Can any one tell me what the hell Ponting is talking about ?

[Ikki]

And of Course Windies is part of the Subcontinent.

Let me guess how dubya figured that out ? West Indies must be in the west of India.

No, but India and Pakistan are. So, you're still amongst the worst in terms of draws. Get over it.

Sometimes I feel if Tendulkar said this people would have accepted it and even gave him a pat on the back for his honesty. Most of the problem here is because Ponting said it. And to me, it's kind of irrelevant since whoever says it, it is true.

 

[Sir Alex]

No, but India and Pakistan are. So, you're still amongst the worst in terms of draws. Get over it.

Sometimes I feel if Tendulkar said this people would have accepted it and even gave him a pat on the back for his honesty. Most of the problem here is because Ponting said it. And to me, it's kind of irrelevant since whoever says it, it is true.

Partly true. "Casuing death of cricket" part is just to cause a stir.

 

[Ikki]

Partly true. "Casuing death of cricket" part is just to cause a stir.

Asked about his thoughts on the 'death of Test cricket', Ponting said, "I can understand where a lot of negative stuff might start because there's not a lot of results being achieved on the sub-continent these days.

I don't think there is anything too malicious in that.

 

[Sir Alex]

Asked about his thoughts on the 'death of Test cricket', Ponting said, "I can understand where a lot of negative stuff might start because there's not a lot of results being achieved on the sub-continent these days.

I don't think there is anything too malicious in that.

It is an ill informed opinion and given his past it is understandable. He is right about the higher number of draws in the subcontinent. However he is wrong in suggesting that is the reason for death of cricket. Am I clear Ikki?

 

[Ikki]

I don't think he actually suggested it at all. He infers that the talk about "death of test cricket" is negative but thinks it inevitably starts because of the kind of stalemates in the SC.

What's probably more important is when Ponting was "asked his thoughts" how exactly was he asked?

 

[aussie]

Bold part is the excuse you are trying to suggest in your mind.

Haa WTF. Yo son its either you cant read properly or are just lost since i really dont what in god's glorious name you are talking about or refering to with regards to this point. What i can try & do is walk you through what i said intially, before you made your entrace into this debate

Poster Bunny said this:

The subcontinet (at least India) was seeing lot many more results in 90s than 2000s. The reason was that we used to prepare spinning wickets then. For some reason, the English, Saffies and Aussies would always crib after losing (saying that we prepare a dustbowl etc).
Ponting, is such a hypocrite that he criticized the Mumbai 2004 pitch after losing.

ICC bought into that and pressurized BCCI.
So, now we produce more batting beauties which tend to produce lesser results.

Get back to the dustbowls, I say.

I disagreed with this since the Mumbai pitch was a very bad test wicket & Ponting was in his rights to criticize it..


The Poster Sir Alex responsed to me saying:

If that is a disgrace so are NZ pitches of 2003 and every Perth pitch before 2000 eventually calmed it down.

I said..

NZ 03 maybe, although i think historically that how NZ conditions are. Almost like playing on a traditional headingley greentop.

But definately not Perth. West Indies may have smoked AUS alot during during the 70s & 80s, but batsmen have been able to score hundreds in Perth over the years alot. See here

Mumbai 04 was crazy. The new ball the was helping the seamers & turning square on day 1. Thats not common for day 1 wicket. As i said Mumbai 01 vs AUS & even Mumbai 06 vs ENG, although it was raging turner those where far more evenly balanced test wickets

The part in the bold clearly shows i agreed partially that NZ 2002/03 where IND toured was as bad as Mumbai 04. But i also said based on my knowledge of NZ conditions i that i think they are usually very bowler friendly at the best of times, but i was not CERTAIN.


Then you made your glorious entrance stating this crap:

It is funny how you make excuses and site conditions for the pitches in NZ yet conveniently ignore the fact that has been mentioned countless times that Mumbai had one of the worst rain fall in 2004 and it rained on the first day of the test match as well. Whole first day was washed out from what I remember.

Note :- I went and looked for the test and I am almost right, only 11 overs bowled on day

.

The bolded, somehow suggesting i was making excuses when i clearly was agreeing with SirAlex (although not 100%)

Then how the hell did the weather change the NZ pitches in 2003 alone???????

This child also entered making a set of noise, not sure what was wrong with him here..

First Day Rainfal didn't change the pitch ? And you know this because you are a pitch expert or soil expert ?

Haa You listening to yourself. How can rainfall in modern day cricket change the be allowed to change the state of pitch when you have covers.

The only times this used to happen in test cricket was the 18th century & post 1970 when they didn't have covers & pitches became sticky wickets. Which was 100% in the favour of the bowlers.

If rain falls in modern day cricket, players dont come back on until the dampness is almost totally worn off. So try again...

Once again you forget to include the heavy rains and continue to bring Mumbai pitch as an example of whatever you are trying to argue.

You don't understand since you are just confusing your own self. Simply put i have seen 4test over the years LIVE on TV from the Wankhede Stadium:

- SA 2000 (vaguely)
- AUS 2001
- AUS 04
- ENG 06

All except Mumbai 04 played the same way. Which was it was a raging turner overall with some seam movement early with with each new ball. But at least the batsmen where in the game.

Mumbai 04 whether it was the pre-test match rain suddenly was seaming all over the place like early season England for the ENTIRE TEST along with the usual square turn that happens in Mumbai (red soil whatever). The batsmen in the 04 Mumbai test except for short period when Laxman/Tendy tried to counteract in the Indian second innings was at the mercy of seamers & spinners. Do you understand now???

Didn't heavy rains prior to the Mumbai Test in 04 mean that the groundsman had pretty much no time to do any preparation on the wicket whatsoever?

Most likely, but it was still an usually poor Mumbai test wicket regardless.

 

[Furball]

2002/03 weren't traditional New Zealand wickets though.

New Zealand had a reputation for producing pitches a bit on the slow side, Fleming wanted them to have extra pace. Due to weather or poor preparation, when India turned up they were presented with pacy pitches with plenty of sideways movement - a lot more different than what is traditionally found in that particular corner of the globe.

 

[honestbharani]

Haa WTF. Yo son its either you cant read properly or are just lost since i really dont what in god's glorious name you are talking about or refering to with regards to this point. What i can try & do is walk you through what i said intially, before you made your entrace into this debate

Poster Bunny said this:



I disagreed with this since the Mumbai pitch was a very bad test wicket & Ponting was in his rights to criticize it..


The Poster Sir Alex responsed to me saying:





I said..




The part in the bold clearly shows i agreed partially that NZ 2002/03 where IND toured was as bad as Mumbai 04. But i also said based on my knowledge of NZ conditions i that i think they are usually very bowler friendly at the best of times, but i was not CERTAIN.


Then you made your glorious entrance stating this crap:

.

The bolded, somehow suggesting i was making excuses when i clearly was agreeing with SirAlex (although not 100%)





This child also entered making a set of noise, not sure what was wrong with him here..










Haa You listening to yourself. How can rainfall in modern day cricket change the be allowed to change the state of pitch when you have covers.

The only times this used to happen in test cricket was the 18th century & post 1970 when they didn't have covers & pitches became sticky wickets. Which was 100% in the favour of the bowlers.

If rain falls in modern day cricket, players dont come back on until the dampness is almost totally worn off. So try again...



You don't understand since you are just confusing your own self. Simply put i have seen 4test over the years LIVE on TV from the Wankhede Stadium:

- SA 2000 (vaguely)
- AUS 2001
- AUS 04
- ENG 06

All except Mumbai 04 played the same way. Which was it was a raging turner overall with some seam movement early with with each new ball. But at least the batsmen where in the game.

Mumbai 04 whether it was the pre-test match rain suddenly was seaming all over the place like early season England for the ENTIRE TEST along with the usual square turn that happens in Mumbai (red soil whatever). The batsmen in the 04 Mumbai test except for short period when Laxman/Tendy tried to counteract in the Indian second innings was at the mercy of seamers & spinners. Do you understand now???




Most likely, but it was still an usually poor Mumbai test wicket regardless.

Funny how the same traditional NZ wickets were flat as pancakes at other points the same season...

 

[Sanz]

No, but India and Pakistan are. So, you're still amongst the worst in terms of draws. Get over it.

Sure and you continue to defend every filth that comes out of Aussie cricketers.

Sometimes I feel if Tendulkar said this people would have accepted it and even gave him a pat on the back for his honesty. Most of the problem here is because Ponting said it. And to me, it's kind of irrelevant since whoever says it, it is true.

No. First Tendulkar is highly unlikely to say something so stupid and divisive. Second If he did say this, he probably would get a free pass because he doesn't display such stupidity every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Ikki]

The irony.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Recent test series in India - 2 results (both innings defeats at that and finished in 4 days)

Current test series in Australia - The number 8 team is piling up huge scores in Australia. This test might end in a draw too. In that case, it will be 2 draws out of 3.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah. Earlier I remember Ponting made this remark "t20s offer inferior teams a chance to excel, india is a good example of this" or something on that line. Ponting is my favorite batsman, but off field I cannot stand him.

 

[Sanz]

The only times this used to happen in test cricket was the 18th century & post 1970 when they didn't have covers & pitches became sticky wickets. Which was 100% in the favour of the bowlers.

If rain falls in modern day cricket, players dont come back on until the dampness is almost totally worn off. So try again....

I think you should get your facts before you write another word on this issue.

Cricinfo.com

"....The main square and the bowlers' run-ups were protected - but, apparently, not to the extent they should have been. The start of play was further delayed, it was learnt later, because the entire length of the run-up had not been covered at one end. And, of course, there was the unedifying sight of groundsmen bringing out small white towels to absorb water from the covers - a task performed, again, with little urgency. All this meant that a match which should have started around 12 noon finally got underway a couple of hours later. And when play was interrupted by another shower after just four overs, it took a full five minutes after the players left for the covers to come on. If that's the state of affairs in one of the most important Test grounds, you can only wonder at the facilities at lesser places...."

It just shows that you neither watched nor followed that particular test match but just making false claims. You just want to engage in buffoonery or just want to start another slanging match.

 

[aussie]

I think you should get your facts before you write another word on this issue.

Cricinfo.com

"....The main square and the bowlers' run-ups were protected - but, apparently, not to the extent they should have been. The start of play was further delayed, it was learnt later, because the entire length of the run-up had not been covered at one end. And, of course, there was the unedifying sight of groundsmen bringing out small white towels to absorb water from the covers - a task performed, again, with little urgency. All this meant that a match which should have started around 12 noon finally got underway a couple of hours later. And when play was interrupted by another shower after just four overs, it took a full five minutes after the players left for the covers to come on. If that's the state of affairs in one of the most important Test grounds, you can only wonder at the facilities at lesser places...."

Really this is very odd here, are you ok sir?. Where my post did was i talking about bowlers run-ups, square of conditions of the outfield??. I was talking about the PITCH ALONE, my god.



Rain only fell on day 1 for the remainder of the match it DIDN'T FALL. The pitch remained bad throughout the test, which made it a BAD test wicket regardless if was pre-test match rain which prevented the groundsmen from doing preparing a good test wicket. Which part of this dont you understand??

I'm looking forward to you misinterpretening again as usual though...

It just shows that you neither watched nor followed that particular test match but just making false claims. You just want to engage in buffoonery or just want to start another slanging match.

I watched the test you cannot tell me i didn't what i didn't watch, do you live by me??

Secondly i dont engage is wars over the internet, you in this particular discussion have continued to bring up irrelevant points totally misquoting & misinterpreting what i have said..

 

[Sanz]

Ponting's statement :-

"I can understand where a lot of the negative stuff might start because there's not a lot of results being achieved on the sub-continent these days. That's a worry for the game."

In last one year NZ has had 4 Draws out of 7, Australia has had 1 out of 5

India 2 out of 4, Pak 2 out of 2, SL 1 out of 5, BD 0 out of 2.

Australian continent 5 Draws out of 12 (there is a good chance that it will be 6 out of 13)
Indian Subcontinent 5 Draws out of 13

I must say, Mr. Ponting SHUT THE HELL UP .

PS :- IKKI to argue that SL and BD aren't part of the subcontinent.

 

[Johnners]

Facepalm.jpg

NZ isn't part of Australia.....

 

[Top_Cat]

Facepalm.jpg

NZ isn't part of Australia.....

Yeh, only 4 hours flight time away from Sydney over the bloody Tasman Sea! Of course they're the same continent!

 

[aussie]

2002/03 weren't traditional New Zealand wickets though.

New Zealand had a reputation for producing pitches a bit on the slow side, Fleming wanted them to have extra pace. Due to weather or poor preparation, when India turned up they were presented with pacy pitches with plenty of sideways movement - a lot more different than what is traditionally found in that particular corner of the globe.

Dont know what Fleming wanted ATT since i never saw the series. But i have always been under the impression that historically NZ wickets generally are pretty bowler friendly & that they have alot of overcast conditions & greentops TBH. Which in a way explains why they dont usally produce much quality spinners historically as well.

In past ENG 2001/02 & 07/08) & AUS (00 & 05 didn't see these live for obvious reasons) tours that i have seen from NZ. I saw more bowler friendly conditions than flat decks.

The recent NZ/PAK series seemed to have a mixture of bowler friendly decks & roads. But when IND toured earlier this year, they where playing on roads mainly. Very odd..

 

[Sanz]

Really this is very odd here, are you ok sir?. Where my post did was i talking about bowlers run-ups, square of conditions of the outfield??. I was talking about the PITCH ALONE, my god.

You confirm my statement that you are here to engage in buffoonery and not any serious discussion. I will try to make it easy one more time :-

Here are some of things that should be commonly known :-

1. Soil soaks up water, Even if the pitch was not exposed directly to the water, if the nearby areas were, the inner surfaces will become soft, even more so since the city had seen heavy rains in the previous season.

2. It is evident that the covers were not on until after five minutes after the second drizzle started, which means the pitch was exposed to the rain for longer than five minutes (keep in mind the inner layers are already soft).

 

[Johnners]

Yeh, only 4 hours flight time away from Sydney over the bloody Tasman Sea! Of course they're the same continent!

Indeed

Can't wait to see the Kiwi's reaction to this. IIRC most of them love it with NZ is just included as part of Australia