*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Shri]

Let the old man post in peace ****s! Carry on Burgey!

 

[Burgey]

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.

And lost eight wickets in the last two sessions don't forget... Including three in the last over to a part timer..

You can take the view you do, and that's fine. Its one i tend to agree with. But it I'll-behoves anyone to post what SS has just now and ever bitch over an umpiring decision as a reason for a loss.

As SS said "What's this deserving in sport?"

 

[Ikki]

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?

Watching the game is a great help. And yes, the innings have been comparable. It's not been uber-superlative batting from one or the other. It's been very good batting by both teams on a pitch that has held relatively well between both teams' innings.

 

[Ruckus]

Lets just clarify this...

I assume most will agree, both India and Australia have performed roughly at the same level, and either team could have taken out this series.

Therefore, if India happens to win 2-0 tmrw, it is undeniable that that scoreline per se does not reflect the performances of both teams. I.e. it suggests India dominated.

Therefore, it would be nice to see the series result as 1-1, so 'outside observers' can see the series was a good contest, and (more importantly) supporters of either team can't brag about their 2-0 thrashing in the years to come.

That is all.

 

[Burgey]

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.

Well then why did you quote that point at me if you knew I never said it, or agreed with it?

 

[Prince EWS]

But it I'll-behoves anyone to post what SS has just now and ever bitch over an umpiring decision as a reason for a loss.

See this is where I completely disagree. Umpiring errors aren't an internal part of the game IMO; they're an external, cancerous factor. Entirely separate to not getting the best of the conditions or - as has been put forward here (and this is what SS was referring to) - losing close matches. Being able to win close matches is entirely controllable by cricketing means; ensuring **** umpiring decisions don't go against you isn't at all.

You took what SS out of context and applied to it to an entirely different issue.

 

[Shri]

Lol, if they lose, they lose.

 

[Jono]

Well then why did you quote that point at me if you knew I never said it, or agreed with it?

I don't understand why you entered the debate in the first place? What was your point? That winning the toss isn't a guaranteed win?

Obviously that's the case, But you quote posts re: the toss which were being made with reference to DeusEx's post about 1-1 being a better reflection rather than 2-0.

If Australia lose 2-0 PLUS having won the toss PLUS having had the chance to bowl on day 5 and lose both tests (again, may not happen, but this is the hypothetical scenario), then it will be a fair reflection.

That is the point we are making. If you don't think 1-1 will be a better reflection that 2-0, why'd you enter the debtate?

 

[Jono]

Lol, if they lose, they lose.

Best post.

 

[Burgey]

Let the old man post in peace ****s! Carry on Burgey!

I've pretty much thought you a monstrous lightweight since you started posting here, largely vapid and devoid of any worthwhile thought.

You've just confirmed that for me. Cheers.

 

[Xuhaib]

coming back to the game if Aus can eek out 30 more they are in with a good chance provided Hauritz bowl like how an int standard should bowl on a 5th day sub cont track.

 

[Prince EWS]

coming back to the game if Aus can eek out 30 more they are in with a good chance provided Hauritz bowl like how an int standard should bowl on a 5th day sub cont track.

In other words, don't even bother watching?

 

[Shri]

I've pretty much thought you a monstrous lightweight since you started posting here, largely vapid and devoid of any worthwhile thought.

You've just confirmed that for me. Cheers.

Why don't you run along and work on your cases lawyer?

 

[Burgey]

See this is where I completely disagree. Umpiring errors aren't an internal part of the game IMO; they're an external, cancerous factor. Entirely separate to not getting the best of the conditions or - as has been put forward here (and this is what SS was referring to) - losing close matches. Being able to win close matches is entirely controllable by cricketing means; ensuring **** umpiring decisions don't go against you isn't at all.

You took what SS out of context and applied to it to an entirely different issue.

I'll type this slow so you get it...

I. Agree. With. You.

But you can't on the one hand post what SS did, yet complain when things like that go against you. There is an inherent inconsistency in the two.

 

[kingjulian]

Actually there has been some proper incompetence displayed by Indian bats once they got close to Australian first innings total. This has got absolutely nothing to do with the toss.

The way they lost the last 5 wickets in the first innings in both tests is something of their own doing. With some application and better temperament an additional 50 runs was well within their reach. The proof for that is in the second innings of the first test. 10 runs per wicket is not asking for much. Some credit for Australian quickies for getting the wickets, but the result flatters them.

In my opinion the games shouldn't have been as close...but i'm not complaining, i have enjoyed watching it.

 

[Burgey]

Why don't you run along and work on your cases lawyer?

It's late.. I've earned my keep for the day..

Why don't you run off back to Cricsim?

Though tbf to you, the Drago post was a good 'un. Kudos.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'll type this slow so you get it...

I. Agree. With. You.

But you can't on the one hand post what SS did, yet complain when things like that go against you. There is an inherent inconsistency in the two.

Then you don't agree with me at all.

SS posted what he did in relation to the ebbs and flows and the game; not umpring errors which are a different animal entirely. I agree with SS, and I also think people are quite within their rights to complain about obvious and match-defining umpire errors. It's not inconsistent because they are two entirely separate issues.

 

[Ruckus]

coming back to the game if Aus can eek out 30 more they are in with a good chance provided Hauritz bowl like how an int standard should bowl on a 5th day sub cont track.

Aus are only 10 runs away from making India try and beat the record run chase of 195 in Bangalore. Should be a good contest, even if Aus are bowled out in the first over tmrw.

Chance of afternoon showers apparently though, hope it doesn't make for a massive anti-climax.

 

[Shri]

It's late.. I've earned my keep for the day..

Why don't you run off back to Cricsim?

Though tbf to you, the Drago post was a good 'un. Kudos.

Yeah, was a good one. Unlike that horrible hat that you seem to wear in all your photos.

 

[Jono]

Yeah look, I reckon some miscommunication and missing the points going around, but let's get back to the match.

I honestly believe (not an anti-jinx) that Australia are 40 runs away from being in a really good position.

I wonder if Ponting has a declaration score in mind?