*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[username]

Originally posted by Pratyush
I find every statement illogical.

Austraila competed well in India which is commedable. So is India with a second string bowling attack.

Subcontinent is the reso half the cricket rules exits? Ahem.

Keep living in the paradise of your own man.

Regarding if rain hadnt interferred, India would have lost the test series, I would only say it was Waugh who was happier than Ganguly when the series ended in a draw.

Ganguly does go down your skin, doesnt he? Ganguly manipualted games .. right. Steve Waugh didnt do any thing in 1999 to have run rates in his favour. I support the move of Waugh but how are two different when both were not in the spirit of the game?

Just look at cricket outside Australia for a moment.

Are you even going to attempt to compare what Australia lost to injury with what India did? Getting absurd.

And comparing Waugh to Ganguly? Straw clutching, I didn't care what Ganguly did, until he started calling national conferences before each and every ball, it was just boring. It is unsportsman-like I guess, but who cares in that regard, Australia will win regardless of how many comittee calls he makes, it just slows the game down and makes it tiresome to watch, which is my only real concern.

And Waugh was happier than Ganguly the series ended? He had 700 runs scored against him in the first innings of a test match and still came out on the final day with intentions of winning, unlike Ganguly Waugh is a true competitor. He'd have taken any competition any way it came. Ganguly? Well apart from playing a match with our second string side with all intention of drawing, and taking every possible opportunity to avoid losing at the cost of giving his side a chance to win, what else could he do to prove he's the fearless captain they make him out to be?

[username]

Originally posted by Pratyush
I bring India up? You do I dont dude. You are criticising the Indians, not me when you want to talk about Australia South Africa whatever

Regarding the logic that as Australia beat South Africa, they were the best, if a team beats another one and loses to the others, does that make it the best team? clearly no. Simple if you understand. I dont have to convince myself any thing. South Africa were clearly better than Australia during the period.

As long as you convince yourself, you are afterall the only person who would think so. SA did not beat Australia in a series during that time, and these are your 2 candidates, how can that not split the decision? It does, easily, you're wrong as can be.

[Pratters]

Originally posted by username
As long as you convince yourself, you are afterall the only person who would think so.

Originally posted by marc71178
OK then:

96 SA 25 Wins, 5 losses, Aus 13-13
97 SA 17-5, Aus 7-12
98 SA 17-5, Aus 15-10
99 SA 18-6, Aus 26-9

Overall SA 77-21, Aus 61-44

Like you say, look at the W's - they're all that matter!

[Slow Love™]

I guess this thread is veering off-topic, but my recollection was that South Africa were by consensus considered to be the top one-day side in the world previous to Australia's '99 World Cup win - not Australia.

Yes, South Africa's reputation as chokers in crucial games already existed before the famous tie, and Australia often had the better of them in the big matches. But our performances were a lot less consistent on a general basis, and in most of the tournaments (including the "big" ones), South Africa certainly looked more powerful. I think this was reflected in the unofficial rankings of the day too.

There's no doubt that post-'99, the Australians accelerated right past them. But if we're talking '96-'99, I think the statistics that marc71178 brought up print a pretty accurate picture, and it's certainly how I recall it. Over that period, we seemed to overly rely on Mark Waugh in regards to our one-day fortunes.

[Pratters]

Lets bring this post back to topic.. Ian Harvey is batting at number 6.. and Haddin at 7. It looks uncharecteristically weak..

I am looking forward to seeing Mahwire :S

[Slow Love™]

There goes Martyn slashing in the air past gully again! It was kind of surreal to see Buchanan say that Martyn had no pressing technical issues the other day - I think 90% of Australians would disagree...

Streak should have another fielder in the region though.

Rain might play a part today; there's some quite dark clouds out there this afternoon.

[username]

1997,
1st ODI 29-Mar-1997 Buffalo Park, East London South Africa won by 6 wickets
2nd ODI 31-Mar-1997 Crusaders Ground, St George's Park, Port Elizabe Australia won by 7 wickets
3rd ODI 02-Apr-1997 Newlands, Cape Town South Africa won by 46 runs
4th ODI 05-Apr-1997 Kingsmead, Durban Australia won by 15 runs
5th ODI 08-Apr-1997 New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg Australia won by 8 runs
6th ODI 10-Apr-1997 Centurion Park, Centurion Australia won by 5 wickets
7th ODI 13-Apr-1997 Springbok Park, Bloemfontein South Africa won by 109 runs

1998,
South Africa v Australia, 1st Final 23-Jan-1998 Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne South Africa won by 6 runs
South Africa v Australia, 2nd Final 26-Jan-1998 Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Australia won by 7 wickets
Australia v South Africa, 3rd Final 27-Jan-1998 Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Australia won by 14 runs

And the world cup.

You can have 96, who that year belongs to is a close call, probably pakis or Sri lanka.

[Cric_freak]

Originally posted by username
1997,
1st ODI 29-Mar-1997 Buffalo Park, East London South Africa won by 6 wickets
2nd ODI 31-Mar-1997 Crusaders Ground, St George's Park, Port Elizabe Australia won by 7 wickets
3rd ODI 02-Apr-1997 Newlands, Cape Town South Africa won by 46 runs
4th ODI 05-Apr-1997 Kingsmead, Durban Australia won by 15 runs
5th ODI 08-Apr-1997 New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg Australia won by 8 runs
6th ODI 10-Apr-1997 Centurion Park, Centurion Australia won by 5 wickets
7th ODI 13-Apr-1997 Springbok Park, Bloemfontein South Africa won by 109 runs

1998,
South Africa v Australia, 1st Final 23-Jan-1998 Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne South Africa won by 6 runs
South Africa v Australia, 2nd Final 26-Jan-1998 Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Australia won by 7 wickets
Australia v South Africa, 3rd Final 27-Jan-1998 Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney Australia won by 14 runs

And the world cup.

You can have 96, who that year belongs to is a close call, probably pakis or Sri lanka.

LOL! Take a break, mate.

[Mister Wright]

Originally posted by Slow Love™
There goes Martyn slashing in the air past gully again! It was kind of surreal to see Buchanan say that Martyn had no pressing technical issues the other day - I think 90% of Australians would disagree...

Well then...name where is technical issues are, I can't see any. The only thing I can see wrong with his game is poor shot selection and getting 'jaffas' straight up. IMO Martyn is the most technically correct batsman in the Australian team.

[Slow Love™]

Originally posted by Mister Wright
Well then...name where is technical issues are, I can't see any. The only thing I can see wrong with his game is poor shot selection and getting 'jaffas' straight up. IMO Martyn is the most technically correct batsman in the Australian team.

Uh, are you serious? It's his oft-mentioned inability to refrain from hitting the ball through the air to gully. The Kiwis spotted it, and so have other teams (certainly including the Indians). It's one of the major reasons he's been unable to put together decent scores over the last couple of years. I'm amazed you haven't noticed/heard about this, unless you're going to sit here and split hairs over the meaning of "technical issues". I would include such an uncontrollable tendency as a technical issue, but I guess your mileage may vary.

[Mister Wright]

Originally posted by Slow Love™
Uh, are you serious? It's his oft-mentioned inability to refrain from hitting the ball through the air to gully. The Kiwis spotted it, and so have other teams (certainly including the Indians). It's one of the major reasons he's been unable to put together decent scores over the last couple of years. I'm amazed you haven't noticed/heard about this, unless you're going to sit here and split hairs over the meaning of "technical issues". I would include such an uncontrollable tendency as a technical issue, but I guess your mileage may vary.

Yeah you're right I am going to split hairs over the meaning of 'technical issues'. The reason he is playing that ball in the air through point /gully is because he is playing the wrong shot, he should be playing that ball straighter either through cover or straight down the ground. Perhaps it could be argued as a 'techical problem' but I don't think so. Even when he is playing that shot it is not coming off the edge or the slice of the bat, they generally come off the middle.

It could be argued that the shot is technically incorrect because he plays it in the air, but it can also be argued that it is a mental thing where he is playing the wrong shot. I may concede a little bit of ground and say it may be a little bit of both - technical/mental.

[Slow Love™]

Originally posted by Mister Wright
Yeah you're right I am going to split hairs over the meaning of 'technical issues'. The reason he is playing that ball in the air through point /gully is because he is playing the wrong shot, he should be playing that ball straighter either through cover or straight down the ground. Perhaps it could be argued as a 'techical problem' but I don't think so. Even when he is playing that shot it is not coming off the edge or the slice of the bat, they generally come off the middle.

It could be argued that the shot is technically incorrect because he plays it in the air, but it can also be argued that it is a mental thing where he is playing the wrong shot. I may concede a little bit of ground and say it may be a little bit of both - technical/mental.

Well, so long as you know what I'm talking about, I suppose. I was just taken aback a little at your reaction to my describing what is definately a technical issue, even if it involves (and it certainly does) a mental compulsion. Given that you're prepared to concede a bit of both, the splitting hairs of what constitutes "technical" doesn't seem that necessary, though.

It's something you would think a player could be coached "out of" - which is why Buchanan's remark surprised me. But given his statement weeks ago that nothing could be done for Brett Lee's no-ball problems (which, IIRC, resulted in Lee going to Dennis Lillee, who said that something could be done), maybe I shouldn't be so surprised over what Buchanan says.

[Slow Love™]

Incidentally, what about Clarke's leave? I've always considered that one of the most embarrassing ways to lose your wicket.

This'll add more fuel to the pro-Clarke/anti-Clarke debate, I'm sure (I'm pro, but it was pretty darn funny).

I'm amazed that they're still playing at the MCG - I'm only about 5km away, and we have a torrential downpour, and it's REALLY dark. And I'm not sure it's gonna stop.

[Mister Wright]

Originally posted by Slow Love™
Well, so long as you know what I'm talking about, I suppose. I was just taken aback a little at your reaction to my describing what is definately a technical issue, even if it involves (and it certainly does) a mental compulsion. Given that you're prepared to concede a bit of both, the splitting hairs of what constitutes "technical" doesn't seem that necessary, though.

It's something you would think a player could be coached "out of" - which is why Buchanan's remark surprised me. But given his statement weeks ago that nothing could be done for Brett Lee's no-ball problems (which, IIRC, resulted in Lee going to Dennis Lillee, who said that something could be done), maybe I shouldn't be so surprised over what Buchanan says.

It could also be a One-day thing, because I can't remember him getting out that way in tests (not as frequently anyway).

On the coaching issue: It is alot easier to coach a player out of a technical thing then it is a mental thing.

[Deja moo]

User name......your posts are really annoying and biased....you manipulate stats and make fantastic claims to prove God knows what....

(1) Yes, South Africe were the better team between 96 and 99...get over it...

(2) No, the Australian bowlers didnt "tear apart" the Indian Batting in 2001....you lost the series 2-1...

(3) No, the subcontinent is not the reason why rules exist.....it also has to do with Warne, M Waugh( weather reports????who are you kidding?) , Hansie, Gibbs , Lehmann, S Waugh( 99 against Windies,....reason why bonus points had to be introduced), Chappel( underarm, anyone?), Lillee, Hair( undoubtedly why neutrl umps had to be introduced)

(4)No, rain didnt "save" the Brisbane test for India......do you even watch these matches before presenting your opinions?

(5) Australia didnt miss Warne....he would have gone for 51 runs a wicket as he has for the last 11 tests against India.Mcgrath..ok...Warne...no.

(6)Australia lost the 2001 series not with a poor attack...they missed only Lee...India didnt have Kumble, and any idiot with knowledge of matches in India knows that Kumbles absence was a greater blow to India than Lee's absence to Australa...

(7) Australia doesnt always score over india in crunch matches...tell me why Australia hasnt won the ICC knockout even once in 3 tries?notice 98 and 2000?

(8) this is regarding someone elses post........

Funny how Laxman recently said he thought Australia were there most sporting off all the International teams?

A billion people ead the article in the Times of India...and understood it better than Eclipse did.......

Laxmans comment was " the Australian public is the most sporting"
notice he said Australian public, not Australian team...