Richard Boock: Ponting bowls a bomb at selectors

It wouldn't be a cricket match this season if there wasn't a conspiracy theory flying around somewhere, and the latest one (admittedly introduced by myself this morning) involves the Australian team captain and the Australian selectors.

At a time when Dan Brown (author of the Da Vinci Code) is running a close second to John Bracewell as the biggest conspiracy theorist on the planet, the moment seems ripe for flying a kite about Ricky Ponting's toss decision at Christchurch.

Ponting defied convention on Thursday when he put New Zealand in to bat on the opening day of the first test, his side duly finding themselves behind the eight ball after the much-hyped bowling attack struggled for penetration.

But possibly the biggest mistake from the first two days was the Australian selectors' decision to ignore Ponting's wishes and omit the world's fastest bowler - Brett Lee - from the test-playing XI.

And here's where the conspiracy theory kicks in.

The day before the match, Ponting appeared outspoken in his support for Lee's inclusion, saying he could well imagine the New Zealanders' relief if the Australian team sheet was missing the name of their express paceman.

"Brett's been outstanding on this tour and right through the VB series as well," Ponting said at the time. "He's been knocking down the door and basically putting his hand up for selection, and I think at the moment he has a bit of a psychological edge over the New Zealand batsmen."

But when it came to the crunch, the Aussie selection panel of Trevor Hohns, Allan Border, David Boon and Andrew Hilditch effectively slapped Ponting back into line, maintaining their faith in the incumbent attack and leaving Lee on the outer again.

Australian captains have enjoyed different degrees of influence over their selectors in the past, but Ponting's lack of sway was candidly exposed by the decision, which made it clear that there were only four - not five - selectors in the mix.

His response? After winning the toss he chose to insert the opposition for the first time in his career as Australian captain, on a pitch that was not expected to cause many problems for the batsmen, and on a day where climatic conditions offered little assistance.

To the Dan Browns of this world, it was if he'd said to his selectors, "Well, you reckon you've got the world's best bowling attack - let's see how they do."

And to be honest, it wouldn't have seemed an unreasonable move, given the inconceivable decision to deprive Ponting of one of world cricket's true playmakers, and the one man who might have blown away the opposition on the first morning.

Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie and Michael Kasprowicz might be efficient and consistent, but Lee's sizzling pace would have offered Ponting the cutting edge he needed, and might have meant a much different start to the opening test.

As it was, the sameness of Pigeon, Dizzy and Kasper seemed to work against the Australians, allowing New Zealand to gradually gain a foothold in the game, and exposing the folly of not having the New South Wales tearaway in the line-up.

The question now, however impertinent, is whether Ponting deliberately opted to bowl first to make his point.

The second question is, who could blame him if he did?