Perhaps because he'd score more runs than the rest of the team combined.

and probably open the bowling.

Three out of four cricket followers know that statistics can be used to prove anything.

Judging captains simply on their win/loss ratio is pretty narrow, the only time a captain has much influence on a game is in the field, during the batting innings they can only affect the game when they're at the crease. How much of India's performance yesterday was due to Kumble's captaincy?

A team with a top six which average in the order of 50 (e.g. Australia or India) will score more runs than a top six of players that average 35 (e.g. NZ or the Windies). The more runs you score, the more you win - particularly in ODI's

It could be said that Ponting's main contribution to his sides win / loss ratio is due more to the fact that he averages about a squillion. Which takes us back to Rachael's first point; that the captain of a good team is often underrated because people can say 'of course he wins - look at who he's leading!'

But I don't think win / loss ratios are the be-all and end-all of captaincy, most people don't think Vaughan was out-captained in the '07 ashes, and I reckon Smith outdid Flem last time they were here (in NZ) despite tieing the tests and losing the ODI's 4-1. No-one bagged Hussey's captaincy when his team was rolled 3-0 in NZ last year...

One job the captain is responsible for is getting through their overs on time... something no-one seems capable of!

__________________
never believe anything until it is officially denied . . .

Are you talking pre player or total?

But seriously - very good post and we've gone way off of the topic of this thread (probably my fault to be honest).

So in an attempt to right this wayward voyage I'm going to suggest Ponting will retire after the next ashes series in England (assuming he wins it) what with their being unfinsihed business and all.

Why do you mention Smith. He is not a good captain I agree but you will see that this thread discusses Ponting.

As for the Bermuda comment, you are wrong. We are discussing Pontings captaincy and not his batting. Thus if we assume that Ponting would contribute the same number of runs as the current Bermuda team, I cannot see how his "captaincy" would improve their results

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

I thought you were OK with drifting off course since you brang up Bermuda ?

But obviously you are uncomfortable with it when someone else drifts off on a side alley like you.

I dont care about Smith. I have posted my dislike for him on many occasions. I dont mind drifting but try to answer the questions first before drifting.

I merely commented that Smiths captaincy is irrelevant to the fact that Ponting is not a better captain than Fleming.

since you are talking about Smith, he has a better record than Fleming too but no sane person will claim that he is a better captain. You do not want to see the point that everyone is making and this is the last I will post on this issue.

Did you notice how no one else has agreed with you on this post. We all probably wrong aren't we

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

On second thoughts, Ponting might be thinking abiut retirement after all. He seems to having problems with anyone named "Singh" and it won't be long before the other teams take note and start asking their bowlers to change their surnames!

My OP was will Ponting retire, and during the course of it argued that I think to rate Stephen Fleming as being a more competent captain than Ponting considering the stats heavily supported Ponting is wrong.

I have enjoyed arguing the case for the above with everyone else on the forum, which is generally what we do on the forum.

Then you come along carrying some kind of axe to grind which I suspect goes beyond this thread.

Well Ponting's captaicy certainly left a lot to be desired in this match. India were on the ropes at 160-6, Laxman was out of sorts and Dhoni was new to the crease, India's lead was under 300, and he puts on Symonds and Clarke. He should have put on Lee, he should have put on Tait, he should have put on Johnson, and India should have been blasted out for under 200, with an eminently achievable chase. Instead, Laxman and Dhoni put on 75 and the game was beyond Australia's reach. Of course, Symonds got the breakthrough eventually, but about 80 runs too late. And the fact that Tait- who had been brought in specifically to unleash himself upon the Indian batsmen- bowled less overs than Symonds or Clarke is something less than a farce- because at least farces are amusing.