***Official*** India in Australia

[Laurrz]

0/62 - Stumps

thats a good wipe out of Indias total.. 464 runs behind...still a lot of work to do... these two need to get hundreds, that would be great...

this is how we should've batted at the WACA (our openers i mean) grinding out a tough period (21 overs on the last day having fielded for 152 overs is great)
and going at an RR at around 3 is ideal in this situation...
Great to see Jaques dig in unlike at Perth...

But still it was very much Indias day... had there tailend batted normally they only would've got around 400 and now they are 64 runs more than that

 

[pasag]

No. India weren't good enough to hold on for a draw in Sydney when they had ample opportunity to. 2-1 is a fair reflection.

India weren't good enough to overcome poor umpiring and hold onto a draw there. Really wanted to win this match to put the series result out of question but that doesn't look likely now.

 

[JBH001]

No. India weren't good enough to hold on for a draw in Sydney when they had ample opportunity to. 2-1 is a fair reflection.

Hahaha! Smilies not give it away, mate? Sense of humour lacking?

Too serious about the Australian team, methinks you are. I have a few queries about your views but, tbh, not too interested in debating it. Think it pointless and a total waste of time. Not that there wont be a few around here who would be more than willing to take you up on that post when and if this test ends in a draw, and the post series round-up begins.

 

[Laurrz]

Really wanted to win this match to put the series result out of question but that doesn't look likely now.

agreed...

but now i'll take a draw.... geez i just thought... if we were at around 0/200 and both these guys get hundreds... we would still be in a tough position if a wicket falls ... being 300 runs behind

 

[sideshowtim]

India weren't good enough to overcome poor umpiring and hold onto a draw there. Really wanted to win this match to put the series result out of question but that doesn't look likely now.

The series result will be out of the question if we win here. 2-1 Australia. Australia claimed 20 Indian wickets in Sydney. India had enough time to hold onto a draw and weren't good enough to do so, and thus Australia deserved to win.

 

[Laurrz]

why couldnt Jaffer play instead of Harbhajan <_<

anywho we'll be around 150 runs behind at stumps tomorrow if we arent all out..that shows how much work there is to be done
ideally cant be more than 5 down...

 

[pasag]

The series result will be out of the question if we win here. 2-1 Australia. Australia claimed 20 Indian wickets in Sydney. India had enough time to hold onto a draw and weren't good enough to do so, and thus Australia deserved to win.

It will be out of question because the result will be 3-1, if we win.

If we draw or lose here however, Sydney does come into play and anyone who watched that will know that ~10-2 bad decisions against India cost them not only a possible victory but also the draw. It will put the series result in doubt for a lot of people and rightly so.

 

[JBH001]

Congrats on 15,000 pasag. Nice work!

 

[sideshowtim]

It will be out of question because the result will be 3-1, if we win.

If we draw or lose here however, Sydney does come into play and anyone who watched that will know that ~10-2 bad decisions against India cost them not only a possible victory but also the draw. It will put the series result in doubt for a lot of people and rightly so.

Do we then also take into account the bad decisions against Symonds and Hussey in our chase in the Perth Test, while we're making ifs and buts about umpiring decisions?

Facts are, India should've held on for a draw, the only poor decision in the second innings was the one off Dravid. The 9 other batsmen have no excuses. Australia deserved the win, end of story.

 

[Clarke Fan]

Good start for the Aussies.

I'm confident we can knock of Indias total.

 

[Captain Cricket]

Hogg's D.O.A.

 

[pasag]

Do we then also take into account the bad decisions against Symonds and Hussey in our chase in the Perth Test, while we're making ifs and buts about umpiring decisions?

Facts are, India should've held on for a draw, the only poor decision in the second innings was the one off Dravid. The 9 other batsmen have no excuses. Australia deserved the win, end of story.

No way did Australia deserve to win that. I think even most people with rose tinted glasses can acknowledge that whilst we can say that one or two bad decisions falls into the 'that's life' category like Perth, 10-2 doesn't. India deserved to draw Sydney. The fact that they weren't able to overcome bad umpiring means that although the result will say Australia won and the statistics will say the same, those who watched it will always know there is a big red question mark hanging over that match (which is all the pity because there were some wonderful performances in it).

 

[Laurrz]

No way did Australia deserve to win that. I think even most people with rose tinted glasses can acknowledge that whilst we can say that one or two bad decisions falls into the 'that's life' category like Perth, 10-2 doesn't. India deserved to draw Sydney. The fact that they weren't able to overcome bad umpiring means that although the result will say Australia won and the statistics will say the same, those who watched it will always know there is a big red question mark hanging over that match (which is all the pity because there were some wonderful performances in it).

10-2? ahhh i really cbs talking about it again.....

but the only real clear cut decisions i remember were Symo - twice
Dravid - once

so only 3 ... (Ponting cancelled out)

LBW's and such i dont include because i feel its what the UMPIRE sees.... its more opiniated if that makes sense.. not 'oh thats definately out or not out' unless it was an inside edge of course

and Hussey was not out ... snicko showed nothing

 

[sideshowtim]

No way did Australia deserve to win that. I think even most people with rose tinted glasses can acknowledge that whilst we can say that one or two bad decisions falls into the 'that's life' category like Perth, 10-2 doesn't. India deserved to draw Sydney. The fact that they weren't able to overcome bad umpiring means that although the result will say Australia won and the statistics will say the same, those who watched it will always know there is a big red question mark hanging over that match (which is all the pity because there were some wonderful performances in it).

Still don't know how anyone can say India deserved a draw when they lost 9 legitimate wickets in under 2 sessions.

Australia won, and deservedly so since India were not good enough to keep their wickets intact despite having enormous opportunity to.

 

[duffer]

SST must surely be on a wind-up. Otherwise he takes being blinkered to a whole new level.

 

[pasag]

Still don't know how anyone can say India deserved a draw when they lost 9 legitimate wickets in under 2 sessions.

Australia won, and deservedly so since India were not good enough to keep their wickets intact despite having enormous opportunity to.

Obviously people don't want to hear or talk about this anymore (as Laurrz indicated) but I agree, India were poor at the end. That's besides the point. At vital times throughout the whole match they were robbed, the timing of the decisions was insane and had a huge impact on which direction the match would take. Test cricket has lots of little ebbs and flows, the direction can change quick smart and one side can get on top of the other pretty quickly, here we were seeing the umpires dictating that in front of our own eyes. Now I'm not going as far as to say India should have won, I disagree with that. But it should have been a draw at the very least and the only reason it wasn't was because of the poor umpiring.

This isn't anything sentimental and I hate the fact it happened but when properly trying to analyse the series and looking deeper into things, for mine at least, it's pretty clear that the result would have been different if even India had the standard poor umpiring (2-3) go against them.

All this is besides the initial point made, that I wanted Australia to win this to eliminate the doubt remains in the minds of most semi-impartial cricket watchers, not staunch Australian supporters.

 

[sideshowtim]

Obviously people don't want to hear or talk about this anymore (as Laurrz indicated) but I agree, India were poor at the end. That's besides the point. At vital times throughout the whole match they were robbed, the timing of the decisions was insane and had a huge impact on which direction the match would take. Test cricket has lots of little ebbs and flows, the direction can change quick smart and one side can get on top of the other pretty quickly, here we were seeing the umpires dictating that in front of our own eyes. Now I'm not going as far as to say India should have won, I disagree with that. But it should have been a draw at the very least and the only reason it wasn't was because of the poor umpiring.

This isn't anything sentimental and I hate the fact it happened but when properly trying to analyse the series and looking deeper into things, for mine at least, it's pretty clear that the result would have been different if even India had the standard poor umpiring (2-3) go against them.

All this is besides the initial point made, that I wanted Australia to win this to eliminate the doubt remains in the minds of most semi-impartial cricket watchers, not staunch Australian supporters.

No, there was one abysmal decision and then there were the normal ones you see in every Test. The abysmal one was the edge of Symonds and then the rest were ones you see in every single other Test match...It's just the abysmal one blew everything else up to look ten times worse than it actually was. I'm disappointed that you've fallen trap to the media overreaction following the Test.

I was told some time ago, by people in this debate even, that the best team always ends up winning the Test match. And that's fair. India collapsed horribly in the second innings and failed to bowl out Australia twice. Australia were the better team over all, and if you stop reading all the tall poppy induced crap in the media you'd realise that.

 

[pasag]

No, there was one abysmal decision and then there were the normal ones you see in every Test. The abysmal one was the edge of Symonds and then the rest were ones you see in every single other Test match...It's just the abysmal one blew everything else up to look ten times worse than it actually was. I'm disappointed that you've fallen trap to the media overreaction following the Test.

I was told some time ago, by people in this debate even, that the best team always ends up winning the Test match. And that's fair. India collapsed horribly in the second innings and failed to bowl out Australia twice. Australia were the better team over all, and if you stop reading all the tall poppy induced crap in the media you'd realise that.

Sorry, go back and read my posts before, during and after the game. BEFORE any media on the issue came out. One or two bad decisions in, I argued that hey it happens, after that things started getting farcical and whilst watching the last few wickets fall, I cringed. My mate called me up all excited right as we had won it and was like, 'that was awesome' and I told him, meh we didn't deserve that at all. Before anything of note was really published on the matter. So to say my opinion on the issue stems from the media and some sort of tall-poppy syndrome is insulting to say the least.

But to quote some media which I do agree with and even though I usually pay little attention to Roebuck, he does have a point as illustrated here - It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Sure those rabid nationalists will count it as a victory, most however will acknowledge that it is not so simple, thus the doubt.

 

[Cevno]

Do not remind me of sydney again.

 

[sideshowtim]

Sorry, go back and read my posts before, during and after the game. BEFORE any media on the issue came out. One or two bad decisions in, I argued that hey it happens, after that things started getting farcical and whilst watching the last few wickets fall, I cringed. My mate called me up all excited right as we had won it and was like, 'that was awesome' and I told him, meh we didn't deserve that at all. Before anything of note was really published on the matter. So to say my opinion on the issue stems from the media and some sort of tall-poppy syndrome is insulting to say the least.

But to quote some media which I do agree with and even though I usually pay little attention to Roebuck, he does have a point as illustrated here - It was a match that will have been relished only by rabid nationalists and others for whom victory and vengeance are the sole reasons for playing sport. Sure those rabid nationalists will count it as a victory, most however will acknowledge that it is not so simple, thus the doubt.

Well it's very possible that you were swayed by Indian posters here who didn't stop whinging at anything that was even remotely close to a questionable decision (Their rage was swayed by the shocker Symonds got in his favour and the fact that he punished the Indians for dropping their heads and bowling crap after that point). Most fans who weren't on the internet loved every minute of it and saw nothing wrong with it (as your mate, my mates and my brothers indicated by their reaction).

You and I are different though. You would rather see a good, tight cricket match than Australia win, so...whatever.