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

[aussie]

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.

Ponting was listed to have been dropped twice because he was only dropped twice, why would cricinfo put up a false bulletin?

 

[Richard]

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?

He certainly had a let-off in the 71 in the first-innings at The WACA, can't remember whether it was a dropped catch or a poor lbw decision. I can't remember the score, but I'm certain it happened.
He was caught of a no-ball on 4 in the second-innings - that added 50.
As you mention, he was dropped by Nel off a sitter on 17 at The MCG - that added 100.
He was plumb lbw and not given on 95 in the 120 in the first-innings at The SCG - still played well, of course, but it's another let-off regardless.
I'm pretty sure the 143* in the second-innings was chanceless.
He had 3 let-offs in the 74 in the first-innings at Newlands - the catch-that-wasn't on 55, the lbw-that-wasn't on 60 and the easy skier on 61. Still a decent innings, of course, but certainly an indecent amount of luck.
At Kingsmead in the first-innings he was dropped by Boucher on 5 and had another catch-that-wasn't on 36.
As far as I remember the second-innings 116 was chanceless.
So - that's 10 innings, 9 let-offs. So, in other words (with 1 not-out) that's 18 chances given in 10 innings (as far as I know none of the completed-dismissals were unlucky). Yes, he did play a good innings or three in the time, but it's certainly not what I'd call the play of a man in the form of his life. The play, I'd say, of a very good player in reasonable nick.

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.

No, it doesn't. He still batted exceptionally with the tail.
But he needed a let-off to get the chance to do it.
And but for that let-off, he wouldn't have got any of the praise he got.

 

[Richard]

Ponting was listed to have been dropped twice because he was only dropped twice, why would cricinfo put up a false bulletin?

See above.
Ponting had 9 let-offs in 10 innings. That is exceptionally lucky by anyone's standards, even if he did play some good knocks in the time.

 

[Richard]

So why didn't you say that then?

Because I typed "200" instead of "199" - crucify me for that.

 

[Richard]

So yet again the complete fallacy is disproved...

Not taht you'd ever actually admit it.

I've already shown why I'll not admit it.
I've provided a much more accurate list of Ponting's luck.

 

[Richard]

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

He played well. Nothing more.
Yes, it helped seamers more than most of the pitches he played on in 2001\02-2004, but as I say - nowhere near as much as some.

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

No ifs and buts about it - as I say, had the let-offs not happened Ponting WOULD not have scored anywhere near the runs he has.

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?

I don't underrate it. Most people overrate it.
I rate it correctly. Most people rate it far, far too highly.
That's what I mean.

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

You're crazy - anyone is - if they rate any innings against Bangladesh in the same way as those against Test-standard teams.

 

[aussie]

See above.
Ponting had 9 let-offs in 10 innings. That is exceptionally lucky by anyone's standards, even if he did play some good knocks in the time.

well yes having seen all of that, its all true. I must say that your argument is pretty fair after all. But to me having seen pretty much every Ponting innings in test cricket since the OT test of 97 and seeing how he has matured as a batsman over the past decade.

IMO even though he played less chanceless innings between 2001 ashes to the 2003/04 home series vs India. Just looking at him this season regardless of the drop chances he has given, there is something about the way he is batting that leads me to strongly feel that currently he is in the best form of his life.

 

[marc71178]

Because I typed "200" instead of "199" - crucify me for that.

You wanted to crucify someone for talking about Clarke instead of Clark.

If you want to have a go at others for such things, you can't complain when they question you.

 

[marc71178]

I've already shown why I'll not admit it.
I've provided a much more accurate list of Ponting's luck.

No, you've provided a second point of view.

It is all subjective.

 

[marc71178]

You're crazy - anyone is - if they rate any innings against Bangladesh in the same way as those against Test-standard teams.

Or maybe the crazy one is the one who refuses to accept that they are improving...

 

[Richard]

well yes having seen all of that, its all true. I must say that your argument is pretty fair after all. But to me having seen pretty much every Ponting innings in test cricket since the OT test of 97 and seeing how he has matured as a batsman over the past decade.

IMO even though he played less chanceless innings between 2001 ashes to the 2003/04 home series vs India. Just looking at him this season regardless of the drop chances he has given, there is something about the way he is batting that leads me to strongly feel that currently he is in the best form of his life.

Ponting matured as a batsman at several stages - 1997, 1998\99, 2001.
However, I find it virtually impossible to conceive that anyone can play that much better than Ponting did 2001-2003\04. And, as I say, Ponting's form has been very deceptive in the first 5 South Africa Tests.

 

[Richard]

You wanted to crucify someone for talking about Clarke instead of Clark.

If you want to have a go at others for such things, you can't complain when they question you.

Where did I crucify someone? I was fooled into thinking he meant 1 and not the other. I then said "he should have typed Clark instead of Clarke". Equally, I should have typed 1994 instead of 2004.
In both cases, anyone reading - Liam or myself - probably should have realised what was meant.

 

[aussie]

He played well. Nothing more.
Yes, it helped seamers more than most of the pitches he played on in 2001\02-2004, but as I say - nowhere near as much as some.

Yes but you are arguing that Hayden has not improved againt the swinging ball, so regardless of the fact that the SCG pitch that day was one of the few seamers in a period of flat pitches worldwide, the fact that this ``flat track bully`` could accumilate 2 well accomplished innings in seaming conditions is significant.

I don't underrate it. Most people overrate it.
I rate it correctly. Most people rate it far, far too highly.
That's what I mean.

Fair enough then..

You're crazy - anyone is - if they rate any innings against Bangladesh in the same way as those against Test-standard teams.

, i say again given that Australia are the best in the world and the lowly ranked Bangladesh could dominate them so much during that test, Gilly's knock in the circumstances along with MacGill's bowling performace should not be under-rated. Thats where i stand..

 

[Richard]

No, you've provided a second point of view.

It is all subjective.

It is - so is every single thing in cricket.
It's subjective that Don Bradman was the best batsman of all-time.
It's subjective that cricket exists at all - it might just be the figment of everyone watching's imagination.
As I say - as far as I'm concerned, there's a good deal of weight behind my point-of-view of the Ponting-vs-South Africa 2005\06. If people want to disagree, I'll quite happily argue the thing with them.

 

[Richard]

Or maybe the crazy one is the one who refuses to accept that they are improving...

Because the tiny improvements make any significant dent in becoming close to Test or ODI-class?
No, they don't.

 

[aussie]

And, as I say, Ponting's form has been very deceptive in the first 5 South Africa Tests.

Well take this scenario lets say Ponting continues this superb form in the ashes and scores 4 centuries and he gives a chance in all of them, will you still maintain that he has been lucky all this time?

 

[Richard]

Yes but you are arguing that Hayden has not improved againt the swinging ball, so regardless of the fact that the SCG pitch that day was one of the few seamers in a period of flat pitches worldwide, the fact that this ``flat track bully`` could accumilate 2 well accomplished innings in seaming conditions is significant.

I'll wait until he faces Hoggard again - in 2004\05 and 2005, he faced 3 bowlers (Mills, Akhtar and Hoggard) who exposed his weakness against the inswinger - South Africa don't really have a specialist inswinger-to-the-left-hander bowler. At least not who played in the 6 Tests against Australia.

, i say again given that Australia are the best in the world and the lowly ranked Bangladesh could dominate them so much during that test, Gilly's knock in the circumstances along with MacGill's bowling performace should not be under-rated. Thats where i stand..

They shouldn't be underrated. Nor should they be overrated.
To say "they count for nothing" would be underrating them. To say "they count for the same thing as an identical performance against (for instance) West Indies or New Zealand" is IMO overrating them.
For me, those performances are credible, but only to the same level that they would be if they were performed in WA-vs-NSW.

 

[Richard]

Well take this scenario lets say Ponting continues this superb form in the ashes and scores 4 centuries and he gives a chance in all of them, will you still maintain that he has been lucky all this time?

If that happens, of course I will. Well, assuming that is that the chances come early and don't just result in the addition of 20 runs or so in each innings.
Anyone who gets dropped lots is lucky. Before now, it's not happened with Ponting. But once it's started to, I've been obliged to point-out the fact that it has.

 

[Darren]

England and OZ

What England need to do is be more concisted with the bat as we saw in the Ashes, and in Pakistain and India they have some great days and some terrible with the bat they, also need to realying on Freddie to preform, and everyone knows they need to get better at playing spin as the Aussies have Warne and MacGill.

The Aussies need to get there 4th bowler which I think will be Gillespie who I think will play ahead of Clark and MacGill. Though im sure they will pick MacGill at the S.C.G as it will be a pitch more in favour of the spinners England nightmere pitch.

 

[marc71178]

Where did I crucify someone? I was fooled into thinking he meant 1 and not the other. I then said "he should have typed Clark instead of Clarke". Equally, I should have typed 1994 instead of 2004.
In both cases, anyone reading - Liam or myself - probably should have realised what was meant.

You made a big deal out of something that was obvious.

Yet when someone points it out in your post, you're the one who started talking about being crucified.

Can't have it both ways