Spirit of cricket?
Does it really matter if England ran the clock down by a few seconds between overs? Wind your neck in and remember how slow Australia were getting through their overs in the first session. A couple more there, Punter, and you may have had enough to spare later in the match.
Look back to the first part of England's second innings. Ponting marched - slowly - from his position at slip to talk, face-to-face to his bowler, several times. Was this so necessary, Punter? Did you really need to chew up that extra time then? Bet you wish you hadn't.
Who decided how many overs Australia were going to have to bowl England out? Was it Strauss? The umpires? No, Punter, it was you. You delayed your declaration far too long. And now you're looking for someone to throw your toys at.
And finally, so what if Australia were deprived of an over in the final hour? 98 overs in the day. That's eight more than a "normal" day's cricket. You can't take England's last eight wickets in 98 overs? Look at your own ineptitude first, before bleating about the opposition, you mug.
Had England been bowled out in the last over, we'd have faced an even funnier episode. Australia waiting to knock off a few runs to win in a few minutes and England not bothering to bowl, because the minimum number of overs had been used up.
"It's an extremely nervous situation and that one wicket determines the 1-0 or 0-0 scoreline. They did their job. If I'm in that situation and I call for gloves, they won't care." Who said that, Punter? Your player, Nathan Hauritz.
I saw Ponting act like a spoilt, petulant, child in the last day at Cardiff. His screaming appeal to Aleem Dar when he thought he had caught Collingwood was an utter disgrace. He should be (but won't be) ashamed. Both captains need to honour the game by adopting its spirit at all times. But surely, most of all when in the middle, in front of the cameras, in the maelstrom of the action.
You may be a great batsman, Ponting. You may also have been a pretty good captain when you had a better team. But as an example and a role model, you're shameful, reprehensible, spolit child.
Cast he the first stone who is without sin, Punter.
0
Comments
"Would they have bowled so quickly if England needed 20 runs to win in the last quarter of an hour" ?
They bowled in underarm.
"Would they have bowled so quickly if England needed 20 runs to win in the last quarter of an hour" ?[/quote]
Exactly...
Maybe not fair but all teams/players do the old gamesmanship stuff thesedays.
Sure the Aussies have!
They are clearly just very upset and annoyed that the bowlers could not get last last batsman out in over an hour having totally controlled the test match.
.........
I don't think Ponting has ever been accused of being a good captain, just a captain who had and has the good fortune to have some very good players under him. Too often he lets his bowlers drift along - and his field placings are hardly anything new and in this Test he was unable to force a victory when only the twin batting geniuses of Panesar and Anderson stood between Australia and a one-nil lead. His style is to lead from the front, graft away, score a lot of runs, demand maximum effort from his colleagues and pretty much that's it. On the 2005 Ashes Tour he was comprehensively out-captained by Michael Vaughan, and that series featured another classic bit of Ponting petulance - being run-out at Trent Bridge by Gary Pratt, a reserve fielder who was plucked from Durham seconds and given a specific job if and when he got onto the field and he did it very well. Ponting's reaction then was to well and truly spit the dummy out. What drives him is to win the Ashes in 2009 where he lost them in 2005, losing four years ago hurts deeply in him and he's out for revenge, I can't imagine what he'd feel like if he were to lose two Ashes series in a row in the UK. Fortunately for him he's up against Andy Strauss this time around, the Tim dim but nice of the Englaish cricket team.
But his petulance is part of his make up, if I had to select one batsman to bat for my life Ponting would probably be it, as I mentioned yesterday in the Ashes thread, we Brits tend to look at players like that and tut disapprovingly, claiming that it isn't cricket or whatever. The Aussies look at a player like that differently and recognise the "dog" in him, even if you dislike the person you have to admire the tenacity and the fight in him. His single mindedness as a batsman has won Australia Tests and got them out of a fair few holes (see the OT Test from 2005 when a Ponting hundred saved the Test for Australia), so with him what you see is what you get and I wish that either he was English, or that we had a few characters with his uncompromising attitute to call on. If anyone dislikes Ponting it is because they dislike his strengths.
They bowled in underarm.[/quote]
It was a one day international...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKNQ-crIr50
Ponting is right because Strauss did waste time, but since his also used those types of tactics in the past he should keep his gob shut.
Shame that England were so blatant as Parnesar and Anderson could have done the job.
Except that bowling underarm is now illegal...
We saved the match AND wound up that little prick Ponting and all of his wanker mates by sending out the physio - it does not get better than that.
The full over allocation was met for the day, they had 90 overs to get 8 wickets and they could not do it.
Tough.
I may have a ticket for Monday now! No way is Ponting a good captain, fantastic on the bat (I've seen him get a century at the MCG) but as captain, nothing special.
No, after you old chap...