***Official*** India in Australia 2011/12

[KungFu_Kallis]

Will probably say there's a better than average chance of that.

Maybe. But seriously.... how can people on one hand say Pattinson is the man the way he plays the game... and then next minute say Clarke is the man for being the perfect gentleman and doing the nice thing. Maybe they aren't the same people, but I dunno...

I guess you ozzies have earned the right to be happy with everything for a change =)

 

[Burgey]

Get off my case already FFS. You follow me around bringing up weird **** all the time. Can it.

Tell it to Cricket Life, ****.

Gentlemen, please!

Kindly keep the common enemy of the BCCI in mind, and focus your anger there.

 

[Ruckus]

Maybe. But seriously.... how can people on one hand say Pattinson is the man the way he plays the game... and then next minute say Clarke is the man for being the perfect gentleman and doing the nice thing. Maybe they aren't the same people, but I dunno...

I guess you ozzies have earned the right to be happy with everything for a change =)

What the **** are you on?

 

[Spark]

Maybe. But seriously.... how can people on one hand say Pattinson is the man the way he plays the game... and then next minute say Clarke is the man for being the perfect gentleman and doing the nice thing. Maybe they aren't the same people, but I dunno...

I guess you ozzies have earned the right to be happy with everything for a change =)

Because one is a middle order batsman and captain of his team, and the other is a 21 year old 150kmh fast bowler?

 

[Prince EWS]

Just admit it..you were trolling...you dont have to be such a goody two shoes all the time

Actually I do; it's part of my job.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Anyway, given how stats focused are and how many cricket fans claim to remember things just be looking at stats (when they probably didn't even watch the game), I don't think KungFu_Kallis is far off the mark when he says that people would remember a big innings much more than a team-spirited declaration. How team-spirited that declaration is will not be condensed in a handy to regurgitate stat and thus a big score would definitely be remembered to a much greater extent.

 

[Spark]

Anyway, given how stats focused are and how many cricket fans claim to remember things just be looking at stats (when they probably didn't even watch the game), I don't think KungFu_Kallis is far off the mark when he says that people would remember a big innings much more than a team-spirited declaration. How team-spirited that declaration is will not be condensed in a handy to regurgitate stat and thus a big score would definitely be remembered to a much greater extent.

329* is a pretty ****ing huge innings to be fair - trust me, anyone who saw that knock live or on TV won't be forgetting it in a hurry. You should see some of the editorials flying around the place this morning, this isn't just "a big innings".

 

[Prince EWS]

Anyway, given how stats focused are and how many cricket fans claim to remember things just be looking at stats (when they probably didn't even watch the game), I don't think KungFu_Kallis is far off the mark when he says that people would remember a big innings much more than a team-spirited declaration. How team-spirited that declaration is will not be condensed in a handy to regurgitate stat and thus a big score would definitely be remembered to a much greater extent.

When a big innings is partly caused by an obviously non-team-spirited late declaration, though, then it gets remembered more for that than the quality of its batsmanship.

I actually don't think the declaration was particularly team-spirited anyway. I mean I'm sure Clarke absolutely 100% thought it was, but India showed today that they were obviously going to pass the total if they batted on much longer, meaning it was in Australia's best interests to bat on longer anyway. I wonder if Clarke was concerned what people would think if he did bat on and declared partly to make sure he didn't come off selfish; does anyone think he'd have kept the team batting if it was Ed Cowan out there on 300+ instead of him?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Anyway, given how stats focused are and how many cricket fans claim to remember things just be looking at stats (when they probably didn't even watch the game), I don't think KungFu_Kallis is far off the mark when he says that people would remember a big innings much more than a team-spirited declaration. How team-spirited that declaration is will not be condensed in a handy to regurgitate stat and thus a big score would definitely be remembered to a much greater extent.

Oh thats absolutely true.. No one remembers how Lara got owned in the three test matches before and West Indies lost 0-3...they just remember 400.

 

[benchmark00]

Keep trollin', trollin', trollin', trollin'.





Thread now on 666 pages.

Fitting imo.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

329* is a pretty ****ing huge innings to be fair - trust me, anyone who saw that knock live or on TV won't be forgetting it in a hurry. You should see some of the editorials flying around the place this morning, this isn't just "a big innings".

Definitely. However, in 20 years time, the kids who are just being born now will just see the stats and maybe a couple of clips on you tube and it's condensed to just another big innings somewhere down the list of big scores. On the other hand, a score of over 400 (which he should reasonably have reached by the end of day 3 if he really went for it) would really be something that stands out. Look, all of us here like to talk cricket, but there's a lot of cricket players and fans I've spoken to who reduce things to stats and the quality or decision making is lost somewhere along the way.

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

Because one is a middle order batsman and captain of his team, and the other is a 21 year old 150kmh fast bowler?

I meant as in, wondering if it's the same people people praising Pattinson and praising Clarke. I guess at the end of the day winners are grinners and oz public will put up with both the nice and the nasty to get the result. Being a neutral I'm not too fussed... but was quite upset that Clarke chose not to go all the way. Because it would have just been super duper cool. Cooler than that Lara chap.

 

[Spark]

Clarke is not the easiest man to read at the best of times, so this is armchair psychology at the highest level. Kinda boring itbt.

 

[benchmark00]

As if Clarke cares how he is remembered, anyone who criticises his declaration should give themselves an uppercut.

Clarke's job as captain is to ensure Australia win test matches, not break individual batting records.

 

[Prince EWS]

I meant as in, wondering if it's the same people people praising Pattinson and praising Clarke. I guess at the end of the day winners are grinners and oz public will put up with both the nice and the nasty to get the result. Being a neutral I'm not too fussed... but was quite upset that Clarke chose not to go all the way. Because it would have just been super duper cool. Cooler than that Lara chap.

It would definitely be nice to have a batsman who is definitely not as good as Kallis hold the record.

 

[Spark]

I meant as in, wondering if it's the same people people praising Pattinson and praising Clarke. I guess at the end of the day winners are grinners and oz public will put up with both the nice and the nasty to get the result. Being a neutral I'm not too fussed... but was quite upset that Clarke chose not to go all the way. Because it would have just been super duper cool. Cooler than that Lara chap.

Because the aggression is part of what makes Pattinson such a promising young quick.

 

[Prince EWS]

As if Clarke cares how he is remembered, anyone who criticises his declaration should give themselves an uppercut.

Clarke's job as captain is to ensure Australia win test matches, not break individual batting records.

I criticised the declaration not because of the record, but because I didn't think it gave Australia a better chance of winning than batting on. I'd have criticised it even if he got out on that score and then declared tbh.

 

[benchmark00]

I criticised the declaration not because of the record, but because I didn't think it gave Australia a better chance of winning than batting on. I'd have criticised it even if he got out on that score and then declared tbh.

So do you now concede that you were critical for no reason seeing as though it ensured the test match was wrapped up inside 4 days and gave the players an extra day of recovery?

 

[KungFu_Kallis]

When a big innings is partly caused by an obviously non-team-spirited late declaration, though, then it gets remembered more for that than the quality of its batsmanship.

I actually don't think the declaration was particularly team-spirited anyway. I mean I'm sure Clarke absolutely 100% thought it was, but India showed today that they were obviously going to pass the total if they batted on much longer, meaning it was in Australia's best interests to bat on longer anyway. I wonder if Clarke was concerned what people would think if he did bat on and declared partly to make sure he didn't come off selfish; does anyone think he'd have kept the team batting if it was Ed Cowan out there on 300+ instead of him?

Considering he showed Hussey's 150 was more important than him getting to even 334, I would say Yes is the answer to your question

 

[Spark]

I don't think he would have got to the record anyway. I'm watching highlights now and he was seriously struggling once he got past 300, played some wiiild shots. Not the shots of a batsman hunkering down for another hundred.