Opinion | Ian Chappell >> The more things change The India series will be final proof of how well Ponting has handled the loss of key players November 25, 2007 The challenge for Ponting is to oversee the changing of the guard from Warne to MacGill to the next generation of Australian spin © Getty Images When Ricky Ponting retires there's a prestigious job waiting for him at Buckingham Palace: he's very good at presiding over the changing of the guard. Following Steve Waugh's retirement it was expected Ponting would have a difficult task emulating his predecessor's winning record as Australian captain. Ponting promptly won all three Tests in Sri Lanka to clinch the series - a feat Waugh had been unable to achieve. Then Ponting travelled to India for a series Waugh dubbed the "last frontier" because of how the win he craved there had eluded him. No such problems for Ponting, who with some help from stand-in skipper Adam Gilchrist, became the first Australian captain since Bill Lawry in 1969-70 to win a series in India. Ponting's next big challenge came when the highly successful bowling duo of Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath retired, along with batsmen Damien Martyn and Justin Langer. A new era dawned for Australian cricket, but again it was no problem for Ponting. He led Australia to successive comprehensive wins over Sri Lanka, a team that had seriously challenged his side when it contained the bulk of the recently retired stars. There's no doubt the latest changing of the guard is Ponting's more difficult assignment. Bowlers win matches and the loss of two champions almost guarantees a reduction in the rate of victories even if the losses don't mount alarmingly. So when are Australia's victories likely to become less prevalent? In theory the arrival of a strong batting side like India should signal imminent danger for Ponting's winning ratio. However, Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman are fading stars rather than rising ones and Ponting has the ideal weapon to challenge slowing reflexes - pace. Brett Lee has adequately filled the large boots of McGrath as the leader of the attack. He is bowling with greater accuracy and relying on more good-length deliveries, with the occasional well-directed bouncer. This is a far cry from the tearaway who offered more giveaways than a discount house by insisting on bowling either full or short, and who wasted energy in delivering wayward bouncers. Lee's next point-to-prove is learning to cope when a batsman goes on the attack. That is when his runs-per-over figure used to rise like Zimbabwe's inflation. If Virender Sehwag opens for India and has anything like the success he enjoyed last time in Australia, this will be Lee's next big challenge. If the Indian batsmen are anywhere near their best, it will also indicate the progress made by the talented young speedster Mitchell Johnson. He has genuine pace and is awkward for right-hand batsmen with his inswing and typical left-arm, angled delivery. However, he doesn't have much experience outside the one-day game, and bowling for long spells on good pitches without a lot of success can test the mettle of any bowler. Apart from Lee, all the main Australian bowlers averaged more than 30 runs per wicket against a Sri Lankan batting line-up that, apart from Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene, wasn't able to dominate. If the Indian batsmen can combat Lee, then the Australian attack is vulnerable. Warne's true value to Australia will only be recognised in benign conditions: no spinner can match his guile when the pitch is heavily in favour of batsmen. Stuart MacGill couldn't do it at his peak and his lacklustre form at the Bellerive Oval suggests his creaking body has eroded his desire, as well as his skills. If MacGill's injury doesn't repair quickly and he decides to retire, then Australia has a problem. Brad Hogg's reputation is built on one-day success rather than any outstanding performances in longer games. There's no doubt Hogg is an improved bowler since he last played Test cricket but he still needs to convince himself and those around him and if the Indian batsmen don't give him the opportunity to settle quickly, doubts will creep into his mind. Australia is strong in pace bowling back-up but not in spin bowling reserves, so they desperately need MacGill to carry the load until the new breed of tweakers mature. If Ponting can oversee a smooth changing of the guard from Warne to MacGill to the next generation spinner, his excellent win ratio won't take too much of a hit. Trouble is, if he achieves that monumentally difficult task then he'll be over-qualified for Buckingham Palace. © Cricinfo

 Read Comments (47)

Comments on this story

Comments have now been closed for this article

Read all 47 comments

Posted by lordricha27 on November 28 2007, 11:15 AM GMT

I think Hogg will prove challenging for the Indian batsmen. He had a good ODI series against India, and I think the Indian batsmen can't pick his 'chinaman' deliveries. I think Aus will be better of picking him instead of Macgill. The Aussies have a good pace bowling lineup, but if they want to play a spinner, they should pick Hogg. But I do think India will be tougher than Sri Lanka, because their batsmen are more experienced than the Lankans. Also, they had a very good tour of Australia the last time. Looks like it will be a competitive series.

Posted by Fine on November 28 2007, 05:33 AM GMT

No doubt that the Australian cricket team is the best in the world. But, I gain a doubt whether the present Australian team is just a fraction lower than the one lead by the Great Steve Waugh. It may be my own doubt. Anyhow, Australians are unbeatable. India cannot come anywhere near to Australia in Cricket. On the bouncy tracks of Australia, India will be thrashed. Indian team is having some talented players but they are not matured enough to play on Australian tracks. Instead of Adelaide and Sydney, if India are playing in Brisbane and Hobart ( Where Sri Lanka had played ) things would be worse. But, Adelaide and Sydney tracks are batting tracks and India may score some runs and save defeat. But, in Melbourne and Perth, I am confident Australia only will win.

Posted by frednork on November 27 2007, 23:19 PM GMT

AsherCA - what are you on. World champions - one day cricket (3 times running) and top of the heap in Test cricket. that equalls world champions x2 in anyones language. Umpiring errors are just that. Errors. Australia has had their fair share of errors go their way, and had their fair share of errors go against them. (and this has cost them the match in some instances) When australia loses a match or series - it is because the other team played better (Ashes 05) and australia learns from this extracts revenge (ashes 07) When other teams lose to australia, its because Australia cheated, the umpires are bent, the ball was oval shaped, the sun was shining, it was cloudy, it rained (and so on). Either that or it becomes a "we would have won if..." Not because Australia Played better cricket. Australia would have won the ashes in 05 if mcgrath didnt do his ankle, the tail scored a few more runs, Warne caught KP...WRONG. Australia would have won if we played better cricket.

Posted by frednork on November 27 2007, 22:31 PM GMT

the last time "ageing stars" were written off, they crushed England 5-0. That reason alone is enough to not write off teh Indian Batting lineup. But test cricket is not about batting, or bowling or feilding as seperate disciplines, its about all of them, for 5 days at a time. Have a look at SL's recent tour. They played some good cricket some of the time and some fantastic cricket rareley. Australia played good cricket all of the time. Nothing fantastic, but good all the time. India has troubled Australia in the past through git and determination of a few players - if India steps as a team for teh whole of a match, for the whole of a series, then we have a contest. May the best team win! (at last something worth watching). But if they are going to play well for only some of the time - pack up and go home now.

Posted by priyalal on November 27 2007, 18:55 PM GMT

The notion that Australia is a champion side is all nonsense. Every visiting team to Australia will have to play against not only the team but also against the ICC's so called neutral umpires. Why did the ICC changed the designated umpires for the Sri Lankan tour to Australia at the last moment and sent inexperienced umpires for the tour?. Whenever Australia is at the receiving end the umpire comes to the rescue. The dismissal of Kumar Sanggakkara was a classic example. Umpire can say "sorry" after the damage has been done. The umpire ruined both Kumar's chances of scoring a double centure and also steering Sri Lanka to a victory. A similar incident happened at the first test when Sanath was batting. I suggest the following to the ICC. 1. To reprimand the umpires for their mistakes and declare the match as "DRAWN" 2. To give the batsman one chance in his innings the option to request the umpire to refer his decision to third umpire for a review, similar in Tennis.

Posted by Wild_Type on November 27 2007, 17:18 PM GMT

India should easily present a greater challenge than Sri Lanka did, but there is no realhope of them winning a Test, forget the series. Ian is overestimating Australia's problems, if any, by a mile. Martyn and Langer's loss is no big deal since they have been replaced by batsmen who are as good. Warne and India? Austrailia are better off without him for this one! And why look for spinners against the world's best players of spin? Only McGrath will be missed but the current crop of quicks will be more than adequate to handle the ageing Indian batting lineup. And why bother talking about Sehwag as a threat? He's been looking for form for yonks and is unlikely to be ever selected again. The only prospect I see for India is their bowling line-up, which for once is being seen as a strength, rather than subject of ridicule. Ricky Ponting has been successful because he's always had a great team, with good players being replaced by equally good ones.

Posted by cheersxyz1 on November 27 2007, 11:44 AM GMT

To be honest,India's frailty against genuine decent pace was well exposed on their recent tour of SouthAfrica and in England even with their so-called embellished stars failing to rise to the occasion so-much-so that most ironically Anil was a sole hundred getter from their side.But on the flip side of it,Australia would definitely feel some heat in the absence of Pigeon and Warne. AsherCA is dead right to mention the biased umpiring in Austrailia with umpires giving in to vociferous appeals from Lee,Mcgrath and Warne.One reason for Aussie success and Sub-continental sides defeat Down Under is pathetic umpiring against Asians.Pakistan did suffer a lot last time around in Australia.Yousuf Youhanna was clearly unlucky in 2nd innings of Melbourne and perth test in 2005 with Rudie being extremely rude caving into Ponting's vociferous appeal in Melbourne test.Inzi was wrongly adjudged lbw by Rudy in World-XI/Australia one-off match.So Australia must not ignore 'luck factor' in their wins.

Posted by KingofPace on November 27 2007, 08:40 AM GMT

If Indian team manage to fix yuvraj somewhere in the batting order, by promotiong Dravid to open the inning with jaffer or gambhir followed by laxman, sachin, ganguly, yuvraj, dhoni and pathan... It can really trouble australian bowlers, if atleast half of them fired in every inning! Nnd when the likes of Mcgrath and Shane not around, with new bunch of bowlers yet prove themselves in pressure situation apart from Lee it can be hard time for australia at home!

Posted by Revnq on November 27 2007, 07:40 AM GMT

AsherCA...been on the wrong end of the stick a few times have we? Australia are the best ODI and Test side, and India are the best Twenty20 side - end of story. I'd love for you to point out the exact incorrect decisions that go Australia's way, whilst ignoring those that don't. Yes, Sangakkara was incorrectly dismissed the other day, but it happens, by decisions given by umpires who are, funnily enough, not Australian. Over the years mistakes even out and one thing has remained the same for this century so far - Australia are on top. There was a time I remember when we were at horrible lows, so you take the good with the bad. Oh, and your idea for letting the 'suffering captain' decide the outcome of a game due to one bad decision - hah! I doubt I've heard a statement as bereft of logic as that one, why play at all when we could just flip a coin at the start of play and heads you win, tails you lose.

Posted by AsherCA on November 27 2007, 00:09 AM GMT

All this talk about Australia being World Champions in x forms of cricket is honestly rubbish. They are just Dave Richardson's favourites. I am still waiting to hear any Australian honestly claim a series victory without the benefit of "Human Errors" from ICC's allegedly neutral umpires against India / Pakistan / Sri Lanka. I challenge the Australians to play one test series against India without with only 1 change in rule - Umpire's decision is final, but if found wrong, the suffering captain may just say what would have happened & you have to go with what he said. If Australia have the guts to agree to this rule, I bet the "human errors" going Australia's way over the last few years will suddenly go against them. Dave Richardson, are you willing to accept this challenge ?

Add to del.icio.us | digg this | Stumble It What's this? If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content on cricket, you may use these buttons. When you add them to any of these sites, you "social bookmark" them for others to find and rate. More on del.icio.us>> More on digg>> More on stumbleupon>> Close

WI v Aus edition now live - Play now Cricinfo Cricket Quiz NEW fantasy cricket game - England v South Africa (starts July 10) Login and enter your team now Cricinfo on the go - our mobile services WAP and Mobicast