Ponting at Lord's

SRT is a chance of doing it in a few years.

With any luck TGM will do it

Henry wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if he hangs up his boots in the shorter forms of the game after this ashes tour, and concentrates solely on tests. I'm pretty sure he's played his last T20 international.

he's definitely playing odis till 2011

JGK wrote:SRT is a chance of doing it in a few years.

inshallah

retire from odis in 2011. play tests till 2049

"With any luck TGM will do it"

Keep the faith

OP Tipping wrote:"With any luck TGM will do it"

Keep the faith

Inshallah...

Dello wrote:No reason why he couldn't play into his 40s. As long as his squinty rat eyes don't go, he could carry on for many more years.

Seems as fit and as good as always.

Yeah I think his batting is foin. Maybe not as consistent as earlier, but he's still gorgeous to watch and is the biggest part of our batting line-up.

The fact he has such an inexperienced team right now, will probably see him remain as Captain, even if we - gulp - lose the Ashes.
I don't think he'll be going anywhere soon. Until Clarke can prove he doesn't get out to stupid shots at the worst possible 'pressure' times - yes I know his century was bloody amazing - I don't know that he's ready for the Captaincy as an added burden. Some might say it will give him the impetus to step up, though.

Nice picture of AH, footwork.

That chick had neck all the way up to her head.

OP Tipping wrote:Nice picture of AH, footwork.

That chick had neck all the way up to her head.

I refuse to take offence to the fact you completely ignored what was a perfectly reasonable post; and I agree she was one classy broad. It is indded a bonus her neck was attached to her head.

Pity she didn't have a voice box.

Bradman wrote:Pity she didn't have a voice box.

Sometimes, that's preferable.

Sage.

Sorta like Red with no keyboard.

Merlin wrote:

I thought Aussie captain's, once sacked/pushed/resigned/retired/whatever, never "return to the ranks" in the team !
Tradition isn't it?

PS - This is a genuine (not a piss-take) question.

It's pretty much the case, although there are some exceptions. Kim Hughes quit mid-series and "returned to the ranks" for all of two tests. Graham Yallop returned to the ranks, but he was only captain during the World Series split.

Much more common, is an outgoing captain handing over to the heir apparent during a short, planned, transition period.

Greg Chappell played his last series as a specialist batsman after handing over the full-time captaincy to Hughes.

Ian Chappell played his last test series as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Greg.

Bob Simpson played his last match as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Bill Lawry.

Richie Benaud played his his last three matches as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Bob Simpson.

All of these handovers were calculated decisions, and lasted no more than a series. So "returning to the ranks" for anything longer than a few matches is very much against the Australian tradition.

footwork wrote:

OP Tipping wrote:Nice picture of AH, footwork.

That chick had neck all the way up to her head.

I refuse to take offence to the fact you completely ignored what was a perfectly reasonable post; and I agree she was one classy broad. It is indded a bonus her neck was attached to her head.

Take that, OP, you pig.

On closer inspection I think the paucity of Australian skippers playing on after leaving the captaincy can be put down to the relatively small number of Australian captains.

Since World War Two, 22 men have captained Australia in Tests, including seven stand-ins.

In the same period, 42 men have captained England in Tests, including 13 stand-ins.

That makes the overall tally:
Australia: 15 appointed captains, 7 stand-ins.
England: 29 appointed captains, 13-stand-ins.

That's almost double which ever way you count it.

It's hard to leave former captains out of the side when you have so many of them!

Hass wrote:

Merlin wrote:

I thought Aussie captain's, once sacked/pushed/resigned/retired/whatever, never "return to the ranks" in the team !
Tradition isn't it?

PS - This is a genuine (not a piss-take) question.

It's pretty much the case, although there are some exceptions. Kim Hughes quit mid-series and "returned to the ranks" for all of two tests. Graham Yallop returned to the ranks, but he was only captain during the World Series split.

Much more common, is an outgoing captain handing over to the heir apparent during a short, planned, transition period.

Greg Chappell played his last series as a specialist batsman after handing over the full-time captaincy to Hughes.

Ian Chappell played his last test series as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Greg.

Bob Simpson played his last match as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Bill Lawry.

Richie Benaud played his his last three matches as a specialist batsman after handing over the captaincy to Bob Simpson.

All of these handovers were calculated decisions, and lasted no more than a series. So "returning to the ranks" for anything longer than a few matches is very much against the Australian tradition.

Then can I ask your view on what would happen here? If Australia lose the series it seems inconceivable to an outsider that Ponting would retain the captaincy, but equally inconceivable that he'd be dropped as a batsman. What do you think?

I think the NSP is too p!ssweak to drop Drunky. And while ever he is our best bat, as he probably still is, the twits will make him captain.

skully wrote:I think the NSP is too p!ssweak to drop Drunky. And while ever he is our best bat, as he probably still is, the twits will make him captain.

Almost exzachary what I said eight posts ago, but I'm not pointing that out.

And I was trying to be nice to that mean man OP. If I'd wanted to be nasty to him, I'd have called him an orrible variation of his nic, or something equally shattering.

Hass wrote:On closer inspection I think the paucity of Australian skippers playing on after leaving the captaincy can be put down to the relatively small number of Australian captains.

Since World War Two, 22 men have captained Australia in Tests, including seven stand-ins.

In the same period, 42 men have captained England in Tests, including 13 stand-ins.

That makes the overall tally:
Australia: 15 appointed captains, 7 stand-ins.
England: 29 appointed captains, 13-stand-ins.

That's almost double which ever way you count it.

It's hard to leave former captains out of the side when you have so many of them!

I would never be mean to the English - ah you outright liar footwork - but don't they use the Revolving Door Policy, or RDP - the Recycling of Discarded Players?

It works thus:
They play well for a couple of games, we love em; they fail in a couple of games, we ditch em. They go into the wilderness for forty games and return to the fold chastened; they become Captain; they play well for a couple of games, we love em...

In mighty Aus, we tend not to panic as other countries do...


Jeez that felt good after our Lord's loss...
And that Sunshine, was what you call a whinge.

Some might even call it a sook, or a flounce.

1-0 footy

You have to be wearing a skirt to flounce. It's the law. Which does beg the question....

Yeah - no way that was a flounce. Nowhere near enough dummy spitting, toy throwing or taking the ball home.

Not even a hint of Allanesque combustion, either, so you'd have to mark the Oz contender down for that, I think.

Shoeshine wrote:You have to be wearing a skirt to flounce. It's the law. Which does beg the question....

Shoey you make up laws to suit your own wicked agenda, an England whitewash.
Your Foreshortening Effect Law, the FEL, or Fictitious Event Legislator, is laughable to me, although grasped and held closely by some to keep their cricketing dreams alive.

I laugh at your Law Sir - HA! But I do it in a very cute skirt of straw-coloured linen, a plain top and wedge sandals on my feet.
Thus I am still 1-0.

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

footwork wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:You have to be wearing a skirt to flounce. It's the law. Which does beg the question....

Shoey you make up laws to suit your own wicked agenda, an England whitewash.
Your Foreshortening Effect Law, the FEL, or Fictitious Event Legislator, is laughable to me, although grasped and held closely by some to keep their cricketing dreams alive.

I laugh at your Law Sir - HA! But I do it in a very cute skirt of straw-coloured linen, a plain top and wedge sandals on my feet.
Thus I am still 1-0.

btw, begging will get you nowhere. Oim a noice gairl oi am.

Who said anything about begging? I was thinking Rohypnol....