England's Bowlers

[Uppercut]

Er, no. Saying it many times does not make it right.

It's a fact, surely? I'm fully aware that it succeeded an equally poor decision for Ishant but the fact that one bad decision to give your number ten out wrongly should have cost India the game and series is pretty damn conclusive proof that said series was infinitely closer than this one. I'm not trying to project anything else from that. What's even your case?

[Uppercut]

But you still responded.

And made some exaggerated statements,tbh. Does not make it the truth if you don't argue.

Haha, sorry. I wasn't being especially serious.

[Spark]

I don't see for mine Hussey reverting to 08/9 horrors, simply because he isn't playing like that. He still knows where off stump is, for one.

[vcs]

It's a fact, surely? I'm fully aware that it succeeded an equally poor decision for Ishant but the fact that one bad decision to give your number ten out wrongly should have cost India the game and series is pretty damn conclusive proof that said series was infinitely closer than this one. I'm not trying to project anything else from that. What's even your case?

There was sufficient doubt that he might have hit it. There is a myth floating around these days that it was a plumb LBW that was completely missed for some inexplicable reason. The overthrows were given as runs off the bat. Not sure whether the TV network showed Snicko or Hotspot to confirm the edge, but looked pretty close to me.

[Spark]

There was sufficient doubt that he might have hit it. There is a myth floating around these days that it was a plumb LBW that was completely missed for some inexplicable reason. The overthrows were given as runs off the bat. Not sure whether the TV network showed Snicko or Hotspot to confirm the edge, but looked pretty close to me.

Missing his point tbh. That the result of the entire test hinged on that decision alone is proof that this was much much closer than the Ashes.

[Cevno]

You keep trying to compare results. I'm comparing the standard of cricket played.

And the second test was comfortable yes - on the last day. Before that it was really up for grabs. IIRC your first innings lead was tiny?

Over the 5 tests yes the gap was wider ,but over the first 3 tests it was not.
Infact,Australia were the better side at Perth.

I.e my point that it unfair to compare the two series and call one closer ,specially far closer than the other specially when at 3 tests it was probably more closer.

And i am over with this debate.

[Ruckus]

That's circular logic, the only evidence you have that Ponting was out of form is that England kept getting him out.

Just because a player gets out doesn't mean they are out of form. In form players can get out early as well, just as out of form players can sometimes still score centuries.

The evidence for Ponting being out of form is not that the English bowlers keep getting him out, it's the manner in which he is playing (which happens to be conducive to getting out) - i.e. his extremely fidgety style of batting these days.

[Uppercut]

There was sufficient doubt that he might have hit it. There is a myth floating around these days that it was a plumb LBW that was completely missed for some inexplicable reason. The overthrows were given as runs off the bat. Not sure whether the TV network showed Snicko or Hotspot to confirm the edge, but looked pretty close to me.

Not how I remember it- it's irrelevant anyway- in that case India were a couple of nanometres from losing the first test and my point still stands.

Haha, Spark got there first..

[vcs]

Missing his point tbh. That the result of the entire test hinged on that decision alone is proof that this was much much closer than the Ashes.

Yeah, that match and series was closer than any one Ashes game, because Australia did not do their "bat first and collapse on a benign track" thing.

[Cevno]

Missing his point tbh. That the result of the entire test hinged on that decision alone is proof that this was much much closer than the Ashes.

That is true.

But it still would not have been as big a win for the Aussies than at Perth against England,which is my point throughout.

I.e after 3 tests the Ashes would not have been a more comprehensive in one sides favour than one in India.

After 5 tests yes,but it is unfair to compare a series of 5 tests to a one of 2 tests which did not have the chance to become as comprehensive if not more.

[Spark]

Yep exactly.

Even at Perth, as BB has been at real pains to point out, that was a case of two monumental performances and two good ones covering up for seven inadequate (or worse) ones. You can't go around relying that on a team for very long.

[Uppercut]

Just because a player gets out doesn't mean they are out of form. In form players can get out early as well, just as out of form players can sometimes still score centuries.

The evidence for Ponting being out of form is not that the English bowlers keep getting him out, it's the manner in which he is playing (which happens to be conducive to getting out) - i.e. his extremely fidgety style of batting these days.

Yeah, and that wasn't the case against India a month previously. It's the quality of an attack that does that to a batsman.

I do see your point, but no one ever says of a batsmen who's averaged under twenty in a five-match series, "he was actually in pretty good nick there, the bowling was just too good for him." It's as though it's entirely impossible for a bowling attack to be good enough to frequently dismiss an in-form batsman for low scores, and obviously that isn't the case. You're using circular logic if you claim a batsman was out of form as a means of demeaning the achievements of a bowling attack that repeatedly dismissed him for low scores when the only evidence you have for that batsman being out of form comes from his performances against that bowling attack.

[Spark]

He does look like he has some technical glitches though (never seen him so squared up), which for whatever reason I hadn't noticed before.

[Redbacks]

That's circular logic, the only evidence you have that Ponting was out of form is that England kept getting him out.

Hasn't he averaged 20 below his best for a couple years now?

[Ruckus]

Yeah, and that wasn't the case against India a month previously. It's the quality of an attack that does that to a batsman.

I do see your point, but no one ever says of a batsmen who's averaged under twenty in a five-match series, "he was actually in pretty good nick there, the bowling was just too good for him." It's as though it's entirely impossible for a bowling attack to be good enough to frequently dismiss an in-form batsman for low scores, and obviously that isn't the case. You're using circular logic if you claim a batsman was out of form as a means of demeaning the achievements of a bowling attack that repeatedly dismissed him for low scores when the only evidence you have for that batsman being out of form comes from his performances against that bowling attack.

I'm not sure he even looked that much better in India. As you said the quality of the attack wasn't as good, and that, with a bit of luck, probably allowed his technical issues to be less of a hindrance.

On the other point, Chappell actually pretty much said that exact thing about Ponting - he said, paraphrasing, "Ponting's foot movement suggests he is actually in really good nick. He has just been out of luck this series and getting good balls early on". I don't disagree with that idea, but in the case of Ponting he really just didn't look in good nick for the most part. I don't think it's circular logic either; Ponting's technical problems are independant of the bowling he is facing - e.g. he might get stuck in the crease and play the wrong line. The bowling can exploit those weaknessess, but it doesn't really elicit them. I.e. going back to the example of India, I'm sure many of his technical problems were still there, but the bowling simply didn't take advantage of them.