THE raucous debate over the relative merits of Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke has turned into an Australian cricket version of the World Wrestling Federation; a free-for-all. The one thing missing from the fracas has been a referee so here’s my decision on Ponting and Clarke as captains.

On playing ability alone Ponting is superior. He’s one of the three best Australian batsmen since Sir Donald Bradman, along with Neil Harvey and Greg Chappell.
Clarke is a class batsman and in recent times he’s elevated his play but his reluctance to put himself in the firing line higher in the order counts against him. Also, Clarke is troubled by fast, well-directed short-pitched bowling, while for the bulk of his career Ponting relished this form of attack.
First round to Ponting and that also includes fielding where his exceptional ability slightly shades a very proficient Clarke
Then we come to the more difficult decision – captaincy.
Firstly, there’s the on-field part of the task, that includes field placings and bowling changes. This is where Clarke shines and has a distinct advantage over Ponting
Clarke is naturally an optimistic captain and carries his gambling instincts with him onto the field. Clarke makes it obvious to the opposition and his teammates he’s trying to win the match from ball one.
This is an efficient captaincy method, as it often intimidates the opposition and also brings out the best in the more competitive teammates. Clarke is a very proactive skipper who constantly attempts to move the game forward.
Ponting was a good captain and I never saw him devoid of ideas. They might too often have been conservative ploys but he was never guilty of letting the game drift.
However, he occasionally fell into the trap of defending boundaries too conscientiously and this brings a reliance on a batsman to get himself out. He was the most unselfish of players and his batting style always conveyed the message to his teammates that he was intent on winning the game.
For a guy nicknamed ‘Punter’, the biggest disappointment with Ponting’s captaincy was his failure to rely more on his gambling instincts.
As a captain Clarke is superior and in this regard the only recent better Australian skipper is Mark Taylor.
Then we come to leadership; the after hours part of the job that’s enacted off the field.
This is an area where Clarke has struggled. Any captain who could allow the homework debacle to unfold in India, needs a lesson in human nature. This appeared to be a simple case of Clarke delegating a job he should’ve handled.
That’s a major concern with the modern system; there are too many people involved in making decisions that should be left to the captain and his allies
Cricketers generally want honesty from their captain and especially if it’s bad news, they want it face to face. Praise in public and castigate in private is a good adage for any leader.
Ponting was always willing to help fellow players and he enjoys discussing the game. Often it can be very difficult for really talented players to understand the failings of a lesser mortal but Ponting never struck me as having that problem.
Leadership is a difficult aspect of captaincy to judge but I’d give a slight edge to Ponting on the basis that he never encountered a “homework” saga.
Ponting’s captaincy era coincided with an England side that suddenly re-discovered how to play the game after years of Australian domination. Clarke is also experiencing a similar situation as England continues to perform well.
However, Ponting has never impressed me as a person who Shane Warne suggests “beats himself up”; he probably has regrets as we all do, but nothing more. In playing ability and overall leadership, Ponting has made the greater contribution to Australian cricket. (Daily Telegraph).

(By Ian Chappell)