***Official*** India in Australia

[sideshowtim]

what about Brett lee?

What about him?

 

[pasag]

where can i watch this

Hoyts are do a screening at 8.30 tonight

Saw it on Sky Active last night.

 

[Laurrz]

Hoyts are do a screening at 8.30 tonight

Saw it on Sky Active last night.

oo nvm i found it on utueb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InR2znAeTKI

the press journalists were pretty horrible as well... (watch after 4mins approx)

 

[aussie]

the Ashes in 05? nah that was something else... Hoggard Harmison Jones Flintoff at there absolute best.. so hard to handle

With what my friend? Reverse Swing. As Khan & RP Singh showed in England & in the 1st two test of this series their ability to swing the ball from over & around the wicket would have been a real test for Australia's batsmen. Add in Sreesanth & Kumble know how in Australian conditions & the fact that India's batting has the ability to get on top of Australia's bowling it would have real tusle IMO, given that i'm 100 % sure Australia's batsmen would have made the same mistakes that they did in the Ashes again. Not because they are stupid & won't learn but because its in their nature to be aggressive & dominant regardless of what the opposition can do theirfore blinding themselves of a weakness that is found in there game (having no plan B) thus being exposed as was shown in the Ashes.

 

[funnygirl]

What about him?

Don't remember anything ,how convenient ?

 

[Laurrz]

With what my friend? Reverse Swing. As Khan & RP Singh showed in England & in the 1st two test of this series their ability to swing the ball from over & around the wicket would have been a real test for Australia's batsmen. Add in Sreesanth & Kumble know how in Australian conditions & the fact that India's batting has the ability to get on top of Australia's bowling it would have real tusle IMO, given that i'm 100 % sure Australia's batsmen would have made the same mistakes that they did in the Ashes again. Not because they are stupid & won't learn but because its in their nature to be aggressive & dominant regardless of what the opposition can do theirfore blinding themselves of a weakness that is found in there game (having no plan B) thus being exposed as was shown in the Ashes.

not just reverse swing.. just really good bowling overall

Zaheer and Sreesanth are good... but not as good as Englands quartet IMO... Flintoff and Simon Jones in particular... in that series they swung the ball like Zaheer and Sreesanth.. but also threatenened to take ur head off at times and bowl really good rising deliveries

although i think neither attack would be a handful in Australian conditions

 

[sideshowtim]

Don't remember anything ,how convenient ?

Refresh my memory. I'm not sure what incident you're referring to.

 

[Johnners]

ITSTL, Ponting should've handled it better, but then that seems to be a common line we're all using about most things in regards to this match.

 

[Evermind]

oo nvm i found it on utueb
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InR2znAeTKI

the press journalists were pretty horrible as well... (watch after 4mins approx)

Woah, some of those guys acted awfully.

And so did Ponting. That catch off Dhoni was grounded, very clearly. It wasn't even in the process of rolling over - it was in the act of catching itself - he didn't have control over it. Ponting's explanation is pretty nonsensical.

 

[Matt79]

Hmmmm... haven't been on since yesterday morning - partly because I've been busy, but also partly because I didn't want to deal with the level of anger and hurt that would be flying around on here, and partly because I was embarrassed that India got jibbed in the manner they did.

I'll summarise my thoughts in one post here, rather than contributing in an ongoing fashion, partly because I don't have time to stay on and debate, and partly because I don't want to get stuck in any arguments.

Issue 1: The Umpiring
It was appalling in this match - easily the worst standard of umpiring I've seen in a match. I can't believe that either Benson or Bucknor was being deliberately biased - I trust their integrity that far. So we're left with them being incompetent for large chunks of the match. Now Bucknor I've seen enough of to say that, aside from his pettiness regarding bad-light issues, I've thought he's been a decent umpire. But I have also thought for the last couple of years that he was getting to the stage where he should retire. Benson I don't recall seeing before, but if he's on the elite panel, I'm happy that in general he's competent. So I think the ICC needs to look into whether there were specific issues with the two umpires this match that led to such poor performance (possibly their workload, lack of 'off-duty' time to be refreshed, etc). I think there is also an issue with whether it is realistic to expect any umpire to continuously meet the standards we expect of them. There probably need to be more umpires to spread the load. I also think we need to look at the way technology can be used to help them get it right, as not only is what happened in this test is bad for cricket, but, along with some general trends, being an international umpire is an increasingly unattractive job, and I can foresee that if nothing is done then the available pool of umpires from which to choose the elite panel, and hence the standard of that panel, will decline sharply, because no-one will want to do it.

Issue 2: The result
Back to this match, I think it can be said with near certainty that the terrible decision against Dravid probably cost India the chance of securing the draw. Furthermore, the not-out decisions for Symonds in the 1st innings, and Hussey in the 2nd innings, robbed India of a prime opportunity to get a win. It can be said that the match would have been dramatically different from what occurred. If you discount the performances of batsmen who were clearly out but weren't given out, India put in a superior performance to the Aussies for most of the match. I love seeing Australia win, but I want it to be on a fair field and victory rightly earnt.

Issue 3: Australia not playing in the spirit of the game
I'm afraid I don't agree with Kumble on this. I can see why he said it, and I understand how upset he must be, but I think he's mostly wrong about this. Australia play the game tough and they play to win. I don't have a problem with that, this is test cricket, not tiddly-winks. The Aussies are ferocious appealers, and they do, I think we can say, try to sway the umpire's in their favour through ongoing pressure. I think this is a bit dodgy and not particularly admirable, but I don't think its so bad an action as to constitute 'breaking' the spirit of the game. Most of the Aussies are not walkers. I don't have a problem with that as I think its largely unfair to expect modern international players, whose livelihoods' are at stake, to give themselves out. I admire people who do walk, but the umpires are there to do a job and I have no issue with the batsman asking the umpire to do that job. What does need to happen is, as I mentioned above, that the umpires must be given the tools to do that job right. Sometimes not walking is a bigger problem than others, and Symonds' case was a pretty extreme one. I don't admire him for not walking, and I think it does make a bit of a mockery of his MOTM award, but I don't condemn him for it either - from his point of view, his team was in trouble, he's still consolidating his spot in the team, and there was entirely too much pressure on him to succeed for him to be condemned for the snap judgement he made at that point. If he'd been given a couple of minutes to calmly think about the situation, I think he would have walked, but he had to make that decision in the heat of battle with all his competitive juices in full flow. I don't know what Clarke was playing at - it was a strange thing for him to do, and he should probably be spoken to by team management (if that hasn't already happened) and counselled about what he thought he was doing.

On the Ponting 'claimed catch' I pretty much side with Ponting's version of events. I thought not only did he control the catch before the ball touched the ground, but that it did prove in the end (after about 15 super slo-mo replays) to have brushed Dhoni's glove. So I have no problem with him appealling for that. Especially as he hadn't appealled for the Dravid catch earlier in the match. On the Clarke catch of Ganguly, I think it was clear that both Clarke and Ponting genuinely thought he had caught it cleanly, and its worth noting that while the replays didn't confirm it, they equally didn't disprove it. My understanding of the events then were that the umpire asked Clarke, who was standing next to Ponting, whether he had caught it cleanly, and that both Ponting (pres. speaking as captain) and Clarke said that he had (you can see Clarke saying "yes" and nodding to Benson behind Ponting). I have no problem with that if that is what occurred.

Issue 4: Racial and other verbal abuse
I think Harbhajhan did say what he is claimed to have said. Given that, I think the ban is entirely appropriate. The argument is being made that 'monkey' doesn't have racial connotations in India, but after the events in India in October, there's no way that Bhajji didn't know that to Symonds it's a racial term of abuse that he finds offensive. So I can see no other reason why Bhajji would say it again to Symonds other than to insult him in racial terms. That deserves a ban, and compulsory counselling/education for the offender, everytime for mine.

The issue with Hogg is an interesting one and may be an equivalent case. B*stard certainly isn't a particularly offensive term in Australian terms these days, but the issue is what it means to the person you say it to. Given there haven't been any previous official complaints made about the use of this term, I don't think Hogg should be banned, but all the Australian players should be provided with education about the impact of this term and any further use of it in this series should receive firm punishment.

 

[Johnners]

Whilst I understand the rule that the ball can't be grounded. In the case of Pontings catch it doesn't make sense to me. He surely had caught the ball, and had control of it before he hit the ground, and even then it looks to me dubious as to wether or not he "grounded it" on the first or 2nd bounce (which to my understanding is an important point?)

 

[Andrew Pollock]

At least Ponting will be able to buy a run now

 

[Johnners]

Woah, some of those guys acted awfully.

And so did Ponting. That catch off Dhoni was grounded, very clearly. It wasn't even in the process of rolling over - it was in the act of catching itself - he didn't have control over it. Ponting's explanation is pretty nonsensical.

I honestly can't see how he had anything but complete control of the catch before he hit the ground?

 

[duffer]

I honestly can't see how he had anything but complete control of the catch before he hit the ground?

Didn't have complete control of his movements, so in fact the catch still hadn't been completed when the ball hit the ground.

 

[duffer]

Good lordie the Indian media haven't held back in their condemnation of the umpiring:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHIauv3WEt4

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I honestly can't see how he had anything but complete control of the catch before he hit the ground?

Yeah, it seemed such an obvious catch to me that initially when people started complaining about "the Ponting catch", I assumed it was either a typo and they were talking about Clarke, or there was another Ponting near-catch I missed while I was out of the room. The catch Ponting took when the ball flicked Dhoni's glove was perfect, and a brilliant catch at that. He had total control of the ball before he even came close to hitting the ground.

Looking at the written rule, I suppose he didn't have control of "his movement", but is that rule actually enforced? I've always just understood a catch to be taken when the fielder has total control over the ball before it touches the ground. I'm sure that catch would have been given if the umpire had realised Dhoni hit the ball. May in fact not have been out to the letter of the law, but I'd have to watch it again as it's not really an aspect of catching I've ever taken notice of before.

 

[sideshowtim]

Yeah, it seemed such an obvious catch to me that initially when people started complaining about "the Ponting catch", I assumed it was either a typo and they were talking about Clarke, or there was another Ponting near-catch I missed while I was out of the room. The catch Ponting took when the ball flicked Dhoni's glove was perfect, and a brilliant catch at that. He had total control of the ball before he even came close to hitting the ground.

Looking at the written rule, I suppose he didn't have control of "his movement", but is that rule actually enforced? I've always just understood a catch to be taken when the fielder has total control over the ball before it touches the ground. I'm sure that catch would have been given if the umpire had realised Dhoni hit the ball. May in fact not have been out to the letter of the law, but I'd have to watch it again as it's not really an aspect of catching I've ever taken notice of before.

Those kind of catches are given out ALL the time. It has simply been overblown because of other indicents in the match and people's insisting to attempt to denigrate Ponting at any given chance.

 

[Andrew Pollock]

Again, I refer to the ashes series in 05, which was far worse for umpiring than even this test, with decisions against key, set batsmen having a drastic effect on the course of a SERIES.

:
????????

 

[Johnners]

Yeah, it seemed such an obvious catch to me that initially when people started complaining about "the Ponting catch", I assumed it was either a typo and they were talking about Clarke, or there was another Ponting near-catch I missed while I was out of the room. The catch Ponting took when the ball flicked Dhoni's glove was perfect, and a brilliant catch at that. He had total control of the ball before he even came close to hitting the ground.

Looking at the written rule, I suppose he didn't have control of "his movement", but is that rule actually enforced? I've always just understood a catch to be taken when the fielder has total control over the ball before it touches the ground. I'm sure that catch would have been given if the umpire had realised Dhoni hit the ball. May in fact not have been out to the letter of the law, but I'd have to watch it again as it's not really an aspect of catching I've ever taken notice of before.

That was my understanding as well.

 

[Cevno]

Yeah, it seemed such an obvious catch to me that initially when people started complaining about "the Ponting catch", I assumed it was either a typo and they were talking about Clarke, or there was another Ponting near-catch I missed while I was out of the room. The catch Ponting took when the ball flicked Dhoni's glove was perfect, and a brilliant catch at that. He had total control of the ball before he even came close to hitting the ground.

Looking at the written rule, I suppose he didn't have control of "his movement", but is that rule actually enforced? I've always just understood a catch to be taken when the fielder has total control over the ball before it touches the ground. I'm sure that catch would have been given if the umpire had realised Dhoni hit the ball. May in fact not have been out to the letter of the law, but I'd have to watch it again as it's not really an aspect of catching I've ever taken notice of before.

If the ball pops out while it he touches the ground when his elbow hits the ground ,will it be a catch?
If no then using the ground to help you not to land your wrist and elbow on the ground is also not a ncatch.