Punter's record in perspective

The impossible hole to fill

"Ricky Ponting bestrode Australian cricket from the front, which is far less elegant phraseology than his footwork ever was. For 10 years, he batted exclusively at No. 3 and averaged more than 56. As is so often the case, only after he abdicated the position was it possible to see the immensity of that feat in perspective.

The handover was unceremonious, even accidental. In mid-2011, Australia was in Sri Lanka, licking the wounds of the previous summer's Ashes debacle. Michael Clarke had replaced Ponting as captain, though Ponting was retained at No. 3 for the first Test.

But when Ponting returned to Australia for the birth of his daughter, Shaun Marsh stepped in at first drop for the second Test, and promptly made a debut century. When Ponting rejoined for the third Test, it was down the order a notch. He would never make another run at No. 3.

Seemingly, Marsh had opened a door, but it was to an abyss. In two years and 26 Tests since, eight men have appeared at No. 3, collectively averaging a meagre 22. Not one has made a century. But they have made nine ducks, including three in one series for Marsh, and one for Clarke, in his only captain's innings at No. 3."

---------------------------------------------------------------

I was always a massive Ponting fan, and never underestimated the value he gave to the side at no. 3. Our current inability to find anyone half as good is evidence in itself of his greatness.

In another article this week, Steve Waugh says the 1989-2007 was a "freakish" period in Aus cricket that may never be repeated.

I'm not sure this will pan out like that. Very good players will come along to supplement a band of hard-working Shield professionals. Sure, we may never see a Warne or Gilchrist again, but I'm confident we can put together a more consistent team than we have at the moment.

I said as much in the wake of the 4-0 Indian debacle. Accept that we don't have the stellar top 7 of 2001-2007 anymore and build around players with heart and technique, and flick the pea-hearts, technical clowns and players not prepared to work.

I think Boof has made it clear this WILL be the path forward.

Aus have always been competitive. Even at their lowest ebb. They're, at least, always well drilled athletes. That always helps. The lack of batting supremacy is a little disturbing. I never thought I'd see such citrus behaviour from them, for such a sustained period.

Indeed Dan. It is disheartening for Aus supporters that we would surrender the Ashes so meekly. I said before the series that I didn't expect Aus to regain the Ashes, but I hoped we'd be competitive.

The sad thing is that we have been very competitive (could've easily won T1, T3 (rain) and T4), only for pathetic and lengthy batting collapses to piss those chances up the wall.

Yeah, just goes to show how fatted up England really are. Or/and how conceited they are. Or how bravado blustery they are. I can't make my mind up.

Either way, it heavily shows up Australia that they can't beat this rabble.

Hmm, I have admired England's rebuilding from the depths of despair of the 90s. Look at the Belf. He has always been technically sound (like Strauss, Cook, Trott) but was soft mentally. He has overcome that to be the star of Ashes 13.

Aus needs to use Belf as a benchmark. Stick to the basics of good technique and never giving your wicket away. Too many Aus bats have fallen foul to dreadful across-the-line shots and brain snaps.

He was always special with his technical abilities - one of few in excelsior - but it's telling with his apparent superiority that it doesn't produce results. Until his 31st birthday, he was the posterboy for underachievement because of a lack of psychological fortitude. Any player/team should look at him as some sort of template

I suspect he has simply added some salt to his chocolate balls.

lardbucket wrote:I suspect he has simply added some salt to his chocolate balls.

Well, we do have a Chef in the team...

skully wrote:

In another article this week, Steve Waugh says the 1989-2007 was a "freakish" period in Aus cricket that may never be repeated.

It is freakish to have so many AT greats at one time. For a period - 1999-2004 you had 5 bone-fide world beating superstars (Ponting, S Waugh, Gilchrist, Warne, McGrath) and a few others, e.g. like Hayden just a rung below.

When was the last time a team had 5 players of this calibre? If you go back pre-WWII you could find a few teams, but there were only 3 or 4 international teams, so I would argue it was easier to be a big fish in such a small pond. Since the War what teams could boast 5 players as good as these?

WI of the late 80s had maybe 4: Richards, Marshall, Ambrose & Walsh? Were the other 3 horsemen of the apocolyse in the early 80s full greats or semi-greats, a rung down like like Hayden? Ditto Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd - ? Not sure.

Aus of the mid 70s: Chappells, Lillee & Thommo (briefly)

SA of the 1970s: We'll never know, but Richards, Pollock, Procter had the potential

England in the 50s: Hutton, May, Trueman & Laker - But Trueman and Laker only really became great after Hutton retired

Aus in 48? India in 2000s? - but they were all batters so it was unbalanced.

So it doesn't come around that often. Plus consider that Gilchrist, McGrath, Ponting & S Waugh had almost freakish careers where they never got injured. Only Warne had injuries, but they were only 2 or 3 6 month layoffs in an otherwise healthy career.

Only Warne had injuries, but they were only 2 or 3 6 month layoffs in an otherwise healthy career.

And on the occasions he was injured, Stuart MacGill was a more than useful replacement. The fact that he and Warne both played in the same era was also freakish.

skully wrote:Indeed Dan. It is disheartening for Aus supporters that we would surrender the Ashes so meekly. I said before the series that I didn't expect Aus to regain the Ashes, but I hoped we'd be competitive.

The sad thing is that we have been very competitive (could've easily won T1, T3 (rain) and T4), only for pathetic and lengthy batting collapses to piss those chances up the wall.

In no small way contributed to by some excellent sustained bowling after tea which caused pressure and then panic and then hopelessness.
Some credit here, please!

Of course, Merls. Jimmeh, Sturat, Chinn and even Brzzy in spells, have each taken turns at being immense. I wouldn't complain if every wicket fell to jaffas like the one both Jimmeh and Sturat have bowled Clarke with (Jimmeh at TB and Sturat at CleSt, angled in & cut away to hit top of off), but far too many have fallen to across the line shots, poor technique or simply missing straight balls.

skully wrote:Of course, Merls. Jimmeh, Sturat, Chinn and even Brzzy in spells, have each taken turns at being immense. I wouldn't complain if every wicket fell to jaffas like the one both Jimmeh and Sturat have bowled Clarke with (Jimmeh at TB and Sturat at CleSt, angled in & cut away to hit top of off), but far too many have fallen to across the line shots, poor technique or simply missing straight balls.

Agree skulls.
For me, the turning point was Warner's wicket. Breeies jaffa which he had to play ... till then he was well in command.
After the streetfighter's wicket fell ... rash strokes followed as Aus tried to hit their way out of trouble.

skully wrote:Of course, Merls. Jimmeh, Sturat, Chinn and even Brzzy in spells, have each taken turns at being immense. I wouldn't complain if every wicket fell to jaffas like the one both Jimmeh and Sturat have bowled Clarke with (Jimmeh at TB and Sturat at CleSt, angled in & cut away to hit top of off), but far too many have fallen to across the line shots, poor technique or simply missing straight balls.

Although very few batsmen get out to Jaffa's - the poor shots are usually a product of the pressure applied by the bowlers.

When someone is bowling a brilliant spell like Stuart Broad you've got 2 options, either to try and occupy the crease and leave as many balls as possible (Hussey was an expert at this), or to counter-attack and try and put him off his game. The danger with the second option is you look foolish if the risk doesn't pay off.