More proof of why Ricky Ponting is easily the greatest batsman of the modern era.
- Thread starter aussie_ben91
- Start date
SciD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
But whats Punters got to do with this and Punters batsmanship. :confused
aussie_ben91
School Cricketer
I don't think a more then capable part-timer cleaning up the tail with some quality spin bowling is a fluke, TBH.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
This whole discussion is boring and so 9 months ago. FACT.
Move on people.
Move on people.
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
I'm just saying Sohum was saying they were robbed by the luck of a part-timer and I was simply saying it wasn't, Michael Clarke is a match-winner.
Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
No, India were robbed. They would have won. It was all about Bucknor. Bucknor cheated for Aussies.
SciD
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2006
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
This post is worthy of being in sign of someone.
Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
sohum
Executive member
No they wouldn't have. Which is why you see that of all the international captains out there, Ponting is the only one who is every seriously criticized by anyone for his attitude.
sohummisra added 1 Minutes and 46 Seconds later...
It would be painful to read something that you cannot understand. If you have nothing productive to add, why don't you just give this thread a skip. It's not as if anyone is dying to read what you have to say, anyway.
sohummisra added 1 Minutes and 25 Seconds later...
Michael Clarke is a lucky part-time bowler. Obviously. Which is why he was largely useless in a pitch actually pretty well set-up for a quality spinner to come deal his goods. Besides, your point had nothing to do with what I was arguing, hence I ignored it instead of taking the bait to start another needless discussion.
sohummisra added 2 Minutes and 20 Seconds later...
I didn't say anyone was robbed by the luck of a part timer. I was saying that Australia's victory had as much to do with their own skill as it had to do with the luck they were dealt with the various umpiring decisions as well as Michael Clarke's spell of bowling.
Michael Clarke is not a match-winner as a bowler, he sure is as a batsman. Shane Warne is an example of a match-winning bowler. You expect a bowling match-winner to win you matches with the ball. However, Clarke was tossed the ball on a gut feeling rather than a confidence on his abilities.
sohummisra added 3 Minutes and 15 Seconds later...
--
And finally, the whole reason this discussion even (re-)started was because of Ponting's attitude angle. There is no doubting he is one of the greatest batsmen in the modern era. However, is attitude is very questionable. This was most obvious in the aftermath of the Sydney test. I honestly have gotten over the Sydney test and put it down as a situation of bizarre luck. I have no misgivings about the result or about the quality of umpires. But as an international captain and one who speaks publicly (and evidently whose word is taken as gospel by members of internet cricket discussion forums) he had a far greater responsibility to respect the situations under which that Test match was won, and not twist it as an opportunity of gamesmanship.
Sorry about my harsh comments the other day, was just in a bad mood. Ponting is ok, and Australians are ok, I just get tired of all the biased nationalism that goes on in sport, I don't believe in puffing out my chest and feeling more of a man just because someone born in my country puts one over someone born somewhere else.
The way the channel 9 commentators start acting more blokey and talking in deeper voices just because England start to lose another Ashes series in this country is sickening, though Bill Lawry's dilerious insanity when Australia are winning is always entertaining.
The way the channel 9 commentators start acting more blokey and talking in deeper voices just because England start to lose another Ashes series in this country is sickening, though Bill Lawry's dilerious insanity when Australia are winning is always entertaining.
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
Michael Clarke is a match winner with the ball and in the field and a partnership breaker with the ball, which tends to lead to be being a match winner. Nearly every innings he bowls in if nothings going on he still picks up the odd wicket.
Clarke knew he could win the game and he was bugging Ponting all day to let him bowl. When he finally did his confidence in his ability to win matches showed.
jordox
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Normally (if umpiring decisions were correct) I say India would've won. The terrible umpiring made the match to be a draw. Clarke won the match.
That's the way I see it.
I think Clarke is more of a match winner in the field than he is with the bat.
That's the way I see it.
I think Clarke is more of a match winner in the field than he is with the bat.
Last edited:
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
In One Dayers he has the ability to hit a 70 not out off about 50 balls with sheer timing. I would call him a match winner with the bat.
Harrypotter_fan
Panel of Selectors
Steve Waugh was a great cricketer, Gilly was a great cricketer, Ponting is a great batsman. Understand what I want to say? Thats just my opinion. I'm sure they both would have handled the issue better than Ponting.
