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

[marc71178]

Because the tiny improvements make any significant dent in becoming close to Test or ODI-class?

If they were only tiny improvements you might have a point.

However it is clear to the open-minded cricket fan that they are improving and are a far better side now than 12 months ago.

 

[Richard]

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

I "made a big deal".
How, exactly?

 

[Richard]

If they were only tiny improvements you might have a point.

However it is clear to the open-minded cricket fan that they are improving and are a far better side now than 12 months ago.

It was also "clear" to said people that they were better in November 2003 than in April 2003.
And a fat lot that came to...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

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.

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.

Hang on - why does it matter how many chances he gave in a single innings? If we discount all of Ponting's centuries in which he was dropped, he still made 6, when you claimed the other day if it wasn't for dropped catches he would "only have made two".

Let offs in both innings in Perth you say? Didn't make a century.

Wasn't given LBW on 95 in Sydney? Given that it was neither a dropped catch, nor early in his innings, hardly seems to matter.

As I already acknowledged, he was put down in both Melbourne and Durban, and also in the near-century at Newlands. The three drops he actually had in the last 10 tests.

So how does the fact that he had let-offs in some of his smaller innings, and was dropped in 2 out of the 8 centuries he made recently (which certainly makes him no more "lucky" than in your average batch of 8 centuries) mean that he isn't in the form of his life? What about the chanceless 149 in Brisbane? The chanceless centuries in each innings at the SCG? The chanceless matchwinner in Dhaka? The ability he has shown to adapt in a single match between grinding out a tough century in difficult conditions and destroying the bowling for a rapid one in the second? How does being dropped a couple of times in other innings impact on those?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Still had two instances where he nicked it inbetween keeper and slips/two slips and wasn't caught when he should have been, and neither fielder went for it. That's as good as a dropped catch, for mine.

Not that I agree with what Richard is saying.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Wasn't he dropped in the 90's @ Dhaka?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Wasn't he dropped in the 90's @ Dhaka?

Actually, yeah he was. On 97.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Would've made the game a thriller if it was taken.

 

[marc71178]

I "made a big deal".
How, exactly?

Quoting someone and criticising them for posting with a typo (when it was clearly obvious who was being talked about)

Yet when someone does it to you (with a far less obvious typo) you start going on about being crucified!

 

[aussie]

Wasn't he dropped in the 90's @ Dhaka?

fatullah, correction.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

A. It was in response to Sean using it.
B. It starts with a capital 'F'
C. Who are you to correct people?

 

[aussie]

the hell with you man, i was just being cool, telling you in case you didn't know or something. You want to make yourself an *** like the others go right ahead..

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Touchy touchy, I was only playing.

 

[aussie]

allright then, but as you can see in your time on this forum i have much reason to be like that.

 

[benchmark00]

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

 

[luckyeddie]

allright then, but as you can see in your time on this forum i have much reason to be like that.

Can't you see that there are in all likelihood reasons why people have the odd dig?

If it floats on water and quacks, then it's not likely to be an umbrella.

 

[Richard]

Hang on - why does it matter how many chances he gave in a single innings? If we discount all of Ponting's centuries in which he was dropped, he still made 6, when you claimed the other day if it wasn't for dropped catches he would "only have made two".

Let offs in both innings in Perth you say? Didn't make a century.

Wasn't given LBW on 95 in Sydney? Given that it was neither a dropped catch, nor early in his innings, hardly seems to matter.

As I already acknowledged, he was put down in both Melbourne and Durban, and also in the near-century at Newlands. The three drops he actually had in the last 10 tests.

So how does the fact that he had let-offs in some of his smaller innings, and was dropped in 2 out of the 8 centuries he made recently (which certainly makes him no more "lucky" than in your average batch of 8 centuries) mean that he isn't in the form of his life? What about the chanceless 149 in Brisbane? The chanceless centuries in each innings at the SCG? The chanceless matchwinner in Dhaka? The ability he has shown to adapt in a single match between grinding out a tough century in difficult conditions and destroying the bowling for a rapid one in the second? How does being dropped a couple of times in other innings impact on those?

As I demonstrated - Ponting still played 4 good innings against SA even with the luck.
The main point I have always been making is that Ponting had an extremely unusually large amount of luck in the 5 Tests. I've never mentioned the centuries or otherwise.
Why the hell is a poor Umpiring decision in the slightest different from a dropped catch, missed stumping or dismissal-off-a-no-ball? There's not the blindest bit of difference, a let-off is a let-off regardless of the form it takes.
And when has any Bangladesh innings made any difference to me when I'm talking about Test-cricket?

 

[Richard]

Quoting someone and criticising them for posting with a typo (when it was clearly obvious who was being talked about)

Yet when someone does it to you (with a far less obvious typo) you start going on about being crucified!

Where exactly was my extremely small criticism "making a big deal"?

 

[marc71178]

Where exactly was my extremely small criticism "making a big deal"?

Well considering a lesser criticism of you was deemed "crucifying" I'd say that's a big deal.