• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

tooextracool

International Coach
Son Of Coco said:
What's tripe is saying that Australian wickets are some of the most rubbish of the modern era, and you should know that! Ridiculous statements such as this seem to be parroted by people trying to take focus away from the fact that the wicket in Mumbai WAS disgraceful...oh, and by the way - I never said Darwin was test class, and have never made a statement that even vaguely alludes to it being so. The main wickets used season after season have played a similar way for quite a long time now without any of them mysteriously becoming a minefield for no particular reason. The only problem wicket we've had in the past few years is Darwin. .
to be honest with you, i dont think mumbai or darwin were not test class wickets, because wickets like those are always good in small doses. my point is simply that double standards is the biggest crime possible, and its quite ludicrous to expect me to like a person who uses anything such.

Son Of Coco said:
How were Sri Lanka put at such a severe disadvantage on the darwin wicket yet when the Mumbai wicket is brought up 'both teams had to play on it"?
SL have never been capable on a seamer friendly wicket, hence they were at a severe disadvantage. australia are the world's best team, for them to blame their loss on a wicket is simply stupid.

Son Of Coco said:
I'd say, on the whole, out of the last 20 Tests in Australia, 18/19 have been on test quality wickets!.
then you really are deluding yourself, because even the most biased australian would tell you that almost all the wickets in the india-australia series werent test class. of course you've come up with such fabulous explanations as to why these 18-19 wickets that offered absolutely nothing to the bowlers were of test quality either.

Son Of Coco said:
Edit: I'm not saying everything Ponting says is right by the way - should he have complained about Mumbai, then said Darwin was ok? No. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the whole thread or not, I've kind of forgotten what this was all about.
and thats precisely my reason to not like him, and there are several other stupid comments that hes made in the past that really make him out to be a bigger fool than most people actually think he is.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tooextracool said:
to be honest with you, i dont think mumbai or darwin were not test class wickets, because wickets like those are always good in small doses. my point is simply that double standards is the biggest crime possible, and its quite ludicrous to expect me to like a person who uses anything such.



SL have never been capable on a seamer friendly wicket, hence they were at a severe disadvantage. australia are the world's best team, for them to blame their loss on a wicket is simply stupid.



then you really are deluding yourself, because even the most biased australian would tell you that almost all the wickets in the india-australia series werent test class. of course you've come up with such fabulous explanations as to why these 18-19 wickets that offered absolutely nothing to the bowlers were of test quality either.



and thats precisely my reason to not like him, and there are several other stupid comments that hes made in the past that really make him out to be a bigger fool than most people actually think he is.
Do you base whether a wicket's test class on the end result though? If a wicket's too flat it's not test class, if it has too much in it (Darwin, Mumbai) it's not test class, I think you're idea of what is and isn't test class leaves little margin for error. The results in the India vs Aus series over here wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that we were missing two top bowlers and two others were battling injury would it? I think you've kind of got to look at other things besides the result to decide whether a wicket is flat or not. To say that Darwin and Mumbai weren't 'not test class' but nearly all of the Australian wickets in the last 20 tests have been is very, very strange.

Did the same wickets mysteriously change when we were getting results against NZ and Pakistan this season? I don't think even the most biased Australian would tell me that almost none of the wickets were test class, but I'm pretty sure the most biased non-Australian would.

If these 18-19 wickets offered nothing to the bowlers, why did we keep winning? If they were as bad as you say then surely teams would have just batted the games to a dull draw time after time. Obviously, one team's bowlers got nothing, which may not be a problem with the wicket.

Ahhh, ok, I see it now. So SL at disadvantage on a seaming wicket is bad, but Australia at a disadvantage on a turning wicket is ok - because they're the world's best team. So when you're the world's best team it's ok, but if you're not it's a diabolical injustice. Thanks for clearing that up. :mellow:
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Darwin was under-prepared because of climactic conditions.

Mumbai had no such excuse. It was prepared specifically to favour the home side and they went over-board. It was a disgrace.
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
tooextracool said:
and thats precisely my reason to not like him, and there are several other stupid comments that hes made in the past that really make him out to be a bigger fool than most people actually think he is.
Stupid comments because *you* don't agree with him? :dry:

Not to mention that when he first complained to the match referee (on the morning of the second day's play), his team looked like winning?
 
Last edited:

Deja moo

International Captain
social said:
Darwin was under-prepared because of climactic conditions.

Mumbai had no such excuse. It was prepared specifically to favour the home side and they went over-board. It was a disgrace.
Stuff that statement up your pipe.

I live in Mumbai, and can guarantee that there were unseasonal rainy spells in the period leading upto the test.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
social said:
Darwin was under-prepared because of climactic conditions.

Mumbai had no such excuse. It was prepared specifically to favour the home side and they went over-board. It was a disgrace.
Yeah man World's so called greatest spinner ever plays for India, Doesn't he ? :D
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Jnr. said:
Stupid comments because *you* don't agree with him? :dry:
the irony of it all is that its not just me who doesnt agree with him, its the fact that he doesnt agree with himself. because he cant say that 1 like for like wickets is test class while the other isnt without disgreeing with yourself.

Jnr. said:
Not to mention that when he first complained to the match referee (on the morning of the second day's play), his team looked like winning?
how many times are you going to say this when it isnt true?
i'd like for you to show me where exactly you heard of this, because i certainly didnt hear a word from ponting until after australia lost.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Son Of Coco said:
Do you base whether a wicket's test class on the end result though? If a wicket's too flat it's not test class, if it has too much in it (Darwin, Mumbai) it's not test class, I think you're idea of what is and isn't test class leaves little margin for error. The results in the India vs Aus series over here wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that we were missing two top bowlers and two others were battling injury would it? I think you've kind of got to look at other things besides the result to decide whether a wicket is flat or not. To say that Darwin and Mumbai weren't 'not test class' but nearly all of the Australian wickets in the last 20 tests have been is very, very strange.
i said darwin and mumbai were test class in small doses, because when you more than half the wickets in the world today are flat, i think i'd settle for a bowler friendly wicket once in a while. if half of the wickets in the world were bowler friendly and we got a dead flat wicket, id say that theres nothing wrong with it either.
and no i dont base a wicket on the result, and its extremely interesting how you use the 'australia winning' argument later on in your post to tell me that the wickets are test class. what i do base wickets on is how much they offer for the bowlers and the batsmen, and like it or not wickets that remain flat for all 5 days, are always not test class, whether or not there is a result on them or not.


Son Of Coco said:
Did the same wickets mysteriously change when we were getting results against NZ and Pakistan this season? I don't think even the most biased Australian would tell me that almost none of the wickets were test class, but I'm pretty sure the most biased non-Australian would.

If these 18-19 wickets offered nothing to the bowlers, why did we keep winning? If they were as bad as you say then surely teams would have just batted the games to a dull draw time after time. Obviously, one team's bowlers got nothing, which may not be a problem with the wicket.
no its quite conceivable that the opposition played poorly, and its also conceivable that mcgrath and co bowled well. it does not however change the basic fact that the pitch offered nothing for the bowlers.

Son Of Coco said:
Ahhh, ok, I see it now. So SL at disadvantage on a seaming wicket is bad, but Australia at a disadvantage on a turning wicket is ok - because they're the world's best team. So when you're the world's best team it's ok, but if you're not it's a diabolical injustice. Thanks for clearing that up. :mellow:
no its ok in either case, as long as both teams played in the same conditions. my point is that if australia were at a disadvantage in playing on a turner being the world best side, can you imagine how much of a disadvantage it was for SL to play on a seamer friendly wicket when they are absolutely rubbish on them?
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Deja moo said:
Stuff that statement up your pipe.

I live in Mumbai, and can guarantee that there were unseasonal rainy spells in the period leading upto the test.
Aaah, so that was why the groundsman felt the need to scrape all remaining grass off the wicket with a wire brush. 8-)
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
tooextracool said:
how many times are you going to say this when it isnt true?
i'd like for you to show me where exactly you heard of this, because i certainly didnt hear a word from ponting until after australia lost.
Here's an excerpt from his article for outlookindia:
"There have been many angry reactions over the pitch in Mumbai, but there are an equal number of voices claiming that our team has been whining unnecessarily because we lost the final Test. To set the record straight, I complained about the pitch on the morning of the third day itself. We were very much in the box seat at that time, with a 99-run lead and our pace bowlers in deadly touch. I spoke to match referee Ranjan Madugalle about the wicket, letting him know my view that it was unsuitable for Test cricket. We went on to lose the Test, which is why we are being called whingers, but it's the pitch we are unhappy about, not the fact that India managed to pull one back.

I went to the match referee because I felt that such a pitch would sour the spirit in which both sides competed for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. We have been involved in some intense contests in the past four years, with more than one game being decided in the last session of the fifth day. That is the kind of cricket the world expects when India and Australia play each other in a Test series."

You can read the rest here. You might not have heard this because you've never given him a chance to explain himself (or never bothered to try). Instead, many people take one side of the story and bash him for it.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
social said:
Aaah, so that was why the groundsman felt the need to scrape all remaining grass off the wicket with a wire brush. 8-)
Where'd you hear that?
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
social said:
Aaah, so that was why the groundsman felt the need to scrape all remaining grass off the wicket with a wire brush. 8-)
I thought that was only the case for Bangalore?
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
I don't think Ponting complained on the third day. He says so, but I am pretty sure I heard Dravid say something like "complaining about after we won and they lost would have set tongues wagging" which shows that Ponting did the official protest only on Day 3 end, which was Australia had lost. So, what Ponting says is right, but what TEC says is right too, because Day 3 was the end of the match.
 

Jnr.

First Class Debutant
honestbharani said:
I don't think Ponting complained on the third day. He says so, but I am pretty sure I heard Dravid say something like "complaining about after we won and they lost would have set tongues wagging" which shows that Ponting did the official protest only on Day 3 end, which was Australia had lost. So, what Ponting says is right, but what TEC says is right too, because Day 3 was the end of the match.
If he first complained to the match referee on the morning of the third day while his team was on top, how does that make TEC right? Maybe Dravid didn't know that Ponting went to see the match ref on that morning?
 

tooextracool

International Coach
social said:
Aaah, so that was why the groundsman felt the need to scrape all remaining grass off the wicket with a wire brush. 8-)
that was bangalore, but there were no complaints of course, probably because australia won.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Jnr. said:
Here's an excerpt from his article for outlookindia:
"There have been many angry reactions over the pitch in Mumbai, but there are an equal number of voices claiming that our team has been whining unnecessarily because we lost the final Test. To set the record straight, I complained about the pitch on the morning of the third day itself. We were very much in the box seat at that time, with a 99-run lead and our pace bowlers in deadly touch. I spoke to match referee Ranjan Madugalle about the wicket, letting him know my view that it was unsuitable for Test cricket. We went on to lose the Test, which is why we are being called whingers, but it's the pitch we are unhappy about, not the fact that India managed to pull one back.

I went to the match referee because I felt that such a pitch would sour the spirit in which both sides competed for the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. We have been involved in some intense contests in the past four years, with more than one game being decided in the last session of the fifth day. That is the kind of cricket the world expects when India and Australia play each other in a Test series."

You can read the rest here. You might not have heard this because you've never given him a chance to explain himself (or never bothered to try). Instead, many people take one side of the story and bash him for it.
oh yes of course, you'd expect me to take ponting's word on the issue of all people. i find it extremely odd that no one mentioned in commentary or anywhere on the net that he had lodged a complaint against the wicket during the test.
and either way, it still doesnt make him right to complain to the ICC on the issue, when he should have just taken it in his stride and continued on, much like SL did in australia and india did in NZ. nor has he the right to be ambivalent, and claim that non test class wickets in australia are test class and non test class wickets in india are not. really, if you tell me that ponting has matured since his night club incident in india a while ago i'll laugh in your face, because mature players dont go crying to the ICC about a wicket.
 

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tooextracool said:
oh yes of course, you'd expect me to take ponting's word on the issue of all people. i find it extremely odd that no one mentioned in commentary or anywhere on the net that he had lodged a complaint against the wicket during the test.
and either way, it still doesnt make him right to complain to the ICC on the issue, when he should have just taken it in his stride and continued on, much like SL did in australia and india did in NZ. nor has he the right to be ambivalent, and claim that non test class wickets in australia are test class and non test class wickets in india are not. really, if you tell me that ponting has matured since his night club incident in india a while ago i'll laugh in your face, because mature players dont go crying to the ICC about a wicket.
It's been mentioned a number of times, and was brought up during the test over here so....who's at fault if you didn't see it?
 

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Son Of Coco said:
It's been mentioned a number of times, and was brought up during the test over here so....who's at fault if you didn't see it?
The media outlets for not informing TEC immediatley once someone had made disparaging comments about anything even remotely relating to Indian pitches 8-)
 
Last edited:

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tooextracool said:
oh yes of course, you'd expect me to take ponting's word on the issue of all people. i find it extremely odd that no one mentioned in commentary or anywhere on the net that he had lodged a complaint against the wicket during the test.
and either way, it still doesnt make him right to complain to the ICC on the issue, when he should have just taken it in his stride and continued on, much like SL did in australia and india did in NZ. nor has he the right to be ambivalent, and claim that non test class wickets in australia are test class and non test class wickets in india are not. really, if you tell me that ponting has matured since his night club incident in india a while ago i'll laugh in your face, because mature players dont go crying to the ICC about a wicket.
So his involvement in a nightclub incident years ago means that he lies about reporting to the ICC 8-)

In that case, half the world's cricketers would speak with forked tongues.
 
Last edited:

Scallywag

Banned
tooextracool said:
oh yes of course, you'd expect me to take ponting's word on the issue of all people. i find it extremely odd that no one mentioned in commentary or anywhere on the net that he had lodged a complaint against the wicket during the test.
and either way, it still doesnt make him right to complain to the ICC on the issue,.
Ponting has every right to make a complaint about the sub standard test wicket prepared in Mumbia. He is the Australian Captain and has every right to voice his concerns. If you dont like it then stiff.

You go on to mention "the night club incident" which you know nothing about as if it is some sinister skeleton in pontings closet. Grow up.

Ganguly could take a leaf out of Pontings book on how to captain, if he gets to play again.
 

Top