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

[Sanz]

And get a quality pace attack that knows the reverse swing the ball. See WI 70s & 80s, AUS 2004 & SA 2000..

So the pace attack in 2001 wasn't Quality ?

 

[Sanz]

Well, that's the last time he has played on the pitches he is commenting on. India won by 320 and 180 runs respectively, while he scored 5, 2, 24, and 8 in those two matches on such borefest pitches .

And thanks to those borefests that his average in the series looked somewhat respectful, otherwise he was on track for his 13 runs per innings average.

 

[aussie]

So the pace attack in 2001 wasn't Quality ?

Of course. But the AUS batsmen collectively didn't learn yet to play spin solidy. So the lack of combing both facets costed them the series.

 

[Sanz]

Of course. But the AUS batsmen collectively didn't learn yet to play spin solidy. So the lack of combing both facets costed them the series.

It was the bowlers who failed them in Kolkata test, which changed the momentum of the series. Watch before you blame batsmen.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Why would he be called names ? He is entitled to his opinion as opposed to Ponting who is making statements as If he is the ICC Commissioner.

And therein lies the truth of the matter.

 

[silentstriker]

AUS 2004

Pissed off curators help.

 

[Uppercut]

And therein lies the truth of the matter.

Haha, indeed. When loveable little Polly says Indian pitches are too flat (akin to saying the sky is blue, except saying that doesn't get a load of whiny idiots on the internet taking it as a personal insult and trying to deny it) he's entitled to his opinion. When Ponting says it, it's an unprecedented act of douchebaggery.

 

[aussie]

It was the bowlers who failed them in Kolkata test, which changed the momentum of the series.

Ha now way, that is criminally underating how magnificently Laxman & Dravid played. McGrath & co bowled the best they could, all the credit goes to Laxman/Dravid for pulling out miraculous performace.

Watch before you blame batsmen.

They have to blamed since it was clear even in the 1st test in Mumbai in AUS only completed innings that the batsmen (outside the Hayden/Gilchrist partnership) at that time weren't fully equipped to handle spin. The where much improved in 2004 that why they won in SRI & IND.

 

[silentstriker]

No.

 

[aussie]

Yes.

 

[silentstriker]

India had a pissed off local association and the Indian batting order was out of form. Remember the Test Ganguly pulled out in protest on the morning of and Dravid had to lead?

Not using that as an excuse of course, India lost. But it wasn't for the reasons you state.

 

[Sanz]

And therein lies the truth of the matter.

Haha, indeed. When loveable little Polly says Indian pitches are too flat (akin to saying the sky is blue, except saying that doesn't get a load of whiny idiots on the internet taking it as a personal insult and trying to deny it) he's entitled to his opinion. When Ponting says it, it's an unprecedented act of douchebaggery.

They said two different things.

In Pollock's opinion Tests in subcontinent are boring, that is an opinion he has a right to have. On the other hand Ponting says the 'too many draws in the subcontinent are cause of worry'.

It's like me saying that 'movies made a by a Tarantino are boring and you saying Movies made by Tarentino are cause of worry as there is too much violence and hence threat to society and culture'.

 

[Sanz]

Ha now way, that is criminally underating how magnificently Laxman & Dravid played. McGrath & co bowled the best they could, all the credit goes to Laxman/Dravid for pulling out miraculous performace.

So when bowlers fail, it is because of Indian batsmen. But when the batters failed it was because they were not good enough. Isn't it ?

They have to blamed since it was clear even in the 1st test in Mumbai in AUS only completed innings that the batsmen (outside the Hayden/Gilchrist partnership) at that time weren't fully equipped to handle spin. The where much improved in 2004 that why they won in SRI & IND.

Last time I checked Hayden and Gilchrist were counted as two of the best Aussie batsmen of their generation.

 

[Top_Cat]

They said two different things.

In Pollock's opinion Tests in subcontinent are boring, that is an opinion he has a right to have. On the other hand Ponting says the 'too many draws in the subcontinent are cause of worry'.

It's like me saying that 'movies made a by a Tarantino are boring and you saying Movies made by Tarentino are cause of worry as there is too much violence and hence threat to society and culture'.

Hmmmm...... dunno. Not as if Ponting has said he's planning on taking it up with the ICC.

 

[Streetwise]

Haha, indeed. When loveable little Polly says Indian pitches are too flat (akin to saying the sky is blue, except saying that doesn't get a load of whiny idiots on the internet taking it as a personal insult and trying to deny it) he's entitled to his opinion. When Ponting says it, it's an unprecedented act of douchebaggery.

This.

 

[Sanz]

Hmmmm...... dunno. Not as if Ponting has said he's planning on taking it up with the ICC.

That's the point. If Ponting isn't thinking of that then he should not worry about the death of test cricket in the subcontinent. Subcontinent has survived much worse. It was either lose or draw for us, we have come a long way from 70s-80s.

Ponting should learn the history of test cricket in subcontinent before making such a silly statement.

 

[Sanz]

They have to blamed since it was clear even in the 1st test in Mumbai in AUS only completed innings that the batsmen (outside the Hayden/Gilchrist partnership) at that time weren't fully equipped to handle spin. The where much improved in 2004 that why they won in SRI & IND.

If the batting was much improved then I would like to see the stats stating as such. I believe it was the Indian Batting (or if you prefer Aussie Bowling) which made the difference in 2004 for Australia.

 

[honestbharani]

Ponting was not on tour all month. He technically didn't arrive in IND unitl sometine after October 21st 2004 according to this article



Plus given that the third test was won on October 29th & the 4th test began on Novemeber 3rd. AUS wouldn't have been in Mumbai that long before the 4th test.

Even if you claim IND has a national news paper that covers the entire nations, how do you know that Ponting read it?. But either way all this is irrelevant again - the pitch played badly, Ponting was in his rights to complain. Case closed.

Long may this ridiculous argument continue though

yeah.. so he was there a fortnight and knew nought about one of the bigger disasters to have stuck Mumbai till 26/11 happened... And of course, it is quite pertinent to moan about all these without even taking the pain to look up a couple of newspapers to understand the context... Surely, he is not surrounded by people as stupid as him and someone could have pointed out that sometimes it is ok to try and learn FACTS...

 

[honestbharani]

They said two different things.

In Pollock's opinion Tests in subcontinent are boring, that is an opinion he has a right to have. On the other hand Ponting says the 'too many draws in the subcontinent are cause of worry'.

It's like me saying that 'movies made a by a Tarantino are boring and you saying Movies made by Tarentino are cause of worry as there is too much violence and hence threat to society and culture'.

yeah.. but why expect people to realize FACTS when talking abt Ponting...

 

[aussie]

So when bowlers fail, it is because of Indian batsmen. But when the batters failed it was because they were not good enough. Isn't it ?

I'm not too sure whats your point here.

But as i said the AUS bowlers did not fail in Kolkatta 2001. Laxman & Dravid just produced a cricketening miracle.

You re doing a very good job ridiculing one the greatest performanes in your nations test historty if you suggesting that partnership was done againts "poor bowling".

Last time I checked Hayden and Gilchrist were counted as two of the best Aussie batsmen of their generation.

Please stick to point. We are talking about AUS batting againts the spin in Ind 2001 - not who was the best AUS batsmen during the golden era of 95 - 2006/07.

Hayden was only batsman in 2001 who played the spin convincingly.

- Slater blew hot & cold. He made the typical AUS mistake of trying to be ultra-aggressive againts the spin.

- Langer was crap againt spin in those years. Langer became a good player of spin until SRI 2004.

- M Waugh had an average tour. He was never really a super player of spin any way.

- S Waugh was the second most competent after Hayden.

- Ponting was horrible

- Gilchrist was crap outside of his Mumbai hundred & remainded an average player of spin throughout his career. Although he did manage the odd superb counter-attacking innings againts quality spin in turning conditions.

If the batting was much improved then I would like to see the stats stating as such.

They won in SRI & IND 04. What more proof do you need?.

I believe it was the Indian Batting (or if you prefer Aussie Bowling) which made the difference in 2004 for Australia.

A combination of AUS bowling & the improvement of all their batsmen againts spin won them that series.