The fact that there was a close match shows we did not dominate them when you clearly suggested we did.
EDIT: Going to eat. Hope to see some reply to my 'dire argument' on the previous page when I get back.
Have replied to this above.
Bun, just how many teams has this Indian team "dominated" away from home? Just to clarify, I have the greatest admiration for their knack of pulling out results in adverse circumstances, but they haven't "dominated" an series outside the subcontinent, like say, England in the recent Ashes, in my lifetime. In recent tours, it's India who have been dominated on the stat-sheets and came away with a share of the spoils, but they certainly haven't dominated.
I am sure you're an Indian fan, who is extremely hard to please.
No shame in that, typically a majority of us are, that runs in our blood this tendency for self deprecation and humility.
Firstly, dominance needs to be defined. I think if we all sit around a table and try to arrive at some consensus, the only time any team would've dominated the other in the last 10-15 years would be the 06-07 Ashes series. that's not what I am talking about. For me, a 2-0 result in a 2 test series is also dominance. So what if we lost by 1 run or 1 wicket, a test. We won the other convincingly and in the end won it fair and square.
And not as if India have been struggling all this time along otherwise.
Obviously it's the key moments that count, that's a much more reasonable point. The problem there is that these things are nigh impossible to predict, and so you can only really use a measure of the overall performance, rather than the raw results, when trying to size up where two teams stand.
And you have to admit that the India-Aus series of last year was a close one, rather than just saying "whitewash" to describe what a good but narrow win.
Like reading your posts.
But slight disagreement here, what really qualifies as dominance if not match results? Why are we building alternative constructs to earmark dominance when for all that is, results are what really count in sports? Where do we stop and most importantly how do we build consensus? These are all hugely subjective and for me they aren't really above the ultimate thing, which is results.
It was just 1 test in that Aus series that went down to the wire. The other was won convincingly and in the end it was a superb 2-0. And for all purposes, it was a whitewash from the results side. There can be only 1 definition for whitewash, one built around the final results. That we acheived. The rest is all ornamentary imho.
Anyway outta this argument. We are the favorits for this test series, and for me it will be a disappointment if we don't win atleast 3 tests.
