-
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.
NO one can stop the Baggy Green team
- Thread starter SRTgrSDB
- Start date
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
I was thinking Severely Damaged Brain, but hey...
oyesachinoye
Cricket Spectator
Srt,
Australia is a great team BUT in the last series b/w India and Aus, Aus got hammered by the INdians
.
They certainly aren't unstoppable.
Australia is a great team BUT in the last series b/w India and Aus, Aus got hammered by the INdians
.They certainly aren't unstoppable.
in the last series b/w India and Aus, Aus got hammered by the INdians
Yeah... sure did get hammered.... NOT!!
Australia were crusing to a series victory until about day 3 of the second test. If it wasn't for Laxman's super innings it couldn've been a totally different ball game.
I think anyone who starts declaring the Aussies 'unbeatable' or that India is a shoe-in to be World Cup Champions etc. etc. would have to be very, very short sighted and pretty stupid.
Every dog has it's day.
Winning does become a habit.
Complacency then is the biggest enemy to a winning side, because you can then forget how to dominate very quickly.
The Indian series win over Australia was a fluke, a one-off, but if Australia do not learn from it then there is a danger that it could happen again.
Complacency then is the biggest enemy to a winning side, because you can then forget how to dominate very quickly.
The Indian series win over Australia was a fluke, a one-off, but if Australia do not learn from it then there is a danger that it could happen again.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
The Indian series win over Aus in India was not a fluke. It was a superbly contested series and is considered one of the greatest test series ever. India in India has been a formidable opposition for any number of years now. Crowd support, spin friendly pitches, hot conditions are what Indians work to their advantage at home. Plus, Laxman, Dravid, Tendulkar and Harb played superlatively for them. McGrath and Gillespie bowled their hearts out, but the pitches weren't as helpful for them as say, in Australia. Shane Warne, their main spin weapon becomes more or less a liablity against Indians. You should also remember that the series prior to this against Taylor's men was also won by India and that too, more comprehensively.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that India is a better team than Australia based on that series. Far from it. But that series was one of the greatest advertisements for test cricket in recent times and can in no way be called a fluke.
Please understand that I am not suggesting that India is a better team than Australia based on that series. Far from it. But that series was one of the greatest advertisements for test cricket in recent times and can in no way be called a fluke.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Not argument from me as to whether the Indians deserved victory or not - they did.
India had been ripped apart in the first test, and frankly the same thing looked as though it was about to happen in the second.
Test teams do not lose many games from a position of being able to enforce the follow-on 284 ahead. A magnificent partnership between Laxman and Dravid was as unexpected as it was brilliant.
Remember when they came together, India were 4 down and still 52 behind. The writing was on the wall - the fat lady was warming up.
What happened then is the stuff of legend.
I think that Tenchi was just about correct in describing the Indian victory as a fluke (although it could have been phrased a little clearer) in the same way that Headingley 1981 was a fluke. Follow-on victories do not happen very often in test cricket (no figures from me here).
India had been ripped apart in the first test, and frankly the same thing looked as though it was about to happen in the second.
Test teams do not lose many games from a position of being able to enforce the follow-on 284 ahead. A magnificent partnership between Laxman and Dravid was as unexpected as it was brilliant.
Remember when they came together, India were 4 down and still 52 behind. The writing was on the wall - the fat lady was warming up.
What happened then is the stuff of legend.
I think that Tenchi was just about correct in describing the Indian victory as a fluke (although it could have been phrased a little clearer) in the same way that Headingley 1981 was a fluke. Follow-on victories do not happen very often in test cricket (no figures from me here).
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
Granted, the Eden Park win was a once-in-a-lifetime achievement like the Headingley one. The Thesaurus meaning of fluke is accident, coincidence or stroke of luck. I don't think any of the three words had much to do with Laxman's and Dravid's innings just like Botham's at Headingley. Neither did it have anything to do with Harb's 8 wickets in the 2nd innings. Inspired, desperately back-to-the-wall, naturally brilliant would be a better choice of words to describe those innings, I feel, plus the fact that the Aussies, who till then were in the driver's seat were shell-shocked and succumbed to the sudden, unexpected pressure. That's why I objected to the choice of words.
Furthermore, Tenchi capsules the entire series as a fluke. The Madras test(the decider) was very tightly fought and went down to the wire as the Indians managed to squeeze through by 2 wickets. Exciting, suspenseful, nail-biting....but hardly a fluke.
You might think I am kind of quibbling with words, but I still maintain that there was nothing "fluky" about that series.
Furthermore, Tenchi capsules the entire series as a fluke. The Madras test(the decider) was very tightly fought and went down to the wire as the Indians managed to squeeze through by 2 wickets. Exciting, suspenseful, nail-biting....but hardly a fluke.
You might think I am kind of quibbling with words, but I still maintain that there was nothing "fluky" about that series.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
I think he means "fluke" in terms of "once-in-a-lifetime" like Headingley 81. Or when I managed to bat for 8 overs to save a point...
It all comes down to language evolution and multiple meanings that you learn to feel gievn the context really, it's been interpreted how it was meant to be by the native English speakers, that probably says enough.
It all comes down to language evolution and multiple meanings that you learn to feel gievn the context really, it's been interpreted how it was meant to be by the native English speakers, that probably says enough.
aussie_beater
State Vice-Captain
ah well.....even without going into the semantics in too much of a detail, we can declare that the test series victory by India against the Aussies in 2001 was not a fluke....because the Aussies losing in India is the rule and not the exception, so how can it be a fluke ?
That's how it's been for 32 years which is a pretty long time to come under "fluke" definitions of any dictionary.
That's how it's been for 32 years which is a pretty long time to come under "fluke" definitions of any dictionary.
Anil
Hall of Fame Member
My point was that "fluke" cannot necessarily be equated with "once-in-a-lifetime". I will give you a tennis example(not trying to offend anyone). Goran Ivansevic winning Wimbledon would be considered a fluke according to how you interpret it(because it was a once-in-a-lifetime achievement for him). However, consider this. He had always been a serious contender at Wimbledon, reached the finals 3 times(lost to Sampras twice, Agassi once) and was considered unlucky not to have won this tournament on a surface for which his game was tailormade. He defeated an exceptional grass courter like Rafter for the title. In my book, this was bound to happen as long as he competed seriously. A fluke at Wimbledon would be a victory for Henman. Imagine the draw opening up magically for him(Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Federer, Sampras, Krajicek....et al falling by the wayside due to upsets or injuries). He faces maybe the 100th ranked player in the final and wins. That's about the only way he can realistically win and it would be the fluke of flukes.
Agreed that you guys are native English speakers, but that argument really won't cut any ice with me and that doesn't make yours the last word as I have a fairly good grasp of the language myself.
[Edited on 9/3/02 by anilramavarma]
full_length
U19 Vice-Captain
You chaps are being too nice by half. I think that describing that series victory as a fluke is plain stupid.
Incidentally Eddie, India was not really ripped apart in the first test. If you watched it, they had Aus down something like 99/5 and then someone by the name of Gilchrist helped Hayden smash something like 6 runs an over for around 30 or so overs in that match. Nothing left to imagination here- this was no innings building. he walloped the Indian bowlers throwing caution to the wind. he failed every innings thereafter, each time trying something silly like sweeping a yorker or something. if you work backwards you could say that Gilli's first innings was a outright fluke, making that win by Aus a fluke too.
It was one of those matches that wasn't as polarised as it looked.
As for the rest of the series, take a look at the players: Laxman, Sachin, Harbhajan, Rahul. None of them performed out of character. Line these up: Ponting, Gillie, Shane Warne, Slater and Langer. None of them were really cut out to do well in India or against Indians in India anyway. Steve Waugh could have saved his team the series thrice in three innings, and failed. Look at his fourth innings average and guess why he didnt do much in that Calcutta match?
Well, my point is: things add up. That was close to the perfect series. I've seen it so many times
. You picked the wrong example for fluke!!
And yes, Australia were beaten EACH time they visited India in the 90s - the most recent decade.. guess why?
Incidentally Eddie, India was not really ripped apart in the first test. If you watched it, they had Aus down something like 99/5 and then someone by the name of Gilchrist helped Hayden smash something like 6 runs an over for around 30 or so overs in that match. Nothing left to imagination here- this was no innings building. he walloped the Indian bowlers throwing caution to the wind. he failed every innings thereafter, each time trying something silly like sweeping a yorker or something. if you work backwards you could say that Gilli's first innings was a outright fluke, making that win by Aus a fluke too.
It was one of those matches that wasn't as polarised as it looked.
As for the rest of the series, take a look at the players: Laxman, Sachin, Harbhajan, Rahul. None of them performed out of character. Line these up: Ponting, Gillie, Shane Warne, Slater and Langer. None of them were really cut out to do well in India or against Indians in India anyway. Steve Waugh could have saved his team the series thrice in three innings, and failed. Look at his fourth innings average and guess why he didnt do much in that Calcutta match?
Well, my point is: things add up. That was close to the perfect series. I've seen it so many times
. You picked the wrong example for fluke!!And yes, Australia were beaten EACH time they visited India in the 90s - the most recent decade.. guess why?
This thread might answer your questions for all those who think it was a fluke or aussie complacency.
Lets see your comments there...
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=981
Lets see your comments there...
http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/viewthread.php?tid=981