Which was worse

[Streetwise]

and the tail was in.. It is not like 254 was unchaseable

And Lee and Johnson had only taken 1 wicket in the 24 overs they had bowled so its not like they were suddenly going to rip through the Indian team either amd the only two wickets they had taken in both innings was Tendulkar for 106 and Sehwag for 92, between them they failed to take a tailenders wicket in both innings.

 

[Streetwise]

and the tail was in.. It is not like 254 was unchaseable

It was 254 with 4 wickets in hand and Johnson and Lee between them had only one wicket from 24 overs for the innings.

 

[taipan1]

But still, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Chappell did it purely to win at all costs.

Why exactly did he do it then?

 

[Uppercut]

Streetwise

 

[L Trumper]

Why exactly did he do it then?

So that they can complete tournament with 2 finals rather than playing 3 or some thing like that, which in turn will give him and his pals some extended rest At least that's what I read i'm not able to find the source though.
In any case that was a pathetic decision, but in the end it helped change the rules in aussie cricket. So not all gloom and doom.

 

[aussie]

It was 254 with 4 wickets in hand and Johnson and Lee between them had only one wicket from 24 overs for the innings.

Yea. Plus more shocking is HB suggestion that Dhoni & Harbhajan are tailenders

 

[Top_Cat]

When white came onto bowl India were already 254 runs in front which is nearly fifty runs more than what Australia scored in the second innings.

Now to the most idiotic statements that Ponting should have bowled Lee and Johnson at that stage to win the match. Johnson match figures at that stage was 1/106 and Lees match figures were 1/89 yet these two bowlers were going to win the match.

So at the stage when Ponting introduced White the quick bowlers had taken 4 of the 16 wickets in the match and spin bowler Krezja had taken 11 with 1 R/O.

Johnson and Lee were getting belted and had combined match figures of 2/195 and some posters think the underbowling of these two by Ponting is the reason why Australia lost.

Watson? Indeed Australia were only in with an outside chance, as I've said earlier, but bowling a combo of White/Clarke/Hussey/Krejza for almost 30 overs past tea, where India put on over 100, put the small chance of a gettable total completely out of reach.

The pre-tea session where India lost 6 wickets was all about the pacers, Krejza picking up two in two right having been brought on right at the end of the session. The pace bowlers were the ones who built the pressure and the pace bowlers were the ones who were looking like doing the damage post-tea. Surely no-one who actually watched the match could deny that. Bringing on the part-timers with the 'front-line' spinners absolutely sucked the momentum away from the Aussies, literally watched it happen.

Why exactly did he do it then?

He claims it was stress. He'd had enough, the idea of playing another match was too much for him and he needed a break so to put it beyond doubt, he essentially ordered his brother to bowl the underarm. TBH, that his reasons essentially related to himself alone makes it worse but considering the pressure he was under, it's understandable.

Believe me, I'm definitely not on Chappell's side but mainly because I thought the decision was silly. Trevor Chappell had bowled his guts out, taken a couple of wickets and they were playing at one of the biggest grounds in the world. A 6 to win was stupidly remote and, tbh, were I Trevor Chappell, I'd have been pretty offended considering how well I'd bowled to be asked/ordered to bowl that ball.

 

[Jono]

Watson was the one reversing the ball and cleaning up India. God people, come on.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ponting by sticking to the spirit of the game and bringing on the part timers to bowl the allotted overs.

Or

Chappell for going against the spirit of the game to ball underarm to win the game.

I take it that most would agree that Chappell did the right thing by winning at all costs.

Ponting was just plain stupid and petty. It had nothing to do with the spirit of the game. He was merely trying to prevent being fined and be a few thousand dollars lighter.

Delays and slow over rates are often not the captain's fault. In the subcontinent, there are a lot of issues with sight screen, people walking in front, frequent drinks break (because of the weather) etc etc. This is not necessarily against the spirit of the game.

Chappell was against the spirit of the game.

Yes as a captain, your one and only objective should be to win the match, using fair means. Bowling fast bowlers despite a slow over rate is not unfair by any means. Bowling underarm is unfair.

 

[taipan1]

He claims it was stress. He'd had enough, the idea of playing another match was too much for him and he needed a break so to put it beyond doubt, he essentially ordered his brother to bowl the underarm. TBH, that his reasons essentially related to himself alone makes it worse but considering the pressure he was under, it's understandable.

Believe me, I'm definitely not on Chappell's side but mainly because I thought the decision was silly. Trevor Chappell had bowled his guts out, taken a couple of wickets and they were playing at one of the biggest grounds in the world. A 6 to win was stupidly remote and, tbh, were I Trevor Chappell, I'd have been pretty offended considering how well I'd bowled to be asked/ordered to bowl that ball.

Yeah, I hear you, but whichever way you slice or dice it, it was a win at all costs decision, which you tired to deny.

 

[Top_Cat]

haha, what? Bollocks. I'm only going on what Chappell himself has said. He's on the record as saying it was entirely selfish, getting the win was just a means to an end. If losing meant they didn't have to play another game, he may have gone that way instead. Either way, whatever the method, the intent was to avoid another match.

 

[taipan1]

But still, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that Chappell did it purely to win at all costs.

TC, I appreciate your explanation, but it was clearly to win at all costs. Whether it was to avoid another game or his mental state is meaningless.

 

[Prince EWS]

If anything, I think avoiding playing another game at all costs is a lot less defensible than winning the game at all costs.

 

[honestbharani]

It was 254 with 4 wickets in hand and Johnson and Lee between them had only one wicket from 24 overs for the innings.

Watson wasn't bowling either... Which is my point.

 

[honestbharani]

Yea. Plus more shocking is HB suggestion that Dhoni & Harbhajan are tailenders

yeah.. tail was in means that.. right..

 

[Burgey]

Third option here should be the nefarious use of mints and sub-fielders by England in 05. Can't believe that has not been mentioned.

Why is Streetwise banned, out of interest?

 

[Matt79]

I assume you've seen him post? Consistent baiting of others/attempting to provoke fights rather than contribute to a discussion.

 

[Burgey]

Thanks.

 

[andyc]

Permanently, ftr.

 

[GIMH]

Permanently?

That's harsh. I'm not gonna name anyone here but there's at least one other CC regular who continuously posts provocative **** as well as passive aggressive nonsense.

nevermind, eh