Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 51 of 1064 FirstFirst ... 414950515253611011515511051 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 765 of 15955
Like Tree4Likes

Thread: ***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

  1. #751
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,986
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    which changes the fact that hes weak on turners only how? its like saying if someone got 100s in math, chemistry, biology and physics but got 50 in history, surely he cant be poor in history because his overall average is 90.

    But the student in question still achieves entry to his/her university of choice which is, after all, the ultimate goal.

    except the fact that hes rarely faced spinners on turners outside of india and SL.

    Firstly, he averages over 50 in SL, so Im not sure how that helps your argument.

    Secondly, he has played on as many turners as anyone else outside the sub-continent and, in general, scored as heavily as anyone else.


    no he had the gall to criticise a wicket in india and even take it as far as the icc, yet he didnt have the gall to criticise another similar wicket and in fact talked it up about how it helped the game, while the one in india didnt. no surprise either that the wicket he talked up was in australia, while the one that he did criticise was in india, in a game which his team lost.

    Your acting as though the wicket in Mumbai was in any way, shape or form acceptable for test cricket. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the opinion of virtually everyone who saw the game.

    and did he claim that a similar wicket was test class? no.
    if ponting were in dravids shoes he would have claimed that mumbai was test class, and that the game needed wickets like this......no? bit surprising that he did that in darwin then.

    The main difference was that long-term survival was virtually impossible in Mumbai.

    That was not the case in Darwin.

    In fact, it is beyond belief that you even compare the 2. Darwin was a slow, seaming wicket complemented by a heavy outfield. If anything, it did as much to help the Sri Lankans as they did not have to confront the bounce that is normally their down-fall in Australia and their attack was heavily oriented towards seam because of the absence of Murali.

    Talk about grasping at straws!



    oh its not just 40 in every year, its over 40 in every country, its over 40 against every country.
    you wish ponting could make that claim, but alas even the great murali averages more than him in india.
    It is still hypocricy.

    And btw, check out Murali and Warne's bowling performances in India. Maybe then you'll understand that its' not turn that confounds batsmen such as Ponting in India.

    Indian conditions offer turn but they are also slow and do not bounce as much as elsewhere. As a result, bowlers such as Warne and Murali have to bowl quicker and with more top-spin to achieve results. Look at the way Harbi and Kumble bowl as an example. Minimal turn, great accuracy, and bounce produced by top-spin.

    Im quite happy to admit that Ponting has been incredibly poor in India but to say that he cannot play on turners remains a nonsense.

    It is also true that Harbijhan made him look like a novice in India but the same could be said for the way in which Harbijhan has been made to look away from home.

    Unfortunately, you continue to let your bias against Ponting on a personal basis colour your opinion of him as a player.
    Last edited by social; 23-05-2005 at 11:18 PM.

  2. #752
    U19 Cricketer
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    SYDNEY
    Posts
    478
    Harby prolly gave Ponting a little extra elbow flex than usual, considering he is the aussie captain. Like he bowled in Mumbai...

  3. #753
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    im sure they were, and im sure india only lost the test at the mcg because they wanted to make it a close series. .
    Yes I think India through away a great chance in Melbourne, one bad session cost them that Test imo.
    I thought India the better side overall and should have won the series 1-0. It would have been a better test of skill if the pitches were not all roads.

    I thought the series in India a much better test of the teams, with only one pitch to much in favour of one of the disciplines. A pity the 3rd Test was washed out, looked set up for a great finish. I was that upset with the result, I even penned a poem.

  4. #754
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    63,456
    Quote Originally Posted by badgerhair
    As with KP and Thorpe. it's not just a question of who is "better" is isolation, but which has the qualities needed to complete the palette for England's picture.
    And I'd say a key quality at this point is familiarity with the rest of the team.
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.


  5. #755
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac
    Yes I am sure that is it I don't agree with your assessment so it must be my lack of understanding. Keep telling yourself that
    It was nothing special (turn) Kumble out bowled everyone else,?
    and of course i said it was special turn didnt i?
    i said that there was enough turn in the wicket for a quality bowler to pick up wickets, which is in fact what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac
    still thought it was going to be a draw, from the time India did not enforce the follow on.
    You did not think Aust were going all out at the end chasing a silly target?
    no i dont. they were 6 wickets down, they were trying to survive instead of chasing the total.
    Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
    Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
    Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

  6. #756
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by archie mac
    Yes I think India through away a great chance in Melbourne, one bad session cost them that Test imo.
    really? and which bad session are you referring to? when they fell from 278/1 to 366? or when they let australia get 558? or when they collapsed to 286 in their 2nd inning?
    far as i remember they were poor throughout the test, bar sehwag noone did anything of substance in the first inning and they certainly didnt score enough on a flat track in the 2nd inning either.

  7. #757
    International Coach tooextracool's Avatar
    Dick Quicks Island Adventure Champion!
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    not far away from you
    Posts
    14,433
    Quote Originally Posted by social
    But the student in question still achieves entry to his/her university of choice which is, after all, the ultimate goal..
    and your point is? it does not change the fact that hes weak in history. ive never claimed that gilchrist is not great, if thats your point. you keep refusing to accept the fact that gilchrist is weak on turners, simply because his overall average is good.
    in pontings case the example is completely different, you could say that instead of 50 in history you could say he got 20, in which case the student failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Firstly, he averages over 50 in SL, so Im not sure how that helps your argument..

    ive already explained this, he had one good series in SL, and as i've mentioned above hes barely ever faced spinners outside of india and SL on turners.


    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Secondly, he has played on as many turners as anyone else outside the sub-continent and, in general, scored as heavily as anyone else...
    how many times has he played quality spinners on turners outside of ind and SL? very very rare indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Your acting as though the wicket in Mumbai was in any way, shape or form acceptable for test cricket. Unfortunately, this is at odds with the opinion of virtually everyone who saw the game....
    and i've said that the complaints against the wicket werent justified where exactly?
    you seem to have problems reading, because the problem i have with ponting is that when australia produces non-test class wickets he seems to be extremely happy with them and talks them up, when india does the same and his side loses, he complains like a baby. and if it wasnt bad enough that he complained about mumbai and not darwin, he decided to take it as far as the ICC and expected dravid to stand by his side, why should dravid do that i ask you? when everybody claimed that darwin was not test class did he stand by gilchrist and attapattu?

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    The main difference was that long-term survival was virtually impossible in Mumbai.

    That was not the case in Darwin.....
    thats absolute garbage. dravid batted 104 balls in the first inning without being dismissed, martyn batted 114, laxman batted 127 and tendulkar batted 83.
    in darwin the most number of balls anyone batted was gilchrist who batted 123, jayawardhene batted 114, martyn survived 107 and no one else managed to survive over 100.
    instead of making rubbish claims like this why dont you actually watch the 2 games?
    the fact that one eyed aussies like you cant accept the fact that india played better, bowled better and australia batted and bowled poorly in the 2nd inning simply makes you more and more intolerable. but of course, how could the world's best team bat and bowl poorly? oh treason, it must be the pitch.

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    In fact, it is beyond belief that you even compare the 2. Darwin was a slow, seaming wicket complemented by a heavy outfield. If anything, it did as much to help the Sri Lankans as they did not have to confront the bounce that is normally their down-fall in Australia and their attack was heavily oriented towards seam because of the absence of Murali.
    Talk about grasping at straws!.
    oh yes with bowlers like vaas, malinga and zoysa, their attack is clearly so suited to seam. the pitch didnt help the SL at all, it seamed about all over the place, and given that almost all their batsmen are incapable on seaming wickets its quite ludicrous to say that it suited them.


    Quote Originally Posted by social
    It is still hypocricy.

    And btw, check out Murali and Warne's bowling performances in India. Maybe then you'll understand that its' not turn that confounds batsmen such as Ponting in India.!.
    why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Indian conditions offer turn but they are also slow and do not bounce as much as elsewhere. As a result, bowlers such as Warne and Murali have to bowl quicker and with more top-spin to achieve results. Look at the way Harbi and Kumble bowl as an example. Minimal turn, great accuracy, and bounce produced by top-spin.
    oh so murali and warne, who have had success everywhere in the world, including on similar wickets in SL cant bowl in india because of the pitches . brilliant deduction sherlock.

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Im quite happy to admit that Ponting has been incredibly poor in India but to say that he cannot play on turners remains a nonsense.

    It is also true that Harbijhan made him look like a novice in India but the same could be said for the way in which Harbijhan has been made to look away from home..
    point being? has anyone claimed that harbhajan is great? or has anyone claimed that hes a good player on non turners?

    Quote Originally Posted by social
    Unfortunately, you continue to let your bias against Ponting on a personal basis colour your opinion of him as a player.
    no, i continue to let his poor performances prove to me that he isnt very good on turners. you call me biased, yet you seem absolutely insulted, when somone criticises anyone from australia. it is you who is biased, because you cant accept the fact that not all your players are perfect.

  8. #758
    International Coach wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    13,019
    Quote Originally Posted by badgerhair
    I suppose this is reminiscent of our semantic disagreement over KP and how much he needs to "improve".

    What can be said for definite about Tremlett v Jones is that Tremlett does not do what Jones does better than Jones does. Furthermore, England are not so desperate to have Tremlett in the team that they are prepared to rethink their game plan to accommodate him as a banker and then see what else you need to make up a good XI.

    Harmison, Hoggard and Flintoff are established as the three main quick bowlers. Jones has an advantage as the fourth not only because he is the man in possession but because he has proven some worth with the old ball, which Hoggard isn't very good with so Jones complements him.

    It might be that to bring Tremlett in for Jones would necessitate another change, such as bringing in Lewis for Hoggard (before marc explodes, this is more of a theoretical illustration than a serious suggestion) in order to cover the range of bowling you want available, especially given a particular opposition.

    As with KP and Thorpe. it's not just a question of who is "better" is isolation, but which has the qualities needed to complete the palette for England's picture.

    Cheers,

    Mike
    I have no problem with that line of thought where bowlers are concerned, and 100% agree with your logic re. Jones/Lewis/whoever. When we're talking about middle order batsmen, though, isn't that over-complicating things? Ultimately it's about who will score the most runs at number 5, and whilst some sort of balance between right & left handers and/or biffers &nurdlers is a bonus, if someone is clearly the better batter, then that should pretty much be that, I should have thought. So at present I'd pick Thorpe, not because of his nuggety tendancies, but because I still think he'll do a better job against Aus than anyone else. Just, anyway. However, if Thorpe picks up his usual Ashes injury, I'd happily throw in KP ahead of any other nudger & nurdler you care to name and see what happens.

    With Thorpe, I feel we're in one of those situations where I'm really glad he's retiring soon as I'm not entirely sure he's worth a place in the side and the future looks brighter without the current version of him - shades of Stewart in 2003 & Hussain 12 months ago. I wouldn't drop him, but I'm not entirely confident that he's still up to it.

  9. #759
    U19 Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    London and W Yorks
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid
    I have no problem with that line of thought where bowlers are concerned, and 100% agree with your logic re. Jones/Lewis/whoever. When we're talking about middle order batsmen, though, isn't that over-complicating things? Ultimately it's about who will score the most runs at number 5, and whilst some sort of balance between right & left handers and/or biffers &nurdlers is a bonus, if someone is clearly the better batter, then that should pretty much be that, I should have thought. So at present I'd pick Thorpe, not because of his nuggety tendancies, but because I still think he'll do a better job against Aus than anyone else. Just, anyway. However, if Thorpe picks up his usual Ashes injury, I'd happily throw in KP ahead of any other nudger & nurdler you care to name and see what happens.

    With Thorpe, I feel we're in one of those situations where I'm really glad he's retiring soon as I'm not entirely sure he's worth a place in the side and the future looks brighter without the current version of him - shades of Stewart in 2003 & Hussain 12 months ago. I wouldn't drop him, but I'm not entirely confident that he's still up to it.
    I see we're pretty much in agreement re the Thorpe/Pietersen thing, although not quite.

    I don't think it's quite who's going to make the most runs at number five, but who will score the most runs when they're most needed at five.

    I would like a rock in the middle order: with Bell as yet untested and Vaughan's recent form being uncertain, I'm a little afraid of following them with Pietersen, Flintoff and Jones, because I can see us being 115/7 in no time flat, and I'm happier about the idea of Thorpe being there to arrest the slide and shepherd the tail through to a reasonable total. With Flintoff at six, we have someone easily capable of capitalising on a tiring attack if the top order fires, and maybe even Jones if he ever redeems Vaughan and Fletcher's faith in him, so we don't necessarily need someone to push things along at five. Thorpe has the proven experience and quality to be the rock.

    That's because I'm cautious and want to cover my rear.

    There have been attack-minded captains who would assess the Australian threat and decide that the way to win is to mount a full frontal assault, which would argue for throwing away the insurance policy Thorpe represents and going for the bazooka in Pietersen.

    Against the 80s WI, I think I'd pick Pietersen, but against a side with McGrath and Warne, the risks seem to me to outweigh the benefits.

    After this series, Thorpe can quite happily retire having done a good job over all. It would be nice if it didn't end with him being seen as the weak link who lost us the Ashes.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  10. #760
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    63,456
    The thing about Thorpe is that in 2004 he did average 73.15 with 8 scores over 50 in 20 knocks - so he's been quietly doing the job!

  11. #761
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,702
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.
    Yes, and it's clear that Lara can't play pace because McGrath and Bichel obviously have his number.

    Every batsman is entitled to a crap patch in their career. That is probably Ponting's last - nay, ONLY - bad series. Martyn, Laxman, Gilchrist have all had similar predicaments and look at them now.

    People seem to be overeager to criticise Australian players, simply because we win all the time. Winning all the time through other batsman's poor strokes, exploiting first chances and being clueless against quality spin.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  12. #762
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    and of course i said it was special turn didnt i?
    i said that there was enough turn in the wicket for a quality bowler to pick up wickets, which is in fact what happened.
    no i dont. they were 6 wickets down, they were trying to survive instead of chasing the total.
    My mistake, as I have been saying all along it was nothing special, in fact it turned less than most SCG pitches I have seen.

    I was listening to the ABC team while at the ground, they were constantly updating the Aust. target, and saying this run chase was a waste of time. Do you have the right Test Match? Not going for the runs, ha ha ha you make me laugh
    How was Gilly out? stumped going for his shots? how was Waugh out slog, sweeping? going for his shots?
    'Trying to survive' You must think before posting such rubbish, I want a debate not a walk over
    Last edited by archie mac; 24-05-2005 at 04:37 PM.

  13. #763
    U19 Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    London and W Yorks
    Posts
    564
    Looking at averages again, eh?

    The point is when Thorpe scored the runs. Every time he made a substantial score, England were in a hole when he came in. On the occasions when the position was relatively sound, he didn't score many. He doesn't always come off when England are in trouble, but he never does when they're not.

    Picking Thorpe amounts to the belief that the Australian attack is likely to reduce England to not very many for three on enough occasions for it to be deemed a serious risk. If, on the other hand, you believe that England will reach 200 before the fall of the third wicket on a significant number of occasions, then picking Thorpe is liable to be a waste of a space which Pietersen could usefully occupy.

    Cheers,

    Mike

  14. #764
    International Coach archie mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    canberra Australia
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    really? and which bad session are you referring to? when they fell from 278/1 to 366? or when they let australia get 558? or when they collapsed to 286 in their 2nd inning?
    far as i remember they were poor throughout the test, bar sehwag noone did anything of substance in the first inning and they certainly didnt score enough on a flat track in the 2nd inning either.
    I think obviously when they collapsed in the 1st inns. the pitch was a flat as a tack, they should have made 500+ Aust. were all ways going to make a lot of runs, and in the 2nd inns the pitch kept a little low.
    If India had batted properly in the 1st inns. it would, should have been a draw.

  15. #765
    Hall of Fame Member social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    16,986
    Quote Originally Posted by tooextracool
    and your point is? it does not change the fact that hes weak in history. ive never claimed that gilchrist is not great, if thats your point. you keep refusing to accept the fact that gilchrist is weak on turners, simply because his overall average is good.
    in pontings case the example is completely different, you could say that instead of 50 in history you could say he got 20, in which case the student failed.



    ive already explained this, he had one good series in SL, and as i've mentioned above hes barely ever faced spinners outside of india and SL on turner


    how many times has he played quality spinners on turners outside of ind and SL? very very rare indeed.



    and i've said that the complaints against the wicket werent justified where exactly?
    you seem to have problems reading, because the problem i have with ponting is that when australia produces non-test class wickets he seems to be extremely happy with them and talks them up, when india does the same and his side loses, he complains like a baby. and if it wasnt bad enough that he complained about mumbai and not darwin, he decided to take it as far as the ICC and expected dravid to stand by his side, why should dravid do that i ask you? when everybody claimed that darwin was not test class did he stand by gilchrist and attapattu?



    thats absolute garbage. dravid batted 104 balls in the first inning without being dismissed, martyn batted 114, laxman batted 127 and tendulkar batted 83.
    in darwin the most number of balls anyone batted was gilchrist who batted 123, jayawardhene batted 114, martyn survived 107 and no one else managed to survive over 100.
    instead of making rubbish claims like this why dont you actually watch the 2 games?
    the fact that one eyed aussies like you cant accept the fact that india played better, bowled better and australia batted and bowled poorly in the 2nd inning simply makes you more and more intolerable. but of course, how could the world's best team bat and bowl poorly? oh treason, it must be the pitch.



    oh yes with bowlers like vaas, malinga and zoysa, their attack is clearly so suited to seam. the pitch didnt help the SL at all, it seamed about all over the place, and given that almost all their batsmen are incapable on seaming wickets its quite ludicrous to say that it suited them.




    why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.



    oh so murali and warne, who have had success everywhere in the world, including on similar wickets in SL cant bowl in india because of the pitches . brilliant deduction sherlock.



    point being? has anyone claimed that harbhajan is great? or has anyone claimed that hes a good player on non turners?



    no, i continue to let his poor performances prove to me that he isnt very good on turners. you call me biased, yet you seem absolutely insulted, when somone criticises anyone from australia. it is you who is biased, because you cant accept the fact that not all your players are perfect.
    TEC,

    it all comes down to one thing.

    You cant stand Ponting because he had the temerity to criticise a pitch in India and, as such, you believe that he didnt give India due credit for their victory.

    Because of that imagined slight, you use selective statistics and fabricate claims about pitch conditions to discredit him.

    And BTW, your claims as to my bias are almost laughable.

    I defy you to find one instance where I have claimed that India didnt deserve to win that test. The fact is, I couldnt care less about the result because it was a dead rubber and, as a result, it has been consigned to the deep recesses of people's memory by almost everyone except the players and imbeciles like yourself.

    I am also the first person to admit that:

    a. Flintoff walks into the Aus team;

    b. People other that Aus are the best batsmen in the world;

    c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;

    d. Some of the Aus back-up bowlers are crap;

    e. With the exception of 2 hundreds, Clarke has done little to justify the hype surrounding him;

    f. etc, etc, etc

    You, on the other hand, live in this fantasy world where every post is manipulated to construct a case against those players that you hold some personal grudge against.

    And what do those players (Ponting, Hayden, Tendulkar, Lee, Beckham, etc) have in common?

    On a minority of occasions, the performance does not match the hype.

    In Aus, we have a term for it. It's called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" and it's one of the most pathetic practices about.

    It will be interesting to see your reaction should Dravid ever receive the universal acclaim that his performances warrant. No doubt you'll fabricate some statistic that "proves" he cannot play in cold weather or some such nonsense.
    Last edited by social; 24-05-2005 at 05:50 PM.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Test Ratings
    By Cybersmurf in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 16-06-2005, 10:59 AM
  2. Squiz's Ashes Series'
    By squiz in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-02-2005, 06:46 PM
  3. Ganguly's achievements
    By ReallyCrazy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 24-08-2004, 01:40 PM
  4. Who?
    By Rich2001 in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2003, 02:21 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 14-03-2003, 07:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •