Can someone explain the Mumbai Disaster, please?

[tooextracool]

"I'll not be surprised if Tendulkar can't return to the days of averaging 57-58.."

Have another read, man.

My apologies, its been a long day....it will be edited.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't find the pitches in Pakistan allowed any turn whatsoever - slow or quick.
I'd say the pitches at both Mumbai and Mohali allowed turn and bounce throughout the game. Udal extracted this, even if it didn't get him many wickets.

and i doubt that the likes of batty or dawson wouldnt have been able to do what Udal did either, i.e take wickets off tailenders slogging on turning wickets.

I don't really think it was stupid or not. I think tailenders are likely to bat poorly most of the time.
Runs were difficult to come by against good bowling - bowl a heap of crap and you can hit the ball on virtually any surface..

no runs are difficult to come by against accurate bowling. and as everyone know accurate bowling is not exactly pure brilliance and as such every finger spinner is expected to be accurate.

Err, what? The SCG 2002\03 certainly did.
Look, as far as I'm concerned Udal is a better bowler than Dawson and Batty, even if there's no concrete, indisputable evidence of that at Test level.

in other words no matter how much the evidence is against you, you will still twist it around to save yourself? Fact is that we can only go by test performances not by FC performances, when all of them have played on completely different surfaces.

 

[Richard]

several....
when debang gandhi played for india he had these stats:
1997-98 (India) 10 15 2 740 176 56.92 2 4 10
1998-99 (India) 9 14 0 923 323 65.92 3 2 10
1999-00 (Australia) 3 6 0 60 28 10.00 0 0 2
1999-00 (India) 8 13 1 499 89 41.58 0 5 4
2000-01 (India) 5 7 1 393 206* 65.50 1 3 0
2001-02 (India) 8 10 0 521 146 52.10
wasim jaffer when he was first picked was also a failure abroad.
kanitkar averaging over 50 in test match cricket was found wanting in Australia.
hemang badani another casualty.
gautham gambhir averaging 52 in FC cricket
Ajay Jadeja another casualty averaging 56 in Fc cricket

How much of this is Test form?
I was meaning outside India at the same level of play.

Saurav ganguly averages 44 in FC cricket and was somewhat of a success in test matches.

Yes, 44 (don't know what it was earlier on) isn't exactly quite as bad as 37-38, is it?

when did i disagree with that?

Maybe it wasn't you - someone definately tried to attach some meaning to Atherton's 1989 scors.

very very rarely

Not really.
Less often than more, with the present poor standard of catching, but certainly not very rarely.

 

[Richard]

i think kaif has done it, and i think if he got a consistent run in the side, he'd be able to do it more often. nonetheless the point isnt that kaif should replace tendulkar, just that kaif deserves a run in the side.

I didn't say you did say so. Just said that your main reason for Kaif getting a run was that he could scrap while others couldn't.

ganguly is one of the best players of spin in the indian side, so its not surprising that hes played well on turners. hes certainly rarely if ever played a good innings on a seamer friendly wicket.

Neither of his 1st and 2nd Test innings (both centuries) were seaming pitches?
He never played on and did well on any seaming wickets in South Africa, England, New Zealand? I certanly think he did at Headingley in 2002.

 

[Richard]

wow a whole 3 centuries!
who would have thought that he could play such level headed knocks.....and im sure you've seen them too.
and honestly i dont care whether people think parthiv is a better player or not, at the international level parthiv has looked to be a far better player than karthik who at best was useless.

Patel usually looked pretty useless to me, too.
Just didn't look like a batsman who could play more than the odd counter-fighting knock over a short time.

 

[Richard]

and i doubt that the likes of batty or dawson wouldnt have been able to do what Udal did either, i.e take wickets off tailenders slogging on turning wickets.

That's as maybe - in my estimation, Udal could probably do more.

no runs are difficult to come by against accurate bowling. and as everyone know accurate bowling is not exactly pure brilliance and as such every finger spinner is expected to be accurate.

Shame Batty and Dawson often aren't, then...

in other words no matter how much the evidence is against you, you will still twist it around to save yourself? Fact is that we can only go by test performances not by FC performances, when all of them have played on completely different surfaces.

If "we" means you, then yes, "we" can.
I, however, don't just judge on Test performances, especially when they have been relatively limited. I think the domestic level does have some meaning, and while they've all been pretty well equally ineffectual at the Test level there's nothing to divide them there.

 

[tooextracool]

Shame Batty and Dawson often aren't, then....

shame though that batty was always accurate whenever he played at the test match level. and its a crying shame that udal in his first go in the mumbai test match managed to bowl balls in all corners of the wankhede.

If "we" means you, then yes, "we" can.
I, however, don't just judge on Test performances, especially when they have been relatively limited. I think the domestic level does have some meaning, and while they've all been pretty well equally ineffectual at the Test level there's nothing to divide them there.

apparently you dont judge anything by tests, you only judge players by FC performances.
fact is there isnt convincing evidence in favor of either of them being better than the others, and you putting udal down as though he won the game for England against india is quite frankly ludicrous.

 

[tooextracool]

How much of this is Test form?
I was meaning outside India at the same level of play.

i have no idea what you are trying to say.

Yes, 44 (don't know what it was earlier on) isn't exactly quite as bad as 37-38, is it?.

please stop exaggerating. kaifs domestic average stands at 39.34, and thats including his international record. fact though is that if kaifs average shows a huge discrepancy compared to others, then so does ganguly's

Maybe it wasn't you - someone definately tried to attach some meaning to Atherton's 1989 scors.

well i certainly dont remember saying that.

Not really.
Less often than more, with the present poor standard of catching, but certainly not very rarely.

or rather with the high standard of fielding. you can bring up as many examples from the 80s as you want, the fact is nearly half of those players were overweight tards who were much slower, less athetlic and definitely would not dive to the extent that current players do.

 

[tooextracool]

Patel usually looked pretty useless to me, too.
Just didn't look like a batsman who could play more than the odd counter-fighting knock over a short time.

at least patel did something at the international level. karthik largely made a joke of himself before he left.

 

[tooextracool]

I didn't say you did say so. Just said that your main reason for Kaif getting a run was that he could scrap while others couldn't.

my point is that hes a far better pressure player than some of the others, tendulkar included.

Neither of his 1st and 2nd Test innings (both centuries) were seaming pitches?

nope they were flat batting wickets that not surprisingly resulted in draws. there were periods where the ball swung(as it often does in england), but that very rarely happened while ganguly was batting.

He never played on and did well on any seaming wickets in South Africa, England, New Zealand? I certanly think he did at Headingley in 2002.

he certainly never played on one in england. he was by and large a complete failure in SA and on his most recent tour to NZ he averaged 7.25.

 

[Richard]

shame though that batty was always accurate whenever he played at the test match level. and its a crying shame that udal in his first go in the mumbai test match managed to bowl balls in all corners of the wankhede.

Really?
You and I must have been watching different Gareth Battys, then.

apparently you dont judge anything by tests, you only judge players by FC performances.
fact is there isnt convincing evidence in favor of either of them being better than the others, and you putting udal down as though he won the game for England against india is quite frankly ludicrous.

I judge players by First-Class if there's no differential in Test.
Where did I suggest Udal won the game?

 

[Richard]

i have no idea what you are trying to say.

I am saying how many of those 50+-average batsmen played domestic cricket outside India? Failing in Test-cricket just says you got found-out by Test-class attacks.

please stop exaggerating. kaifs domestic average stands at 39.34, and thats including his international record. fact though is that if kaifs average shows a huge discrepancy compared to others, then so does ganguly's

If so, it's gone up in recent times. Last I looked it was 36-37. Which IS pretty different from 44-45, and I'd not be surprised if Ganguly's has gone down a bit recently.

well i certainly dont remember saying that.

It might've been C_C - never mind.

or rather with the high standard of fielding. you can bring up as many examples from the 80s as you want, the fact is nearly half of those players were overweight tards who were much slower, less athetlic and definitely would not dive to the extent that current players do.

Something of an exaggeration.
I'd be amazed if most bowlers wouldn't back themselves to catch that Flintoff c&b - from any recent time.

 

[Richard]

at least patel did something at the international level. karthik largely made a joke of himself before he left.

Yes, Patel did something - scored a couple of semi-decent counterpunching innings against Aus when most of the damage was done, and got a not-out or 2 against some pretty average attacks.
I thought Patel's batting was pretty standard, myself. Karthik actually looked like a batsman, even if to date he hasn't demonstrated much in the way of that at Test level.

 

[Richard]

my point is that hes a far better pressure player than some of the others, tendulkar included.

He is seriously a better pressure player than Laxman and Ganguly?
I have to doubt he's really better than Tendulkar - if he can regain a semblence of form.

nope they were flat batting wickets that not surprisingly resulted in draws. there were periods where the ball swung(as it often does in england), but that very rarely happened while ganguly was batting.

Seems a bit of a coincidence, but well... it's not impossible.

he certainly never played on one in england. he was by and large a complete failure in SA and on his most recent tour to NZ he averaged 7.25.

Which was hardly better than most managed. Virtually no-one was going to score a run on those pitches.
I am absolutely certain he played on 1 - if no more - in England in Headingley 2002. The bowling was pretty poor, but he still had to combat swing and seam.