***Official Australia in India***

[ret]

on Ponting .... full marks to him for making an effort to improve his record in India. It was a well deserved 100 and probably shows why he is amongst some of the most competitive cricketers in the world

Ponting is the kind of player, I would want to play against. as playing against such competitive players brings out the best in you. the game then becomes about playing best cricket rather than do well because other team did badly

Ponting's 100 shows that he is in a good nick and if the Indians can keep an in-good-nick Ponting to low scores in this series then it would give more credit to the Indian bowlers as no-one can say that Indian bowlers did well coz Ponting wasn't in a good nick

This will give the Indian bowlers [spinners in particular] more reasons to pick their games up for the series. I hope that the Indians beat the Australians by playing better cricket and not because the Australians played badly [or because Ponting usually struggles in India]

 

[GIMH]

Well played Ponting (Y)

 

[Mister Wright]

It can be overstated when it's taken to mean that the guy can't play spin or can't play in subcontinental conditions.

Ponting had a terrible series (in fact, two pretty bad ones), but it was 7 years ago and he hasn't played a test of note in India since he really came of age as a test batsman, until today. It was overstated because people took it to mean far too much about him as a player.

Obviously it was a significant blemish, though.

I don't remember anyone saying he is a poor player of spin, as he has such an excellent record against Murali, especially in Sri Lanka. People, were saying that he wasn't a very good player in India, which until yesterday was a very valid point. The Indian series actually happened after he dominated in Sri Lanka btw, where he was probably our best batsmen.

 

[zaremba]

Well played Ponting (Y)

What does (Y) mean?

 

[GIMH]

 

[Burgey]

What are India's options for the rest of the series in terms of playing an extra bowler?

The 4 they've got are quality, no doubt. But I think yesterday showed the problem of having only 2 quicks if you're fielding first. Maybe Pathan to bat 7 and add something with the ball? Problem of course with that is it means dropping one of the batsmen to do it.

Be interested to hear the thoughts of Indian supporters on that one.

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't remember anyone saying he is a poor player of spin, as he has such an excellent record against Murali, especially in Sri Lanka. People, were saying that he wasn't a very good player in India, which until yesterday was a very valid point. The Indian series actually happened after he dominated in Sri Lanka btw, where he was probably our best batsmen.

I see it different, personally. I see it as having little to do with Indian conditions because it really is the same two bowlers making him struggle. In 1998, it was Kumble and in 2001 it was Harbhajan. It's not as if India could pick any no-name spinner in the country and make Ponting struggle in India, still needs to be a champion.

This is borne out by Ponting getting out to Harbhajan a few times here in Aus. Ponting seems to suffer a bit from playing the man and not the ball; in his eagerness to get over the gun player in the opposition or the bloke who needs to be taken down a peg or two, he goes too hard I reckon. Just about every dismissal Shane Bond has got him has been to an attacking shot, same Shoaib Akhtar. Yesterday, he made Harbhajan bowl to him and looked a far better player for it. There was very little wrong with his technique in 2001 even, more his tactics, hence the over-aggressive thrusting at the ball and subsequent bat-pad catches..

 

[Top_Cat]

I see it different, personally. I see it as having little to do with Indian conditions because it really is the same two bowlers making him struggle. In 1998, it was Kumble and in 2001 it was Harbhajan. It's not as if India could pick any no-name spinner in the country and make Ponting struggle in India, still needs to be a champion.

This is borne out by Ponting getting out to Harbhajan a few times here in Aus. Ponting seems to suffer a bit from playing the man and not the ball; in his eagerness to get over the gun player in the opposition or the bloke who needs to be taken down a peg or two, he goes too hard I reckon. Just about every dismissal Shane Bond has got him has been to an attacking shot, same Shoaib Akhtar. Yesterday, he made Harbhajan bowl to him and looked a far better player for it. There was very little wrong with his technique in 2001 even, more his tactics, hence the over-aggressive thrusting at the ball and subsequent bat-pad catches..

 

[Burgey]

Oh noes, Roebuck has hit the microphone. Hoping it's one of his better days

Mike Coward's worse. Seems to find something of almost spiritual significance in every ball bowled. Dire. "And it's of real imprtance to Indian-Australian cricketing relations that the last ball passed harmlessly by outside off stump. What a psychlogical blow that was". STFU, seriously.

 

[silentstriker]

What are India's options for the rest of the series in terms of playing an extra bowler?

The 4 they've got are quality, no doubt. But I think yesterday showed the problem of having only 2 quicks if you're fielding first. Maybe Pathan to bat 7 and add something with the ball? Problem of course with that is it means dropping one of the batsmen to do it.

Be interested to hear the thoughts of Indian supporters on that one.

Nah, Pathan is fodder. I'd get someone like Munaf and just deal with a longer tail.

 

[Burgey]

Nah, Pathan is fodder. I'd get someone like Munaf and just deal with a longer tail.

Prob right there. Haven't seen much of him of late (or Pathan for that matter). Irfan sprung to mind for his batting and he seems to lift v Aus (or has in the past).

 

[viktor]

Nah, Pathan is fodder. I'd get someone like Munaf and just deal with a longer tail.

I hope that is the way they go but lets see how the batting does. If the batting fails, the selectors might go for Pathan.

 

[howardj]

When you mess with Punter, you pay.

Never been a cricketer more driven by revenge.

 

[Top_Cat]

When you mess with Punter, you pay.

Never been a cricketer more driven by revenge.

Scott Muller? Oh wait, he wasn't successful.

Brian Lara perhaps? Every time the Aussies got under his skin, a big ton would follow.....

 

[howardj]

Do you folk think Haydos was out?

I think he missed it.

Plus, the umpire should have known that the ball generally does not swing if you've knicked it. In this case, the ball swung a mile after going past the bat.

 

[Top_Cat]

Do you folk think Haydos was out?

I think he missed it.

Plus, the umpire should have known that the ball generally does not swing if you've knicked it. In this case, the ball swung a mile after going past the bat.

Umpire was Rauf, to be fair.

 

[silentstriker]

Do you folk think Haydos was out?

I think he missed it.

Plus, the umpire should have known that the ball generally does not swing if you've knicked it. In this case, the ball swung a mile after going past the bat.

Not sure. Snickometer had a sound, but I don't know if it was bat on ball. I'm relatively sure he missed it based on replays.

The downside of not having referrals. I'd like to know who vetoed it. If it was India, I've just lost all respect for them. If its Australia, well I hope they get a Sydney to change their mind. Short term pain for long term gain. We need to stop having games outcomes changed by umpires.

 

[Perm]

FFS would someone shut this **** up...

Don't think you've added to this thread in any way at all.

awta, incidentally.

 

[howardj]

Not sure. Snickometer had a sound, but I don't know if it was bat on ball. I'm relatively sure he missed it based on replays.

The downside of not having referrals. I'd like to know who vetoed it. If it was India, I've just lost all respect for them. If its Australia, well I hope they get a Sydney to change their mind. Short term pain for long term gain. We need to stop having games outcomes changed by umpires.

Yeah, the referrals would have seen Katich dispatched early on LBW off Kumble, and arguably when Ponting padded up to Sharma.

Make no mistake, many more front foot LBWs (ie the batsman on the front foot) will be given under the referral system. Whereas, without referrals, front foot LBWs (where the batsman gets a decent stride in) are seldom given.

 

[silentstriker]

Make no mistake, many more front foot LBWs (ie the batsman on the front foot) will be given under the referral system. Whereas, without referrals, front foot LBWs (where the batsman gets a decent stride in) are seldom given.

I don't think this is a bad thing, to be honest. Especially if you don't offer a shot, and then pad up, you're playing dangerously and can't blame anyone but yourself if you're given out regardless of how far out you were.