Ganguly = Legend.. Dont u reckon

[Sanz]

further evidence of how much cricket you follow......
i'll remind you that gillespie was injured(side strain) DURING the first test in the series against zimbabwe, which is why he missed out the next test. he then didnt play a single game before the first test against india at brisbane when he was clearly out of sorts and the fact that he ended up missing the 3rd test shows that he was never fully fit in the first place.

I follow Indian cricket and dont have time to follow other countries when India is not playing. Gillespie got injured in october and had about 2 months two recover.Before being selected for the team, he appeared in 2 Pura cup matches and bowled well, showing no signs of injury :-

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_LOCAL/PC/SCORECARDS/SOA_QLD_PC_27-30NOV2003.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_LOCAL/PC/SCORECARDS/SOA_NSW_PC_18-21NOV2003.html


"Gillespie missed the second Test against Zimbabwe with an injury, but has shown good form since his return, taking 12 wickets in two matches this summer at an average of 13.16"

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/NOV/012976_AUS_27NOV2003.html

So much for watching cricket

 

[tooextracool]

You are confused. Some times you say 'Shoaib can never be taken seriously', sometimes you say 'He is rubbish 5 out of times' some times he clicks once in '5 tests'. (Dont worry I haven't posted that link yet)

So if a bowler who according to you :-

1. Clicks once in about 5 tests
2. Can never be relied because he is inconsistend
3. Rubbish in 5 out of 6 times.

But when you have to prove your point, you will ignore the above statement or gie a new spin to them and try to prove that Akhtar is Brilliant bowler.

and all 3 of those points mean the exact same thing....which is that he is inconsistent. and ive already said that he is. so your point is once again useless. ive already explained how someone can be so brilliant in his good spells to make up for the bad spells.
you will ignore all my other statements,posts where ive said that he is world class, where ive said every team would want him and that i would only not pick him as my strike bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

I follow Indian cricket and dont have time to follow other countries when India is not playing. Gillespie got injured in october and had about 2 months two recover.Before being selected for the team, he appeared in 2 Pura cup matches and bowled well, showing no signs of injury :-

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_LOCAL/PC/SCORECARDS/SOA_QLD_PC_27-30NOV2003.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_LOCAL/PC/SCORECARDS/SOA_NSW_PC_18-21NOV2003.html


"Gillespie missed the second Test against Zimbabwe with an injury, but has shown good form since his return, taking 12 wickets in two matches this summer at an average of 13.16"

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/NOV/012976_AUS_27NOV2003.html

So much for watching cricket

oh yes, first you said that he played against zimbabwe and was never injured before the series, now you say he played in 2 domestic games. you've been watching a lot im sure.
and i'll remind you that 2 domestic games dont make someone fully fit, and the fact that he got injured again in the series suggests that he was never fully fit in the first place.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh..here is one more thing you, in this thread you are claiming that Headingly was tough to bat on the first day and how tough it was for Dravid to score and blah blah blah, here is what you said on some other thread :-

Quote :- "......headingly 2002- i dont know what makes people believe that headingly is a bowlers paradise.its quite simple about any pitch in england...when the sun shines its as flat as any wicket u'll see...when its overcast the ball seams around . you only have to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide from caddick and hoggard who never got their line right at all in that innings...........there was movement with the new ball in the 1st session and i clearly remember hoggard and caddick bowling ridiculously short and wide right from the very first over. no the confidence of the bowler hadnt been shattered...they were just completely out of rhythm from ball one."

Another contradiction that proves that how far you actually go to win the argument. Once again you look like a fool here. Now go on a justify the above.

and your point is? ive clearly stated that there was movement in the first few sessions, after which it was dead flat. not once did i say that caddick and hoggard bowl brilliantly i might add. the fact still remains that dravid and bangar played in the worst of conditions while ganguly still played in the best of conditions

No you said, you would rate Chauhan Higher than Harbhajan, And If anyone is better than Harbhajan, who is very good, has to be world Class..

there we go again, making your own assumptions. that is what you think, not what i think. ive never called him world class, just because you believe that harbhajan is so brilliant that anyone who is better than him is world class, it doesnt make it true.
and of course i did actually take my comment back and say that he was as good as harbhajan in the same thread, so whatever you want to believe, ive still never said that he was world class.

Here is what you said about both Akhtar and Gillespie:-

"compare it to the 80s when we had holding, marshall,garner,roberts,botham,lillee,thom mo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed. i would in no way classify saqlain,akhtar,and gillespie as great.akhtar is a 1 one devastating spell every 5 test matches type bowler who bowls rubbish when he isnt in rhythm, gillespie is decent but by no means great "

On the same thread you went on to say that compared to the fast bowles in 80s Gillespie looks Ordinary

quite brilliant, its amazing that almost a year later, and you still cant read!
do you know what relative comparisons are?
if i said that compared to bradman, tendulkar is ordinary, does that make tendulkar rubbish?
ive stated clearly, gillespie is not what i would consider great, but hes a good bowler. certainly there is absolutely no place where ive said that he was rubbish.

 

[Sanz]

oh yes, first you said that he played against zimbabwe and was never injured before the series, now you say he played in 2 domestic games. you've been watching a lot im sure.
and i'll remind you that 2 domestic games dont make someone fully fit, and the fact that he got injured again in the series suggests that he was never fully fit in the first place.

I never claimed that I watched Zimbabwe Vs. Australia series. I knew that for sure that before playing Adelaide test Gillespie had played in couple of matches and Since Zimbabwe was touring Australia around that time, I assumed those matches are against Zimbabwe.

Once again you are talking like a fool, It doesn't really matter whether Gillespie played a domestic game or International Game, The point here is that those two games (and bowled a lot of overs) were used as a fitness test and after watching him bowl in those two test, Aussie selectors were comfortable in selecting him.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027049585.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

As far as I know, Gillespie injuries against Zimbabwe and India were not related. I dont know how can you come to the conclusion that his injury in Adelaide TEST was due to the fact that he was not fully fit before the series started. He only had a strain in his back muscle during Zimbabwe and two months are good enough to to heal that kind of injury.

It is really funny that at one point in this thread Arguing that Akhtar, who got injured in the 1st innings of Rawalpindi test, would have returned in the 2nd innings had India required to bat and would have been effective and give the example of his performances against Durham to prove your point that he wasn't actually injured and blah blah blah (which btw was wrong, Akhtar was indeed injured and returned after couple of games despite having 15 days toheal), and now you are contradicting the above theory by saying that Gillespie wasn't fully fit despite having 2 months break and proving in domestic games that he was fully fit.

Where is the Consistency ?? It seems to me that you will go to any extent to prove the BS you post .

 

[Sanz]

and your point is? ive clearly stated that there was movement in the first few sessions, after which it was dead flat.

Do you ever acknowledge that you could be wrong too ?. You didn't say 'first Few Sessions', You clearly said 'First Session' and also suggested "to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide Basically here you were saying the conditions weren't really that tough and anyone including Bangar could score runs. And now you that you want to prove you point you are saying exactly opposite. Did you know that it had rained that night and batting was equally tough on the second morning ??

ive never called him world class, just because you believe that harbhajan is so brilliant that anyone who is better than him is world class, it doesnt make it true.

But you did say that He is as good as Harbhajan. And Yes Harbhajan is a pretty godo bowler, he proved it again in this series and I would put him in my top 3-4 spinners in right now. If anyone bowls consistently better than Harbhajan then he can be world Class.

if i said that compared to bradman, tendulkar is ordinary, does that make tendulkar rubbish? ive stated clearly, gillespie is not what i would consider great, but hes a good bowler. certainly there is absolutely no place where ive said that he was rubbish.

So you really think the difference between Gillespie and one of Hadlee/Imran/Marshal/Holding etc is as much as the difference between Bradman & Tendulkar ?? You clearly have a screwed up logic when it comes to cricket.

 

[tooextracool]

Do you ever acknowledge that you could be wrong too ?. You didn't say 'first Few Sessions', You clearly said 'First Session' and also suggested "to look at bangars 68 and ganguly's 128 off 167 balls to decide for yourself what the conditions were and besides that the bowling thrown at them was disgraceful-short and wide Basically here you were saying the conditions weren't really that tough and anyone including Bangar could score runs. And now you that you want to prove you point you are saying exactly opposite. Did you know that it had rained that night and batting was equally tough on the second morning ??

okay then, i meant first 2 sessions, not the first session....like that made a big difference to the post anyways.
and where have i said that the bowling was good? ive maintained that the bowling was rubbish and i still do, but the fact is that tendulkar and ganguly got the better off the conditions to bat in and that was fairly obvious for anyone who watched the game.

But you did say that He is as good as Harbhajan. And Yes Harbhajan is a pretty godo bowler, he proved it again in this series and I would put him in my top 3-4 spinners in right now. If anyone bowls consistently better than Harbhajan then he can be world Class.

its amazing, how someone can make so many assumptions in the same post.
you think harbhajan is a very good bowler, not me. harbhajan is a fairly good bowler at home, but hes extremely poor away, so overall i would say that hes average, certainly nowhere near world class.
and the next assumption that you made was that i said chauhan bowled consistently better than harbhajan, again i never made that claim. i said that id rate him higher than harbhajan, then i took it back and said that they are probably just as good as each other, so if hes as good as harbhajan, hes nowhere near world classs.

So you really think the difference between Gillespie and one of Hadlee/Imran/Marshal/Holding etc is as much as the difference between Bradman & Tendulkar ?? You clearly have a screwed up logic when it comes to cricket.

and ive said that have i?
you have the distinct habit of changing the topic and putting words into my mouth that ive never said.
my point was simply that compared to marshall,hadlee etc, gillespie looks ordinary. the same logic applies when you relatively compare players to bradman. ive never gone on to say that the difference between them is exactly the same as the difference between tendulkar and bradman.

 

[tooextracool]

I never claimed that I watched Zimbabwe Vs. Australia series. I knew that for sure that before playing Adelaide test Gillespie had played in couple of matches and Since Zimbabwe was touring Australia around that time, I assumed those matches are against Zimbabwe.

Once again you are talking like a fool, It doesn't really matter whether Gillespie played a domestic game or International Game, The point here is that those two games (and bowled a lot of overs) were used as a fitness test and after watching him bowl in those two test, Aussie selectors were comfortable in selecting him.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/17/1069027049585.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

are you serious? 2 domestic games dont make anyone match fit i can assure you. match fitness usually takes at least a whole international series, and it was fairly obvious that gillespie was not match fit in that series against india.

As far as I know, Gillespie injuries against Zimbabwe and India were not related. I dont know how can you come to the conclusion that his injury in Adelaide TEST was due to the fact that he was not fully fit before the series started. He only had a strain in his back muscle during Zimbabwe and two months are good enough to to heal that kind of injury.

It is really funny that at one point in this thread Arguing that Akhtar, who got injured in the 1st innings of Rawalpindi test, would have returned in the 2nd innings had India required to bat and would have been effective and give the example of his performances against Durham to prove your point that he wasn't actually injured and blah blah blah (which btw was wrong, Akhtar was indeed injured and returned after couple of games despite having 15 days toheal), and now you are contradicting the above theory by saying that Gillespie wasn't fully fit despite having 2 months break and proving in domestic games that he was fully fit.

Where is the Consistency ?? It seems to me that you will go to any extent to prove the BS you post .

ive never said that shoaib WILL be effective, i simply disputed the fact that pakistan would be without shoaib in the last innings.
i used the fact that he played against durham to show you that he was capable of bowling if he needed to, with an injury.