Tendency to quote freak stats out of context !!

[Jnr.]

exactly. it was the one lbw and the run out.
and please dont go on talking about how the lbw in the 2nd test was dicey. replays showed that it was a brilliant decision, and that it was going to go on to hit the stumps. he had one poor decision and 1 run out. thats it.

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

The point is that he was very unlucky during that series. How well do you expect him to go after losing half (or a third) of his innings to bad luck?

 

[Jnr.]

TEC give up your argument ponting is not weak against spin!!!!!!!

He's relatively weak against spin...

 

[King_Ponting]

Maybe early in his innings, but who isnt

 

[honestbharani]

TEC, you really do talk crap when it comes to supporting your favourite players and making cases against those who arent.

The 180 was scored in the 2nd innings on the world's flattest wicket after the follow-on had been enforced. Do you really think the Aus attack would be fresh after fielding for 2-3 days? If you do, then youve never been closer to the game than your keyboard.

Unfortunately, your bias towards Dravid would have everyone believe that it was a faultless innings played on a raging green-top against a fresh attack. Fortunately, anyone who knows anything about cricket knows that it is not the case.

When it comes to Ponting, you conveniently ignore the fact that he has been monumentally succesful against better bowlers than the Indians in worse conditions and continually harp on about isolated series where he was incredibly unsuccesful. You then use those selective statistics to grossly exaggerate his lack of ability against spinners.

Fortunately, statistics dont lie and the thousands of runs he has scored all around the world are testimony to the fact that he has no significant weakness against any sort of bowler (including Indian spinners against whom he averages over 50).

You'll undoubtedly ignore all of the above and the multitude of other facts at my disposal and simply term him "rubbish against spin" because he hasnt scored runs in India whilst conveniently ignoring any holes in the resumes of your favourites because, in their case, you abhor the use of "selective statistics."

Can u explain how Australia lost 10 wickets in about 5 hours on the "flattest track in the world"?

 

[Son Of Coco]

so howcome he wasnt saying what everybody else thought after the test match in darwin then? gilchrist and dyson both said that the pitch was below par, yet ponting was actually backing it up. and he took it about 10 times too far when he complained to the ICC about it, considering his wickets at home are even more disgraceful and have been for quite a while now.
its ridiculous, how we should filter out only the stuff that we want to hear from him.

Maybe because he didn't actually play!? I'm not saying that everything Ponting says is right, but I don't have a seemingly fanatical love of everything he does that would run in direct contrast to your opinion of him.

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.

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...

 

[honestbharani]

To Scally:
The pitch is the same for both teams..... And if playing on pitches that help the home team is cheating, Australia did the same at Darwin. And, thirdly, it was not 'deliberate'.... It is no secret that there was unseasonal rainfall before the test in Mumbai and that the relaid pitch has not been as good as the one before it..... Surely, during the 2001 series,when it helped the seamers, that was not the regular Mumbai track either... Do u think that was cheating too? So should we take that win by Aus away as well?

 

[Son Of Coco]

The pitch is the same for both teams..... And if playing on pitches that help the home team is cheating, Australia did the same at Darwin. And, thirdly, it was not 'deliberate'.... It is no secret that there was unseasonal rainfall before the test in Mumbai and that the relaid pitch has not been as good as the one before it..... Surely, during the 2001 series,when it helped the seamers, that was not the regular Mumbai track either... Do u think that was cheating too? So should we take that win by Aus away as well?

Of course it was the same for both teams, I'm not arguing that it wasn't. I do think Ponting had a right to say something about it though.

Was the Darwin wicket used in regular test rotation? I'd say not. Has Mumbai ever played like that before? 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? I don't think preparing the wicket like that was cheating on India's behalf, as it could have gone either way with teams struggling to make runs. It's not like it set them up to thrash Australia. When you end up with a wicket where teams with apparently the world's top batsmen in them are struggling to score 100 collectively though...something should be said. Groundsmen are usually pretty good at dealing with adverse conditions, so unless it was the guy's first day on the job it's a bit baffling.

As for the unseasonal rainfall - was the wicket still wet/unprepared?

 

[honestbharani]

Of course it was the same for both teams, I'm not arguing that it wasn't. I do think Ponting had a right to say something about it though.

Was the Darwin wicket used in regular test rotation? I'd say not. Has Mumbai ever played like that before? 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? I don't think preparing the wicket like that was cheating on India's behalf, as it could have gone either way with teams struggling to make runs. It's not like it set them up to thrash Australia. When you end up with a wicket where teams with apparently the world's top batsmen in them are struggling to score 100 collectively though...something should be said. Groundsmen are usually pretty good at dealing with adverse conditions, so unless it was the guy's first day on the job it's a bit baffling.

As for the unseasonal rainfall - was the wicket still wet/unprepared?

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...

 

[Scallywag]

Can u explain how Australia lost 10 wickets in about 5 hours on the "flattest track in the world"?

I can, in the first test at Mumbia Australia won and there was not one LBW, in the next test Australia batted first getting 4 LBW decisions against them. India batted next and were routed with only 2 LBW's going against them and followed on but did not get anymore LBW's against them. When Australia batted last there were another 5 LBW's given against Australia.

India had a umpire named Shyam Bansal who umpired 6 test matches in India and it reads like this.

Match 1) Aus 9 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 2) Zim 7 lbws India 1 lbw
Match 3) SL 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 4) NZ 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 5) SA 7 lbws India 6 lbws
Match 6) WI 3 lbws India 3 lbws.

So in six matches Bansal umpired India recieved 38 lbws
The opposition recieved 16

India didnt win they just cheated.

 

[honestbharani]

I can, in the first test at Mumbia Australia won and there was not one LBW, in the next test Australia batted first getting 4 LBW decisions against them. India batted next and were routed with only 2 LBW's going against them and followed on but did not get anymore LBW's against them. When Australia batted last there were another 5 LBW's given against Australia.

India had a umpire named Shyam Bansal who umpired 6 test matches in India and it reads like this.

Match 1) Aus 9 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 2) Zim 7 lbws India 1 lbw
Match 3) SL 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 4) NZ 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 5) SA 7 lbws India 6 lbws
Match 6) WI 3 lbws India 3 lbws.

So in six matches Bansal umpired India recieved 38 lbws
The opposition recieved 16

India didnt win they just cheated.

Of course, you understand why Shane Warne gets lesser LBWs than Kumble, right.... Given Kumble's style of bowling, he is bound to get more LBWs than the other spinners. Given the matches were played in India, he is bound to bowl a lot of overs. Given that most opposition around the world (till recently) believed in sticking out their pads in front of the stumps to Kumble (which is the worst way to play him when in India), it is no secret that the opposition would get more LBWs than India.... Plus, in specific reference to the Eden Gardens test, you would see that Laxman was wrongly given out in India's 1st innings and Steve Waugh was caught behind and was not given (by Bansal, of all people)... Sure, there was a dicey decision handed out to Gilly in that test in the second innings, but other than that, I think all the other decisions were reasonable..... And if you wanna chat about home umpires helping home teams, what about the famous "Shoulder before Wicket" and comments by former greats like Holding who say "you know that when you are playing in Australia, the umps would support them."

 

[vic_orthdox]

I can, in the first test at Mumbia Australia won and there was not one LBW, in the next test Australia batted first getting 4 LBW decisions against them. India batted next and were routed with only 2 LBW's going against them and followed on but did not get anymore LBW's against them. When Australia batted last there were another 5 LBW's given against Australia.

India had a umpire named Shyam Bansal who umpired 6 test matches in India and it reads like this.

Match 1) Aus 9 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 2) Zim 7 lbws India 1 lbw
Match 3) SL 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 4) NZ 6 lbws India 2 lbws
Match 5) SA 7 lbws India 6 lbws
Match 6) WI 3 lbws India 3 lbws.

So in six matches Bansal umpired India recieved 38 lbws
The opposition recieved 16

India didnt win they just cheated.

Oh, I'm sure that post is going to go down reeaaall well.

 

[Scallywag]

Of course, you understand why Shane Warne gets lesser LBWs than Kumble, right.... Given Kumble's style of bowling, he is bound to get more LBWs than the other spinners. Given the matches were played in India, he is bound to bowl a lot of overs. Given that most opposition around the world (till recently) believed in sticking out their pads in front of the stumps to Kumble (which is the worst way to play him when in India), it is no secret that the opposition would get more LBWs than India.... Plus, in specific reference to the Eden Gardens test, you would see that Laxman was wrongly given out in India's 1st innings and Steve Waugh was caught behind and was not given (by Bansal, of all people)... Sure, there was a dicey decision handed out to Gilly in that test in the second innings, but other than that, I think all the other decisions were reasonable..... And if you wanna chat about home umpires helping home teams, what about the famous "Shoulder before Wicket" and comments by former greats like Holding who say "you know that when you are playing in Australia, the umps would support them."

Trouble with that though is most of the lbws were given to Harbhajans throws.

 

[honestbharani]

What about McGrath's throws during that series? And the wickets he got with that?

 

[social]

Can u explain how Australia lost 10 wickets in about 5 hours on the "flattest track in the world"?

Pretty simple really.

a. the wicket favoured spin on the last day and the Indians bowled well

b. aus were stuffed after fielding for nearly 3 days

 

[honestbharani]

BTW, this is just to clarify that the last post was specifically meant for Scally..... It has been shown that McGrath has some flexion as well of around 11 degrees... So if Harbhajan was 'throwing' at that period, so was McGrath and a whole lot of other bowlers around the world, with the glorious exception of "Sarwan".

 

[honestbharani]

Pretty simple really.

a. the wicket favoured spin on the last day and the Indians bowled well

b. aus were stuffed after fielding for nearly 3 days

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.....

 

[Dasa]

Pretty simple really.

a. the wicket favoured spin on the last day and the Indians bowled well

b. aus were stuffed after fielding for nearly 3 days

Still finding it difficult to praise a team other than Australia? Damning with your faint praise...

 

[Scallywag]

Still finding it difficult to praise a team other than Australia? Damning with your faint praise...

heh heh heh

 

[Son Of Coco]

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 agree with you there.

I'm glad I noticed the 'edit' this time around, because when I spotted the "To Scally" after posting I thought I must have been going mad!

 

[Scallywag]

BTW, this is just to clarify that the last post was specifically meant for Scally..... It has been shown that McGrath has some flexion as well of around 11 degrees... So if Harbhajan was 'throwing' at that period, so was McGrath and a whole lot of other bowlers around the world, with the glorious exception of "Sarwan".

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.