Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[viktor]

Where has it been shown that McGrath "has some flexion as well of around 11 degrees". McGrath has not been tested and all I heard was unsubstantiated claims. Where did you get this 11 degrees from.

unsubstantiated claims made by a member of the panel which made the 15 degree recommendations??? oh or was he cheating too???

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I meant that to Scally..... It was a direct answer to his points.... I know Darwin ain't a regular venue, but still, it is one's duty to provide good wickets for international cricket and both Darwin and Mumbai were bad. So, complaining about just one was kinda weird...

I don't think the Darwin wicket was anywhere near as bad, honestly. I didn't object to either of them all that much, but the Darwin wicket was just a tough seamer, the kind that were not anywhere near as remarkable in the early to mid 90s. It was a bowler friendly wicket, but it wasn't impossible to bat on. Lehmann got a 50 in each innings, Gilchrist hit an 80, and Australia passed 200 in both innings. McGrath and Kasprowicz bowled really well and took Sri Lanka apart for low scores in conditions their batsmen struggled in, but the wicket was not solely to blame. For Sri Lanka, Vaas in particular bowled really well and used the conditions to his advantage. That was a bowler friendly wicket.

The wicket in Mumbai was once-in-a-blue-moon stuff, and was virtually unplayable. I mean, CLARKE took 6/9 on it. Clarke! Sure, he bowled fairly well, but nothing which deserved figures like that. Hauritz, usually a small turner of the ball, was getting them to turn and bounce like Murali and Warne combined, and Dravid in Australia's second innings sent down just two overs from his quicks. The pitch was an absolute minefield by just the second day and would have been remarkable in any era in any part of the world.

Complaining officially about one and just mentioning the other in passing is reasonable enough in my view, and frankly I would be happy if cricket had more wickets like Darwin mixed in with rubbish like Antigua 2005 and Sydney 2003/04.

 

[Legglancer]

unsubstantiated claims made by a member of the panel which made the 15 degree recommendations??? oh or was he cheating too???

Yaah I Am sure He Was !

 

[social]

The wicket was not flat by any stretch of imagination... Maybe Australia didn't bowl as well as they did in the first inning during the second.... Maybe they had gotten real tired towards the latter half of the INdian second innings... But it was not a flat track. The only time it was easy to bat on was during the first day and a half.... And it was the same in 98 as well, when India won the toss and made first use of the pitch and used it well.....

Highlights of this match, and particularly the Dravid-Laxman partnership, are shown as "fillers" on pay tv almost every week (just why an Aus pay tv co. provides us with continual reminders of this thrashing is not clear).

The wicket was flat from the outset and only deteriorated marginally until the fifth day. Even then, it did not spin prodigously but was rather up and down.

India's demise in the first innings was as much a result of their own deficiencies as any great bowling by Aus.

India bowled very well on the last day but was helped by the conditions and a couple of dodgy decisions.

If you'd like further descriptions, I can watch the highlights for about the 50th time and give more detail.

 

[Son Of Coco]

unsubstantiated claims made by a member of the panel which made the 15 degree recommendations??? oh or was he cheating too???

What I think is interesting is that they apparently had a system in place with real-time video where they could judge the degree of flexion, but now they've gone back to the old method again. What was wrong with the video system used in the Champions Trophy? If nothing why aren't we using it now? If there was a problem then how can we take the 15 degree recommendations seriously? If they found that 15 degrees was fair then that's fine, but there's been some strange happenings leading up to and surrounding the whole decision.

 

[social]

What I think is interesting is that they apparently had a system in place with real-time video where they could judge the degree of flexion, but now they've gone back to the old method again. What was wrong with the video system used in the Champions Trophy? If nothing why aren't we using it now? If there was a problem then how can we take the 15 degree recommendations seriously? If they found that 15 degrees was fair then that's fine, but there's been some strange happenings leading up to and surrounding the whole decision.

They also made an attempt to use video footage during the recent Aus-NZ series.

Unfortunately, shirts, jumpers, etc made it impossible to make any definitive decisions.

To me, the whole thing is a farce anyway with no better example than Harbijhan and his coach clearing the bowler's action and that clearance originally being accepted by the ICC.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

They also made an attempt to use video footage during the recent Aus-NZ series.

Unfortunately, shirts, jumpers, etc made it impossible to make any definitive decisions.

To me, the whole thing is a farce anyway with no better example than Harbijhan and his coach clearing the bowler's action and that clearance originally being accepted by the ICC.

Indeed. An utter farce.

 

[honestbharani]

Highlights of this match, and particularly the Dravid-Laxman partnership, are shown as "fillers" on pay tv almost every week (just why an Aus pay tv co. provides us with continual reminders of this thrashing is not clear).

The wicket was flat from the outset and only deteriorated marginally until the fifth day. Even then, it did not spin prodigously but was rather up and down.

India's demise in the first innings was as much a result of their own deficiencies as any great bowling by Aus.

India bowled very well on the last day but was helped by the conditions and a couple of dodgy decisions.

If you'd like further descriptions, I can watch the highlights for about the 50th time and give more detail.

It was flat in the sense that there was no up and down bounce and no real big turn. But there was reasonable bounce and there is always a bit of seam movement in any first session at the Eden Gardens... And the match started at 9:30 AM IST... Trust me, I have watched its ball by ball for about 50 times... It was not as flat as Antigua or Sydney was recently.... Like I said, it was reasonably flat, but not a pitch where it was impossible to bowl out a side for under 350...

 

[Sanz]

Highlights of this match, and particularly the Dravid-Laxman partnership, are shown as "fillers" on pay tv almost every week (just why an Aus pay tv co. provides us with continual reminders of this thrashing is not clear).

The wicket was flat from the outset and only deteriorated marginally until the fifth day. Even then, it did not spin prodigously but was rather up and down.

India's demise in the first innings was as much a result of their own deficiencies as any great bowling by Aus.

India bowled very well on the last day but was helped by the conditions and a couple of dodgy decisions.

If you'd like further descriptions, I can watch the highlights for about the 50th time and give more detail.

I think that is a fair description of the test match.

 

[tooextracool]

1. Dravid came into bat AFTER Aus had bowled nearly 130 overs. I think youll find that's substantially more than 1 day. He also scored MORE than two thirds of his runs AFTER Aus had been in the field for more than 2 days. In other words, he never faced a fresh attack and was able to take advantage when they were tired..

so your point is that mcgrath, who had got dravid out a sum total of 0 times in that series, was tired and hence couldnt dismiss dravid, even though even the casual observer could make out that he didnt trouble dravid a tiny little bit during that series?

4. Dravid was batting down the list because he was so badly out of form (as he displayed for more than half of his 180) that he was in danger of being dropped. He was being protected, pure and simple..

thats absolute rubbish,dravid struggled early on -which comes as no surprise given that he faced warne early and was completely out of form, but for 4/5ths of his innings he wasnt troubled at all.

5. Sorry, you disregard Ponting's entire career outside India and I'll disregard just 2 innings bringing his average down to a deplorable, disgraceful, rubbish, very, very, poor, tailender-like mid-teens. Fancy a supposed great having an average like that vs McGrath & Co, particularly when he's had everything in his favour in terms of batting conditions. Who would have thought it? Tsk, tsk, tsk...

clearly you have problems reading. because i have not once ignored ponting's career out of india, ive simply said that failing disgracefully in a particular country is not characteristic of a great player. dravid hasnt failed against mcgrath and co, because averaging 35 isnt a failure at all, and the fact that you have to exclude games of your choice to prove your point only make your claim look more and more stupid. ive quoted ponting's career in india without exceptions.....hence a like for like comparison(somewhat) would be to do that with dravids career vs mcgrath and co, and even that wouldnt be good enough because failure against a particular bowler is not related to failure in a country.

6. When your not scoring any meaningful runs but you bat for long periods of time, the side becomes becalmed and bowlers are able to focus on one batsmen at a time as the strike is not being rotated. Inevitably, wickets fall.

you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. slow scoring means that you have longer partnerships, your player is more likely to be there at the end of the day, it means that your more likely to frustrate the bowler by surviving-because a bowler would always feel that he has more of a chance if a batsman is more aggressive.

 

[tooextracool]

Come off it, TEC. He complained to the match referee's at the start of the third (second) day's play. This was before the match was over, and clearly Australia had the advantage at the start of that day's play.

err no he didnt, he complained about the wicket after the game was lost, and then went on to take it as far as the ICC.

 

[tooextracool]

OK, his record in India is atrocious. That's a given.

But please explain how he averages 65.14 over 10 matches in the subcontinent not including India. Surely that means he can play the turning ball better than you think he can?

pakistan dont count given their quality of spin bowlers in recent years. in SL he had one good series. hes not as poor a player of spin as he is in india, but hes not particularly good against spin either.

 

[tooextracool]

It looked marginal given how far down the track he was.

no it was not marginal at all, replays showed that it was an excellent decision, theres no way you can convince me that he was unlucky to be given out, because he clearly wasnt.

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe because he didn't actually play!? ...

and that makes things better doesnt it? he didnt play the game, yet he was out there talking up the pitch, when the people who actually play claimed that it was a poor pitch.

Just because Ponting what he said about the pitch in India, backing up common opinion, doesn't mean what he says is always a reflection of what everyone thinks does it? It's taking thinking to its most simplistic level to say "If Ponting was mirroring others thoughts in India, how come he wasn't in Australia." It's possible that people had different thoughts at the same time, obviously the same happens for the wicket in India - with people who didn't play thinking there was nothing wrong with it....

thats absolute tripe and you know it. its absolutely ludicrous for someone to claim that other wickets are of poor quality, and then take it as far as the ICC when his country is producing some of the most rubbish pitches in the modern era. and yes people who didnt play thought there was nothing wrong with it, but did these same people then go on and complain about how poor wickets are in australia? even the SL who played at darwin said that it was a poor wicket and then didnt take it much further than that, even though they were put at a severe disadvantage during that test match.

I'd love to see your argument for the wickets in Australia being even more disgraceful than the farm presented for the last test in India...

on the whole? how many of the last 20 test matches in australia have been on test quality wickets?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

on the whole? how many of the last 20 test matches in australia have been on test quality wickets?

Well, I rather dislike the trend in pitches of late in Australia along with the rest of the world, but aside from the farcical Indian series I wouldn't say many of the test pitches in the last couple of years have actually been not of test quality.

Brisbane vs England - not too bad, offered a bit for the bowlers. Fairly flat, but not a shocker.
Adelaide vs England - I don't remember this match very well to be honest, but the scorecard makes it look like standard Adelaide stuff, excellent for batting early and taking turn later.
Perth vs England - Standard WACA pitch, certainly of test standard.
Melbourne vs England - Road.
Sydney vs England - Not too bad, but not very spin friendly by Sydney standards.
Darwin vs Bangladesh - I don't remember. Looks like Bangladesh struggled on it.
Cairns vs Bangladesh - Very flat, but given the opposition it hardly mattered.
Perth vs Zimbabwe - Terrible wicket.
Sydney vs Zimbabwe - Standard Sydney pitch. Took plenty of turn, but Ray Price and Brad Hogg aren't the greatest bowlers to take advantage of it.
Brisbane vs India - Flat.
Adelaide vs India - Flat, dusted up and turned a lot on the 4th and 5th days. The best pitch of the series, which isn't saying much.
Melbourne vs India - Dead flat.
Sydney vs India - An absolute farce.
Darwin vs Sri Lanka - Seamer's paradise. Not a great wicket I suppose, but it was refreshing to see given the world trends.
Cairns vs Sri Lanka - Flat, but not so flat as to not be up to test standard.
Brisbane vs New Zealand - Flat, broke up later in the test though.
Adelaide vs New Zealand - An absolute shocker. Without McGrath, a certain draw.
Perth vs Pakistan - Quite flat, but some quality pace bowling on both sides made it look better than it was.
Melbourne vs Pakistan - Flat, but not too bad.
Sydney vs Pakistan - Good Sydney turner.

All in all, maybe a quarter of them were too flat to be played on, and one had a bit too much in it for the bowlers. A couple of good wickets, and all the rest were flat but had enough that they were at least up to test standard. I certainly wouldn't say most of them were any worse than what is being offered up throughout the rest of the world.

 

[tooextracool]

When it was prepared as a seamers wicket did the match end in 2 and a bit days with both teams struggling to score 100?

it ended in 2.5 days, so it was clearly not test class either.
and had australia and india applie themselves in the 2 innings where they barely got 100, they would have got 200, which was apparent from the fact that they did get 200 in innings 2 and 3 respectively.

 

[tooextracool]

out of those 16 test matches against test class opposition, id say brisbane 02,adelaide 02,melbourne 02, brisbane 03, adelaide 03, melbourne 03, darwin,cairns,brisbane and adelaide were not test class. thats 10/16, which is an absolute disgrace.

add sydeny 03/04 to that too,cant believe i left that out and its 11/16

 

[Mister Wright]

your kidding right? that pitch was dead flat, so much so infact that till today hussain is criticised for putting australia in on absolutely perfect batting conditions where australia got 364/2. that wicket was extremely poor indeed, and it took some exceptionally poor batting and brilliant bowling for england to be dismissed twice.

That pitch was not a perfect test match pitch, but it wasn't diabolical either. Yes, England shouldn't have batted, but it wasn't exactly like they were bowling well. They bowled and fielded terribly. Jones was the only bowler to do anything decent and he got injured early after taking Langer's wicket, the rest of the time, Caddick was far too short, Giles may have been standing there and throwing them (there was no turn) and White was pedestrian at best. Not all the blame should go to the pitch.

 

[Son Of Coco]

and that makes things better doesnt it? he didnt play the game, yet he was out there talking up the pitch, when the people who actually play claimed that it was a poor pitch.



thats absolute tripe and you know it. its absolutely ludicrous for someone to claim that other wickets are of poor quality, and then take it as far as the ICC when his country is producing some of the most rubbish pitches in the modern era. and yes people who didnt play thought there was nothing wrong with it, but did these same people then go on and complain about how poor wickets are in australia? even the SL who played at darwin said that it was a poor wicket and then didnt take it much further than that, even though they were put at a severe disadvantage during that test match.



on the whole? how many of the last 20 test matches in australia have been on test quality wickets?

What's tripe is saying that Australian wickets are some of the most rubbish of the modern era, and you should know that! Ridiculous statements such as this seem to be parroted by people trying to take focus away from the fact that the wicket in Mumbai WAS disgraceful...oh, and by the way - I never said Darwin was test class, and have never made a statement that even vaguely alludes to it being so. The main wickets used season after season have played a similar way for quite a long time now without any of them mysteriously becoming a minefield for no particular reason. The only problem wicket we've had in the past few years is Darwin.

How were Sri Lanka put at such a severe disadvantage on the darwin wicket yet when the Mumbai wicket is brought up 'both teams had to play on it"?

I'd say, on the whole, out of the last 20 Tests in Australia, 18/19 have been on test quality wickets!

Edit: I'm not saying everything Ponting says is right by the way - should he have complained about Mumbai, then said Darwin was ok? No. I'm not sure if this is relevant to the whole thread or not, I've kind of forgotten what this was all about.

 

[tooextracool]

That pitch was not a perfect test match pitch, but it wasn't diabolical either. Yes, England shouldn't have batted, but it wasn't exactly like they were bowling well. They bowled and fielded terribly. Jones was the only bowler to do anything decent and he got injured early after taking Langer's wicket, the rest of the time, Caddick was far too short, Giles may have been standing there and throwing them (there was no turn) and White was pedestrian at best. Not all the blame should go to the pitch.

yes england bowled poorly, but it still doesnt change the fact that there was absolutely nothing in the pitch for the bowlers. any pitch that does that, cant be a test class wicket.