lack of ready replacements, it only highlights the Australian predicament Wrong again. The Ashes side we took to England was arguably the weakest and most inexperienced side to tour in the past 50 years. The bowling attack was green and relying on a bowler who is brilliant but terribly inconsistent. Hughes replaced Hayden but was man of the series leading into the Ashes. Go figure. What could have been possibly done? Give specifics not bloated theories. The era of Warne shadowed the fact that aside from McGill there wasn't a competent spin bowler with the talent to cut it at Test level. Post Warne only established the truth of the situation. 35 years wasted....

Its an issue in 5 day cricket where the state of the wicket can change over that period and ideally in most cases batting first gives you the ability to get best use of the wicket. Its not so much issue an issue in one day forms of cricket. Titan has covered it. Is that as invaluable as your media experience? I dont see what relevance your stated involvement in cricket has to the discussion. It does not lend any further credibility to your comments. How often is the pitch the difference between one side and another in one day cricket? Not facking ever. There is a huge difference between batting last in a Test match and a one day game. Ever considered that in 35 years? Geez, how could the selectors and Ponting not dug replacements for the greatest spinner ever, one of the best quicks and arguably the greatest keeper batsmen ever? Geez it should be a sinch... 35 years would have least taught you that Warne is a freak and a once in a couple of lifetimes bowler. They would never have replaced one of those greats let alone 3 greats in a short period of time and possibly ever. No. On one hand you whinge about no planning over Warne, Gilly and McGrath (include Langer as well) then you complain that Hayden played too long. Given the holes left by the absence of 3 and 4 greats the rebuild was a massive task anyway. This coupled with injuries and demise of Lee and McGill only made the planning more fraught. The retention of Hayden was necessary at the time to bolster the batting Hayden was batting capably up to six months before he retired. When he was cut that brought in Phil Hughes. It won them the unwinnable series. Well done selectors Great another whinge without an alternative. And I cant think of a captain who is not "stiff" when his bowling attack is unproven, unreliable and at times not up to it.

I guess the question is what would you (or another captain) have done differently. I have only seen the final 15 overs of the India innings and if ever there was a game when a Captain was let down by his bowlers... this was one of them. I dont wish to exonerate Ponting as at times he looks wooden under pressure. However, "off with his head" calls are too often made without a preferable or sensible solution.

All the best two sheds. Lets hope the good news keeps coming. You deserve it. Thanks for the update.

I dont think so for the current state of Test pitches. And the points are some of the issues you make undermine the value of the exercise particularly the last issue. The quality of a pitch can change dramatically over one year. Much depends upon the competence and integrity of ground management and administration. The English tour of the WI recently highlights this. I sometimes feel that curators are got at by Ground Management and TV rights stakeholders to provide "insurance" that the Test will go the full 5 days. They nullify the pitch for bowlers and effectively kill the contest between bat and ball by the end of day 1.

Correct. Stuff it. I tossed the coin. Called incorrectly. Thanks for that. The results of a game often depend upon the quality of the teams playing, attitudes of the Captains, etc. If you are going to look at the results then you have to look at the components of each one. I reckon all of the Test results in Perth for the past 5 years or so have been on sub standard wickets. And I think its getting worse. However when you have over 1000 runs struck in a Test with less than 25 wickets taken over the 5 days then questions should be asked about the wicket. It happens way too often to pin it on the quality of the attacks.

It was a joke back then when the cooch grass caught some type of fungus and pitch was rubble. There is still a concern about the consistency of bounce in the MCG drop ins. Regardless the wicket quality list IMO is Sydney Brisbane Adelaide Melbourne Launceston Perth

I think Perth is a very poor pitch at the moment.

Agree about the 1st dig especially after NZ (yes NZ) hit 619 after being 3/23. I know they batted for more than 2 days.....they could have batted for 2 weeks....its so ho hum. Particularly after the quality of the SA -Aust tests where when the wickets gave an equal opportunity for bat and ball great cricket arose. I just dont get the habit of global groundsmen who continually turn out too many batting paradises. Or in the WI, sandpits with cut grass on top!

Or maybe another Test wicket with the life rolled out of it..... I like good batting but 22 wickets over 5 days...spare me the explanations.