Top run scorer Aus-India Series

[Richard]

Not really, especially seeing as he hasn't been dismissed 5/6 times from the 1st ball he's faced from them. Also take note that Ponting is a far more accomplished player of fast bowling then he is of spin bowling.

Obviously he is, but Donald was also a far more accomplished bowler than Harbhajan Singh.

 

[Mister Wright]

Someone can only be a bunny if they're actually being got out, though. Ponting isn't - he just keeps finding different ways to get out.

Fine enough to say he was a Harbhajan bunny in 2000\01, but not this series. Too much has changed in the meantime.

Haha.

I'll let Peter Garrett answer this one for me:

"End - your dreamworld is just about to end
Fall - your dreamworld is just about to fall
Your dreamworld will fall"

 

[Nate]

...Garrett got something right.

 

[Richard]

Haha.

I'll let Peter Garrett answer this one for me:

"End - your dreamworld is just about to end
Fall - your dreamworld is just about to fall
Your dreamworld will fall"

WTF?

 

[Mister Wright]

WTF?

Basically I'm saying you're in a Dreamworld if you think that a player who has been dismissed by a batsman 5 times first ball isn't a bunny. No matter how good that batsman is, or how bad that bowler is - that batsman is that bowlers bunny. End of story.

 

[Manee]

Someone can only be a bunny if they're actually being got out, though. Ponting isn't - he just keeps finding different ways to get out.

Nonsense. You are giving Harbhajan no credit when he deserves it. He has had the wool over Ponting for a while now. You do not achieve dimissals against someone at an average of 9.50 per chance. Whether it is Harbhajan's skill or merely his style of bowling, something about him has Ponting muddled up and that is the definition of being a bunny.

Finding different ways to get out...hmmm, perhaps trialing different ways to play Harbhajan? It is all part of a bowler having a batsman's number.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

You do not achieve dimissals against someone at an average of 9.50 per chance.

Know your adversary. Could well sell him on this one.

 

[silentstriker]

Obviously he is, but Donald was also a far more accomplished bowler than Harbhajan Singh.

So unless you're the quality of Donald, you're not allowed to have a bunny?

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Someone can only be a bunny if they're actually being got out, though. Ponting isn't - he just keeps finding different ways to get out.

There's no difference - either on the scorecard or on the mental plane. If you're overly edgy around a particular leather-flinger, you'll find a way - any way - to get out to him. One might even find new methods of doing so.

The definition of 'bunny' isn't as cut-and dried as MA Atherton c Healy b McGrath x 19.

 

[NZTailender]

Katich to get recalled and hit 301* in his first innings back, followed by more centuries. Ends up scoring the most runs and becomes President of Australia and marries me.

 

[Mister Wright]

Katich to get recalled and hit 301* in his first innings back, followed by more centuries. Ends up scoring the most runs and becomes President of Australia and marries me.

I'll give you the same advice I gave Richard.

 

[Josh]

Who voted Ponting?? I mean... seriously

*hides because he voted Ponting*

 

[Richard]

Basically I'm saying you're in a Dreamworld if you think that a player who has been dismissed by a batsman 5 times first ball isn't a bunny. No matter how good that batsman is, or how bad that bowler is - that batsman is that bowlers bunny. End of story.

I prefer to look at the cricket, not merely the scorebook.

 

[Richard]

Nonsense. You are giving Harbhajan no credit when he deserves it. He has had the wool over Ponting for a while now. You do not achieve dimissals against someone at an average of 9.50 per chance. Whether it is Harbhajan's skill or merely his style of bowling, something about him has Ponting muddled up and that is the definition of being a bunny.

Finding different ways to get out...hmmm, perhaps trialing different ways to play Harbhajan? It is all part of a bowler having a batsman's number.

As I said, I've no issue with anyone saying Harbhajan had Ponting's number in India in 2000\01. For me, though, to connect that with this series is basically drawing together two completely unrelated things. There's little in common other than the fact that the players are the two same people. And had the 2000\01 series not happened, no-one would be saying anything now.

 

[Richard]

So unless you're the quality of Donald, you're not allowed to have a bunny?

Not the issue I was addessing with that post, merely that if Ponting would prefer to face a top-of-the-tree seam-bowler to a merely above-average fingerspinner he's mad.

 

[Richard]

There's no difference - either on the scorecard or on the mental plane. If you're overly edgy around a particular leather-flinger, you'll find a way - any way - to get out to him. One might even find new methods of doing so.

The definition of 'bunny' isn't as cut-and dried as MA Atherton c Healy b McGrath x 19.

You've essentially argued for and against what I was saying there Tim. First you say "being a bunny is as simple as you've got out a lot to 1 person" then you say "there's much more to it".

If some bowler gets some batsman out lots, that equates to having them as a "bunny" IMO. If some batsman gets out to some bowler lots, that equates to coincidence. Harbhajan may have got Ponting out lots in 2000\01; Ponting has merely got out to Harbhajan a few times in 2007\08.

 

[Mister Wright]

I prefer to look at the cricket, not merely the scorebook.

Sometimes I do wonder if you actually watch the cricket tbh.

 

[Richard]

Yes, you're not the only one who professes to.

 

[silentstriker]

Who voted Ponting?? I mean... seriously

*hides because he voted Ponting*

I voted Ponting too. I didn't think for a minute Bhajji would trouble him this much on Aussie wickets.

 

[Josh]

I voted Ponting too. I didn't think for a minute Bhajji would trouble him this much on Aussie wickets.

Too right, cobber.