flair in batting

[Deja moo]

thats a bit ridiculous...i could come up with dennis lillee and merv hughes being missed in this series then.....a banning is pretty similar to injury...in both cases the player usually comes back.
Of course you could bring up the argument for lilee or hughes , but that would be way way way waaaayyy ridiculous. They were never in contention for that series. Srinath on the other hand was in contention for the series..Australia losing Warne and India missing Srinath cancels out .



oh come of it now....ive never faulted anyone. its quite clear that you play the attack that you are put against but the fact remains that mcgrath,warne and gillespie and lee(to an extent) were missed a lot more than any of those indian bowlers.
The point of any test series is to find out which was the better team. India and Australia both lost main bowlers. India coped with it , Australia aparently didnt.The argument shouldnt be who missed their bowlers a lot more.....the argument should be Who coped better ?

 

[ReallyCrazy]

Going into the series, both India and Australia were on the same level in that both teams lost their main bowlers. The disadvantage was equal. If the indian bowlers coped better than australian bowlers, then its just well done to the indian bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

Of course you could bring up the argument for lilee or hughes , but that would be way way way waaaayyy ridiculous. They were never in contention for that series. Srinath on the other hand was in contention for the series..Australia losing Warne and India missing Srinath cancels out .

trying to get a player out of retirement doesnt count as being in contention.

The point of any test series is to find out which was the better team. India and Australia both lost main bowlers. India coped with it , Australia aparently didnt.The argument shouldnt be who missed their bowlers a lot more.....the argument should be Who coped better ?

except that the quality of the australian first choice bowling attack is far far better than all of the indian bowlers combined.....its a bit ridiculous to say that zaheer khan and harbhajan were missed when the back up bowlers bowled as well as they would have anyways. its a bit like if india went to SL with both teams having none of their first choice batters....if SL won would you say that SL are the better team?

 

[Deja moo]

except that the quality of the australian first choice bowling attack is far far better than all of the indian bowlers combined.....its a bit ridiculous to say that zaheer khan and harbhajan were missed when the back up bowlers bowled as well as they would have anyways. its a bit like if india went to SL with both teams having none of their first choice batters....if SL won would you say that SL are the better team?

The Sri lankans did win last time .We didnt have Tendulkar , but no one was complaining using that excuse.
SL was better , they won.Simple as that.

 

[neilm]

In my opinion the most 'flair'iest player i have ever watched is Mark Waugh

 

[Sanz]

except that the quality of the australian first choice bowling attack is far far better than all of the indian bowlers combined.....its a bit ridiculous to say that zaheer khan and harbhajan were missed when the back up bowlers bowled as well as they would have anyways. its a bit like if india went to SL with both teams having none of their first choice batters....if SL won would you say that SL are the better team?

It is even more ridiculous to think that Warnie and mcgrath were missed when the backup bowlers bowled as good as them. Once again you are creating a series of Ifs and Buts in your own mind.

Dont want to brag but India has beaten Australia with all their top bowlers in the team and India without their main bowlers.

 

[marc71178]

It is even more ridiculous to think that Warnie and mcgrath were missed when the backup bowlers bowled as good as them.

Wrong team though.

Australias replacements most definitely did not bowl as well as the first choice attack - India have a large number of players of similar ability, so they did not lose anywhere near as much by not having their top bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

The Sri lankans did win last time .We didnt have Tendulkar , but no one was complaining using that excuse.
SL was better , they won.Simple as that.

quite an irrelevant example....missing out tendulkar is far far different from missing out your entire bowling attack.

 

[tooextracool]

It is even more ridiculous to think that Warnie and mcgrath were missed when the backup bowlers bowled as good as them. Once again you are creating a series of Ifs and Buts in your own mind.

Dont want to brag but India has beaten Australia with all their top bowlers in the team and India without their main bowlers.

rubbish.....only a fool would suggest that bracken,williams and macgill bowled as well as mcgrath,warne and gillespie(if fully fit) would have. if you cant prove yourself then avoid such nonsense comments.
and another thing.....there is a difference between playing in australia and playing at home!

 

[Sanz]

rubbish.....only a fool would suggest that bracken,williams and macgill bowled as well as mcgrath,warne and gillespie(if fully fit) would have. if you cant prove yourself then avoid such nonsense comments.

Did you know that even Gillespie didn't play in the only Test Australia won in that series ?? Did you also know that Zaheer Khan took 5 wickets in the innings he was fully fit. Do you think that Irfan pathan and Ashish Nehra bowled better than him and Murali Karthik bowled as well as Harbhajan Singh ?? You are making a fool out of yourself with all your IFs and BUTs.

As for proof, can you prove any of the nonsense you have been posting ??

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Murali Karthik bowled as well as Harbhajan Singh ?? You are making a fool out of yourself with all your IFs and BUTs.

As for proof, can you prove any of the nonsense you have been posting ??

Considering that Harbhajan Singh didn't get a chance to prove or disprove that statement, that's an IF/BUT too. Hence it rather contradicts your insult.

Spitting into the wind...

 

[Sanz]

Considering that Harbhajan Singh didn't get a chance to prove or disprove that statement, that's an IF/BUT too. Hence it rather contradicts your insult.

Harbhajan did bowl in the first test with an injured finger and bowled better on a fast track than Karthik did in Sydney and was ineffective on a spinning track. Hardly If/BUT.

 

[marc71178]

And that makes all the difference.

Away from home Harbajan is nowhere near as great a threat anyway.

 

[biased indian]

Wrong team though.

Australias replacements most definitely did not bowl as well as the first choice attack - India have a large number of players of similar ability, so they did not lose anywhere near as much by not having their top bowlers.

so what ur admiting is that indias second string bowlers were better
than gillespie,lee,bichel,macgill etc

 

[marc71178]

Where the hell do you get that from?

I've said that India's stock are all of a similar standard, whereas Australia's reserves are a fair way behind their first choice attack.

Hence Australia miss their top bowlers a LOT more than India theirs, owing to the people replacing them.

Economists would call it opportunity cost.

Now tell me where that rates India's 2nd string ahead of some of Australia's first choice bowlers?

 

[biased indian]

Where the hell do you get that from?

I've said that India's stock are all of a similar standard, whereas Australia's reserves are a fair way behind their first choice attack.

Hence Australia miss their top bowlers a LOT more than India theirs, owing to the people replacing them.

Economists would call it opportunity cost.

Now tell me where that rates India's 2nd string ahead of some of Australia's first choice bowlers?

didn't thay ball in the recently held series where australia missed warne and macgarth

 

[marc71178]

Yes, but where have I said anything in my post about the Indian bowlers being better?

All I have said is the gap between Australia's first choice and their reserves is far larger than the respective Indian gap.

 

[marc71178]

Harbhajan did bowl in the first test with an injured finger and bowled better on a fast track than Karthik did in Sydney and was ineffective on a spinning track. Hardly If/BUT.

1-169 from 35 overs - man Karthik must suck really badly in that case!

 

[biased indian]

Yes, but where have I said anything in my post about the Indian bowlers being better?

All I have said is the gap between Australia's first choice and their reserves is far larger than the respective Indian gap.

since one of the reason for australia not winning the series and india drawing is said by many as australia missing their top bowlers.so that means the bowlers who bowled for respective side may be of same caliber .

 

[Sanz]

1-169 from 35 overs - man Karthik must suck really badly in that case!

Yes, 1/211 in 45 overs on a spinning track where Anil took 12 wickets. In the first inning karthik went for 122 runs in 19 overs.