***Official*** Australia in India 2012/13

[Spikey]

Ricky Ponting Arguing with Umpires KP Pietersen Appeal MCG Ashes Test Cricket Video - YouTube

classless from siddle tbh

 

[Mr_Ronan]

How is this piece of commentary from cricinfo:

"Harbhajan Singh to Pattinson, no run, huge lbw appeal. Harbhajan looks disgusted. Harbhajan seems to be asking him why this is not given, and Dharmasena is not saying anything. But I tell you what, lbws don't come plumber than this. Quick delivery, flat, doesn't turn, hits his front pad in front of off, and then the back pad. Perhaps the umpire thought one of the two impacts was off the bat. The pitch mat says it might have hit him just outside the line of off, but it is not conclusive "

That bit in bold was only added in after the replay showed it clearly hit him outside the line...it was utterly conclusive so I dont know what this India prick is on about.

Cricinfo is a site which really tries to stress its journalistic credentials yet the guys who do ball by ball commentary are utter hacks and clearly biased.

 

[Jono]

tbh, it was 3 dodgy decisions.

Uh what? Ponting was plumb

 

[hendrix]

That "one bowler" is part of the attack. If they all split 2 wickets, or one takes 6, the end result is still the same.



1. Ishant is ****
2. Harbhajan is ****.
3. Bhuv is a debutant
4. Jadeja doesn't turn a ball

And you don't get 400??????

Yes, fair point, they probably have performed to their ability, but when one is criticizing a bowling performance it's also about the selections.

Which are shocking.

 

[Prince EWS]

That "one bowler" is part of the attack. If they all split 2 wickets, or one takes 6, the end result is still the same.

For me:

1. Ishant is ****
2. Harbhajan is ****.
3. Bhuv is a debutant
4. Jadeja doesn't turn a ball

And you don't get 400??????

The fact that they are **** is a large contributing factor to the fact that they haven't bowled well, but they still haven't bowled well. Bowling to expectations and bowling well aren't the same thing.

 

[Jono]

Yeah no doubt the selections are ****.

Australia should have scored 450+ on this

They still could with Patto, who can bat!

 

[Jono]

The fact that they are **** is a large contributing factor to the fact that they haven't bowled well, but they still haven't bowled well. Bowling to expectations and bowling well aren't the same thing.

Bowling to expecations is 450+.

They have exceeded expectations.

Can't think of any reasomable Indian who saw this lineup and thought they'd have AUstralia 5-150 and less than 400 (if that occurs).

 

[Spark]

How is this piece of commentary from cricinfo:

"Harbhajan Singh to Pattinson, no run, huge lbw appeal. Harbhajan looks disgusted. Harbhajan seems to be asking him why this is not given, and Dharmasena is not saying anything. But I tell you what, lbws don't come plumber than this. Quick delivery, flat, doesn't turn, hits his front pad in front of off, and then the back pad. Perhaps the umpire thought one of the two impacts was off the bat. The pitch mat says it might have hit him just outside the line of off, but it is not conclusive "

That bit in bold was only added in after the replay showed it clearly hit him outside the line...it was utterly conclusive so I dont know what this India prick is on about.

Cricinfo is a site which really tries to stress its journalistic credentials yet the guys who do ball by ball commentary are utter hacks and clearly biased.

Yawn. Never read any of Sid Monga's work? Complaining about bias if you don't agree with someone's viewpoint is just boring.

 

[Spikey]

start slogging already

 

[Burgey]

That "one bowler" is part of the attack. If they all split 2 wickets, or one takes 6, the end result is still the same.

For me:

1. Ishant is ****
2. Harbhajan is ****.
3. Bhuv is a debutant
4. Jadeja doesn't turn a ball

And you don't get 400??????

Completely different type of argument tbf.

 

[Jono]

How is this piece of commentary from cricinfo:

"Harbhajan Singh to Pattinson, no run, huge lbw appeal. Harbhajan looks disgusted. Harbhajan seems to be asking him why this is not given, and Dharmasena is not saying anything. But I tell you what, lbws don't come plumber than this. Quick delivery, flat, doesn't turn, hits his front pad in front of off, and then the back pad. Perhaps the umpire thought one of the two impacts was off the bat. The pitch mat says it might have hit him just outside the line of off, but it is not conclusive "

That bit in bold was only added in after the replay showed it clearly hit him outside the line...it was utterly conclusive so I dont know what this India prick is on about.

Cricinfo is a site which really tries to stress its journalistic credentials yet the guys who do ball by ball commentary are utter hacks and clearly biased.

Indian prick?

Is this bloke for real?

Mate I'd watch yourself.

 

[Ikki]

This excessive appealing is ****ing stupid.

 

[Teja.]

That "one bowler" is part of the attack. If they all split 2 wickets, or one takes 6, the end result is still the same.

For me:

1. Ishant is ****
2. Harbhajan is ****.
3. Bhuv is a debutant
4. Jadeja doesn't turn a ball

And you don't get 400??????

I think I should remind everyone at this crucial juncture that a large number of ****s headed by SS himself wanted Ashwin dropped from the test side for this series.

Never forget.

 

[Burgey]

Lyon to ton up.

 

[Jono]

This excessive appealing is ****ing stupid.

Yep. Embarrassing stuff.

 

[Satyanash89]

tbh, it was 3 dodgy decisions.

nah Ponting was plumb

 

[silentstriker]

I think I should remind everyone at this crucial juncture that a large number of ****s headed by SS himself wanted Ashwin dropped from the test side for this series.

Never forget.

He bowled like **** and deserved to be dropped a lot more than Ojha.

 

[hendrix]

Uh what? Ponting was plumb

I seem to remember him being outside the line, but watching it again it probably was out.

 

[Jono]

already said that.

#has2001seriesmemorised

edit: at satyanash

 

[Spikey]

come on you stupid australian pricks stop boring us

edit MSD brings on a seamer. WAG