*Official* Australia in India 2010

[bagapath]

Since when does 2-0 suggest its one-sided?

It's suggest India won the big moments (if that happens)

like the 1987 wimbledon finals, when pat cash clinched the big moments to kill lendl despite lendl winning more points?

India deserves the series to be honest. coz i think australia's bowling attack sucks. i think indian bowling, which is so crappy that i want to call it boweling, is still better than theirs.

 

[ankitj]

Why are we even having this discussion on deserving/not-deserving? Makes little sense to me

 

[Prince EWS]

Lmfao.. Not what you were saying after Sydney the last time India toured..

That ****ers getting put away for when India tour here next. Gold.

There's a massive, massive difference between claiming it's unfair to be rorted by a series of terrible umpiring decisions and claiming it's unfair to lose 2-0 because both games are close. Winning close contests is part of the skill involved in playing cricket; overcoming inequitable umpiring in close contests isn't.

 

[Burgey]

no but sure it allows you use the conditions to your advantage.

mostly.

Of course it does, but both pitches have been good batting decks for the better part of 4 days.. They hardly deteriorated til late in the games.

 

[Jono]

Yeah mate, they've been raging dustbowls days 3 and 4.. They've been good wickets both, good enough that both teams have had chances to assert their dominance. You put India losing 5 for 9 down to the pitch?

Both teams have had their chances tbf.

Haah Burgey you're manipulating my words amazingly, and you know it.

Someone said a 2-0 result will be unfair. If India win from here (which is the hypothetical scenario we're discussing), it won't be unfair. Especially (key word) because Australia won the toss.

SS, myself and others have seen a ridiculous amount of cricket on the sub-continent, particularly India. Teams that bat first and score well very rarely lose. That's a fact.

So if Australia have been unable to beat the team batting last twice (again, big if) they've only got themselves to blame... not 'bad luck'

 

[ankitj]

There's a massive, massive difference between claiming it's unfair to be rorted by a series of terrible umpiring decisions and claiming it's unfair to lose 2-0 because both games are close. Winning close contests is part of the skill involved in playing cricket; overcoming inequitable umpiring isn't.

Agree.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah mate, they've been raging dustbowls days 3 and 4.. They've been good wickets both, good enough that both teams have had chances to assert their dominance. You put India losing 5 for 9 down to the pitch?

Both teams have had their chances tbf.

I don't get the point of trying to show how Oz are at an advantage anyway. Any advantages Oz have in batting first are easily counteracted by the fact this is in India and the wickets in India are designed for the Indian team...

 

[Ikki]

With Burge. Let's not pretend the pitches haven't held as well for the 2nd innings or that it has gone to ****s in the 4th. Largely the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th innings have been comparable.

 

[vcs]

I think the fourth innings chases thread I made a few days back (post in it you ****s, how many times do I have to plug it?) proves that batting last in India is a very tricky job, relatively speaking.

Saying that, India should be making life a lot easier for themselves in these circumstances considering some of the positions they were in, but they didn't. So credit to Australia for hanging in there. And let's not forget Australia are doing a good job defending fourth innings totals without a very good spin attack. They do it with some excellent accurate pace bowling backed up by quality fielding and catching. Full marks to them for making these mid-size totals look really big.

 

[Burgey]

There's a massive, massive difference between claiming it's unfair to be rorted by a series of terrible umpiring decisions and claiming it's unfair to lose 2-0 because both games are close. Winning close contests is part of the skill involved in playing cricket; overcoming inequitable umpiring in close contests isn't.

Jeez you're odious at times.

Who said its unfair? It's not unfair, but it's perfectly fine to say a scoreline isn't a reflection of a game or a series. It happens in every sport.

 

[Ikki]

On Sree: what a cartoon character. Seriously, the mop hair, the headband, the forced attitude and childlike sensitivity...what a legend.

Also LOL @ Junior Waugh calling Sree and Zaheer fruit loops.

 

[Jono]

Jeez you're odious at times.

Who said its unfair? It's not unfair, but it's perfectly fine to say a scoreline isn't a reflection of a game or a series. It happens in every sport.

That's one thing. To say then that it deserves to be 1-1 is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[Jono]

With Burge. Let's not pretend the pitches haven't held as well for the 2nd innings or that it has gone to ****s in the 4th. Largely the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th innings have been comparable.

We've been robbed of knowing how it'll play since we haven't seen a quality spinner bowl on the fifth day yet tbf.

 

[Ruckus]

Jeez you're odious at times.

Who said its unfair? It's not unfair, but it's perfectly fine to say a scoreline isn't a reflection of a game or a series. It happens in every sport.

Thank you... if people go back to my original post (which started this whole debate), I used the word 'reflect' not 'unfair'.

 

[Ruckus]

That's one thing. To say then that it deserves to be 1-1 is a whole different kettle of fish.

who said 'deserves'?

 

[Burgey]

That's one thing. To say then that it deserves to be 1-1 is a whole different kettle of fish.

Which I never said. Once, ever.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's one thing. To say then that it deserves to be 1-1 is a whole different kettle of fish.

Yeah, indeed. Comparing to the Sydney Test is a joke as well, frankly. Every so often someone looks so hard for an excuse for a loss that they end up coming up with something that, when dissected, basically reads as "well we can take heart from this because if we didn't play worse cricket than the opposition we would've won". Saying the series scoreline isn't reflective because the games were close is so, so different to saying it isn't reflective because a team got absolutely robbed by the umpire (not even debatably or hypothetically) in a close one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Which I never said. Once, ever.

Yet you jumped in on the debate which was started by someone saying exactly that.

 

[Jono]

Which I never said. Once, ever.

This is brutal Burgey

We were discussing DeusEx's post, which said 1-1 would be a better reflection of the series. You then quoted a post we made about the 'toss' relating to DeusEx's post.

Now you're saying you never said 1-1 would be a better reflection, which we all know you never said that.

 

[kingjulian]

With Burge. Let's not pretend the pitches haven't held as well for the 2nd innings or that it has gone to ****s in the 4th. Largely the 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th innings have been comparable.

We can never know if the comparability is only because of the pitch playing fair or if it is because of one team batting better in a deteriorating pitch, can we?

Just because the scores are identical, it doesn't mean the pitch condition has been so.

Pitches don't symmetrically deteriorate as you have just posted. It doesn't hold up uniformly well for 1st and 2nd innings and then become tougher to bat uniformly on the 3rd and 4th innings. That doesn't make any sense......i'm sorry.