Man 'o' the Moment

[Richard]

Yeah I did once, (Considering my 20*, 4* and 43* were doubles)

Well, I did once, too - I scored double-figures 6 times in a season once!

 

[honestbharani]

yes, the bowling attack in that game included b.lee, williams, macgill and half fit gillespie. in fact there can be question marks as to whether lee himself was fit, but personally fit or not he doesnt amount to much.

I believe that Gillespie passed a fitness test before playing that test. So I don't think you can call him half fit. Plus, I think he bowled brilliantly both in that test and at Adelaide and was rather unlucky that at times the luck didn't go his way and at other times, the batters themselves were in the form of their lives. Lee bowled pretty well with the new ball at Sydney, his butter fingered catchers let him down, though.

 

[marc71178]

If he's been injured and has to pass a test to play, he's not fully fit - would he have played if the rest of the attack weren't so depleted?!

 

[Jono]

I believe that Gillespie passed a fitness test before playing that test. So I don't think you can call him half fit. Plus, I think he bowled brilliantly both in that test and at Adelaide and was rather unlucky that at times the luck didn't go his way and at other times, the batters themselves were in the form of their lives. Lee bowled pretty well with the new ball at Sydney, his butter fingered catchers let him down, though.

Yeah, he bowled very well. That ball he bowled to remove Dravid was a beauty. He also got Sehwag after he blasted Lee all over the park (thanks to some poor fielding and no balls), and ended the Laxman/Sachin partnership by picking up Laxman.

 

[tooextracool]

I believe that Gillespie passed a fitness test before playing that test. So I don't think you can call him half fit. Plus, I think he bowled brilliantly both in that test and at Adelaide and was rather unlucky that at times the luck didn't go his way and at other times, the batters themselves were in the form of their lives. Lee bowled pretty well with the new ball at Sydney, his butter fingered catchers let him down, though.

theres a difference between being fit to play and being match fit. and i can assure you that gillespie was far from match fit at any point of that series. he lacked penetration for that entire series.
with regards to lee, we all know how good he is at his best, but even he knows that he wasnt bowling at his best.

 

[Jono]

http://aus.cricinfo.com/link_to_dat...NEWS/2004/DEC/129996_COL-INDIA_16DEC2004.html

Very nice article.

 

[Richard]

Excellent indeed.

 

[Pratters]

<i>In his latest book, Peter Roebuck says that the new Tendulkar was launched in Sydney. He goes on to write: "No regrets should be held about Tendulkar acknowledging the passing of time and becoming a robust, rather than a dazzling, batsman. He must be allowed to grow. Watching him bat may not be as exciting, but it will be enormously satisfying. Those who love their cricket will be given the opportunity of watching a master at work."</i>

Peter Roebuck proves once again why he is my favourite cricketer writer with that master piece. Tendulkar is evolving. Expecting him to hit those sixes and fours of the past every ball is just immature.

He talks about the growing of Tendulkar as a batsman. It will indeed be satisfying when he plays the many master innings which are still left in him.

And the writer of cricinfo has toally written that quote out of context I must add. He talks about Tendulkar diminishing as a batsman where he is having limitations. Roebuck talks about growing. When you milit your stroke play, you dont diminish as a player or are a worse player. You just know your self better and cut out the risks.

 

[honestbharani]

But he had played the previous three tests, IIRC. So, I think he was reasonably match fit at Sydney, as was amply demonstrated by how well he bowled there. I don't remember him bowling badly at all, at either Adelaide or at Sydney. I think it was just that he did not have good back up, the wickets were pretty good for batting and the Indian batters were in the forms of their lives, all these factors added up to him not being that successful in that series. I still don't think he bowled badly in that series at all, and I don't think he looked all that rusty either, at least not at Adelaide or at Sydney.

 

[tooextracool]

But he had played the previous three tests, IIRC. So, I think he was reasonably match fit at Sydney, as was amply demonstrated by how well he bowled there. I don't remember him bowling badly at all, at either Adelaide or at Sydney. I think it was just that he did not have good back up, the wickets were pretty good for batting and the Indian batters were in the forms of their lives, all these factors added up to him not being that successful in that series. I still don't think he bowled badly in that series at all, and I don't think he looked all that rusty either, at least not at Adelaide or at Sydney.

the thing is that he didnt play the test before that in melbourne, and 2 tests dont make someone match fit as was clearly evident for those who watched him closely enough.

 

[honestbharani]

I still don't think he was not match fit. Perhaps, he was not as fine tuned as he is now, but he was still reasonably match fit. And taking your argument about those runs being made against an out of form and rusty bowling side, I think the same can be said about the Aussie bowling during the Indian tour. Most of the Indians were playing test cricket after a long, long gap and it was obvious that Zaheer, Sachin and perhaps even Laxman were not completely match fit at various stages during the series. So, going by your point of view, those wickets and that triumph should lose a bit of sheen as well.

 

[Jono]

So by TooExtraCool's standard, Ponting's double hundred in Melbourne meant nothing. He faced Agarkar, Nehra (enough said), Kumble and an unfit Zaheer Kahn.

 

[tooextracool]

I still don't think he was not match fit. Perhaps, he was not as fine tuned as he is now, but he was still reasonably match fit.

yes i know but he wasnt fully match fit. he was decent, but he wasnt at his best.

And taking your argument about those runs being made against an out of form and rusty bowling side, I think the same can be said about the Aussie bowling during the Indian tour. Most of the Indians were playing test cricket after a long, long gap and it was obvious that Zaheer, Sachin and perhaps even Laxman were not completely match fit at various stages during the series. So, going by your point of view, those wickets and that triumph should lose a bit of sheen as well.

theres a difference between being out of form and match fit. tendulkar granted, he just came back from an injury and didnt look at his best. zaheer now is really not fit too often to be considered as being missed. its like shane bond not being fit. laxman was out of form, he had played enough cricket and really, it'll take something to convince me that his out form didnt have something to do with how shane warne bowled to him. as far as im concerned, india missed 1 player, australia missed their captain(of course its not comparable given how poor a player ponting is in india) but nonetheless they were still short one player. im afraid 1 player makes nowhere near the difference that playing with a 2nd string bowling attack does.

 

[tooextracool]

So by TooExtraCool's standard, Ponting's double hundred in Melbourne meant nothing. He faced Agarkar, Nehra (enough said), Kumble and an unfit Zaheer Kahn.

depends on what you mean by meant nothing. if you are saying that the innings wasnt as great as it is made out to be then yes it wasnt because it was against a poor attack. but he still deserved it against india even if it was against their poor bowling attack, because it was indias first choice bowlers.

 

[honestbharani]

yes i know but he wasnt fully match fit. he was decent, but he wasnt at his best.




theres a difference between being out of form and match fit. tendulkar granted, he just came back from an injury and didnt look at his best. zaheer now is really not fit too often to be considered as being missed. its like shane bond not being fit. laxman was out of form, he had played enough cricket and really, it'll take something to convince me that his out form didnt have something to do with how shane warne bowled to him. as far as im concerned, india missed 1 player, australia missed their captain(of course its not comparable given how poor a player ponting is in india) but nonetheless they were still short one player. im afraid 1 player makes nowhere near the difference that playing with a 2nd string bowling attack does.

Laxman was off and on. He had hurt his operated knee during practice from a delivery by Zaheer and was not quite 100% until the Champions Trophy. Plus, none of these guys had ANY test cricket for almost 6 months. That means they were as rusty as Jason Gillespie was. When you are talking about being match fit, even guys who have not played any cricket (even though they might not have been injured) can be considered as NOT match fit. Surely, I think an Aussie win over the current team would be a lot more credible than their victory over a rusty side, going by your definition of match fitness and the like. IF you consider that a win over a fit side is good enough, then the Aussie win is definitely 100% credible and so were the runs by the Indian batters.

 

[honestbharani]

depends on what you mean by meant nothing. if you are saying that the innings wasnt as great as it is made out to be then yes it wasnt because it was against a poor attack. but he still deserved it against india even if it was against their poor bowling attack, because it was indias first choice bowlers.

Doesn't the same hold good for the runs made by the Indian batsmen? Gillespie was not match fit while Zaheer was not FIT at all. Harbhajan was missing like Warne.

 

[marc71178]

Plus, none of these guys had ANY test cricket for almost 6 months.

Which is a difference to coming back from injury.

Injury means that they cannot train or anything.

 

[Jono]

depends on what you mean by meant nothing. if you are saying that the innings wasnt as great as it is made out to be then yes it wasnt because it was against a poor attack. but he still deserved it against india even if it was against their poor bowling attack, because it was indias first choice bowlers.

So Tendulkar didn't deserve his double ton but Ponting did?

India chose Zaheer, Australia chose Gillespie. Pathan and Balaji were available for India, Bracken was available for India. Not to mention Gillespie actually finished the game, unlike Zaheer.

Let's not forget a 'half fit' Gillespie is still more valuable than a broken down Zaheer.

 

[tooextracool]

Laxman was off and on. He had hurt his operated knee during practice from a delivery by Zaheer and was not quite 100% until the Champions Trophy. Plus, none of these guys had ANY test cricket for almost 6 months. That means they were as rusty as Jason Gillespie was. When you are talking about being match fit, even guys who have not played any cricket (even though they might not have been injured) can be considered as NOT match fit. Surely, I think an Aussie win over the current team would be a lot more credible than their victory over a rusty side, going by your definition of match fitness and the like. IF you consider that a win over a fit side is good enough, then the Aussie win is definitely 100% credible and so were the runs by the Indian batters.

they had played enough one day cricket in the period before that to be fit- asia cup, videocon cup, natwest challenge, icc championships etc. ODIs are just as effective in getting back into form and i think thats fairly obvious

 

[tooextracool]

Doesn't the same hold good for the runs made by the Indian batsmen? Gillespie was not match fit while Zaheer was not FIT at all. Harbhajan was missing like Warne.

harbhajan being missing was the biggest blessing for india. had he played, he would have most likely kept kumble out for the next 2 tests at least and that wouldnt have been too smart would it?
and as i've said about 1 million times now, the back ups- bracken, williams bichel etc werent anywhere close to being as good as the first string bowlers. in indias case theres not much difference in quality between the first string bowlers and the 2nd string bowlers. certainly no one can suggest that india missed zaheer for all his brilliant bowling average as opposed to australia missing gillespie.