Why Ricky? Why? - Web Blog - Fanatics - the world's biggest events

Fan blogs

Why Ricky? Why?

No matter how hard I try, I can’t seem to get over or understand what happened on Day 4 at Nagpur after Tea. After following this grueling, at times tedious and mundane series for 18 and 2/3 days on radio, finally some drama had arrived during the Second Session of Day 19 of the Series.

I am hoping someone can explain to me how, after India collapsed to 6/166 at Tea (losing 6/68 in the second session), it was possible for Ricky Ponting to introduce Cameron White firstly, then Michael Hussey and finally Michael Clarke into the attack, whilst Jason Krezja continued from the other end. None of White, Hussey or Clarke had bowled previously in the Indian second innings.

Need I remind anyone who thinks this makes sense that the Border-Gavaskar trophy was still well and truly on the line. If you do not believe the trophy was still on the line then I am sorry, but you need to either pay more attention to what was happening, or have a good hard look at yourself in the mirror, or more positively, learn more about the game. So why did Ponting introduce these bowlers at this time?

Do we really believe they were our best chances of taking a wicket?

Was Mike Hussey really our best chance of taking wickets at this stage?

If anyone believes this can they please explain to me on what basis they hold this belief?

So if they weren’t our best chances of taking a wicket, why else were they bowling?

Can we really accept that they were bowling to speed up the over rates?

Are we saying that with the Border-Gavaskar trophy on the line after almost 19 days of cricket, all of a sudden the over rates became all important?

Does anyone really believe this?

If indeed it is true, what state is the game in? If as a fan, I have to sit through 20 days of cricket, only for the outcome to be decided by over-rates at the potentially decisive point of the series, what is the point of it all? I would be best off finding something else to do.

Can someone please help me here? There are only two other possibilities that I can think of. The first is that Ricky Ponting (and whom-ever else was involved in the decision making) completely and utterly lost his /their minds, and actually believed that White, Hussey and Clarke, despite not having bowled all day, were actually the best options of taking a wicket, even though the other bowlers had contributed 6/68 in the previous session. This explanation to me is far and away the most palatable.

The only other explanation is one that I certainly do not believe, but I think others may, and that is that there was some intervention from forces, and I mean dark forces, outside of the Australian cricket team.

For anyone who thinks this is ridiculous, ask yourself what you would be saying if another country had done this in a game that you were not following closely?

Needless for me to say it has happened before, and not just once or twice. Do I think it happened this time?

The answer is no, but unfortunately I can not make an adequate argument to back this up, the only argument being as stated above that Ponting and his cohorts completely lost their collective minds in believing White, Hussey and Clarke were our best chance, and in doing so have brought the game into disrepute. I need to go one step further to fully communicate what I am feeling.

And can I add I would be equally as angry if India or any other country for that matter had done what Ponting has done. I thought Australian cricket had reached its nadir in Sydney, but I was wrong.

Where to from here ? Is it still worth it ?
Thu 13/11/2008 Valerio Dibattista 137 views

30 Comments about this article

  • Australia has only won 1 test series in India in the last 38 years, so just because we have lost there this year doesn't mean our days of being the best side in the world are over. True, we're not as good as we were in 2004/05 when we won there, but we're not as bad as people are trying to make out.

    A loss to India in India is far from the end of the world, and I'm more interested in the outcome of the South African away series next year.

    Posted by Dave Bremner Fri Nov 14, 2008 08:57am AEST
  • are you a pom?

    Posted by Udara Wis Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:26am AEST
  • Dave - Are you saying you can understand what Ricky Ponting did after Tea on Day 4 ? If so, can you please expalin to me, I would appreciate very much being enlightened.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Fri Nov 14, 2008 01:54pm AEST
  • There is a requirement for 90 overs per day, with only an extra half hour allowed to fulfill this (to fit in with TV commitments). This is rarely achieved (particularly in the subcontinent), unless two spinners bowl in tandem.

    At tea, Australia was 8 overs behind - the team would be financially penalised and the capt likely suspended. To prevent the team being penalised, Punter intended to use his spinners - White was clobbered, Clarke hadn't been on field for long enough, so Hussey bowled.

    Posted by Gill (mr) Mcclelland Fri Nov 14, 2008 02:21pm AEST
  • Dear Mr Mcclelland – So do you agree with what Ricky Ponting did? Do you think it was a good decision by Ponting to avoid financial penalty and suspension and in the process compromise Australia’s chances of retaining the Border-Gavaskar series? Do you think this was a good thing for Test cricket?

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Fri Nov 14, 2008 04:46pm AEST
  • Dear Udara - What makes you think I am a pom ? Please explain my friend.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Fri Nov 14, 2008 04:48pm AEST
  • As a spectator - I want 90 overs every Test day. If they are only given 6.5 hrs to do it (thanks to TV requirements) then the capt has to come up with some other approach, if using 4 pace bowlers. If that means bowling part-timers at crucial times - so be it!

    And Punter has done it before:
    Perth, 3rd day, between lunch & tea: Clarke & Symonds 16 overs (India 6/182 to 6/234, Laxman/Dhoni)
    Mohali, 3rd day, before 7 after lunch: Hussey 8 overs (India 1/198 to 2/274, Gambhir/Dhoni/Ganguly)

    Posted by Gill (mr) Mcclelland Fri Nov 14, 2008 05:12pm AEST
  • I want 90 overs every day too. I just find it extraordinary that you can accept that this issue is greater than the outcome of an overall series. Surely, the time to resolve this inadequacy in over-rates is not when the series is at a decisive point on the 19th day. I think the game has been brought into disrepute by the Australian team and am surprised you are so clinical and sterile in your analysis of the issue. But of course you are entitled to your view and I must respect that.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Fri Nov 14, 2008 06:15pm AEST
  • Being realistic - financial penalties to the team (based on a % of their 'match fee' - chickenfeed compared to their contract fees) is not going to improve over rates.

    If they don't want to go before the match referee for 'against spirit of cricket' reasons - well and good. The Aussie team has its own commitment to spirit of cricket - leftover from Steve Waugh's time. That's something that should never be 'flexible' enough to ignore in any circumstances.

    Posted by Gill (mr) Mcclelland Fri Nov 14, 2008 06:26pm AEST
  • I still have to say I find it extraordinary that when the series is on the line we start talking about over rates. If Pakistan,South Africa or any other country had done this, would we believe that they were just catching up on their over rates? I remember watching South Africa dominate Australia in Sydney in the late 90's in a Test match, only to see Hansie Cronje come on and bowl 10 or so overs unchanged and release the pressure. It seemed strange to me at the time.Turns out it was strange

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Fri Nov 14, 2008 06:41pm AEST
  • Australia took 20 wickets in Nagpur for the first time in the series, and yet you think Ponting's captaincy on day 4 of the last test decided the series? Perhaps it's you who needs to learn more about the game.

    Also - when bowlers bowl lots of overs in stifling heat, they get tired. Would you have just bowled them until they dropped from exhaustion?

    What about when he did bowl the quicks against Zaheer and Harbhajan in the first test? Was it his fault the quicks couldn't get them out?

    Posted by Dave Bremner Fri Nov 14, 2008 11:14pm AEST
  • valerio - the whinge ;)

    Posted by Udara Wis Sat Nov 15, 2008 03:30am AEST
  • Dave - Let me respond as follows. Firstly, I am not saying in any way we would definitely have won the Test, I am saying that Ponting's captaincy was so inexplicably poor after Tea on Day 4 that it cost us any chance. Ironically, I thought he performed pretty well as a captain in the series up to this point. His disastrous episode was a huge shock to me. I cannot recall such poor captaincy at Test level from an Australian for many, many years.
    To be continued...

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:25pm AEST
  • Secondly, Australia had only been in the field for 2 sessions. Surely one of Lee, Johnson or in particular Watson could have operated with Krejza and pushed for victory. Of all people, Mike Hussey has never taken a Test wicket yet was bowling with the Test series in the balance. Let me repeat, Mike Hussey was bowling with the series on the line.
    Thirdly, I have no issue whatsoever with the first Test, Harbhajan and Zaheer played well.
    Continued....

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:26pm AEST
  • Moreover, my understanding was that our strategy was based around our fast bowlers including Watson getting the majority of the wickets.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:27pm AEST
  • Udara - I do not believe I am whingeing, I am attempting to ventilate my views on this controversy. As stated above, and let me repeat again as I still cannot believe it myself, Mike Hussey was bowling with the Border-Gavaskar trophy on the line, after Australia had just captured 6 wickets in the previous session and were on a roll. Ask yourself, does this make sense ? Mike Hussey, a fine batsmen no doubt, but a bowler we throw into the fray at a deciding point of a Test series !!!!

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:45pm AEST
  • We had only been in the field for two sessions. If not Lee, Johnson or Watson, why not Katich ? Can Katich not get through his overs as fast as Hussey, if indeed we are to believe that over-rates was the issue. Is not Katich more likely to get a wicket ?

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sat Nov 15, 2008 05:47pm AEST
  • comeon valerio, face it. what choice of test bowlers did ponting have? Johnson, Lee & Krejza!! Do any of you believe that a test match could be won on indian soil with these 3? No doubt Johnson & lee are great bowlers, but not enough. In the 1st innings these two managed just 1 wicket in 48 overs and 1 of 24 in the 2nd innings, So the only choice to bowl along with Krejza was hussey, clarke, white & katich to get through the over rate quickly.

    Posted by Chetan Bothello Sun Nov 16, 2008 07:13pm AEST
  • If taking wickets was what ponting wanted, he would have definately bowled Watson along with Krejza. You've got to give the man some credit for being a sportsman opting to try and complete 90 overs. If he would have bowled either watson, lee or Johnson and still didn't manage wickets, I'm sure you would have cribbed and critisized that too.

    I believe Australia got a beating in this series due to bad selection.

    Posted by Chetan Bothello Sun Nov 16, 2008 07:14pm AEST
  • Chetan – Thanks for taking the time to make your points. I agree with your statement that if Ponting wanted wickets, he would have bowled Watson and Krejza. So why didn’t he? Surely, with the series on the line, wickets were what he should have wanted. I can never recall having a discussion regarding Australian Test cricket like this. We are entertaining a debate as to whether or not the captain wanted wickets with the series on the line. Does this not completely cheapen the game.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sun Nov 16, 2008 08:10pm AEST
  • What is the point of playing for 20 days if a pivotal moment arises and secondary issues take precedence? My friend, you and I should find something else to do with our time. I give Ponting zero credit for being a good sportsman, his motivation was to avoid being fined or suspended. If it was sportsmanship, the issue would have been addressed long ago, it is not a new issue. Finally, I would have had no complaint if Watson, Lee or Johnson was unable to break through.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sun Nov 16, 2008 08:11pm AEST
  • Watson had captured 2/26 in the previous session from 8 overs. I have a serious problem when we take 6 for 60-odd in a series changing session and then see Mike Hussey bowling to improve the over rate. Something is seriously wrong with the game. In your heart Chetan, can you honestly tell me that you are comfortable with all this? Further, could you convince a sceptic that you are 100% sure that there was no gambling on this game with the Australians complicit in it?

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Sun Nov 16, 2008 08:13pm AEST
  • well to tell you the truth, I love watching the aussies play their cricket. However I am an Indian supporter first, so pontings decision to bring on hussey & white was infact welcome. As a cricket fan, yes I can't seem to digest the fact that the game was given away. Gambling is something you & I will never know of till the matter is leaked out and it's a common tendancy of humans to assume something went wrong if his/her team fail to win. Whatever said & done, the Indians outplayed the aussies.

    Posted by Chetan Bothello Mon Nov 17, 2008 09:49pm AEST
  • Chetan – The funny thing is, I am an Australian supporter but was hoping India would win the series. I thought this would be good for Indian and world Test cricket, and besides, I love watching the Indians play, much like you love watching the Aussies. And besides, we in Australia have tasted enough victory over the last decade or so. It has been a source of much frustration to me that India has not been a more dominant team, in particular away from home.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:48am AEST
  • . I think we all want good, hard, spirited, enjoyable and fair cricket. Why else would we play or follow it? In this series I still believed India may collapse if the pressure came onto them, and I was looking forward to seeing how they overcame this challenge, if indeed it arose and they could overcome it. Alas, the challenge did arise during the middle session of Day 4,now I was thinking, what are India made of? Isn’t this the point of the series that players, umpires and fans dream about.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:49am AEST
  • Could India’s lower order rally against an on rushing opponent, incredibly still not buried after such a gruelling battle. If not, could the Indian bowlers rise to the occasion and subdue the outstanding Aussie batting line-up, looking to pull off one of the greatest escapes in Test history, retaining the Border-Gavasker trophy after playing behind and being written off for most of the series. The legacies of Kumble, Ganguly, Tendulkar, Dravid were on the line,

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:50am AEST
  • and Dhoni’s captaincy would have been straightaway in the spotlight. Instead, what do we get? A capitulation by the visiting captain, at the very moment it appeared he may be able to achieve his mission. To be honest, I think the biggest losers out of all of this are the fans and Test cricket itself. The endless drone of commercial one-dayers has already commenced in India, and the appalling 20/20 “entertainment” curtain-raiser took place in Australia.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:50am AEST
  • Meanwhile, the real deal, Test cricket lies wounded and hurting in the background. This is why I am upset. I am not upset at all that Australia lost, in fact my friend, if the truth is known, I am pleased. I am not a nationalistic cricket fan as such, my interest lies more in the health of Test cricket and seeing a good battle, played in the right spirit that leaves players, umpires and fans with more at the end of the game than they had at the start.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:59am AEST
  • test cricket is not dead my friend. it's getting better. these days we don't see too many drawn matched like in the past. Anyway i look forward to the next series with the aussies and am loving the kicking these poms are now experiencing in india.

    Posted by Chetan Bothello Tue Nov 18, 2008 09:53pm AEST
  • My hope is that India can play positive, attacking Test cricket with bat, ball and in the field and not be too afraid too lose in trying to win. I would love to see them pick 3 quicks, 2 spinners, Dhoni and 5 batsmen and really go for it, if they are good enough that is. I hope India can dominate the world for a period, that would be great for cricket. Hopefully the curators and administrators can give us fans some sporting pitches too, give the bowlers a go.

    Posted by Valerio Dibattista Wed Nov 19, 2008 10:17am AEST

Post a comment about this article

Please sign in to leave a comment.
Becoming a member is free and easy, sign up here.