Players with misleading averages....

[Cevno]

Actually, the pitches that are most similar in Australia are Brisbane and Perth and they are the furthest apart.

Brisbane - Green, Bouncy
Syndey - Spin
Melbourne - Green
Adelaide - Flat
Hobart - Flat, but overcast (ala English conditions w/o duke ball)
Perth - Bouncy

Actually ,Sydney ,Adelaide and Hobart seem pretty similar to me.All flat track except for the fact that that in hobart the conditions are overcast and in sydney and adelaide after the initial day of movement ,it turns a bit for the last 2 days.

The current Perth and Brisbane are pretty similar too.Both give you movement and bounce if you know how to extract it.

Melbourne is the odd one out.The ball there comes on to the bat slowly and seams around a bit.

But that is hardly any variation compared to India.

From Mohali to Delhi or bangalore ,you would think you are in a different country in terms of the bounce and movement and then if you go to the Wankhede the bounce would be back but with vicious spin too.

Atleast in Australia pitches seem to have a set characteristic for the most part,In India they can vary from match to amtch depending upon the weather.
Just look at chennai.In the last 3 matches ,it has produced one batting paradise,One helping the seamers and spinners ,and one turner.

 

[Migara]

Not as big of a difference as you are making it out to be and not as big of a difference where Laxman's poor stats should be overlooked. If a batsman bats at number 4 and walks in when the team is 2-0 then isn't he playing virtually as an opener? I mean, there is no real difference and if anything his under more pressure then what a normal opener would be. Making the transition from batting 4 to Opening isn't like being a professional Tennis player and then having to play in the EPL without any prior Soccer experience like you are making out.

There is a big difference in playing as the opener and playing in the middle order. That's why you have specialists for it. #5 to open is umpteen times difficult than #4 to play at #5.

You prove nothing by highlighting one off examples. Coming at 2-0 is such one where it happens less than 5% of times, Too many ifs and buts show our argument is frail.

Pfft, in the match that Sangakkara scored runs in Australia there was 1,000 runs scored in the first 2 innings' of the match and a combination of 6 bowlers from each side had 100+ runs conceeded against their names. Book in for bed and breakfast, tbh.

*facepalm*
Who talked about that match? What I talked was about SL vs PAK at Lahore few years back when Sanga scored 230 on a green pitch. Either you have a reading disability or a learning one.

MCG pitch in the 06/07 wasn't a road either. England were cleaned up for 170 odd on the first day and Pietersen ended up throwing his wicket away because he was losing partners. England had Australia 5/70 odd at one point aswell before Hayden guided Australia to safety. The Brisbane pitch was cracked by the 3rd day, hence Pietersen's first-innings dismissal. Australia dominated in their second innings batting because England was completely demoralized, hence the match seemed like a runfest. Although the Adelaide and Perth pitches were definately flat.

Once again one off examples.

Here are the stats to put a end to you rant of MCG is not flat blah blah.


MCG, batting average 23.9, Dawin 12.2. nearly half of that.
Cairns 26, but SCG and Adelaide are better batting pitches.

When the cut off is brought to 2000, it shows Aussie pitches have been even flatter.

Here also SCG, Adelaide and WACA have better batting conditions than Cairns. The pitches which Sanga played (Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin and Hobart) are stacked at the bottom while the ones that KP played are stacked at the top. Self explanatory.

Yeah, Sri Lankan pitches are harder to bat on then English pitches for the touring opposition not the home team, because they have to deal with Murali. Apart from Warne, no Sri Lanka batsman had to deal with anyone of the class of Murali.

Average in SL for non-SC batsmen who are test standard - 26.4
Average of SL batsmen at home against test class opposition - 34.6

Average in ENG for test standard SC batsmen - 32.76
Average for ENG batsmen at home - 32.0

Yes it's particularly difficult for touring batsmen in SL. But SL batsmen at home do not have that greater advantage compared to English batsmen at home.

You also overlook the fact that English conditions mean that the bowlers get to use a duke ball which tends to swing around a bit more. Just because England's bowlers have been a bunch of bottlers for the best part of this decade does not mean that it is the easiest place on earth to bat.

I just want to remind you that Kookaburra reverse swings more.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

There is a big difference in playing as the opener and playing in the middle order. That's why you have specialists for it. #5 to open is umpteen times difficult than #4 to play at #5.

You prove nothing by highlighting one off examples. Coming at 2-0 is such one where it happens less than 5% of times, Too many ifs and buts show our argument is frail.

There is a difference, but not a big one. The ball is a bit newer and the bowler is a tad fresher. If they are good enough to play International Cricket then such little immaturies shouldn't affect a batsman that much. If there was such a difference then Hayden, Sehwag, Smith and Gambhir would be better then any middle-order batsman that's ever played the game apart from Bradman.

*facepalm*
Who talked about that match? What I talked was about SL vs PAK at Lahore few years back when Sanga scored 230 on a green pitch. Either you have a reading disability or a learning one.

YOU have been taking about Sangakkara's poor record in Australia for the past few pages. You were talking about how flat the pitches that Pietersen got to bat on, when you completely ignore the fact that the only match Sangakkara scored runs against Warne & McGrath was a run fest in it's own merit. You brought it up in what I quoted. Obviously.

Once again one off examples.

Here are the stats to put a end to you rant of MCG is not flat blah blah.


MCG, batting average 23.9, Dawin 12.2. nearly half of that.
Cairns 26, but SCG and Adelaide are better batting pitches.

When the cut off is brought to 2000, it shows Aussie pitches have been even flatter.

Here also SCG, Adelaide and WACA have better batting conditions than Cairns. The pitches which Sanga played (Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin and Hobart) are stacked at the bottom while the ones that KP played are stacked at the top. Self explanatory.

One off examples are what matters, especially when it's a particular series or match that is in debate. Why would the history of the ground override what actually happened in the match? Sangakkara played twice against McGrath and Warne, scored runs on a flat pitch and made 2 runs in 2 digs on the pitch that offered a bit. Pietersen scored a runs on a minefield at Lords in 2005 against McGrath and Warne. It may have been in his home country, but he was on debut. So it's obviously allot more difficult on debut, right? It's not as if Pietersen grew up or even played all of his first-class cricket in England either.

 

[Migara]

There is a difference, but not a big one. The ball is a bit newer and the bowler is a tad fresher. If they are good enough to play International Cricket then such little immaturies shouldn't affect a batsman that much. If there was such a difference then Hayden, Sehwag, Smith and Gambhir would be better then any middle-order batsman that's ever played the game apart from Bradman.

No. ball is lot more older when a #5 faces up unless there's a wickets glut (which is infrequent). Sometimes when #5 comes, it may be 300-3 as well. If there is no such difference there should not be any specialist openers. Sorry, you are speaking crap.

YOU have been taking about Sangakkara's poor record in Australia for the past few pages. You were talking about how flat the pitches that Pietersen got to bat on, when you completely ignore the fact that the only match Sangakkara scored runs against Warne & McGrath was a run fest in it's own merit. You brought it up in what I quoted. Obviously.

Once again you are in thick ****. Sanga's 192 was made long after Warne has retired. He faced Lee, MacGill, Johson and another bowler I could not remember over the top of my memory. Sanga only played in Cairns and Darwin against McGrath and Warne, not in any other ground.

One off examples are what matters, especially when it's a particular series or match that is in debate. Why would the history of the ground override what actually happened in the match?

That is because pitches don't go on metamorphosis in few years time. What you can get is a slight variability. No matter what you do you can never make WACA as same as Galle or even closer to it, or vice versa.

Sangakkara played twice against McGrath and Warne, scored runs on a flat pitch and made 2 runs in 2 digs on the pitch that offered a bit.

And Sangakkara did much better against Donald and Pollock who were at their peak, who are much better bowlers than current SAF line up, where Pietersen could not make much runs. Not doing well against Warne or McGrath does not matter much. If it matters a lot, then inability to do better against lesser bowlers should be a greater dent in KPs armoury (ex. Not doing well in SAF, SL). Since you brought the fact that KP did not grew up in England playing then his poor record in SAF in not excusable at all.

Pietersen scored a runs on a minefield at Lords in 2005 against McGrath and Warne. It may have been in his home country, but he was on debut. So it's obviously allot more difficult on debut, right? It's not as if Pietersen grew up or even played all of his first-class cricket in England either.

Yes it is difficult and it's accepted. But you practice double standards when you comes to comparison of KP with Laxman, when Laxman batted out of his natural position against same opposition which should be harder than doing it in your natural position even if you are on debut.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

No. ball is lot more older when a #5 faces up unless there's a wickets glut (which is infrequent). Sometimes when #5 comes, it may be 300-3 as well. If there is no such difference there should not be any specialist openers. Sorry, you are speaking crap. Yes it is difficult and it's accepted. But you practice double standards when you comes to comparison of KP with Laxman, when Laxman batted out of his natural position against same opposition which should be harder than doing it in your natural position even if you are on debut.

But I thought Laxman was a number 4? And don't talk rubbish. If it's so hard to open (like you suggest) then a middle-order would be exposed often to the new ball and it wouldn't be much different to opening. As I have stated numerous times, coming in at 5-21 on debut, with one of the greatest ever bowlers in the middle of one of his best ever spells is not easier then Opening on debut in a position that you are not used to. McGrath in the 00's was a better bowler then he was in the 90's.

Once again you are in thick ****. Sanga's 192 was made long after Warne has retired. He faced Lee, MacGill, Johson and another bowler I could not remember over the top of my memory. Sanga only played in Cairns and Darwin against McGrath and Warne, not in any other ground.

So you wanna turn this into a sledging war do you? Because you calling me a thick **** is like the pot calling the kettle black. The match I referred to Sangakkara making runs was this one. I was referring to the two matches Sangakkara played against McGrath and Warne. One of them was a bowler-friendly pitch (like Lords 05) which Sangakkara contributed 2 runs in 2 innings and the second was a runfest where Sangakkara scored 2 half centuries (which was the match I was intially talking about). Sangakkara's 192 came against Australia's weakest attack in over a decade. Feel free to feel stupid.

That is because pitches don't go on metamorphosis in few years time. What you can get is a slight variability. No matter what you do you can never make WACA as same as Galle or even closer to it, or vice versa.

And Sangakkara did much better against Donald and Pollock who were at their peak, who are much better bowlers than current SAF line up, where Pietersen could not make much runs. Not doing well against Warne or McGrath does not matter much. If it matters a lot, then inability to do better against lesser bowlers should be a greater dent in KPs armoury (ex. Not doing well in SAF, SL). Since you brought the fact that KP did not grew up in England playing then his poor record in SAF in not excusable at all.

Funny, because against Australia, without Warne and McGrath as a combination before their retirements - Sangakkara scored 114 runs at an average of 14.25 and that was at Sangakkara's home country. Considering that McGrath wasn't playing in those matches, that obviously makes the Australia attack ALLOT weaker. That's a fair bit worse then Pietersen in SA, who started off strongly before tailing off towards the end. Pietersen at home against Australia in his debut pretty much toppled McGrath (coming in at 5-21 and turning McGrath's 5 for 5 into 5 for 53) and Warne at their very best (Watch the Andrew Strauss ball - weather you consider it spin-friendly or not, Warne was obviously was turning a long way). Pietersen's 158 also featured annilation of Warne, where he hit Warne for about 5-6 sixes in a match where Warne took 12 wickets in the match.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

KP 4824 runs at 48.24 with 16 centuries
KS 7549 runs at 55.10 with 21 centuries
VVS 7136 runs at 46.64 with 15 centuries


Clearly Kumara is the best of the three.Don't give this sh*t about subcontinent batsmen having it easy.If pitches were that easy to bat on KP wouldn't be averaging 34 in Asia! Or maybe KP is that pathetic that he can't bat on flat pitches.One of the most overrated batsmen.Sure he has played some good knocks against Australia but ironically enough none of his innings against Australia can match Laxman's 281. KS 1, VVS 2, Kevin overrated Pietersen is 3rd.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

KP 4824 runs at 48.24 with 16 centuries
KS 7549 runs at 55.10 with 21 centuries
VVS 7136 runs at 46.64 with 15 centuries


Clearly Kumara is the best of the three.Don't give this sh*t about subcontinent batsmen having it easy.If pitches were that easy to bat on KP wouldn't be averaging 34 in Asia! Or maybe KP is that pathetic that he can't bat on flat pitches.One of the most overrated batsmen.Sure he has played some good knocks against Australia but ironically enough none of his innings against Australia can match Laxman's 281. KS 1, VVS 2, Kevin overrated Pietersen is 3rd.

No one in the modern era (and probably history) has played an innings as good as Laxman's, that's a given. Too bad he never came close to replicating that greatness and hence why he is no modern great.

You don't give a **** about batsman having it easy? Easiest bailing out of an arguement tactic in the book. Batsman should be rated on how they do when the going gets tough, not on how big they cash in against moderate or weak opposition in favourable conditions. In that aspect Pietersen has Sangakkara covered. How many runs has Sangakkara made against Bangladesh? A team Pietersen hasn't even played yet.

 

[GIMH]

'pathetic'
'overrated'

 

[Migara]

But I thought Laxman was a number 4? And don't talk rubbish. If it's so hard to open (like you suggest) then a middle-order would be exposed often to the new ball and it wouldn't be much different to opening. As I have stated numerous times, coming in at 5-21 on debut, with one of the greatest ever bowlers in the middle of one of his best ever spells is not easier then Opening on debut in a position that you are not used to. McGrath in the 00's was a better bowler then he was in the 90's.

It's hard to open, and that's why we have specialized opening batsmen who are good in playing pace. Othewise any Tom, Dick, Harry or a Ben could open. You are talking utter rubbish IMHO.

Once again speaking of one off occasion. KP did not come to the crease 6 times when the score was 5-25. It was only once. But Laxman did it six times, at a position he was not accustomed to in his debut series and the five times next series.The difficulty does not match at any level.

So you wanna turn this into a sledging war do you? Because you calling me a thick **** is like the pot calling the kettle black. The match I referred to Sangakkara making runs was this one. I was referring to the two matches Sangakkara played against McGrath and Warne. One of them was a bowler-friendly pitch (like Lords 05) which Sangakkara contributed 2 runs in 2 innings and the second was a runfest where Sangakkara scored 2 half centuries (which was the match I was intially talking about). Sangakkara's 192 came against Australia's weakest attack in over a decade. Feel free to feel stupid.

Sangakkara has not made any score of substance against both McGrath and Warne. Part of that is due to the pitch. That I have told earlier. I am not sure what is the rant about.

Funny, because against Australia, without Warne and McGrath as a combination before their retirements - Sangakkara scored 114 runs at an average of 14.25 and that was at Sangakkara's home country. Considering that McGrath wasn't playing in those matches, that obviously makes the Australia attack ALLOT weaker

A lot weaker perhaps that same attack defeated India in India six months later. Don't throw around blatant lies. And you blatantly omit that Gillespie outbowled McGrath in the next Indian tour, and Kasper was as good as McGrath with the ball. Cannot expect it to be different if McGarth toured SL as well. And another lie is that Sanga never faced Warne and McGrath together at home.

That's a fair bit worse then Pietersen in SA, who started off strongly before tailing off towards the end. Pietersen at home against Australia in his debut pretty much toppled McGrath (coming in at 5-21 and turning McGrath's 5 for 5 into 5 for 53) and Warne at their very best (Watch the Andrew Strauss ball - weather you consider it spin-friendly or not, Warne was obviously was turning a long way). Pietersen's 158 also featured annilation of Warne, where he hit Warne for about 5-6 sixes in a match where Warne took 12 wickets in the match.

Sanga faced the Aussie team at their best (who took final frontiers) and then failed while KP faced a dwindling Aussies who were far from 2004 standards.

And KP failed extremely badly on SAF conditions against inferior attack to what Sanga faced. KP never faced Akthar at his best like Sanga (Lahore, 230 runs). not being very flashy against best team does not mean you are bad. If that is the case Kapil>>Botham, because Kapil did extremely well against WI where Botham failed. In a nutshell, KP did well against Warne and McGrath but failed against majority of other good / legendary
bowlers (Ex. Murali, NZ attack, inferior SAF attack), while Sanga did well against most of them.

 

[Migara]

And I am very fond of knowing why KP has been failing against an Ausiie atatck which is much inferior to that to 2005 in recent Ashes?

 

[GIMH]

He was playing on one leg you tool. You must be the most tedious poster round these parts.

 

[Migara]

And the abot the rant that KP had a difficult debu. Here were the scores when KP came to bat.

1st test - 3/18 & 3/104
2nd test - 3/170 & 4/26 (including nightwatchman)
3rd test - 3/290 & 3/224
4th test - 3/146 & 3/57
5th test - 3/104 & 3/67

Average score when KP came to the crease = 3 / 121
Any #5 batsman will take that.

And Pietersens century did come in a match where there was a run glut, and a drawn one.

 

[GIMH]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

It was a draw so there was ZERO pressure, right?

You are embarassing yourself

 

[Migara]

He was playing on one leg you tool. You must be the most tedious poster round these parts.

Yeah, unfit c***. If he was injured should been out of the side. Is England so bankrupt of batsman to play a batsman who's playing on one leg?

 

[Migara]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

It was a draw so there was ZERO pressure, right?

You are embarassing yourself

Who implied that? ha! ha! poor soul!

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, unfit c***. If he was injured should been out of the side. Is England so bankrupt of batsman to play a batsman who's playing on one leg?

Unnecessary. And there aren't a ton of replacements of suitable class - and we value Pietersen that highly. It's not like he had 100% failure, he averaged 38.25 in the series - hardly a catastrophe.

Who implied that? ha! ha! poor soul!

You did...

 

[Migara]

Unnecessary. And there aren't a ton of replacements of suitable class - and we value Pietersen that highly. It's not like he had 100% failure, he averaged 38.25 in the series - hardly a catastrophe.

He's a batsman that will walk in to any side, and it's accepted. But it shows failure of English system.

You did...

Hallucinations?

 

[GIMH]

He's a batsman that will walk in to any side, and it's accepted. But it shows failure of English system.

Hallucinations?

1. Great - what's your point? I thought the discussion was about whether or not KP was a class act? Now you move the goalposts to attack the English system because, let's face it, you made a point that was complete toss and were proven wrong. Classic trolling.

2. You said, "And Pietersens century did come in a match where there was a run glut, and a drawn one. " which implies it wasn't worth too much/the runs were easy, etc. Pietersen was in a pressure-cooker of the highest order there. You could even make a case that Test cricket doesn't get more intense, that the stakes don't get any higher, than what he faced that day. Oh, and as for the run glut, neither side got above 400...

 

[Migara]

1. Great - what's your point? I thought the discussion was about whether or not KP was a class act? Now you move the goalposts to attack the English system because, let's face it, you made a point that was complete toss and were proven wrong. Classic trolling.

No. The initial reaction was that ben's comments that Sanga was a class below KP, and KP being kept in the same tier with SRT, Lara and Ponting. KP neither belongs to that class nor a class above Sanga.

2. You said, "And Pietersens century did come in a match where there was a run glut, and a drawn one. " which implies it wasn't worth too much/the runs were easy,

Well, see what wdfu_ben91 has said. This was a reaction to his claims. Nothing to concern with your comments

 

[wfdu_ben91]

It's hard to open, and that's why we have specialized opening batsmen who are good in playing pace. Othewise any Tom, Dick, Harry or a Ben could open. You are talking utter rubbish IMHO.

Once again speaking of one off occasion. KP did not come to the crease 6 times when the score was 5-25. It was only once. But Laxman did it six times, at a position he was not accustomed to in his debut series and the five times next series.The difficulty does not match at any level.

You're complicating things, that is why you are getting confused. The only thing different to Opening the batting in Test Cricket is that the ball is newer and the bowler is fresher. It's not as if any International batsman isn't capable of facing a brand new cricket ball orelse they wouldn't of made it as far as they have.

The reason why there are specialist openers is because some batsman are just more successful then others in that particular position. Similar to how others may be more batting comfortable batting at number 5-6 then they would be at number 3 (ie Ravi Bopara). I mean, it's not as if we're still in the days of Openers fending off the new ball.

Sangakkara has not made any score of substance against both McGrath and Warne. Part of that is due to the pitch. That I have told earlier. I am not sure what is the rant about.

The pitches that Sangakkara had to deal with Warne and McGrath on were no worse then the pitches during the 2005 Ashes.

A lot weaker perhaps that same attack defeated India in India six months later. Don't throw around blatant lies. And you blatantly omit that Gillespie outbowled McGrath in the next Indian tour, and Kasper was as good as McGrath with the ball. Cannot expect it to be different if McGarth toured SL as well. And another lie is that Sanga never faced Warne and McGrath together at home.

Sanga faced the Aussie team at their best (who took final frontiers) and then failed while KP faced a dwindling Aussies who were far from 2004 standards.

And yet Pietersen averaged 50+ in an away series where Australia were more lethal, more dominant and more determined then what they were during and before the Final Frontier. I never said Sanga faced Warne and McGrath at home either.

And KP failed extremely badly on SAF conditions against inferior attack to what Sanga faced. KP never faced Akthar at his best like Sanga (Lahore, 230 runs). not being very flashy against best team does not mean you are bad. If that is the case Kapil>>Botham, because Kapil did extremely well against WI where Botham failed. In a nutshell, KP did well against Warne and McGrath but failed against majority of other good / legendary
bowlers (Ex. Murali, NZ attack, inferior SAF attack), while Sanga did well against most of them.

Failed badly? He made 150 odd runs in his first 3 innings and failed in his last few. Much better then Sangakkara whose highest score was 27 in 6 innings against an Australian attack without McGrath and averaging less then 20. Sangakkara averaged 18 against Warne in Sangakkara's backyard whilst Pietersen averaged 72 against Murali in Pietersen's own backyard. Yeah, Pietersen failed against Murali, didn't he?