Do Australia rely on Ponting?

[manee]

Firstly, you will never trump my irrelevant third option in the IPL thread...

Secondly, I think that Australia are reliant on Ponting just like 99% of teams are on their best batsman. If a team's best batsman fails to perform, then of course a team will not play to their full potential.

 

[Cricketman]

I say now-a-days they're relying alot more on Brett Lee and Andrew Symonds.
But Pontings contributions certainly do help.

 

[aussie1st]

As said you take out Hayden and our team falls apart so definitely not just on Ponting. Now who knows why our middle order failed they when Ponting did, they clearly should be able to fire without him. If they can't then new blood is needed.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Well you can't say that.At least not now..Ponting has been silent throughout summer.But mean time Aussis have touch 290 couple of times..Their middle order is playing good enough.Rather I'll say they rely more on Clarke,Hussey and Roy..

 

[SciD]

Well you can't say that.At least not now..Ponting has been silent throughout summer.But mean time Aussis have touch 290 couple of times..Their middle order is playing good enough.Rather I'll say they rely more on Clarke,Hussey and Roy..

Australia made only one substancial score in the series and that was match in which Ponting got 100. Clarke, Hussey, Symonds are more of role players who will help out the set batsman in Hayden or Ponting.

Australia have won matches without Hayden in past and will do so in future as well. Look what happened when Ponting was not in side last year in NZ. Australia lost 3-0 even though Haydos was hitting balls at will.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Australia have won matches without Hayden in past and will do so in future as well. Look what happened when Ponting was not in side last year in NZ. Australia lost 3-0 even though Haydos was hitting balls at will.

That's got to do with our bowling. New Zealand were chasing down scores of 330.

Ponting's a batsman, not a bowler.

 

[Cricketdude]

That's got to do with our bowling. New Zealand were chasing down scores of 330.

Ponting's a batsman, not a bowler.

330 isnt match winning as NZ have short boundries.

 

[aussie_ben91]

330 isnt match winning as NZ have short boundries.

Then Ponting wouldn't of made much of a difference as his not one of the biggest hittest in the Australian side. Same thing happened in South Africa when they chased down 434 and Ponting got 164.

 

[smssia0112]

I say now-a-days they're relying alot more on Brett Lee and Andrew Symonds.
But Pontings contributions certainly do help.

The thing about Symonds is that when we rely on him he often fails. I have said it before but he is best when he can slog and we aren't under pressure. When we are, he's pretty much hit and go.

 

[Norbert]

Nah, but his the difference between Australia just getting over the line and Australia absolutely mauling an opposition.

100% agreement. In fact, +karma for you. I think this was very well evidenced in the CB final series.

 

[usy]

Aussies rely on the odds.

 

[jordox]

That's got to do with our bowling. New Zealand were chasing down scores of 330.

Ponting's a batsman, not a bowler.

I disagree. I think the Australian bowling this series was exceptional, and performed much better than the bastmen.

And New Zealand had always had that talent. You are more safe scoring 250 than 320 against them.

 

[prarara]

As said you take out Hayden and our team falls apart so definitely not just on Ponting. Now who knows why our middle order failed they when Ponting did, they clearly should be able to fire without him. If they can't then new blood is needed.

Then Ponting wouldn't of made much of a difference as his not one of the biggest hittest in the Australian side. Same thing happened in South Africa when they chased down 434 and Ponting got 164.

True and good points, but I think in tests, if Ponting fires you guys definitely do well. I remember that a year ago it seemed that as soon as Ponting made 20 he'd go on to make a big score. That's something any team would come to rely on.

I think that Ponting's attitude on the field and his character is something that the Australians rely upon. If he fires, they definitely do well.

...and I got a negative rep for this post. If someone has a problem with my sig, have the stones to talk to me about it with a PM, not some cowardly anonymous negative rep action. I wont change my sig till whoever neg-repped me sends me a PMs me with the request.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Australia made only one substancial score in the series and that was match in which Ponting got 100. Clarke, Hussey, Symonds are more of role players who will help out the set batsman in Hayden or Ponting.

Australia have won matches without Hayden in past and will do so in future as well. Look what happened when Ponting was not in side last year in NZ. Australia lost 3-0 even though Haydos was hitting balls at will.

You can't give Examples of Matches played in Newzeland...England have been far more better side in the series against NZ although they lost..You can't score enough in NZ as they might chase 400 even in that small grounds..

 

[IloveGilly]

Doubt it would be a one man team. Hayden has come out too much and changed a game. It's such a shock to think that he was actually dropped from the team.

Support from Clarke is always consistent and Symonds on a good day is always a problem. While the bowling line-up would probably all fall apart without Brett Lee and Nathan Bracken.

But they don't exactly need Ponting to fire up in the field do they? Most of the time they are at their best.

Always people judging Australia when they have a bad run. Still, they are at the top of the ODI chart.