I've never respect Ponting a lot, after hearing his post match interview I still think he's a moron. Just how he was saying 'I got the declaration right', 'tell them I got it right' etc. In actual fact, I don't believe he got it right, however he got away with it due to bad umpiring decisions against India and other luck.
Also, you can tell he doesn't like Hogg.
When you think about it, bowling a part timer in the last few overs while needing to win the game is bad captaincy. He just got lucky.
Clarke is a lucky guy, though, or at least a smarter bowler than we tend to give him credit for.
In thinking about the declaration, I think you have to run the simulation for both schools of thought. The notion of a sporting declaration versus batting the opponent out of the game.
People like to think that a sporting declaration gives you the best chance of getting a team out. However, it depends a lot on the teams. The dynamic changes, not unlike the difference between a Test match and an ODI.
If Ponting declared overnight, it would have been 214 in nearly 100 overs. 100 overs is usually ideal, because it involves bowling late on day 4 to potentially weary fielders and offers a new ball late on day 5. In hindsight, however, that was definitely too early, there were not enough runs even for a team looking to bat out time and even if the pitch was troublesome in the dying stages, it was still good in the morning.
They could have had about 250 in planning a 90 over gambit, but that still didn't sound very good on a ground at which both first innings towered over 400; although they would still have gotten a decent second new ball spell, there was no guarantee the game would come down to the 80th over, considering Australia were capable of scoring at almost 5 an over in the first session on the final day.
280 was talked about as a sporting target, that came up just after 100 overs and about 80 overs left. 280 would have been more desirable had there been another 10 overs in hand, but there were not. Essentially, this is about the point where you consider how far you can back your bowlers while under fire. Warne and McGrath, you'd back to the ends of the Earth; even against India you'd back Warne to get two or three. Johnson and Hogg... might need more runs.
The 300 came up with 6 overs before lunch and would have offered 75 overs, not enough to get a new ball, but I think a mathematically inspired captain would have considered declaring at that point. 4 runs an over would have required credible, yet reasonable effort and only a narrow pushing of the record book. I think at times like this you might actually be able to split a team in terms of who thinks they can chase and who doesn't, causing some uncertainty.
As it happened, the next 33 runs took only four more overs to score and Australia declared just before lunch.
In some of the potential scenarios, one could imagine VVS Laxman firing away rather than Symonds in the morning, instead he came to the crease poking about and struggling to deal with Clark's probing of his off and middle stumps. For the situation they created, Johnson and Hogg were no longer pressured by the batsman's aggression. Johnson's wide deliveries were left while Ganguly and Tendulkar both knew there was little chance of forcing a cosy defensive field set by blitzing Hogg. Similarly, Clark was in his element as he is an expert bowling to a batsman trying to play straight, rather than one trying to charge and hoick him.
Of course there was luck involved, but you have to recognise the overriding luck in every action; the most you can do is manage your luck and when you get a break, make it work for you. As Richie Benaud says, good captaincy is 90% luck and 10% skill, but don't try it without that 10%.
Clarke rocks! 
:
