OzTennis

I'll do what you do with Ponting and quote match figures of 6 for 80 at Lords. Hazlewood, Lyon and Starc figures for same please.

Bit of homework for you. List 10 things which can affect the result at a test match - and you can only mention playing conditions and weather once.

'Us Aussie supporters'? You didn't address that one - I'm not convinced you aren't like all the millions of those who claim to be Man Utd and Real Madrid supporters who just jump on a bandwagon.

Beoz

Awesome. Lords cool. Talk all you want about Lords. I thought we were talking Cardiff.

You can't change the argument just because you were wrong.

OzTennis

For the last time!!!!! I queried your 'selection' of no Johnson BEFORE a ball was bowled at Cardiff. Understand? I asked you how many Aussie supporters out of 100 would drop Johnson for the match? No reply. I gave you some homework on factors other than playing conditions to take into account. No reply. I don't give a monkeys what happened in the test; you pick Johnson every time for reasons other than playing conditions. Did you read Michael Clarke's comments on how he didn't bowl Johnson correctly at Cardiff but he learned and gave him 5/6 over spells at Lords?

I still have doubts about your 'aussie supporter' credentials - no reply. eg, no Aussie would say 'clever trousers' instead of smarty pants.

Beoz

If I entertained every question you asked and read every "Learn by Google" link you post, then how would I have time to catch up with the "Gay and Lesbian" thread?

Yes I support Australia. I have some weird mix breed Australian / English accent - joys of being a eternal ping ponger. I am very critical of Australia when it comes to cricket - if you'd had been in the Oval crowd that day back in 2005 when England won the Ashes you would be too. That's why I have no tolerance for complacency associated with team selection, ignoring foreign conditions, and resting on laurels. Exactly the reason why we lost the first test. .............. winning the toss may have helped too.

If you want to know how many supporters out of 100 would drop Johnson, go do the survey and report back. If they watch as much channel 9 as you do you'll probably get 100%.

OzTennis

Even by your standards that was an incoherent post ranging from rants about lessons to be learned (according to you), from 2005 to gender bender thread to Channel 9 to me learning from Google.

1 I was educated and taught mostly before the widespread use of the internet and the 'eyes down', life dominated by electronic devices, short concentration span generations. If I use Google it is to garner information to support arguments or opinions. You seem to frown upon researching before typing for some illogical reason - or you see it as a lack of knowledge as compared to that accumulated by you in some other way which doesn't appear to include any playing or coaching at any level.

2 Does 6 out of 7 victories in the last Ashes tests not suggest to you that selections and tactics and performances have been almost 100% spot on? Performance at Cardiff was poor, this was realised, Lords showed lessons were learned. Not good enough for a non 'True Blue' Barmy Army defector apparently.

3 Correct me if I'm wrong but BEFORE Cardiff you would have dropped the best bowler in the world in the last few years (Dale Steyn might have a bit of case) and put in a player who hadn't played test cricket for a year and was an almost certain injury risk? Wouldn't that have been a dodgy selection? No, rather you turn it into a 'I know about foreign conditions' and the Aussie selectors or myself or any other Aussie supporter doesn't know.

4 I don't need to do a survey, if 100 Aussie supporters were asked about Johnson, including you, maybe 1 at best would have dropped him. If you think that's because they are brainwashed by watching Ch 9 or don't have a mind or opinion of their own then that's scary stuff. (we don't get Ch 9 in Scotland incidentally and the team is largely Tubby Taylor and his mates)

Here's some facts for you on Australian captains of the last 45/50 years who captained > 10 tests and it is tests won out of tests captained. Don't break it down into bits or concentrate on the end or start of a captaincy or what happened to make you throw your toys out of the pram at the Oval.

You asked me if I thought Ricky Ponting was the poorest captain since Kim Hughes and my answer is No.

Bob Simpson 12/39
Ian Chappell 15/30
Kim Hughes 4/28
Greg Chappell 21/48
Alan Border 32/93
Mark Taylor 26/50
Steve Waugh 41/57
Ricky Ponting 48/77
Michael Clarke 22/41

Steve Waugh and Ricky Ponting stand out from the rest and Kim Hughes clearly had the poorest record. However he, Bobby Simpson and Alan Border (due to Packer defections and knock on effects) captained 3rd or 4th XI's so some extenuating circumstances.

One thing you haven't acknowledged near the end of Ponting's captaincy incidentally is the rise of Strauss, Cook, Anderson, Broad, Harmison, Flintoff, Pieterson, Bell, Trott, Prior etc as though series wins against much improved teams were a gimme.

Broad Shoulders

Dude, despite the fact you keep contradicting yourself, your argument on Ponting's captaincy is all over the place.

Earlier in this thread, I pointed out to you how Ponting's win/loss record was very average once Warne, McGrath, Hayden, Langer and Gilchrist retired. Your response was something along the lines of "take Federer's serve away from him and he's an average player", suggesting that I was using an unrealistic and unfair set of parameters to judge Ponting's captaincy.

However, you have now just said that Ponting's late record as captain and drop of win/loss percentage can be attributed to the other countries picking up their standard. This completely flies in the face of your argument to counter mine. Which one is it?

Not to mention that saying the rest of the world picked up their standard is the reason for his dip in captaincy form just says that before that he was playing against crap nations. Wow! What a great captain he was, simply because he had an amazing win/loss ratio against sub-standard cricketers.

Your measure of a good captain based solely on a win/loss ratio is also completely and utterly immature and off the mark and this is highlighted by your list of stats. In that list you have Border, who has been widely attributed to why Australia had such a golden era under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting. He took a group of nobodies and a cricketing nation in absolute strife to become a team of champions. If it wasn't for him, Ponting, Waugh and Taylor would have had nothing to work with. Yet his win/loss ratio was average at best.

Border was to Aus, what Vaughan was to England. They both set up the foundations for future captains to prosper without much captaincy skill being required of their successors. Strauss was a crap captain, as is Cook, but both took England to the top of the charts. They could only do this because of the groundwork Vaughan laid for them. In Australia's case, they were lucky in that Border was followed by a tactical genius in Mark Taylor and he was able to actually build on Border's legacy. Waugh and Ponting simply maintained the status quo, although Waugh was more of a mind game player.

You are convinced that Ponting was an amazing captain, I will ask you this. We all know he has never won a series in Eng as captain, but how many test matches did he win from a possible 10? Answer: 2!!!!!!

This was despite him having a team of immortals at his disposal in 2005 and Eng having a team of very average cricketers. All bar Pietersen and Bell, the rest went on to have non-eventful test careers. Even Flintoff's career numbers look average.

Ponting was outmanoeuvred at every turn in that series by Vaughan. From the gobsmacking Edgbaston toss winning call to bowl first, to calling for the umpires to take the players from the field on the last day when there were a few spits of rain at the Oval when the Aussies needed a win. He was simply a laughing stock.

Ponting is the quintessential reason why using the win/loss ratio to judge a captain is laughable.

Beoz

Nope. And nor should it as I keep trying to educate you, what happens in Australia has very little bearing as to what happens in England. As someone who learns by google, you must have figured out that alternating Ashes wins over the past 10 years tells you that. Try this on for size. Out of the last 3 Ashes series in England, England are currently 6-2 up. From what I saw at Lords in contrast to what I saw at Cardiff, I'm feeling confident that we are no longer resting on the glories of what happen in Australia and we can claw back that 6-2

Yep. What are you grappling with there? Did you not find that on Google? You do remember back to 2013 right? Ryan Harris coming back from a year out, missed the first test, took 7 wickets in the second test, and took the second highest amount of wickets behind Swann for the series. Coming back from injury didn't afect Harris' performance. Of course he would have played in Cardiff, and so should have Starc and Hazlewood as they took more wickets than Johnson. I was right, you were wrong, have some sportsmanship and just admit it.

I agree with everything Broad Shoulders says. Take it up with him. I don't need to entertain your lack of knowledge on the captains topic any further.

OzTennis

No reply to your suggestion a crock replace the best bowler in the world.

Ponting wasn't a poor captain is all I contend, no more, no less. If you think he was poor, fine. I don't, he was a decent captain for much of his captaincy as the record shows. Done to death, I'll only post or respond to current series.

Amazulu

England without an African born player for the 1st time in over 10 years

Beoz

And doing well without one.

Hazelwood would be running riot on this deck under these skies.

Beoz

Oh that makes me laugh. Roll out the green deck and looks what happens. More 1 dimensional Australian cricket in England.

Amazulu

Maybe and if that's the case, why did Clarke choose to bat? I think both captains misread the pitch somewhat and the weather certainly helped the bowlers

England bowled exceptionally well and surprised me somewhat. Australia looked a bit brittle to me but good bowling can sometimes do that

JoeBloggs80

Looks like 2nd test was just a blip.

Comfortable 4-1 to England now I reckon

Broad Shoulders

The ghosts of 2005. After Ponting's incredulous decision to bowl first at Edgbaston in 2005 I don't think Clarke dared to have a bowl. In hindsight, I think the correct decision would have been to bowl first, but the forecast did say the clouds would only stick around for the first hour or so, then nice clear skies. Unfortunately for the Aussies they thought the British Weather forecasters actually had a clue what they were doing.

Broad Shoulders

I have always thought this, but Warner is the biggest flat track bully in test cricket. I have seen him play one responsible innings under seam-friendly conditions in his entire career. The rest he simply throws away, every time! That innings was against NZ in Hobart (off memory) for his first ever century.

If you look at his career, he only seems to score big runs when the pressure is off. He rarely ever scores big when Aus are batting first in a match. Generally he scores big when the rest of the team have done the hard yards and the pressure is off. If it wasn't for Rogers' stoicism in this series Aus might not have even got close to Eng at all (Lord's included)