Irony of The Australian Cricket Team

[Slats4ever]

word. india won but no one really cares to much cos the game was played on a dodgy track! statistically... cool u guys got a win. but i think in most peoples with any ideas and brains would suggest that Australia is twice the side india is

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think they are twice the side as India are. But they plan twice as hard as we do. That is why they are more successful.

 

[viktor]

However, I don't think you can use one Test where the bowlers toiled thanklessly as a basis for complaining about the standard of Test pitches on the whole, when that Test was an abberation. It doesn't happen all the time.

absolutely. now stop thinking sydney and think mumbai.
4 tests played, 1 decent wicket (B'lore), 2 good ones and one bad one (Mum).
Aberration???????

 

[Son Of Coco]

i never said it was, but certainly if something like this happened once in a while there is nothing wrong with it. what i dont like is the fact that certain australians prefer to whine and moan about it, despite the fact that the wickets that they produce arent significantly better.



comments? maybe
complaints and suggestions to the ICC? never.

Ahhh, I think most wickets produced in Australia are significantly better than that one. You're referring to one wicket played on in Darwin as being as bad............which isn't a regular test venue.........which others are not significantly better?

 

[SJS]

To all my fellow Indian fans :

Come on guys. We have had enough of this. The fact of the matter is we did not play well enough. Sure India is capable of doing better but in this series, the way we played, we were just not the side to match up with Australia.

I know we are all disappointed. Naturally. This is not what we expected of our batting. But it happened and we cant change it and there is no need to deny it.

On the plus side, we have a third spinner which was badly needed, a better replacement as a keeper, Zaheer recovering his agression, Kaif and the lower order showing guts. Lets pray we find a permanent opening pair and Sachin and Laxman play with the confidence of the second innings of the 4th test.

We can and will perform better than this in the time to come but this was a performance best forgotten let alone defended.

 

[garage flower]

word. india won but no one really cares to much cos the game was played on a dodgy track! statistically... cool u guys got a win. but i think in most peoples with any ideas and brains would suggest that Australia is twice the side india is

People with brains and ideas would probably be a little more thoughtful and analytical when comparing the two sides.

They might, for instance, reflect on the fact that India were potentially one downpour away from drawing this series, having comfortably drawn the last one in Australia.

 

[SJS]

People with brains and ideas would probably be a little more thoughtful and analytical when comparing the two sides.

They might, for instance, reflect on the fact that India were potentially one downpour away from drawing this series, having comfortably drawn the last one in Australia.

You are absolutely right. This series could still have ended in a 2 all result. But the fact remains that the matches we lost we were so thoroughly outplayed and out middle order has been so disastrous. The win on the type of surface that was Mumbai, does not undo that.

 

[garage flower]

You are absolutely right. This series could still have ended in a 2 all result. But the fact remains that the matches we lost we were so thoroughly outplayed and out middle order has been so disastrous. The win on the type of surface that was Mumbai, does not undo that.

Yes, Australia were clearly the better side but the silly comparison by Slats needled me into a response.

I don't think there's much between the sides and I'd suggest India's poor showing was more to do with a collective lack of form and confidence amongst the batsmen than any great disparity in the teams' relative abilities.

 

[biased indian]

Yes, Australia were clearly the better side but the silly comparison by Slats needled me into a response.

I don't think there's much between the sides and I'd suggest India's poor showing was more to do with a collective lack of form and confidence amongst the batsmen than any great disparity in the teams' relative abilities.

well said mate

 

[tooextracool]

Ahhh, I think most wickets produced in Australia are significantly better than that one. You're referring to one wicket played on in Darwin as being as bad............which isn't a regular test venue.........which others are not significantly better?

as i said earlier, the last sydney wicket was extremely poor indeed. as was the brisbane wicket had it not been for the rain.

 

[age_master]

People with brains and ideas would probably be a little more thoughtful and analytical when comparing the two sides.

They might, for instance, reflect on the fact that India were potentially one downpour away from drawing this series, having comfortably drawn the last one in Australia.

Australia were one downpour and one dodgy LBW decision away from winning the series 4-0 in that case.....

 

[Son Of Coco]

as i said earlier, the last sydney wicket was extremely poor indeed. as was the brisbane wicket had it not been for the rain.

and you'd say they were comparable to this one or the one in Darwin would you?

 

[Son Of Coco]

yes and where were the complaints after cricket was played on those wickets?



i dont think so, IMO they've gotten too flat, and flat wickets take the fun out of cricket.

Where were the complaints?

Here .............

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/JUL/008731_AUSSL2004_03JUL2004.html

 

[tooextracool]

and you'd say they were comparable to this one or the one in Darwin would you?

yes because as bad as this wicket was, at least it provided a result and was fair to both teams, and it did in all fairness provide an exciting finish. sydney(and brisbane would have) provided 5 days of bowlers being smashed all over the park, and as a spectator id rather watch the mumbai test.

 

[tooextracool]

Where were the complaints?

Here .............

http://ind.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2004/JUL/008731_AUSSL2004_03JUL2004.html

were these complaints to the ICC?
did SL blame their loss on the wicket?

 

[honestbharani]

Australia were one downpour and one dodgy LBW decision away from winning the series 4-0 in that case.....

I don't see how a downpour would have helped them to a 4-0 result.

 

[garage flower]

Australia were one downpour and one dodgy LBW decision away from winning the series 4-0 in that case.....

And India were one very dodgy 'keeper away from 2-2 or perhaps better. This just reinforces the point that there are so many factors that can or could tip the balance one way or another because the difference between the sides is fairly slim. All of which contradicts Slats's original, thoughtless comment.

 

[masterblaster]

Two words: 'Here and Now'

 

[garage flower]

Two words: 'Here and Now'

The point being.....?

As should be clear from the above posts, I'm not arguing that Australia didn't deserve to win the series or that they aren't a better side than India .

 

[Western Warrior]

Following on the 'pitch' debate

Ponting "dug his own grave", says controversial Test pitch curator
Tuesday November 9, 10:23 PM​

NEW DELHI (AFP) - A former India captain who prepared the crumbling pitch for last week's Bombay Test against world champions Australia defended himself by passing the blame on touring skipper Ricky Ponting.

Polly Umrigar, chief curator of the Wankhede stadium track where 40 wickets fell in less than three days, leading to India's stunning 13-run win, said the pitch crumbled because Ponting used the heavy roller on it in both innings.

"We had prepared a firm, hard pitch that would have turned from third day onwards," Umrigar, 78, told AFP.

"Ponting himself said the wicket was dry. If it was dry, why did he want the heavy roller on it?

"If the pitch was bad, would nearly 300 runs be scored on it on each of the second and third days?

"The truth is Australia could not handle our spinners."

Captains have the option of getting the wicket rolled by light or heavy rollers before the start of their team's innings.

On the rain-hit first day when just 11 overs were bowled, 22 runs were scored for the loss of two wickets. The second day produced 290 runs for 18 wickets and the third 293 runs for 20 wickets.

Australia, set a modest fourth innings target of 107, were shot out for 93 to give India a face-saving win.

Australia, who were already assured of their first series win on Indian soil since 1969 after taking a 2-0 lead in the four-match rubber, had to settle for a 2-1 scoreline instead of a 3-0 rout.

Ponting said after the match he would be reporting the pitch to the International Cricket Council.

"It was nowhere near a Test wicket," Ponting said. "It was disappointing for everyone, the players and the fans, that the match ended so fast.

"There was very little batsmen could do on a track like that."

India made 104 in their first innings and 205 in the second while Australia scored 203 and 93, their lowest ever score in India.

Umrigar, one of India's most respected cricketers who played 59 Tests between 1948 and 1961, scoring 3,631 runs at an average of 42, received no support from the Bombay Cricket Association (BCA).

BCA vice-president Dilip Vengsarkar, himself a former Test captain, said the pitch "was unsuitable for Test cricket."

"It was a bad advertisement for Test cricket," Vengsarkar said. "We will ensure this does not happen again because the cricket-loving people of Bombay deserve full five days of action."