*Official* Australia in decline thread

[pasag]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/06/aussie-bowling.html?site=cricket

Listen to the interview - skip to 2:20 where he talks about the pitch and says something like

"I was just talking to Sarwan/Chanderpaul that it was a poor test wicket, them both getting runs, it was pretty good to bat on and you are not going to win test matches on those sort of pitches'

Pretty poor effort IMO. Common - Its a No. 1 team Vs. No. 8 with and he is complaing about the pitch.

He does call them very good players though and say they played them very well and he does say they didn't bowl well enough. He also doesn't blame the rain at all. And look, he's right about the pitch, everyone here has been calling it a shocker since day one, so why shouldn't he be allowed to?

 

[aussie]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/grandstand/2008/06/aussie-bowling.html?site=cricket

Listen to the interview - skip to 2:20 where he talks about the pitch and says something like

"I was just talking to Sarwan/Chanderpaul that it was a poor test wicket, them both getting runs, it was pretty good to bat on and you are not going to win test matches on those sort of pitches'

Pretty poor effort IMO. Common - Its a No. 1 team Vs. No. 8 with and he is complaing about the pitch.

Ha, Trying very hard to undermine Ponting i see. I really can't see whats wrong with him saying that regardless of the gap between the two teams. Only McGrath/Warne & possibly that rain interruption prevented AUS from winning TBH.

I think the Windies should be given some credit for drawing this test since they have collapsed againts far poorer bowling attacks in recent times, instead of foolishly rediculing Ponting for making a pretty fair comment.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

We are reading a bit too much into this series I feel. By the sounds of it the wickets seem dead flat... ?

The first Test was not a flat pitch. Especially as the game wore on. And the second Test had something for bowlers early on.

 

[Sanz]

He does call them very good players though and say they played them very well and he does say they didn't bowl well enough. He also doesn't blame the rain at all. And look, he's right about the pitch, everyone here has been calling it a shocker since day one, so why shouldn't he be allowed to?

Why criticize his bowlers then ? Besides, If it was a bad pitch then it helped Australia as well, didn't it ? Didn't see anyone blaming the pitch for Katich's 100.

This smacks of making an assumption that Australia were going to win if the pitch had something for the bowlers.

 

[Sanz]

Ha, Trying very hard to undermine Ponting i see. I really can't see whats wrong with him saying that regardless of the gap between the two teams. Only McGrath/Warne & possibly that rain interruption prevented AUS from winning TBH.

If you are going to quote my post, please make sure hat you dont start off with stupid accusations. It is fine if you dont see anything wrong, but do not show off your stupidity by making assumptions about what I said.

I think the Windies should be given some credit for drawing this test since they have collapsed againts far poorer bowling attacks in recent times, instead of foolishly rediculing Ponting for making a pretty fair comment.

Once again..Dont try to be an smartass and start calling others opinions as foolish just because they are different from yours.

 

[pasag]

Why criticize his bowlers then ? Besides, If it was a bad pitch then it helped Australia as well, didn't it ? Didn't see anyone blaming the pitch for Katich's 100.

This smacks of making an assumption that Australia were going to win if the pitch had something for the bowlers.

Johnson and MacGill were both poor (and have been throughout the series) and definitely deserved criticism. That doesn't mean the pitch doesn't deserve criticism either. I'm not sure what the Katich's hundred had to do with anything either. It was a good knock, but given the easy batting conditions it was nothing special.

The quote you gave had Ponting being asked about the pitch by Jim Maxwell and he answered honestly and truthfully and saying the same thing most were saying in the media and on the forum. When talking about the loss he said Aus weren't good enough and Australian bowlers didn't perform and when asked about the pitch he answered about that as well. As far as I can see the criticism here is undeserving.

 

[ret]

try to see why I reported it. I didn't wanna indulge in any crap with you again... I responded to the point, which I see you have conveniently ignored. And I only reported it because that is what the mods asked us to do.. I didn't respond to any of the tripe you posted at me, and only tried to explain my point. The report is for the tripe and the reply is to make my point. Clear?

And of course, me saying Ponting is over rated by some as a captain is the same as you calling Dravid a "dunderhead"...

yes, smart guy, your saying that Pointing is over-rated is the same as me calling Dravid a dunderhead .... but unfortunately for you thats not the point here and it's not surprisingly that you didn't get the central idea

the point is you don't say the below to someone who calls Dravid a dunderhead

And yes, I do have a problem with you thinking Dravid is a dunderhead, esp. given the fact that he has been an international cricket captain and you can't even lick his shoes... And since the context here is cricket discussion, of course I think he knows a hell lot more than you or your smileys......

and ignore the same logic, when calling Ponting over-rated

thats the point i m making, i.e. practice what you preach

 

[Lambu]

. Only McGrath/Warne & possibly that rain interruption prevented AUS from winning TBH.
.

Don't agree at all.

 

[aussie]

If you are going to quote my post, please make sure hat you dont start off with stupid accusations. It is fine if you dont see anything wrong, but do not show off your stupidity by making assumptions about what I said.



Once again..Dont try to be an smartass and start calling others opinions as foolish just because they are different from yours.

, ok boss. So in these two specific posts:

I was just talking to Sarwan/Chanderpaul that it was a poor test wicket, them both getting runs, it was pretty good to bat on and you are not going to win test matches on those sort of pitches'.

Pretty poor effort IMO. Common - Its a No. 1 team Vs. No. 8 with and he is complaing about the pitch.

No. He is called a poor captain for not giving enough credit to the Opposition for saving the game, criticizing the pitch (saying it was not good for test cricket) and for criticizing his bowlers publicly and expecting a Mcgrath/Warne like performance from his bowlers.

"I made all those bowling changes today just trying to get the partnership broken and then we could have brought the quicks back and exposed their new batsmen to the reverse swing but we just couldn't get that breakthrough we needed,"

The above looks like exonerating himself from the responsibility.

You were not (as you are saying i'm wrongly accusing of) attacking Ponting captaincy for making an obvious comment about the state of the pitch given the gap between the teams?. If not i apologise sir..

 

[aussie]

Don't agree at all.

Why not?. With the way Lee was getting it to reverse i struggle to see how WI would have been able to keep two bowlers mastering the art bowling at them. Even Chanderpaul in this form would have had to really dig deep and for Warne come on he proved time & again in his career (againts MUCH stronger batting line-up) on very similar flat pitches & better decks in the 4th innings that he could bowl teams out, Ponting missed that on the 5th day.

 

[Sanz]

@pasag - Johnson is just an average bowler, Agreed I have not watched him in this series, but whenever I have watched him, I have been surprised to see someone like him got to play for Australia in test matches. If Jonshon and Macgill have been average in this series, Ponting should share the blame for picking them in the final XI.

Him making statemet like 'I made all the changes....but..they were not good enough' is simply unacceptable IMO.

About the quote - Even Maxwell was being just so unreasonable there with his question like 'Pitch the man of the match ?' common. Besides just because Ponting was honest with his answer about the pitch doesn't mean he was right. I dont really have a problem with him calling the pitch out in his report, which he should definately do, but calling Sarwan/Chanders out and saying 'If you are going to prepare this sort of pitch then you are not going to win test matches' is flat out pompous and self righteous especially when Pitches elsewhere (including his own country) have not been much better.

 

[pasag]

Yeah I agree both should not have been in this Test (and said so numerous times in the official thread) and if Ponting had a large part to play in that then he should definitely hold a lot of the blame there, though I don't know what the deal is there. There are two selectors in the WI afaik, so I don't know who is making the final calls.

True Maxwell was being a bit silly, but as I said before, I really can't see much wrong with that interview from Ponting. He has done plenty wrong in the past year (going off at that Indian reporter after Sydney, for one) but not this, IMO. As I said, Ponting has recently been pretty good in after match interviews, again, IMO.

 

[Sanz]

You were not (as you are saying i'm wrongly accusing of) attacking Ponting captaincy for making an obvious comment about the state of the pitch given the gap between the teams?

Given the gap between the two teams, Australia should have flat out won the test match faitly easily. So may be the difference isn't that much.

That said - I think these days we criticize the pitches too much too often. If it helps the bowlers too much, we call it a minefiled, if it spins - we call it a dustbowl, if there it has uneven bounce, we call it underprepared, if it allows runs, we call it featherbed.

Considering how hard it is to prepare a sporting pitch, I find it very unfair and uncalled for. It is kinda becoming like umpiring, unless it is perfect, it will be criticized. How many times in the last 10 years have we seen a test match where a wicket has been perfect ?

Besides, isn't it what makes test cricket challenging ?



Besides Isn't that difference/variation itself in the pitches is the beauty of test cricket ?

 

[Jono]

Johnson and MacGill were both poor (and have been throughout the series) and definitely deserved criticism. That doesn't mean the pitch doesn't deserve criticism either. I'm not sure what the Katich's hundred had to do with anything either. It was a good knock, but given the easy batting conditions it was nothing special.

The quote you gave had Ponting being asked about the pitch by Jim Maxwell and he answered honestly and truthfully and saying the same thing most were saying in the media and on the forum. When talking about the loss he said Aus weren't good enough and Australian bowlers didn't perform and when asked about the pitch he answered about that as well. As far as I can see the criticism here is undeserving.

Draws are losses now for Australia

In all honesty though, that's the sort of reaction this draw has gotten. Interesting.

 

[pasag]

Draws are losses now for Australia

In all honesty though, that's the sort of reaction this draw has gotten. Interesting.

It's 5am, cut us some slack

 

[Jono]

Given the gap between the two teams, Australia should have flat out won the test match faitly easily. So may be the difference isn't that much.

That said - I think these days we criticize the pitches too much too often. If it helps the bowlers too much, we call it a minefiled, if it spins - we call it a dustbowl, if there it has uneven bounce, we call it underprepared, if it allows runs, we call it featherbed.

Considering how hard it is to prepare a sporting pitch, I find it very unfair and uncalled for. It is kinda becoming like umpiring, unless it is perfect, it will be criticized. How many times in the last 10 years have we seen a test match where a wicket has been perfect ?

Besides, isn't it what makes test cricket challenging ?



Besides Isn't that difference/variation itself in the pitches is the beauty of test cricket ?

I'm not saying the pitch for the WI game was good or bad, but if WI had collapsed at day 5 due to some ordinary batting or some bad luck (say Sarwan and Chanderpaul were run out and the rest couldn't play Lee's reverse-swing) I wonder if there would have been any pitch complaints.

Generally, even if a pitch is too flat, if the Australian's have been able to get a result out of it because of Warne/McGrath magic in the past, there's been no complaint. Aus vs. Eng Adelaide 2006/07 rings a bell.

 

[Jono]

It's 5am, cut us some slack

I know we're in the same time zone, but get to bed! Why the hell are you up?

 

[pasag]

I know we're in the same time zone, but get to bed! Why the hell are you up?

Aus-WI series has thrown the body clock completely out of whack. I'm pretty much jetlagged.

And I could ask the same question to you?

 

[Jono]

Supposed to be doing International Law exam notes.

However that only occurs for 10 minutes in between watching How I Met Your Mother episodes and playing Slogout on Cricinfo.

Completely lost it to be honest. Can't get back on track. Need a right old slap to the face.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm just dire. I don't even have an excuse for being up this late, really; I just am. I could blame it on Test in England, but the day's play finished a few hours ago and I'm still up. Similar reasons to Gelman I suppose - recent Tests in the West Indies.