• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Why australian batsmen score more century at Home ??

silentstriker

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
sideshowtim said:
I think it just shows that his record in India is a bit of an abberation. He has had great success in all other parts of Asia and overseas so...
Click to expand...
It is quite possibly an aberration, but eight Tests are what you'd expect any player in any country, and passing 20 only once in 8 Tests is too dire to ignore. It's not like one series, where you could pass it off. This is three separate tours over eight years. I mean you could if you were talking about a good, even great player. Which Ponting clearly is. But what we're talking about is one of the best of all time, and in that, the standards are much higher.
 
Last edited:
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
It is quite possibly an aberration, but eight Tests are what you'd expect any player in any country, and passing 20 only once in 8 Tests is too dire to ignore. It's not like one series, where you could pass it off. This is three separate tours over eight years. I mean you could if you were talking about a good, even great player. Which Ponting clearly is. But what we're talking about is one of the best of all time, and in that, the standards are much higher.
Click to expand...
I took it to mean that it is an aberration on his overall away form - don't think that's really disputable.
 
bond21

bond21

Banned
Symonds got a century against England if i recall....not that thats as good as getting a century against SA, NZ, WI, PAK, IND or BANG but its still pretty decent.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Perm said:
No he won't. If Symonds starts averaging 50+ over the next three or four years without getting dropped everytime he makes a decent score, then he'll be a good batsman.
Click to expand...
It'd depend - if he needed let-offs to score most of his big scores, as he has done so far, then he'd not be that good at all.

Hopefully he won't get them.
 
99*

99*

International Debutant
Richard said:
It'd depend - if he needed let-offs to score most of his big scores, as he has done so far, then he'd not be that good at all.

Hopefully he won't get them.
Click to expand...
Why are we judging a player based on how bad his opposition played? The batsman just hit's the ball to score runs. It should not reflect on him if the fielder/bowler can't do their job.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The batsman's job is to score runs. If he requires the fielder's (or wicketkeeper's, or Umpire's, or whoever) help to score them, it's not through the calibre of his own play that the runs have come.
 
99*

99*

International Debutant
Richard said:
The batsman's job is to score runs. If he requires the fielder's (or wicketkeeper's, or Umpire's, or whoever) help to score them, it's not through the calibre of his own play that the runs have come.
Click to expand...
Wait, so your saying that once a batsman gets a chance they no longer 'earn' their runs? That doesn't seem fair at all.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
99* said:
Wait, so your saying that once a batsman gets a chance they no longer 'earn' their runs? That doesn't seem fair at all.
Click to expand...
Any runs scored after a let-off are obviously different from those scored from the start of the innings without let-offs.

Not worthless, of course, but it pretty well goes without saying that runs scored after a let-off wouldn't have been scored under normal (ie, when you do something that should result in dismissal you get dismissal) circumstances.
 
slowfinger

slowfinger

International Debutant
Nah, you basically, well, not you but as a team deserve a no-ball run. Otherwise we would do no balls every ball :)
 
99*

99*

International Debutant
Richard said:
Any runs scored after a let-off are obviously different from those scored from the start of the innings without let-offs.

Not worthless, of course, but it pretty well goes without saying that runs scored after a let-off wouldn't have been scored under normal (ie, when you do something that should result in dismissal you get dismissal) circumstances.
Click to expand...
But that's based on an assumption that runs scored by a batsman given a let-off would not be scored by the next batsman. (e.g.- Say an opener gets a 'chance' on 20*, and goes to score 220. By your reasoning the batsman/team have been handed 200 runs. But then I could say, IF the 'chance' was taken what would stop the next batsman scoring that 200?)
 
aussie

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
silentstriker said:
It is quite possibly an aberration, but eight Tests are what you'd expect any player in any country, and passing 20 only once in 8 Tests is too dire to ignore. It's not like one series, where you could pass it off. This is three separate tours over eight years. I mean you could if you were talking about a good, even great player. Which Ponting clearly is. But what we're talking about is one of the best of all time, and in that, the standards are much higher.
Click to expand...
Nah having seen Ponting bat in India in 98, 01 & 04 i definately do think his failing in India 2001 is really just an abberation. Not saying he is the greatest player of spin either but i don't think he is as bad as it has been made out over the years on CW.
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
aussie said:
Nah having seen Ponting bat in India in 98, 01 & 04 i definately do think his failing in India 2001 is really just an abberation. Not saying he is the greatest player of spin either but i don't think he is as bad as it has been made out over the years on CW.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree. He has no problems with spin and absolutely no problems with Indian bowlers. It's just in India where for some reason he fails pretty badly.
 
biased indian

biased indian

International Coach
KaZoH0lic said:
I would tend to agree. He has no problems with spin and absolutely no problems with Indian bowlers. It's just in India where for some reason he fails pretty badly.
Click to expand...
may be its then the fans i think ????

he is not used to such noise..he has failed in the 2 games in ipl and both where full house...is he a failure in ODI too..then it has to be indian fans :laugh:
 
Ikki

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
biased indian said:
may be its then the fans i think ????

he is not used to such noise..he has failed in the 2 games in ipl and both where full house...is he a failure in ODI too..then it has to be indian fans :laugh:
Click to expand...
Bad form of Ponting; good form of Indians; just bad luck (lot of 0s); maybe a combination of spin/Indian pitches; there can many reasons. But Ponting is strong against spin and more than strong against Indian bowlers away. So it's a weird thing that he fails so miserably in India because logically he has all the tools to succeed.
 
Last edited:
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
99* said:
But that's based on an assumption that runs scored by a batsman given a let-off would not be scored by the next batsman. (e.g.- Say an opener gets a 'chance' on 20*, and goes to score 220. By your reasoning the batsman/team have been handed 200 runs. But then I could say, IF the 'chance' was taken what would stop the next batsman scoring that 200?)
Click to expand...
1: yes, of course that could happen (unlikely, of course, but perfectly conceivable)
2: why on Earth does what one batsman does (or might do) matter when assessing another batsman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top