So...let me get this straight, the performances are relevant when it's players who aren't performing at their best. but when it comes to Bangladesh performing extremely well (i.e. losing by only 2 wickets) it doesn't matter. There's so many holes in your argument it's not funny.
Not alone, though. The way some people go on about it, the 90's was a time of fearless batsmen batting against guys who could bowl 190km/h, swing the ball metres and on minefields. Funnily enough, most of the proponents of this are too young to have seen much 90's cricket.
Can't remember all off the top of my head but I'll be sure to point it out.
But ignores a bunch of other factors, though; better bat technology, fitter batsmen, different batting tempo's, roped-in boundaries, flatter pitches, etc. all outside the control of bowlers' and batters' skills which, I guess, is my main objection. People tend to criminally under-rate current batsmen and over-rate the previous generations' bowlers. Same thing happened in the 90's where those batsmen who prospered then were derided for not having faced Garner, Marshall, Holding, etc. and those guys were super-bowlers of some sort.
Separate issue but this I also disagree with. I've seen far more classic matches in the 2000's than in the 90's. There were more than enough boring draws in the 90's, thanks. In matches involving Australia, especially, in the 90's I remember only a few really close games (The Oval 1997, Adelaide 1992, SCG 1993, Kandy 1992 and that one in Pakistan where Inzi and Mushie won the game by one wicket when Heals missed a stumping). In the 2000's we've had classic series such as India 2001, Ashes 2005, Australia vs India 2003. Better yet, there's a decent crop of pace bowlers starting to bowl really well. Sure there have been a few more boring bat-fests but cricket, on the whole, has been far more entertaining for me.
That's cheating, man.
Ntini/Lee/Zaheer haven't been the best bowlers of the 00's. Warne/Murali/McGrath would have been a fairer comparison and I'd stand them up against anything the 90's or 80's had to offer.
Of course not mate. But I definitely think that factored into Richard's argument. I knew what his answer was going to be before I started the thread.
Waugh's team had at least one big decision go their way, if you wanna be pedantic. In Hobart during the big partnership by Gilchrist and Langer against Pakistan, Langer definitely nicked Wasim behind, although not a huge touch. That was with Australia still needing quite a few runs to win too and it knocked the life out of the Pakistan team which carried over into their loss in Perth I'm sure.
Two get two instance of umpire asistance you had to go 2 test among 16 rite....
and wht some 7 in a single test
Any team which has a streak of 16 tests will have decisions go their way. It's the law of averages surely.
That guy's problem was more incompetence rather than bias. In the same inning he gave Steve Waugh not out off a bigger edge than Symonds' in this match after which Waugh went on to put up a massive partnership with Gillespie. And in another one-day match when Jadeja had a similar massive edge through to the keeper, he took his finger upto his head level, then poked his hat and put it down ruling not-out!
i thought the caught was reffered to third umpire..the first lbw was plumb and the second was a 50-50 decision..if i was true ian chappel was on air and this was his version..so cant find big fault with him
GAGFC.
If you want to stay and post on these forums, I would strongly suggest you get away from this clear trolling.
