Over-rating Ponting to death

Send me to the New Zealand version of purgatory, but I feel a micron of sympathy for Australian captain Ricky Ponting. As much as I want to believe his decision to bring on part-timers to up the over rate was a purely selfish one, I can't. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake, possibly an error of judgement, but nothing more.

Why would Ponting calculate that the risk of losing the match and series against India was one worth taking in order for him to get onto the Gabba in a fortnight to face Chris Martin? I believe him when he says he made the decision with good intentions and because he felt an obligation to try and get 90 overs into the day's play in order to be seen to "to play the game in the right spirit". He just momentarily forgot that anything not channelled toward winning at all costs is viewed as un-Australian in The Lucky Country.

Batting, not bowling, lost this Test. If we cast our minds back to day 3, Australia scored a meagre 161/8 from 85.4 overs, an indication that their batting lacked intent. Getting run out stupidly for eight in the second innings was probably the most egregious error Ponting made in the match. His side's total of 209 was poor, but nothing to do with counteracting over rates. The Australian side of yesteryear might have got these runs, but batsmen in positions 2-7 failed in the second dig and that is why they lost the Test. Even if Watson and Lee had ripped through India, a total of 300 looked like it was beyond Australia on the fifth day.

Several onlookers were extremely vociferous in their criticisms. Jeff Thomson was easily the most memorable: "Ponting should have just gone for the throat and worried about the consequences later. Surely team management must have had a say in this as well. What a stupid decision it was. On the over-rate, I'd prefer to watch 60 overs of quality rather than 90 overs of crap."

If I was Ponting I would be hacked off if the cuffs to the back of my head were coming from the bloke whose name is on the trophy you're slogging your guts out to win, the bloke who your country's most coveted player award is named after, the bloke who is a highly respected former captain best-placed to empathise with your position, and the bloke who is a director on the board of Cricket Australia. Allan Border is all of these and as such, he should let commentary opportunities involving Australia go by the wayside.

What I am most gobsmacked about is that the omniscient rent-a-quote of Ponting bashing (and post 1960s cricket in general) has yet to vent his spleen. Surely it is time to poke Neil Harvey with a stick and get him to say something outrageous, like he has done so many times before? Something along these lines would be good: “Back when I was playing and Australia was actually quite good at Test cricket we'd have bowled 270 overs on the first day so that we'd never get ourselves into this sort of trouble, especially against a useless team like India. And anyway, it was a hell of a lot hotter over there in my day. Have I told you how good we used to be?”

As a Kiwi, I love it of course: Australians going feral on each other is what we watch for fun on TV here all year in the form of NRL (rugby league), AFL (Aussie Rules) and the A-League (football) so this fits nicely into that genre.

Ponting must be doing something right. His record reads: 48 played, 33 wins, 6 losses, 9 draws. And if Australians are going to start pointing the finger of selfishness, let's just take a moment to remember which ex-captain stood down from his national selection panel role in 2006 just four months after being reappointed because he was too busy, coinciding conveniently with his personal beer sponsor's launch of a beach cricket circuit in a so-called "ambush" of CA's official beer sponsor. Hint: It wasn't Ricky Ponting.