The current Australian side doesn't quite bring the same joy and satisfaction to the spectator as some of its predecessors did, so it seems as good a time as any to take a look back at the great era and pick out the best combined side I can think of.
The entry date is 1985, several of the top players were in by then. More to the point, Lillee, Chappell and Marsh were retired by this point and that marked the change of eras. The team is being chosen for a series against the West Indies best team from the 80s and 90s
Openers: There are so many strong candidates here, David Boon, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer. Matthew Hayden was clearly the strongest candidate statistically and I chose to go with him, despite some concerns about how he would go against top notch pace bowling, which he didn't have to face that much of during his peak years in the team. Similar concerns exist for Justin Langer, I can't help but feel he wouldn't see out a series v the West Indies because he would take too many shots to the head, that hit in his debut test proved to be prophetic. Mark Taylor was a good opener and played very well against some quality Pakistani attacks but often struggled a little against the West Indies pace bowlers. Michael Slater may have struggled a little to maintain the discipline required against the skills of the West Indies pace quarter. Consequently I settled on David Boon. Boon was a very disciplined, controlled player who was a very capable handler of fast bowling. He didn't have the range of shots that Langer and Slater demonstrated but he played quite well against the West Indies and that tips the balance in his favour.
Number 3: David Boon and Ricky Ponting are the candidates but Ponting is so far ahead of Boon as a batsman that it isn't much of a contest. Ponting walks in. Like Richards, Ponting's attacking game faded a bit towards the end but he was clearly the outstanding Australian batsman of the era. Ponting was a good player of pace too. Consequently Boonie was pushed back up with the openers for consideration.
Number 4: Mark Waugh came up against Allan Border here, and as good as Mark was, Border's technique was better, he was as good a player of spin as Waugh was and he was a superb fielder. Additionally, I needed a captain and chose Border because he would be heavily respected by all the other players, being the most senior and they might not feel totally comfortable if he wasn't the captain. And I think Border, Ponting and Waugh are fairly similar when it comes to conservative captaincy so not much difference there. Had Clarke or Taylor made the team, I think I would have made them deal with being uncomfortable :)
Number 5: Steve Waugh: It's fair to say that I am largely in agreement with Ian Chappell re Steve Waugh. I think the argument that he was a selfish batsman has merit, and it's reflected by the low number of run outs he suffered despite being involved with plenty and it's also reflected in his not outs where he played very conservatively at the end of an innings, even if quick runs were needed Unless, of course, he was within range of a hundred, in which case all sorts of risky and unconventional slogs were pulled out for display. I think his captaincy skills were overrated and that he struggled on those rare days when the team was getting beat up.
BUT, he was a fabulous batsman even so. He had to change his batting approach because his more aggressive, devil may care attitude had led him out of the side. He was a good player of pace bowling despite not always looking comfortable against it, admittedly one wonders what might have happened had the bowlers pitched it up a bit more but they didn't so ... And he once he got on top he put teams away, Mark didn't, Mark got his good 70 or 80 and sometimes a ton and then he departed, content with a job well done.
Number 6: Michael Hussey: Ultimately, Hussey is the man who removed Mark Waugh from this team, if Hussey wasn't so good, I'd have picked Mark at 4 and moved the next 2 men down a slot. Hussey had fabulous technique, superb powers of concentration, he was an agile, reliable fielder, a superb runner between wickets. He seemed equally at home against pace or spin and was very good at pacing his innings. He batted well with the tail and could accelerate an innings when needed. One of the most complete cricketers I have seen.
Number 7: Adam Gilchrist: Very much a philosophical choice here. I consider Ian Healy to be the better keeper and Adam Gilchrist to be the better batsman. I think Gilchrist can make up for the likelihood he might drop more than Healy with his ability to hit hundreds that turn a game around. I wonder if I'm picking him partly because I loved watching him bat, being the purest striker of a cricket ball I have ever seen. Or do I just have it in for Ian Healy because he dropped Brian Lara in Barbados in 99 and missed that stumping off Warne against Pakistan?!!
Number 8: Shane Warne: An obvious choice. As good a spinner as any we've ever had, tremendous competitor, reliable slips catcher, handy lower order batsman. I think I enjoyed watching Warne bowl more than any other Australian I have seen bowl.
Number 9: Jason Gillespie: A very good bowler at his peak, he was quick and accurate. Injury problems were reasonably common but that can't be helped. When available, he was very good. He was also a top notch tailender. His disciplined approach to batting really stood out, he was very willing to keep blocking as long as it was needed. The double century against Bangladesh probably showed him he had a little bit more than good defence to offer as a batsman, as he produced some fine 1st class scores subsequently.
Number 10: Craig McDermott: This was a tough one! Craig also had some injury problems and he was up against Brett Lee for a place in this team. I think Craig was a little more accurate than Brett at his peak and consequently, a little more likely to get wickets. Both were useful lower order players although I would rate Lee higher in this category and I'd give Brett the points for fielding too.
Number 11: Glenn McGrath. Well, who else is going to be picked here?! Like Warne, a very straightforward choice. Incredibly accurate, very fit, rarely injured, very competitive, and became a handy #11 through sheer stubborness. Strong throwing arm and safe hands in the outfield.
What are your thoughts?
Showing posts with label Ricky Ponting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ricky Ponting. Show all posts
Saturday, 23 March 2013
Saturday, 12 January 2008
An open response to Peter Roebuck
I'm still looking for evidence and reasons as to why Ricky Ponting should be sacked as Australian captain. Nothing he has done is exceptional for an Australian captain, or indeed a captain of any other country. The first article was long on rhetoric and short on logic. The follow-up basically admitted that the first was written to stir things up and get attention. In that, it was successful. In providing logical reasons for the demand in the first, it was a failure.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Australia has sacked one captain in the last 80 odd years and that was for overly defensive captaincy over a long period. Consequently, sacking of Australian captains is a responsibility that is taken pretty seriously, with the reluctance to do so prolonging the careers of Steve Waugh and Mark Taylor when strong cases were available for dismissing both of them.
Over zealous appealing, celebrating and unnecessary sledging have been characteristics of the modern game and are shared by all teams and most captains. Demanding decisions and pressurising umpires is a trait most players are pretty good at. Anil Kumble has been a master of it.
Indian players indulged in sledging during the test, they participated enthusiastically in appeals deliberately designed to deceive the umpire and convince him to give players out. While they didn't participate in over the top celebrations, they compensated for that burst of good taste by deliberately wasting time after both dismissals in what turned out to be the final over of the game. Sending a man out with incorrect gloves was a particularly shrewd although thoroughly unsportsmanlike tactic that may well have saved the game by preventing an additional over being bowled. For a man who was allegedly intent upon pressuring umpires, Ponting's refusal to appeal for Sharma's dismissal due to the amount of time it took him to get out there is striking.
Anil Kumble certainly saw no problem with this behaviour as he indicated that his team was the team playing the match in the spirit of the game. The Indian captain was very happy to imply that the loss was solely the responsibility of the umpires. He did not devote a word to all the runs the Australians gained through their superior ground fielding and running between wickets in comparison with the consistently lacklustre performance of the Indians in these areas. There can be no doubt that if India were even vaguely competitive in these areas, the Australians would not have had the time to bowl them out.
As there were no corresponding claims from you that Kumble should join Ponting in cricketing exile, I infer that you are satisfied that he and his team were meeting the required standard for cricketing behaviour. It would appear that demands for cricketing morality and leadership start and end with Ricky Ponting.
This is the same captain whom you saluted for sporting behaviour in 2005. (1.) You have also saluted his general captaincy in 2006 after the Ashes victory and on many other occasions.
What is the leadership required of an Australian cricket captain? Please define it and explain how other countries are meeting that standard and how recent Australian captains have met it and where Ponting has not met it ? If only Australian captains should meet this standard, could you please explain why captains of other cricketing nations are not required to meet it?
Was this really the ugliest Australian effort of the last 20 years? Glenn McGrath's efforts against the West Indies in 2003 comes to mind.
Harbhajan Singh started the altercation, and then responded inappropriately to the inevitable responses and said something he should not have, that had been clearly explained to him would cause problems. What would your article have said had it been an Australian who had produced an unacceptable comment after being privately warned by the Indian players about it? It may be that Symonds did not want Ponting to wash it under the carpet, which would have been the easier option.
I saw plenty of sympathy for Harbhajan Singh from you, despite him being a very experienced cricketer with a long history of sledging. Hunted from the game? If his suspension holds up, he'll be back. If someone's being hunted from the game, it's Brad Hogg, who was put up on a charge in a cynical tit for tat exercise which has seen not a comment from you in sympathy for the man or in disgust at the callous tactic. A suspension along Harbhajan's lines could well endanger Hogg's future as his position in the team is precarious. I believe he has a family too.
With regards to Simon Katich being captain, your Australian citizenship clearly has not overridden your English cricket heart. Only an Englishman would suggest making someone captain who can't even make the team. There is no place in Australian cricket for a captain who isn't worth his place in the side. The captain who resigned was heavily influenced in doing so by his complete inability to score runs, Katich would likely find himself in the same spot. As for one day cricket, even if he scored runs, his strike rate simply does not justify a position.
I wasn't impressed with Ponting's lack of awareness re India's feelings myself or his general behaviour during the Sydney Test, but it's a huge step from that to sacking him. I am a strong supporter of the Australian policy to only sack captains when there is no other alternative. I certainly don't sack them for conduct well within the bounds of accepted behaviour in the modern cricket game. Whether the behaviour should be accepted is another issue altogether, one that should be being debated with the sort of passion you displayed in venting over Ponting. Nevertheless, sacking someone for behaving in the same manner as his peers is unjustifiable. We'd have to retrospectively sack every Australian captain for the last 30 years and most of our opposing captains as well.
Most of this mess is a reflection of the hypocrisy in modern cricket etiquette. It's normal to cheat when you're batting or appealing, but it's an insult to your opponents when you're catching. It's part of the game to be rude and intimidate your opponents in most conceivable ways as long as you don't say certain unacceptable comments. While cricket has that half hearted and illogical moral code built in, it's going to continue to have blow ups about player behaviour. I have zero respect for this code of etiquette and think it's appalling. However, seeing that it's accepted by the game in general, I cannot support dismissing a captain for following it.
An aside to finish. One of your concerns about Ponting was his pressuring of umpires, something you see every time the ball hits the pad anywhere near in line. Why are appeals necessary? It may be a historical part of the game but there's no reason for them. If the umpire puts up his finger, you're out. Appealing influences umpires. Ban it. It'll make the game more boring, but it'll make umpire's decisions more reflective of what they are seeing, not what the players are seeing or claiming to see. Other sports with waiting time don't have appeals before a decision, it's obvious when a decision needs to be made and they just look at the umpire and await it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)