**Official** Australia in India Thread

[JustTool]

Exactly, and as was pointed out - no side has chased down anywhere near as many runs at that in the 4th innings at Chennai and won the game.

And thus if it had rained in Mumbai after Tea you would have declared Australia a winner and we would have had no pitch controversy. One thing about you guys, that is great, is that you are all one-track, and simple-minded in your mindless opposition to accepting that India can win. And if they do win it is because something was wrong with the pitch. Or in the 70s the Indian umpires were corrupt. Or the match was fixed.

Maybe Australia lost because Ponting is a lousy captain and can't bat against spin ? Possible ?

 

[JustTool]

Not sure. Maybe it was Bishan Bedi, who said that among the top two wicket takers in test cricket there is one legend and one fraud?

OK. So now we are agreed on Bedi. Based on his comments, Ponting is a whiner and Brett Lee is a chucker. I am sure you agree with that too....?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

OK. So now we are agreed on Bedi. Based on his comments, Ponting is a whiner and Brett Lee is a chucker. I am sure you agree with that too....?

I don't agree that Murali is a chucker, rather my view is that his action always appears suspect at first glance to me but I really don't know if "throws" by the technical definition or not, and I also don't know if the technical definition is done the way it should be.

Honestly I don't particularly care. He has been allowed to bowl by the vast majority of umpires over the years and that means people have to face him and his wickets count as wickets. What difference does it make if his arm bends that extra few centimetres or not if nobody calls it as a no ball?

The reason I brought up the Bedi comments is because of your ridiculous claim that the only reason anyone ever questioned Murali's action is because of some horrible Australian conspiricy to keep all opposition from having a fair chance in the match or whatever. Bedi, last time I checke, was not Australian, unless it is just a slightly shorter Richie Benaud with a tan that somebody thought was Bedi.

Regarding Lee, I never saw anything suspect about his action, or Shoaib's for that matter. It was largely not news here and if it had been I still wouldn't have cared. Until a match referee, a field umpire or the ICC rule that his stock delivery is a no ball, it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference.

Regarding Ponting, he can complain about the pitch and ask the ICC to try and ensure a better quality pitch in the future, but he would probably be best served by just shutting up and getting on with it.

Anything else you wanted to randomly throw out and ask my opinion on?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not overlooking that...I am leaving it up to you guys to point that out. As you have...

Umm, no. We may have mentioned them in passing, but nobody on this board but you (and maybe biased_indian :P) has obsessively ranted on and on about a couple of umpiring decisions as if they were the defining point of the series. As an example, Hauritz was given out wrongly in the late stages of the third test when he was doing okay, and given the 13 run margin that might well have been decisive. Who on this board has gone on and on about that as it if meant everything? Hauritz's dismissal wouldn't have meant a thing if the top order didn't get destroyed chasing a tiny total, because he shouldn't even have been out there to be. Poor umpiring decisions are just something that happens, and you deal with them and move on.

Meanwhile, when Australia was hundreds of runs in front in the second innings and obviously going to cruise to victory you claimed that Katich being given not-out wrongly was the kind of decision that turns matches. Likewise, you complain now when Australian fans complain about the state of the pitch, and yet you claimed that the curator in Nagpur was failing in his dutires because he produced a pitch with something in it for quick bowlers.

So which is it? Should we harp on endlessly about trivial things which the players can't control like the pitch, the weather and the umpiring, or should we just suck it up and move on?

 

[JustTool]

Umm, no. We may have mentioned them in passing, but nobody on this board but you (and maybe biased_indian :P) has obsessively ranted on and on about a couple of umpiring decisions as if they were the defining point of the series. As an example, Hauritz was given out wrongly in the late stages of the third test when he was doing okay, and given the 13 run margin that might well have been decisive. Who on this board has gone on and on about that as it if meant everything? Hauritz's dismissal wouldn't have meant a thing if the top order didn't get destroyed chasing a tiny total, because he shouldn't even have been out there to be. Poor umpiring decisions are just something that happens, and you deal with them and move on.

Meanwhile, when Australia was hundreds of runs in front in the second innings and obviously going to cruise to victory you claimed that Katich being given not-out wrongly was the kind of decision that turns matches. Likewise, you complain now when Australian fans complain about the state of the pitch, and yet you claimed that the curator in Nagpur was failing in his dutires because he produced a pitch with something in it for quick bowlers.

So which is it? Should we harp on endlessly about trivial things which the players can't control like the pitch, the weather and the umpiring, or should we just suck it up and move on?

Ok. Ok. Point taken. Message Received. Registered and Processed. !!Well, at least we are all very passionate about our cricket - otherwise with so few nations playing it would be a dead sport

 

[SJS]

Ok. Ok. Point taken. Message Received. Registered and Processed. !!Well, at least we are all very passionate about our cricket - otherwise with so few nations playing it would be a dead sport

OKAY. Thats done.


Next passionate argument please.


Prosecuters to state the case

 

[Sehwag309]

If anyone wants to re-live the moment

http://www.desitorrents.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25359

 

[Craig]

So, you didn't know he was reported. Pr maybe you do, but won't say it. Or is that you believe that no Aussies would ever be reported because it is the Aussies who have created this chucking vendata against Murali ?

I'm sure Marc is well awhere Lee was reported for throwing and was prompley cleared.

If there's an Aussie bowler out that does throw (unlikely he would be playing FC cricket), Marc would have said something if that were the case.

 

[marc71178]

So, you didn't know he was reported. Pr maybe you do, but won't say it.

Back in March 2000 and swiftly cleared - which makes it irrelevant in the current climate.

 

[marc71178]

And thus if it had rained in Mumbai after Tea you would have declared Australia a winner and we would have had no pitch controversy.

No, I wouldn't, and if you actually bothered to read my posts around the time, I questioned what sort of target would be tricky - at about 120 or so.

That is exactly like I have all along said that that drawn game was too close to call at the end of the 4th day, neither side was in control to any degree.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Maybe it's the case when Murali does it...its like "Congressional hearing" and someone like Lee does it, its 'Oh boys will be boys!"

I think there's less argument when Lee does it, as he goes and has it looked at straight away and is back......

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of course he was cleared and rightly so, but that is not what you said earlier.

Murali would have been cleared straight away too, if not for some jealous people.

hahaha, yeah, when i first saw his action my first thoughts turned to jealousy - and this was before he had done anything of great significance.

Mind you, my position has shifted slightly since then and I'm willing to say that if he's been tested and cleared by the same people that did Lee etc then who am I to argue (although i believe lab conditions are not the same as match conditions). I can still see how his action gains attention though, and if you honestly believe it's just down to jealousy then .........

 

[Son Of Coco]

As he should have been. Belive me you will never get the Aussies on this board to ever comprehend anything except their myopic point of view. It's truly a sorry state of affairs when Ponting cries like a baby and no one can say (on this Board anyway) that he should shut up and accept defeat graciously. Or that India would have won in Chennai had it not been for the rain. Or that, if Murali chucks so do Brett Lee and Shoiab etc..

has no-one said that? I must be reading a different board then.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well, you might find it hard to swallow but Murali is the BEST spin bowler ever - way better than Warne who can't seem to get past lewd comments and phone-***. Now, there's a role model for you guys to emulate. Compare this to the humility of Murali. Murali wins hands down - as a bowler and as a gentleman. QED.

Now that you've pointed out that your opinion is gospel, I'm starting to see the light. I think it's you that can't get past the phone ***, similar examples could be brought up regarding Murali's not coming to certain places etc but it'd be as pointless as the comments your making vs Warne.

 

[Son Of Coco]

And thus if it had rained in Mumbai after Tea you would have declared Australia a winner and we would have had no pitch controversy. One thing about you guys, that is great, is that you are all one-track, and simple-minded in your mindless opposition to accepting that India can win. And if they do win it is because something was wrong with the pitch. Or in the 70s the Indian umpires were corrupt. Or the match was fixed.

Maybe Australia lost because Ponting is a lousy captain and can't bat against spin ? Possible ?

It's definately possible, but in this case both sides bowlers received assistance from the wicket above and beyond what we've seen previously so while this is possible it's probably not the only reason in this instance. (Ponting's inability against spin couldn't really be held responsible for the team losing though)

The great thing about yourself is your ability to think about the game on a number of levels, taking in all possibilities, while the rest of us mindless, one-eyed, generalising fanatics continually rant about countless perceived injustices we've suffered at the hands of invisible infidels.........and I like that in a person!

 

[honestbharani]

I think even Murali took some tests to prove himself when he was called the first time. And now the latest ICC report has said that even Pollock and McGrath chuck. So to me, they are as much in the offence as Murali.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think even Murali took some tests to prove himself when he was called the first time. And now the latest ICC report has said that even Pollock and McGrath chuck. So to me, they are as much in the offence as Murali.

I haven't seen the report yet so I might wait to see if it says exactly that.

 

[JustTool]

I think even Murali took some tests to prove himself when he was called the first time. And now the latest ICC report has said that even Pollock and McGrath chuck. So to me, they are as much in the offence as Murali.

That's EXACTLY what the report said. Hope everyone sees the irony of hypocrisy related to Mutali. Let's hear it for the chuckers, starting with Mr. Glenn I-sledge-personally-and-do-stupid-things-like-throw-the-ball-at-batsmen Mcgrath

 

[JustTool]

Back in March 2000 and swiftly cleared - which makes it irrelevant in the current climate.

And just as you say that you have to eat these words - as the new report shows that based on the 'definition' that makes Murali a chucker 99% of the bowlers (including Mr. McGrath) are chuckers. Oops....

 

[JustTool]

Now that you've pointed out that your opinion is gospel, I'm starting to see the light. I think it's you that can't get past the phone ***, similar examples could be brought up regarding Murali's not coming to certain places etc but it'd be as pointless as the comments your making vs Warne.

Now there's a cogent, concise argument that's to-the-point. What, in the world, are you talking about -what wife would be Ok with their husband harrassing other women for phone-*** ? Anyway, never mind, it may be beyond you (and Warne) to comprehend this.