Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[Top_Cat]

and either way, it still doesnt make him right to complain to the ICC on the issue, when he should have just taken it in his stride and continued on, much like SL did in australia

No he shouldn't have and no the SL's shouldn't have either. If any captain has issues with wickets, then they shouldn't just 'take it in their stride' at all. All instances like that should be reported to the ICC because wickets which aren't up to Test standards, as much as people like to see variation, shouldn't be allowed. If no-one complained, nothing would be done about sub-standard wickets. Hence, Ponting was right to complain about the wicket in India and the SL's should have said something about Darwin. SL didn't win any plaudits from staying silent.

Second, just because we didn't hear about any complaint doesn't mean it didn't happen.

that was bangalore, but there were no complaints of course, probably because australia won.

How do you know? Did you read the captain's report? Hypothetically, there may have been a complaint but it wasn't given press because Australia won.

Think of it this way; on such an atrocious deck (which, given, Australia did throw away the win with some injudicious shots), how would it have looked had Ponting NOT said something?

 

[Scallywag]

Where'd you hear that?

There was a photo of the groundsmen scrubbing the track with wire brushes with Ganguly looking on in the newspapers.

 

[Jnr.]

It's been mentioned a number of times, and was brought up during the test over here so....who's at fault if you didn't see it?

Spot on, Son of Coco. It was mentioned during the Test, and this article merely confirms it.

 

[tooextracool]

Spot on, Son of Coco. It was mentioned during the Test, and this article merely confirms it.

oh it was, was it?
yet cricinfo and basically every reporter failed to mention it.
yet dravid apparently knew nothing about it.
and gee what a surprise, ponting and the aussies heard about it

 

[tooextracool]

So his involvement in a nightclub incident years ago means that he lies about reporting to the ICC
In that case, half the world's cricketers would speak with forked tongues.

so hes changed a whole lot since then has he?
while hes talked up rubbish wickets in australia and belittled indian wickets. not to mention his ridiculing lara's achievement, and coming up with totally unnecessary statements about how he would have declared in the same situation.

 

[tooextracool]

No he shouldn't have and no the SL's shouldn't have either. If any captain has issues with wickets, then they shouldn't just 'take it in their stride' at all. All instances like that should be reported to the ICC because wickets which aren't up to Test standards, as much as people like to see variation, shouldn't be allowed. If no-one complained, nothing would be done about sub-standard wickets. Hence, Ponting was right to complain about the wicket in India and the SL's should have said something about Darwin. SL didn't win any plaudits from staying silent.

lets look at this hypothetically. lets say Antigua's head groundsman Keith Frederick visited australia during the series against SL, then after the series said that darwin and cairns were the worst quality wickets hed seen, and the wickets in the WI were far better quality than the ones in australia. and lets say he somehow managed to complain to the ICC about this, you would of course take kindly to this sort of complaint?
i have no qualms about ponting saying that the mumbai pitch wasnt test standard, because he has every reason to say so. but what was his reason behind why it wasnt test class? because it didnt last 5 days?
yet in darwin when the wicket lasted 2.5 days he said we needed more wickets like these, because it helped the game.
how in the blue hell is that supposed to make sense?
then in an attempt to reach the epitome of foolishness, he said that he "expected dravid to stand by his side on this issue". now, when everyone talked about how darwin wasnt test class, did ponting stand by attapattu's side? did ponting stand by gilchrist's side?

Second, just because we didn't hear about any complaint doesn't mean it didn't happen. .

and just because ponting says he did, it doesnt mean it did either.
i find it extremely unlikely that not one internet source managed to mention this during the test, or even after it. with the media during that series being as heavy as it was, its an extremely unlikely event.

How do you know? Did you read the captain's report? Hypothetically, there may have been a complaint but it wasn't given press because Australia won.

Think of it this way; on such an atrocious deck (which, given, Australia did throw away the win with some injudicious shots), how would it have looked had Ponting NOT said something?

id tell you what i would have done in his place
a) i would have admitted that india played better
b) i would have mentioned that the wicket wasnt upto test standard.

i would not have gone crying to the ICC, because i would have known that my country has been producing atrocious wickets for god knows how long. and i would not have gone crying to the ICC because i would have remembered that on a similar wicket in the past i actually said that these wickets were good for the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Ponting has every right to make a complaint about the sub standard test wicket prepared in Mumbia. He is the Australian Captain and has every right to voice his concerns. If you dont like it then stiff. .

and as ive said a billion times, you cant complain about a wicket to the ICC when your country produces some of the most rubbish wickets. moreso you cannot go back on something that you've already claimed was good for the game, and then later say that a similar wicket is not.

You go on to mention "the night club incident" which you know nothing about as if it is some sinister skeleton in pontings closet. Grow up..

and hes matured so much since then hasnt he? blaming his loss on the wicket?

Ganguly could take a leaf out of Pontings book on how to captain, if he gets to play again.

even if that doesnt really affect this argument?
and ponting could take a leaf out of gilchrist's book, on how to not make a fool of himself outside of his own country.

 

[Top_Cat]

lets look at this hypothetically. lets say Antigua's head groundsman Keith Frederick visited australia during the series against SL, then after the series said that darwin and cairns were the worst quality wickets hed seen, and the wickets in the WI were far better quality than the ones in australia. and lets say he somehow managed to complain to the ICC about this, you would of course take kindly to this sort of complaint?

No but it's different when the captain of the side makes the complaint and not an independent observer. Ponting played on it and was entitled (obligated, in my view) to complain. More on that below.

i have no qualms about ponting saying that the mumbai pitch wasnt test standard, because he has every reason to say so. but what was his reason behind why it wasnt test class? because it didnt last 5 days?
yet in darwin when the wicket lasted 2.5 days he said we needed more wickets like these, because it helped the game.
how in the blue hell is that supposed to make sense?

It doesn't and this is where we agree. Ponting SHOULD have said something about the Darwin wicket. I don't remember anything about whether it was him who said it was 'good for cricket' but if he did, well that's just stupid. Good cricket is good for cricket, not contrived results on a dicey deck playing the cricketing equivalent of Russian Roulette just to 'even things out'.

id tell you what i would have done in his place
a) i would have admitted that india played better
b) i would have mentioned that the wicket wasnt upto test standard.

Not in dispute at all. That's exactly what he should have done.

i would not have gone crying to the ICC, because i would have known that my country has been producing atrocious wickets for god knows how long.

As far as I'm concerned, this is debateable. Flat pitches, although sometimes creating somewhat boring cricket, are still 'up to Test standard' in my opinion. Certainly Australia has produced some seriously flat decks (especially in the last 5+ years) but they still produce good cricket when good skill is rewarded more than luck (if one loses the toss, one might feel a little more unlucky though!). That, in my book, makes them Test standard. Not ideal in the overall scheme of things but certainly not 'bad' for cricket.

ICC because i would have remembered that on a similar wicket in the past i actually said that these wickets were good for the game.

If what you've said is true (not questioning you, I just don't remember), then yes agree 100%.

 

[Son Of Coco]

and as ive said a billion times, you cant complain about a wicket to the ICC when your country produces some of the most rubbish wickets. moreso you cannot go back on something that you've already claimed was good for the game, and then later say that a similar wicket is not.



and hes matured so much since then hasnt he? blaming his loss on the wicket?



even if that doesnt really affect this argument?
and ponting could take a leaf out of gilchrist's book, on how to not make a fool of himself outside of his own country.

If Australian wickets are disgraceful then there's not a wicket in the world that can be considered good.

 

[Son Of Coco]

oh it was, was it?
yet cricinfo and basically every reporter failed to mention it.
yet dravid apparently knew nothing about it.
and gee what a surprise, ponting and the aussies heard about it

Ponting wasn't the only one to say something about it either...how is claiming that Dravid didn't hear about it so it may not have happened any better than every Aussie on here saying they did hear about it. I might lead the charge in claiming a conspiracy against Australians here because those comments weren't reported in overseas papers - it's a farce I tell you!

 

[Scallywag]

lets look at this hypothetically. lets say Antigua's head groundsman Keith Frederick visited australia during the series against SL, then after the series said that darwin and cairns were the worst quality wickets hed seen, and the wickets in the WI were far better quality than the ones in australia. and lets say he somehow managed to complain to the ICC about this, you would of course take kindly to this sort of complaint?
i have no qualms about ponting saying that the mumbai pitch wasnt test standard, because he has every reason to say so. but what was his reason behind why it wasnt test class? because it didnt last 5 days?
yet in darwin when the wicket lasted 2.5 days he said we needed more wickets like these, because it helped the game.
how in the blue hell is that supposed to make sense?
then in an attempt to reach the epitome of foolishness, he said that he "expected dravid to stand by his side on this issue". now, when everyone talked about how darwin wasnt test class, did ponting stand by attapattu's side? did ponting stand by gilchrist's side?




and just because ponting says he did, it doesnt mean it did either.
i find it extremely unlikely that not one internet source managed to mention this during the test, or even after it. with the media during that series being as heavy as it was, its an extremely unlikely event.




id tell you what i would have done in his place
a) i would have admitted that india played better
b) i would have mentioned that the wicket wasnt upto test standard.

i would not have gone crying to the ICC, because i would have known that my country has been producing atrocious wickets for god knows how long. and i would not have gone crying to the ICC because i would have remembered that on a similar wicket in the past i actually said that these wickets were good for the game.

might be a good idea to find out what was said before you go making up stories TooExtraCool.

Ponting stated "Unfortunately we weren't good enough today. India played very well, particularly the way they batted."

Dravid stated "It's probably one of the toughest wickets I've played a match on. It was interesting and it produced a great Test match. I'll admit it's not an ideal Test match, but it was a fantastic game of cricket, on what was definitely not an ideal Test wicket."

Ponting also said "Disappointing. It's fair to say that the wicket was nowhere near even being close to Test-match standard:"



And going back to the Darwin test "I don't think the wicket was quite up to Test standards," said Gilchrist, who led Australia in the absence of Ricky Ponting. "It is pretty obvious when a Test finishes like this. With the quality of batsmen around in both teams it is not quite there."

And yes Ponting did support test matches in Darwin but it was an endorsement for playing test matches in Darwin not for the pitch played on. As you can see in his quote he was refering to the venue and not the pitch. "Ricky Ponting threw his weight solidly behind Cairns and Darwin as Test venues despite criticism from some quarters about those centres."

so everything you have said about Ponting is all mixed up and wrong and produced a lie that you are going around spreading.

 

[Son Of Coco]

might be a good idea to find out what was said before you go making up stories TooExtraCool.

Ponting stated "Unfortunately we weren't good enough today. India played very well, particularly the way they batted."

Dravid stated "It's probably one of the toughest wickets I've played a match on. It was interesting and it produced a great Test match. I'll admit it's not an ideal Test match, but it was a fantastic game of cricket, on what was definitely not an ideal Test wicket."

Ponting also said "Disappointing. It's fair to say that the wicket was nowhere near even being close to Test-match standard:"



And going back to the Darwin test "I don't think the wicket was quite up to Test standards," said Gilchrist, who led Australia in the absence of Ricky Ponting. "It is pretty obvious when a Test finishes like this. With the quality of batsmen around in both teams it is not quite there."

And yes Ponting did support test matches in Darwin but it was an endorsement for playing test matches in Darwin not for the pitch played on. As you can see in his quote he was refering to the venue and not the pitch. "Ricky Ponting threw his weight solidly behind Cairns and Darwin as Test venues despite criticism from some quarters about those centres."

so everything you have said about Ponting is all mixed up and wrong and produced a lie that you are going around spreading.

No! Couldn't possibly be true!

 

[honestbharani]

might be a good idea to find out what was said before you go making up stories TooExtraCool.

Ponting stated "Unfortunately we weren't good enough today. India played very well, particularly the way they batted."

Dravid stated "It's probably one of the toughest wickets I've played a match on. It was interesting and it produced a great Test match. I'll admit it's not an ideal Test match, but it was a fantastic game of cricket, on what was definitely not an ideal Test wicket."

Ponting also said "Disappointing. It's fair to say that the wicket was nowhere near even being close to Test-match standard:"



And going back to the Darwin test "I don't think the wicket was quite up to Test standards," said Gilchrist, who led Australia in the absence of Ricky Ponting. "It is pretty obvious when a Test finishes like this. With the quality of batsmen around in both teams it is not quite there."

And yes Ponting did support test matches in Darwin but it was an endorsement for playing test matches in Darwin not for the pitch played on. As you can see in his quote he was refering to the venue and not the pitch. "Ricky Ponting threw his weight solidly behind Cairns and Darwin as Test venues despite criticism from some quarters about those centres."

so everything you have said about Ponting is all mixed up and wrong and produced a lie that you are going around spreading.

I am pretty sure I read a report which quoted Ponting as saying that wickets like Darwin were good for cricket. I am not arguing that the mumbai wicket was not bad, but Ponting, IMO, definitely showed double standards. Plus, I have seen him make stupid comments before. So, basically, I think he is a bit long in the tooth and sometimes says things that don't need to be said and therefore, I will always respect someone like Gilly more than I ever respect Ponting.

 

[Swervy]

I am pretty sure I read a report which quoted Ponting as saying that wickets like Darwin were good for cricket. I am not arguing that the mumbai wicket was not bad, but Ponting, IMO, definitely showed double standards. Plus, I have seen him make stupid comments before. So, basically, I think he is a bit long in the tooth and sometimes says things that don't need to be said and therefore, I will always respect someone like Gilly more than I ever respect Ponting.

long in the tooth??? what relevence has age got to do with this

 

[Scallywag]

I am pretty sure I read a report which quoted Ponting as saying that wickets like Darwin were good for cricket. I am not arguing that the mumbai wicket was not bad, but Ponting, IMO, definitely showed double standards. Plus, I have seen him make stupid comments before. So, basically, I think he is a bit long in the tooth and sometimes says things that don't need to be said and therefore, I will always respect someone like Gilly more than I ever respect Ponting.

Might be wise to check what you read before deciding that somebody else said something. The only double standards that appear dont involve Ponting but certain posters who make things up so they can accuse Ponting of having double standards.


I will finish with a quote from The Paper Round by S Rajesh

"He followed that salvo with another, referring obviously to the Indian team's complaint about the Nagpur wicket: "Will Ponting and co. be criticised for the big fuss they made about the wicket which spun and cost them the match?"

Would that be double standards if India complain about the Nagpur pitch and then complain when Ponting complains about the Mumbia pitch. Are the Indians guilty of double standards. So as you can see honestbharani you just seem to want to find some way of critisizng Ponting even though you are wrong and you own team is guilty of what you claim Ponting did.

 

[honestbharani]

long in the tooth??? what relevence has age got to do with this

lol, I meant long in the mouth. Sorry about the mix up.

 

[honestbharani]

Might be wise to check what you read before deciding that somebody else said something. The only double standards that appear dont involve Ponting but certain posters who make things up so they can accuse Ponting of having double standards.


I will finish with a quote from The Paper Round by S Rajesh

"He followed that salvo with another, referring obviously to the Indian team's complaint about the Nagpur wicket: "Will Ponting and co. be criticised for the big fuss they made about the wicket which spun and cost them the match?"

Would that be double standards if India complain about the Nagpur pitch and then complain when Ponting complains about the Mumbia pitch. Are the Indians guilty of double standards. So as you can see honestbharani you just seem to want to find some way of critisizng Ponting even though you are wrong and you own team is guilty of what you claim Ponting did.

You are getting a bit mixed up here. India did not say that "Nagpur pitch was not ideal for test cricket." They didn't even protest to the ICC. All that happened was that Sourav wanted turners so that he gets wickets that favour India more than Australia. Whether it is right or wrong, it is not something that doesn't happen in world cricket. And when he was not given that and when he was given a wicket which suited the opposition more than his side, he flipped out. It is totally different from Ponting saying "We need wickets like Darwin to even up things" and then complaining about Mumbai.

 

[Scallywag]

You are getting a bit mixed up here. India did not say that "Nagpur pitch was not ideal for test cricket." They didn't even protest to the ICC. All that happened was that Sourav wanted turners so that he gets wickets that favour India more than Australia. Whether it is right or wrong, it is not something that doesn't happen in world cricket. And when he was not given that and when he was given a wicket which suited the opposition more than his side, he flipped out. It is totally different from Ponting saying "We need wickets like Darwin to even up things" and then complaining about Mumbai.

Can you give ma a link to where Ponting said ]"We need wickets like Darwin to even up things" .

I have been unable to find any Ponting reference to the pitch, all I can find is Ponting supporting Darwin as a test venue. Which I might add is his job as Australian captain to promote the expansion of cricket in Australia. I do get the feeling that some have taken his promotion of Darwin as a test venue and jumped to the conclusion that he was actually talking about the pitch itself.

 

[honestbharani]

I am sorry. Like I said, I read it in a newspaper and since we buy 3 everyday, I am not even sure which one it was. But I remember reading that. If I am wrong, I am sorry. But I still think I read him saying "we need wickets like Darwin to even up things". Sorry about not having the proof here. Maybe we should just each stick to our opinions on this and leave it at that.

 

[Scallywag]

I am sorry. Like I said, I read it in a newspaper and since we buy 3 everyday, I am not even sure which one it was. But I remember reading that. If I am wrong, I am sorry. But I still think I read him saying "we need wickets like Darwin to even up things". Sorry about not having the proof here. Maybe we should just each stick to our opinions on this and leave it at that.

I wasnt offering an opinion I based my statements on what Ponting said.

Ponting never made the statement "We need wickets like Darwin to even up things".

The Australian captain critisized the Mumbia pitch and the Australian captain critisized the Darwin pitch. Ponting promoted Darwin as a test venue.

Ponting doesnt require respect from you and thats your loss.