Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

[Richard]

Are you forgetting the 100 & 70 odd he made against the World XI right after the Ashes that included 2 bowlers from the Ashes attack and one of the most dangerous spinners in the world and a spinner that troubles Australia on a regular basis?

I find it hard to credit that game a Test (and I find it impossible to credit the 3 one-dayers as ODIs).

 

[Richard]

Perhaps not the ball that bounces, but the mental effect certainly has contributed to his demise on occasion. That said, I suppose that doesn't count. He should probably be more strong-minded than that.

He should.
In fact, I'd imagine he is. Given the number of innings he's played.
I highly doubt the mental effect of past bouncy deliveries has contributed to any instances where he's got himself out.

 

[Richard]

Right. In 2014, right? You're quite the visionary.

Sorry, what? What's 2014 got to do with anything? No-one can know what 2014 holds.
When did I even mention it?

Right, let's see. Sarwan getting "stuck in". Let's see...

84* v Pakistan - came in at 213/4, but ended up scoring 84 of the next 185 runs, and he batted with Ambrose (22), Jacobs (10), McLean (1), King (2), Walsh (22) to add the last 116 runs for the last 5 wickets.

59* v England - came out of a total of 172. Entered at 56/4 and saw that become 60/5. Added 68 with Jacobs, then 44 with McLean/Ambrose/King/Walsh, none of whom reached double figures.

51 v Australia - West Indies trailing by 180 runs on first innings and 112/4 the second time around. Added 42 with Lara then 85 with Jacobs.

69 v Sri Lanka - Entered at 2/1, which quickly became 17/2. Added 194 with Lara, as the two accounted for 290 of the WI 390 total.

66 v Sri Lanka - Entered at 1/1, which quickly became 20/2. Added 141 with Lara, as the two accounted for 196 of 262 runs.

60 v India - India had been bowled out for 107 earlier that day. Entered at 30/1, which quickly became 35/2. Added 119 with Lara.

78 v India - Entered at 0/1 in the first over. West Indies trailing by 149 runs after first innings. Added 96 with Hinds and later 72 with Hooper.

58 v Australia - Following on and trailing by 277 at the start of the second innings. Entered at 31/2. Added 63 with Gayle and 93 with Lara.

105 v Australia - Chasing 418 for victory. Entered at 165/4 when Lara fell. Added 123 with Chanderpaul.

82 v Sri Lanka - 493 runs had been scored over the first 3 innings. Chasing 212 for victory. Entered at 1/1. Added 49 with Hinds and 161 with Lara.

114 v South Africa - Trailing by 394 runs at the start of the second innings. Entered at 31/1, which became 32/2. Added 42 with Lara and later took the score from 130/5 to 243/6 with Chanderpaul.

119 v South Africa - Following on after trailing by 303 on first innings. Entered at 18/1, which became 32/2. Added 67 with Chanderpaul and 174 runs with Gayle.

63 v England - Entered at 20/2. Added 68 with Lara and 79 with Chanderpaul.

139 v England - Entered at 5/1, which quickly became 12/2. Added 209 with Lara and 76 with Chanderpaul.

60 v England - Entered at 41/1. Batted with Lara, Chanders, Bravo, Baugh, Mohammed - all failed to reach double figures and were dismissed while Sarwan was at the other end. Windies collapse for 165. Sarwan scores 60 of the last 124 runs.

107* v South Africa - Trailing by 51 runs on first innings. Entered at 14/1. Added 65 with Hinds, then saw the score slip to 92/5. He then added 88 with Bravo and saw the score fall to 194 all out.

60 v Australia - West Indies trailing by 23 runs on first innings. Entered at 2/1. Added 58 with Hinds.

62 v New Zealand - Entered at 48/2, which quickly became 49/3 and 60/4 (and then 90/5). Added 89 with Bravo.

So yea, Richard. Sarwan doesn't score runs when the going is tough. You've convinced me. That list only accounts for 13 of his 24 career fifties and 5 of his 8 tons.

I didn't say never, did I? I could say why plenty of those hardly quantify "getting stuck in". Scoring 50 or 60 isn't the biggest of achievements, unless it's a low-scoring game. Innings in dead Tests, or Tests where the game's already gone when you come in, certainly can't be qualified as such.
In the 59* at Headingley (and probably some of the others, too) he was let-off, when he gloved one and was given not-out.

 

[Richard]

1. Yes please...

2. At the MCG he wasn't dropped he batted extremely well in conditions where the ball was seaming about and was keeping low. Hayden wasn't dropped in Capetown either, many of his shots went through the slips etc and and a few fell short of the slips. But if looking at how well he played in these testing conditions againts some quality and you still cant accept it. You either just dont like Hayden or you are Hayden basher..

He certainly was dropped at The MCG. It wasn't exactly the hardest pitch by that time, either.
I don't like Hayden and I'm certainly a Hayden basher. But still - even if he did play well, and clearly he did - 1 innings doesn't really prove much.

3. Bull i don't see why a batsmans innings should be under-rated just because he was dropped. These things always happen it cricket when you are team and are playing well you get the better of the decisions (as we saw on many occassions during the ashes) and if you are a batsman and are batting well you get away with a few. Geez everyone one be it here on CW or cricket journalist around agree that the way Ponting was batting since the ashes is the best of his career. You are the only one that has the stupid idea that he has been lucky

It certainly isn't a stupid idea. It's incredibly obvious to anyone with 2 eyes. It's equally obvious to anyone who's prepared to admit how much influence luck has on cricket that Ponting is not in the best form of his life since 2005\06.
Decisions and dropped catches are equally likely to go your way whatever the situation of you or your team. Dropped catches don't mean an innings should be underrated - they just usually mean they are overrated.

Plus going back to your point that he hardly looked like getting out betwen 2001 to 2003/04. No doubt he was excellent during that period and for me that was the period where Ponting was beginning to show that he was a world class batsman in the making. But i can remember him giving a few chances during that period, his double century vs WI in Trinidad he was missed in the 40's. But probably he didn't give as much chances as he has done recently but i am convinced along with the world that since the Ashes Ponting has been in th form of his life.

I don't really care if he had the odd let-off. There's a difference between the odd one and the 2-per-Test ones he's had recently.
He still played plenty of superb innings in 2001-2003\04.

4. Even though i was frustrated it seems as if you didn't watch the test match since the way Bangladesh played in Futtulah can be classified as `credible test cricket` so his innings should not be looked down upon.

I didn't watch it. And occasionally someone like Somerset can play credible international-standard cricket - it doesn't mean the game deserves to be classed as an international. You have to make a judgement and stick by it, not chop-and-change. And I've made the judgement that Bangladesh aren't Test-class, and it'll take more than 1 game every 2 years of playing Test-standard to change that.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sorry, what? What's 2014 got to do with anything? No-one can know what 2014 holds.
When did I even mention it?
Hmmm...

For instance, the England Fleming played in 2004 bore virtually no resemblence to the England Sarwan played a decade later.

2004 + 10 = 2014... I think...

I didn't say never, did I? I could say why plenty of those hardly quantify "getting stuck in". Scoring 50 or 60 isn't the biggest of achievements, unless it's a low-scoring game. Innings in dead Tests, or Tests where the game's already gone when you come in, certainly can't be qualified as such.
In the 59* at Headingley (and probably some of the others, too) he was let-off, when he gloved one and was given not-out.

In the context of most of the team scores and the situation, the 50 or 60 was very big. That said, context is generally irrelevant I suppose. And that you assume dead Tests don't mean anything is a distinct lack of understanding of the game of cricket or maybe you've just forgotten what it feels like to support a losing team.

I know England is all props and whatnot now, but I assure you victory in ANY Test means the world to this West Indian team and all its supporters. It's insensitive to suggest that quality performances in "dead" Test matches should be depreciated.

But let's disregard the 50s and 60s etc. Sarwan has 8 career tons. 5 of them came when the going was certainly not easy.

In the 59* at Headingley (and probably some of the others, too) he was let-off, when he gloved one and was given not-out.

Sorry, I forgot to use Cricinfo's "first-chance" feature. I tried to, but was told that the ICC doesn't sanction it.

It's not the batsman's fault that the umpire makes a mistake. He just has to get on with it. Sarwan did.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He should.
In fact, I'd imagine he is. Given the number of innings he's played.
I highly doubt the mental effect of past bouncy deliveries has contributed to any instances where he's got himself out.

On what basis? He's human and even the best batsmen are bothered by the close calls.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's equally obvious to anyone who's prepared to admit how much influence luck has on cricket that Ponting is not in the best form of his life since 2005\06.

That's the thing.

He IS in the best form of his life. In both forms of the game, in all conditions against all attacks, Ponting has been in absolutely sublime form since the beginning of the Australian summer. Indeed, it's not just about the runs he has made, it has been about how he has made them.

During the Super Series, in the first or second ODI, Ponting played an innings of 30 or 40 and when I was watching it I thought "he's in for a huge summer", and I daresay I said so in the Super Series thread as well. It was perfectly obvious to anyone who knows Ponting's game that he was in wonderful touch, and though he only got starts and the odd 50 until the tests against the West Indies began, he has looked in similar form ever since. The only time his play has dropped off is during the early stages of VB series, and after he was rested he came back playing as well as ever.

 

[aussie]

He certainly was dropped at The MCG. It wasn't exactly the hardest pitch by that time, either.
I don't like Hayden and I'm certainly a Hayden basher. But still - even if he did play well, and clearly he did - 1 innings doesn't really prove much.

It certainly isn't a stupid idea. It's incredibly obvious to anyone with 2 eyes. It's equally obvious to anyone who's prepared to admit how much influence luck has on cricket that Ponting is not in the best form of his life since 2005\06.
Decisions and dropped catches are equally likely to go your way whatever the situation of you or your team. Dropped catches don't mean an innings should be underrated - they just usually mean they are overrated.

I don't really care if he had the odd let-off. There's a difference between the odd one and the 2-per-Test ones he's had recently.
He still played plenty of superb innings in 2001-2003\04.

I didn't watch it. And occasionally someone like Somerset can play credible international-standard cricket - it doesn't mean the game deserves to be classed as an international. You have to make a judgement and stick by it, not chop-and-change. And I've made the judgement that Bangladesh aren't Test-class, and it'll take more than 1 game every 2 years of playing Test-standard to change that.

1. Hayden wasn't dropped at the MCG and i don't know what you were watching but that pitch on the first day was by no means easy to bat on, the ball was keeping low on occassions and early on there was much movement. Thats what made Hayden's innings and his partnership with Ponting so good. Well 1 innings at that time didn't prove much but he played another one in similar testing conditions in cape town, so shouldn't that tell you that he is maybe improving in this aspect?

2. Have it your way i have seen Ponting for a large portion of his career and i'm convinced regardless of the fact that some of his innings haven't been chanceless, he definately IMO is in the best form of his life.

Has you said ``Dropped catches don't mean an innings should be underrated - they just usually mean they are overrated``. But you usually underrate inning's of this nature though..

3. Bangladesh probably aren't an assured test class opposition as yet, but given the fact that they took Australia to the last day and dominated the opening portion of the test, the innings Gilly played under the circumstances where he even played againts his natural style made the innings immence and i certainly would not under-rate it whether it where him or any other player from any other nation.

 

[Richard]

Hmmm...

2004 + 10 = 2014... I think...

I clearly meant the England Fleming played in 1994...

In the context of most of the team scores and the situation, the 50 or 60 was very big. That said, context is generally irrelevant I suppose. And that you assume dead Tests don't mean anything is a distinct lack of understanding of the game of cricket or maybe you've just forgotten what it feels like to support a losing team.

I know England is all props and whatnot now, but I assure you victory in ANY Test means the world to this West Indian team and all its supporters. It's insensitive to suggest that quality performances in "dead" Test matches should be depreciated.

Hmm... I don't really see that I was doing that.
The point is, other sides are always likely to be less motivated in dead games. Therefore the intensity is not on from both sides, even if it still means plenty to West Indies.
In any case - it's only in the last 3 years at best that single Test victories have become rare things.

But let's disregard the 50s and 60s etc. Sarwan has 8 career tons. 5 of them came when the going was certainly not easy.

And the quality of the bowling? Relative to the pitch?
I can't think I've ever seen Sarwan score a century against quality seam and swing and\or spin.
No, I'm aware Fleming hasn't scored many but he's scored more than Sarwan.

Sorry, I forgot to use Cricinfo's "first-chance" feature. I tried to, but was told that the ICC doesn't sanction it.

It's not the batsman's fault that the umpire makes a mistake. He just has to get on with it. Sarwan did.

When does who's fault it was made the blindest bit of difference? The batsman benefited from it, therefore it matters who's credit it was. It was not Sarwan's. The only way he could play that innings was for Umpiring error to allow him to.

 

[Richard]

On what basis? He's human and even the best batsmen are bothered by the close calls.

Are they? Sorry, I must've missed that. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people talk about "forget the last ball - concentrate on the next one".
It's what ALL the best batsmen do.

 

[Richard]

That's the thing.

He IS in the best form of his life. In both forms of the game, in all conditions against all attacks, Ponting has been in absolutely sublime form since the beginning of the Australian summer. Indeed, it's not just about the runs he has made, it has been about how he has made them.

During the Super Series, in the first or second ODI, Ponting played an innings of 30 or 40 and when I was watching it I thought "he's in for a huge summer", and I daresay I said so in the Super Series thread as well. It was perfectly obvious to anyone who knows Ponting's game that he was in wonderful touch, and though he only got starts and the odd 50 until the tests against the West Indies began, he has looked in similar form ever since. The only time his play has dropped off is during the early stages of VB series, and after he was rested he came back playing as well as ever.

And but for the copious dropped catches in the Tests you'd not have been right.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact that Ponting has been stupidly lucky against South Africa.

 

[Richard]

1. Hayden wasn't dropped at the MCG and i don't know what you were watching but that pitch on the first day was by no means easy to bat on, the ball was keeping low on occassions and early on there was much movement. Thats what made Hayden's innings and his partnership with Ponting so good. Well 1 innings at that time didn't prove much but he played another one in similar testing conditions in cape town, so shouldn't that tell you that he is maybe improving in this aspect?

I didn't find the MCG pitch all that difficult. SA bowled decently later on, yes, but though the odd ball kept down and there was the odd seaming ball I've seen many, many more seam-friendly pitches in my time.
I also think it a bit late for Hayden to be making career-changing technique-improvements.

2. Have it your way i have seen Ponting for a large portion of his career and i'm convinced regardless of the fact that some of his innings haven't been chanceless, he definately IMO is in the best form of his life.

Be convinced all you like - had the catches been taken it's pretty much certain that no-one would think so.

Has you said ``Dropped catches don't mean an innings should be underrated - they just usually mean they are overrated``. But you usually underrate inning's of this nature though..

No, I don't. Most people overrate it, because they don't realise that but for dropped catches innings which involve drops wouldn't have happened.
Let-offs are a huge thing and vastly distort the picture of how well a batsman has played.

3. Bangladesh probably aren't an assured test class opposition as yet, but given the fact that they took Australia to the last day and dominated the opening portion of the test, the innings Gilly played under the circumstances where he even played againts his natural style made the innings immence and i certainly would not under-rate it whether it where him or any other player from any other nation.

No, nor would I. I'd rate it equivalent to a similar innings had he played one for WA in alike circumstances.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And but for the copious dropped catches in the Tests you'd not have been right.
Nothing you can say or do changes the fact that Ponting has been stupidly lucky against South Africa.

Out of curiosity, when exactly was he dropped?

If you're going to judge a player by how many times he was put down, I'd say you need a definitive resource to work with to determine when they were dropped. I went through the cricinfo ball-by-ball records of each match during the Australian summer against the West Indies and South Africa, and the only one of Ponting's centuries in which they register him as being dropped is the Boxing Day one in Melbourne, when he was on 17..

In South Africa, he was dropped in two innings, the 74 at Newlands and the first of the two centuries in Durban. In Bangladesh he wasn't dropped. In his two SCG centuries he wasn't dropped. In his Gabba century to start the summer, he wasn't dropped.

So, according to cricinfo, in the 8 centuries he has made in his last 10 tests, Ponting was dropped in two of them, rather than 5 as you implied the other day. Interestingly, the guy you said filled you with the most confidence in the Australian team recently, Michael Hussey, has benefited far more drops than Ponting has. Cricinfo has Hussey being dropped in the second innings in Brisbane (on 21), first innings in Adelaide (on 116), and first innings in Melbourne (on 27). Gilchrist and MacGill were also dropped plenty.

 

[Richard]

Wow, being dropped on 116. He sure deserves crucifying for that.
Yes, Hussey has had 1 slice of huge luck, that drop on 27 which enabled him to play that innings which won such high undeserved praise. But aside from that he's played plenty of superb innings.
Ponting might be listed as being "dropped" only twice but I can assure you, he's had far more let-offs than that. I remember 5 at least, there are probably 1 or 2 more I've forgotten.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I also think it a bit late for Hayden to be making career-changing technique-improvements.

Has it occured to you that you were simply wrong about Hayden's technique to begin with? As I've told you plenty of times, the guy built his career on success against swing bowling in the early 90s, and while his technique when playing the swinging ball in the last few years has been exposed at times, it makes far more sense to imagine that the flaws were developed over time rather than inherent. Much is made of the fact that Hayden has a high average without facing quality swing bowling all that often, and you might well find that the reason Hayden developed habits like playing well out of his crease, getting forward early regardless of the line of the ball, the inclination to drive anything full and on off-stump and so on is because he faced the bowling that he did. Once he was confronted with swing bowling and stuggled against it, he simply returned to the approach which brought him success earlier in his career.

What he has done is re-assess his approach somewhat, and as many batsmen do when they have a bad run he returned to the formula which gave him success earlier on. He hasn't made a career-changing technique improvement, in fact in most respects his technique now is identical to what it was before the Ashes. Nevertheless, as Australia have confronted an abnormally high number of seamer-friendly surfaces this summer at the SCG in October, Brisbane, Melbourne, Newlands and Johannesburg, his average and returns with the bat have remained completely acceptable.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wow, being dropped on 116. He sure deserves crucifying for that.
Yes, Hussey has had 1 slice of huge luck, that drop on 27 which enabled him to play that innings which won such high undeserved praise. But aside from that he's played plenty of superb innings.
Ponting might be listed as being "dropped" only twice but I can assure you, he's had far more let-offs than that. I remember 5 at least, there are probably 1 or 2 more I've forgotten.

And? As we've already established when discussing Ponting's recent form, we don't really agree on what constitutes a let-off. Ponting was dropped early in his first Durban century, sure, and he was dropped in Melbourne as well, but I'd be very surprised if he had any other clear dropped chances in his big innings and cricinfo didn't mention them. Since you remember them, when were they?

And as far as Hussey's undeserved praise goes... well... that innings was quite simply the best batting with the tail I have seen in test cricket, hands down. It was absolutely unbelievable. Being dropped on 27 has no bearing whatsoever on how he played at the end of his innings.

 

[Richard]

Has it occured to you that you were simply wrong about Hayden's technique to begin with? As I've told you plenty of times, the guy built his career on success against swing bowling in the early 90s, and while his technique when playing the swinging ball in the last few years has been exposed at times, it makes far more sense to imagine that the flaws were developed over time rather than inherent. Much is made of the fact that Hayden has a high average without facing quality swing bowling all that often, and you might well find that the reason Hayden developed habits like playing well out of his crease, getting forward early regardless of the line of the ball, the inclination to drive anything full and on off-stump and so on is because he faced the bowling that he did. Once he was confronted with swing bowling and stuggled against it, he simply returned to the approach which brought him success earlier in his career.

What he has done is re-assess his approach somewhat, and as many batsmen do when they have a bad run he returned to the formula which gave him success earlier on. He hasn't made a career-changing technique improvement, in fact in most respects his technique now is identical to what it was before the Ashes. Nevertheless, as Australia have confronted an abnormally high number of seamer-friendly surfaces this summer at the SCG in October, Brisbane, Melbourne, Newlands and Johannesburg, his average and returns with the bat have remained completely acceptable.

No, it hasn't occurred to me that I was simply wrong about Hayden's technique to begin with. As I've said time and again, he failed enough in his early Test career against quality seam and swing, and only began to score runs consistently (after a one-off sensational series in non-seam-friendly India) at the precise time that the pandemic of flat pitches around The World started.
In any case, there's ABSOLUTELY no two ways about the fact that Hayden's technique against seam and swing was poor in the 2001\02-2004 period. Whether that was because he didn't need to be good against it might be your summation, but as I say - based on his earlier play, I find otherwise.

 

[marc71178]

I clearly meant the England Fleming played in 1994...

So why didn't you say that then?

 

[marc71178]

Ponting might be listed as being "dropped" only twice but I can assure you, he's had far more let-offs than that. I remember 5 at least, there are probably 1 or 2 more I've forgotten.

So yet again the complete fallacy is disproved...

Not taht you'd ever actually admit it.

 

[aussie]

I didn't find the MCG pitch all that difficult. SA bowled decently later on, yes, but though the odd ball kept down and there was the odd seaming ball I've seen many, many more seam-friendly pitches in my time.

It doesn't matter if u have seen more seamer friendly pitches, but that was definately one and he battled extremely well that day.

Be convinced all you like - had the catches been taken it's pretty much certain that no-one would think so.

The if's and buts, just forget about it and accept he is in the form of his life..

No, I don't. Most people overrate it, because they don't realise that but for dropped catches innings which involve drops wouldn't have happened.
Let-offs are a huge thing and vastly distort the picture of how well a batsman has played.

What do you mean you dont, isn't that what has been the basis of your arguement with Ponting, that because he has been dropped in a few of his innings of late, you wont rate it highly nor will you rate his form better than 2001 to 2003/04?

No, nor would I. I'd rate it equivalent to a similar innings had he played one for WA in alike circumstances.

ok i give up, you dont want to rate it, fine i can't beat it into you. I on the other hand will..