That's a fair point P57 albeit another view,

However i would argue that it's very easy for all of us to sit here after the fact and explain away the Aussies loss - not so easy to call before McGrath got injured. With Mcgrath in, i for one would have expected the Aussies to have bowled the Poms out for three less runs and batting second would suit in this instance.

Another view is that the highest successful run chase in the second innings had for some time been quite low, with no McGrath this meant to me that batting first the Poms had every chance of making a reasonable total , meaning the Aussies had to do what no one else could - chase a reasonable second innings total. These stats go against 'Pontings Logic', a fact i think he should of been aware of considering he knew he would be without McGrath.

For Ponting to choose to bowl first based solely on the fact that 12 of 13 wins came from batting second is silly on many levels. For instance, how many of those teams were struggling with form and had just lost their strike bowler the morning of the test?

Ultimately stats don't determine how the match is played or who wins, for me they are used to support a view i have already formed about the game and as such aid in my decision, not make them.

__________________
I like Bing Lee.