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:
bunny said:
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:
Sir Alex said:
If that is a disgrace so are NZ pitches of 2003 and every Perth pitch before 2000 eventually calmed it down.
I said..
me 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:
Sanz said:
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%)
honestbharani said:
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..
Sanz said:
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...
Sanz said:
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???
GingerFurball said:
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.