2006-11-27 20:30:05 · 9 answers · asked by gaurav d 1 in Sports ➔ Cricket
He felt like batting.
2006-11-27 21:15:09 · answer #1 · answered by pressurekooker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it showed a definite chink in his psyche. The attacking, positive option was to put England back in. To claim that his bowlers needed a rest after skittling England for such a low total is ridiculous, and coming at the time of day it did, it was very negative. If they needed rest, why not follow Ian Chappell's suggestion - bowl them out again quickly and everyone gets to rest for Day 5.
Very strange decision - certainly would have made Ponting look very, very stupid if the Gabba had have encountered one of its famous thunderstorms on Day 5.
2006-11-29 12:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by MC Kiwi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a strange decision of Ponting not to enforce follow-on.
The justification given by him that he wanted to give rest to his bowlers is not at all convincing. By not enforcing the follow-on he saved England Team from the embarassment of Innings defeat.
2006-11-29 06:20:07 · answer #3 · answered by vakayil k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Basically give his bowlers a rest and it worked Aussies won by a mile
2006-11-28 04:51:29 · answer #4 · answered by whay i lost my ?s 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose Eden Gardens still haunt them.........
and probably it was a flat deck and the wanted the condition to suit warne a bit more
2006-11-28 06:43:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Was scared of an England backlash but it did not happen.
2006-11-28 09:36:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Australia won and that should answer your question
2006-11-28 04:36:31 · answer #7 · answered by akband 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because there was still enough time to bat again and still chase victory.
2006-11-28 05:24:34 · answer #8 · answered by junaid375 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it does not matter as australia won
2006-11-29 00:43:14 · answer #9 · answered by john 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋