Ponting better than SRW?

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

Fred Nerk wrote:Punter pulled it together very well yesterday, but his captaincy on days 1-4 was not much in the Benaud/Chappell league. He is improving as he grows into the role, but he still seems to be a bit of a menace to society when the red mist comes down. 'Throwing a moral' when that journo asked about integrity shows the same precious petulant streak that made him gob off at Fletcher.

Match-winning move bringing the Spotty Youth on, but it was a bit of a Hail Mary, and how much it was motivated by inspiration, how much by desparation and how much by a wish to get Clarke, who had barely tied his bootlaces right all match, out of his earhole, we'll never know unless Punter tells us.

Fred Nerk wrote:Because you and Horrie give such an God-almighty shit about Waugh's average you naturally assume he does as well.

It's a fairly special set of circumstances when your option B is better for the team than option A. And the benefits of Waugh encouraging (OK, have it your way, forcing at gunpoint) Pidge, Dizzy and co to bat and make runs and take responsibility showed benefits which lasted long after Waugh. With Waugh, even the dreaded MacDill occasionally showed application as a batsman.

But it was 'good' for a player you hate, therefore it was bad. As VoR says when he's in code-red bluster mode, End Of.

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

It matters . . . a slow 25 with Koala watching his avergae might not be better for the team than 15 runs in 2 overs with Koala getting out.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

It matters . . . a slow 25 with Koala watching his avergae might not be better for the team than 15 runs in 2 overs with Koala getting out.

tac, didn't you say the other day that runs are all important when we were discussing keepers. In fact you said it was a "no brainer".

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

It matters . . . a slow 25 with Koala watching his avergae might not be better for the team than 15 runs in 2 overs with Koala getting out.

tac, didn't you say the other day that runs are all important when we were discussing keepers. In fact you said it was a "no brainer".

No, I said the reverse. I said that missing a catch or two far outweighed an extra 10 runs on a batting average.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

It matters . . . a slow 25 with Koala watching his avergae might not be better for the team than 15 runs in 2 overs with Koala getting out.

tac, didn't you say the other day that runs are all important when we were discussing keepers. In fact you said it was a "no brainer".

No, I said the reverse. I said that missing a catch or two far outweighed an extra 10 runs on a batting average.

Cool - it was a little ambiguous & I read it the other way. I fully agree WRT keepers as you may recall.

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

tac wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:"But who scored the runs? who had the majority of the strike? who ended not out?"

How does it matter if the team benefits? The strategy is successful.

It matters . . . a slow 25 with Koala watching his avergae might not be better for the team than 15 runs in 2 overs with Koala getting out.

tac, didn't you say the other day that runs are all important when we were discussing keepers. In fact you said it was a "no brainer".

No, I said the reverse. I said that missing a catch or two far outweighed an extra 10 runs on a batting average.

Cool - it was a little ambiguous & I read it the other way. I fully agree WRT keepers as you may recall.

Yep. I thought you sounded confused over my point that England shouldn't argue over a possible 20 or 30 runs when you have a keeper costing you more in dropped catches each innings.

Basil wrote:If I had to choose a team to play for my life, SRW would be captain.

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:

tac wrote:

furriner wrote:WRT captaincy or almost anything else, in his dreams Ponting can tie Waugh's shoelaces. That's fair.

You're kidding, right?

Ponting inherited a team in transition with it's best bowlers slowly fading . . . Dizzy, Pidge and Warnie. Look how he has worked to fit new players intot his team and how well he backs them in the field. I bet Symmonds, Clark, Huss, Jaques, Midge etc would kill for Punter.

That's because they have probably figured out that killing him would be more of a bother.

Furry, you seem like a sensible man, but you really don't know much about cricket.

tac wrote:

Basil wrote:If I had to choose a team to play for my life, SRW would be captain.

Your life is now forfeit.

PearlJ wrote:Hmmm I think Ponting is underappreciated in all facets of his game. Maybe when he retires he will be appreciated more. He is too divisive at the moment.

Basil wrote:If I had to choose a team to play for my life, SRW would be captain.

Basil wrote:

tac wrote:

Basil wrote:If I had to choose a team to play for my life, SRW would be captain.

Your life is now forfeit.

Head and shoulders above hiscontemporaries.