Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[honestbharani]

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.

Let's leave this pitch issue aside. Even without it, Ponting has said some stuff that he didn't 'necessarily' need to say and IMHO, a captain should always be as diplomatic as possible. Esp. in the context of an international sport, it is important to be rather diplomatic. No, I don't want him to be dull, but to be diplomatic is important. Didn't Ponting say "He is probably chucking, I mean, bowling that one in" about Murali? Okay, so Murali chucks, so does McGrath and Gillespie and Warne. Why did Ponting have to specifically make a sarcastic comment about a man who is a nation's hero? IF he thinks he chucks, he can always say it but to say that in a sarcastic manner is not all that great. I don't hate Ponting. He still is and has been, ever since I saw him in 1996, one of my favourite batsmen to watch. It is just that I expect him to be a lot more Gilchrist like, now that he is the captain of the world's leading side. It is important that he sets the right example.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

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'..

im pretty sure he said something along the lines of "darwin was good for cricket". the closest i could find on the net resembling that was this right after the darwin test:
"You don't want drawn Tests. We need players who can adapt and play to different conditions."
He added, "There's no doubt we were spoiled last year. Last summer the pitches were as flat as I've seen in Australia. The West Indies last year was exactly the same. You don't want batsmen dominating the ball as much as they did last summer. Better cricket wickets will make it a better spectacle for the fans and more enjoyable to play."

and i think its quite obvious right there that he is suggesting that darwin was good for australian cricket.

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..

and why is that? how in the world is a flat deck even a slightly bit different from a dustbowl?
as far as im concerned, one is loaded signficantly in favour of the bowlers, while the other is loaded significantly in favour of the batsmen. hence neither are good for the game. of course with 2/3 tests these days being on flat wickets, i certainly dont mind the other seamers paradise, because it just gives some variety and tests some of the batsmen in difficult conditions.

 

[tooextracool]

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

first off let me just mention 3 things:
1) just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that they have the best selectors.
2)just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that they have the best pitches.
3) just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that their standard of domestic cricket is the highest and that they have the best domestic cricketers in the world.

as far as the pitches are concerned, id say only the WI pitches offer anything less for the bowlers. the reason we've seen so many results on australian pitches is because they have excellent bowlers who are capable of getting wickets even on dead flat decks and because the aussie batsman play at a fairly decent run rate. any test wicket that offers nothing, or barely anything for the bowlers(and really how in the blue hell anyone can suggest that any of the wickets against india or adelaide vs NZ offered something for the bowlers i'll never know) is not test class.

 

[tooextracool]

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!

so who else complained about the pitch during the game then?

 

[tooextracool]

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.

then maybe you should read my posts more closely then? i think ive explained everything quite clearly.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

do you even know what double standards means?

a) who exactly complained about nagpur and then said that mumbai was test class?
b)india didnt complain about nagpur to the ICC.and why would they really?

 

[tooextracool]

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

so when ponting said " we dont want drawn tests" after the game at darwin he was actually criticising the darwin pitch. thank you for clearing that up.

 

[tooextracool]

Let's leave this pitch issue aside. Even without it, Ponting has said some stuff that he didn't 'necessarily' need to say and IMHO, a captain should always be as diplomatic as possible. Esp. in the context of an international sport, it is important to be rather diplomatic. No, I don't want him to be dull, but to be diplomatic is important. Didn't Ponting say "He is probably chucking, I mean, bowling that one in" about Murali? Okay, so Murali chucks, so does McGrath and Gillespie and Warne. Why did Ponting have to specifically make a sarcastic comment about a man who is a nation's hero? IF he thinks he chucks, he can always say it but to say that in a sarcastic manner is not all that great. I don't hate Ponting. He still is and has been, ever since I saw him in 1996, one of my favourite batsmen to watch. It is just that I expect him to be a lot more Gilchrist like, now that he is the captain of the world's leading side. It is important that he sets the right example.

not to mention his trying to take the sheen of laras 400 by calling him 'selfish'.
then saying "It's hard to imagine an Australian player doing it, that's not the way the Australian team plays."
and ending with this:'Ponting conceded that Hayden's 380 at Perth did involve an exception to the team rule, as he was allowed to carry on batting with the record in sight. "It was a very rare thing, for Matty to be able to bat for as long as he did and go on and make that big score," said Ponting. "He was given the opportunity to go on and break Brian's record and he did that. He was going to be given another half an hour, or 20 minutes, to try to get to 400 but unfortunately he got out."'
not to mention the time in Nz where he let warne bat till he got his 50.

 

[Scallywag]

not to mention his trying to take the sheen of laras 400 by calling him 'selfish'.
.

See how easy you get things all mixed up TEC, Ponting never called Lara's innings selfish.
That is something you have added to try and make it look like Ponting said something really nasty.

See how easy you get fooled by reporters. You just believed what the headline said without actually reading what Ponting said.

Ponting never said Lara's innings was selfish, it was just a headline to get people to read the story and you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

 

[tooextracool]

See how easy you get things all mixed up TEC, Ponting never called Lara's innings selfish.
That is something you have added to try and make it look like Ponting said something really nasty.

See how easy you get fooled by reporters. You just believed what the headline said without actually reading what Ponting said.

Ponting never said Lara's innings was selfish, it was just a headline to get people to read the story and you swallowed it hook line and sinker.

you do of course realise that whether or not he used the word 'selfish' doesnt really affect my argument?
whatever he said, its still glaringly obvious that all he was trying to do was take the sheen of lara's 400, probably because he overtook an australian on the way to it.

 

[mofo123]

but all this is irrelavent coz, courtney browne has had 75 dismissals in 19 matches. which just goes to show doesnt it?

 

[King_Ponting]

first off let me just mention 3 things:
1) just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that they have the best selectors.
2)just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that they have the best pitches.
3) just because australia has the best team in the world, it doesnt mean that their standard of domestic cricket is the highest and that they have the best domestic cricketers in the world.

.

Just on your point number three, yes it does and australia does have the best dometic cricketers in the world and that is why there is so much depth in Australian cricket because it is the best in the world

 

[marc71178]

So much depth where exactly - certainly not in the bowling (which is the area most likely to need replacements very soon indeed)

Looking at some of these fringe players when they came over to England last year there were some very poor results.

 

[King_Ponting]

tait, lee, bichel, mac gill, williams, bracken, casson, clark, dorety and wright. Some of australias back up bowlers

 

[King_Ponting]

certaianly much more depth than any other country unless u can prove me wrong marc..........

 

[marc71178]

tait, lee, bichel, mac gill, williams, bracken, casson, clark, dorety and wright. Some of australias back up bowlers

Which proves my point exactly.

 

[King_Ponting]

which also proves my point that australia has alot more depth than any other country in the world

 

[marc71178]

No it doesn't, because you've listed a list of International nobodies (plus the much questioned MacGill)

Any Englishman could provide just as long a list of unproven bowlers from England.

 

[King_Ponting]

lee, bichel, mac gill international nobodies?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Obviously no country is going to have a long list of players with extensive international success sitting at home not playing internationals, are they?

The point is, no other country has a pacer the quality of Lee not playing currently. No other country has a spinner the quality of Macgill not playing currently. No other country has an opener the quality of Mike Hussey not playing currently, and no other country has a middle-order batsman the quality of Brad Hodge not playing currently. All of these players other than Hodge have played a bit internationally, and Hodge and Hussey have had such resounding success in domestic cricket in both Australia and England that their ability cannot really be questioned.

On top of that, Australia has a pack of young players in domestic cricket that is the envy of any other country, many of which would already have been given an extensive run in international cricket were they not in Australia, such as Tait, Bracken, Watson, Haddin, Jacques, Thornley etc.