**Official** Australia in Bangladesh

[honestbharani]

I think you're kidding yourself if you think he's hiding them. Does he use the doe-eyed soft spoken approach? Yes.

I don't know, I think he TRIES to be politically as correct as possible. It is not just in this issue. They recently interviewed him afte he took that 1000th international wicket on ESPN, and while it was obvious that he rated Brian Lara as the best batsman he has bowled to, he kept saying names like Sachin, Inzamam, Ponting, Steve and Mark Waugh, Martyn, Andy Flower etc. He said all of them were very difficult to bowl to but if he had to pick one guy, it would "probably" be Lara. It is something that I guess happens with Indians and Sri Lankans mainly. Even though we have our Gangulys and Ranatungas, generally a lot more emphasis is paid on being politically correct here than it is in Australia, at least from what I have seen.

 

[howardj]

Anyway, let's quit the Murali v Warne debate.

With those two guys, everyone's opinion is fairly entrenched/unchangeable.

It's boring.

 

[honestbharani]

Either I don't read enough on these forums or have been privy to too many Warne bashers. In every Murali V Warne thread, people go as far as doubting doctors in the insinuation that he was injured in India. I mean...come on!

More like you haven't been a member here long enough. I have seen a lot thrown at Murali around here, perhaps not so much since you were here but I have seen a lot of stupidly false allegations laid at him by some overzealous posters here.

 

[silentstriker]

Case in point...

Injury is a stupid excuse. If Murali were injured and he didn't take wickets, well that sucks for him. Don't play if you can't be effective. If you are on that field, then you are expected to perform.

 

[Ikki]

Me too.

Me three.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Someone close this thread unless they start talking about the actual match, please.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not attempting to defend the comments, merely to point out that the context is quite different from the way people are presenting it.

Personally, I think it is in extremely poor taste to bring flaws in another player's record up as he did. If Warne had said it in a less explicit way, like by saying "well, someone will eventually break my record, probably someone in a weak team who takes the bulk of the wickets for his side, or who plays the weaker international teams a lot more", it wouldn't have been such a problem. I think that Warne went on with it a bit too much, and it seemed really absurd the way he was making it completely obvious who he was talking about but still refusing to mention Murali by name. It was in poor taste, and came across a bit cowardly.

As far as the actual validity of the comments is concerned though, he's right. Murali does take a lot of wickets against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe (moreso against Zimbabwe, actually), and Warne hasn't had the chance to do that. Obviously he has the chance now and hasn't taken it, but then Bangladesh are a lot better now than they have been for the last 5 years, in which time Warne has never played them, just like Zimbabwe are a lot weaker now than they were when Warne played them last in 99. If someone on this board brought it up, I'd agree with them entirely, but I rather wish Warne hadn't done it, for the reasons mentioned.

Having said that, if Warne is in line for criticism for having a go at Murali for taking wickets against weak teams, I think Murali is equally so for bringing up the Indian thing as he does. Yes, fine, he has a better record against India, but I think it's poor form to attack the record of a fellow sportsman just to make yourself feel better about how good you are. And that goes for both Warne and Murali. If necessary, save it until after you've retired to talk up how great you were.

I don't think they are PARTICULARLY better than what they were a couple of months ago when Murali was running through them.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Oh, so now its not only teams, but the timeframe of the teams too? So it should count against Warne that he's played the English so many times when they couldn't buy a run? Sorry, that sword cuts both ways.

There's a big difference between getting Mark Butcher and Alec Stewart out and facing up to Visu Sibanda and Javed Omar. So yes, the timeframe and the team does matter. I'd like to be clear that I think Warne should refrain from attacking the record of other players, but if it was a pundit who said it I would be inclined to agree, just like I would have to agree that Warne's record against India leaves a lot to be desired.

Sure, no one is denying they both need to keep their mouth shut. But Murali has to endure a lot more than Warne does (plus he gets laid less than Warne on overseas tours ), and when Warne shoots his mouth off about you, then you must defend yourself. In his position, I would have told Warne to take his fat steroid popping *** and stick it somewhere.

Why MUST you defend yourself? Why can't you take the higher ground? I could understand Murali responding by saying "Warne has holes in his record too, etc etc", but why does he bring it up repeatedly? I don't see how it's any better, he's stroking his own ego by putting another player down, and it's in poor taste.

 

[honestbharani]

Um, the opposition playing worse than you...thats the definition of playing better cricket, isn't it? No one said Bangladesh has more talent. But if Australia play lazy shots and get out, and Bangladesh play less lazy shots and don't get out, thats called playing better.

So everytime they play well against Australia, from then on they are tough at home, right?


Seriously, they almost beat Pakistan in Pakistan as well. Shouldn't they have been regarded as tough from then on?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think they are PARTICULARLY better than what they were a couple of months ago when Murali was running through them.

No, but they are particularly better than they were in 2002, which is the point. Anyway, Warne obviously dropped the ball in a big way by getting belted on the first day of this test, but you can't really argue with the fact that Bangladesh was a lot of cheap wickets for the last few years, and that Murali cashed in and Warne didn't, which is the point. Sure, Warne shouldn't have said it, but it's still true.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Me too.

The only thing I haven't agreed with you about since I started regularily posting is your opinion on David Hussey.

 

[Ikki]

I don't know, I think he TRIES to be politically as correct as possible. It is not just in this issue. They recently interviewed him afte he took that 1000th international wicket on ESPN, and while it was obvious that he rated Brian Lara as the best batsman he has bowled to, he kept saying names like Sachin, Inzamam, Ponting, Steve and Mark Waugh, Martyn, Andy Flower etc. He said all of them were very difficult to bowl to but if he had to pick one guy, it would "probably" be Lara. It is something that I guess happens with Indians and Sri Lankans mainly. Even though we have our Gangulys and Ranatungas, generally a lot more emphasis is paid on being politically correct here than it is in Australia, at least from what I have seen.

I don't know, I haven't lived much of my life elsewhere to compare. I know Warne is a character, regardless of where you live.

More like you haven't been a member here long enough. I have seen a lot thrown at Murali around here, perhaps not so much since you were here but I have seen a lot of stupidly false allegations laid at him by some overzealous posters here.

Fair enough, you may be right.

Anyway, let's quit the Murali v Warne debate.

With those two guys, everyone's opinion is fairly entrenched/unchangeable.

It's boring.

Yeah, it's like Palestine V Isreal.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'm gonna ask you Sean, are you me? Seriously, I can't remember a post of yours that I didn't 100% agree with. Sometimes I even come into the thread to make a post and see you've beaten me to it [ie Bangas being tough at home from now on]

Me too.

Me three.

Hey, thanks. It's probably some sort of common sense thing.

Anyway, speaking of common sense, I'll shut up about the Warne/Murali stuff now.

Good game we have here.

 

[Ikki]

Injury is a stupid excuse. If Murali were injured and he didn't take wickets, well that sucks for him. Don't play if you can't be effective. If you are on that field, then you are expected to perform.

Well his shoulder nagged him, so he played on because he has that battling quality. If he didn't you would accuse him of protecting his record, he played it out, missed the second day....and STILL is getting this kind of reaction.

 

[Ikki]

Anyway, let's predict the next day's happenings .

 

[honestbharani]

There's a big difference between getting Mark Butcher and Alec Stewart out and facing up to Visu Sibanda and Javed Omar. So yes, the timeframe and the team does matter. I'd like to be clear that I think Warne should refrain from attacking the record of other players, but if it was a pundit who said it I would be inclined to agree, just like I would have to agree that Warne's record against India leaves a lot to be desired.



Why MUST you defend yourself? Why can't you take the higher ground? I could understand Murali responding by saying "Warne has holes in his record too, etc etc", but why does he bring it up repeatedly? I don't see how it's any better, he's stroking his own ego by putting another player down, and it's in poor taste.

I said the same about getting Bashar and Ashraful out vis-a-vis getting HOggard and Caddick out... Again, as SS said, that sword cuts both ways. And trust me, there are more than a few in the English and RSA side who could learn to play spin from a couple of Bangladesh batsmen... Mainly because those guys (Cullinan in particular) played the bowler and not the ball. Bangladesh have done the simple things right here. They played the ball and not the bowler and have reaped the rewards.


I have said it in the past as well, quality of wickets is an extremely EXTREMELY subjective issue. As I said in another post of mine, there is a difference between getting a batsman out slogging with 3 guys in the deep and a tailender from a minnow team out bowled by a doosra. It needs exhaustive analysis, something we don't have the time for, I think. And I still think Warne gets away with too many matches against England. They just can't play him. I mean, even Mushy did really well when he played against England in England in one series that I remember. Maybe Murali got screwed because he didn't play England enough back in the 90s.


This particular analysis of quality of wickets will lead nowhere. Both are great bowlers with great records and there was no reason for Warne to bring up such controversial issues in an interview. Murali is no angel, but Warne, from what I have seen, wins this contest of who has been worse in the public behaviour so far....

 

[honestbharani]

No, but they are particularly better than they were in 2002, which is the point. Anyway, Warne obviously dropped the ball in a big way by getting belted on the first day of this test, but you can't really argue with the fact that Bangladesh was a lot of cheap wickets for the last few years, and that Murali cashed in and Warne didn't, which is the point. Sure, Warne shouldn't have said it, but it's still true.

see my above post.

 

[honestbharani]

There's a big difference between getting Mark Butcher and Alec Stewart out and facing up to Visu Sibanda and Javed Omar. So yes, the timeframe and the team does matter. I'd like to be clear that I think Warne should refrain from attacking the record of other players, but if it was a pundit who said it I would be inclined to agree, just like I would have to agree that Warne's record against India leaves a lot to be desired.



Why MUST you defend yourself? Why can't you take the higher ground? I could understand Murali responding by saying "Warne has holes in his record too, etc etc", but why does he bring it up repeatedly? I don't see how it's any better, he's stroking his own ego by putting another player down, and it's in poor taste.

Because Murali is no angel, as you keep saying and I keep saying in reply. Neither of these guys are a patch on how Lara and Tendulkar have conducted themselves in the public eye, despite being the best two in their fielding, just like Murali and WArne.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

So everytime they play well against Australia, from then on they are tough at home, right?


Seriously, they almost beat Pakistan in Pakistan as well. Shouldn't they have been regarded as tough from then on?

Fair question. I think that the Bangladesh team we've seen in this test is unlike anything they've managed before. The beginning of it was the win over Zimbabwe I think, and since then they've beaten India, Australia and Sri Lanka in ODIs, and pushed Sri Lanka in a test series, and now this.

The point about the "tough at home" comment was specifically about non-subcontinental teams. Traditionally, teams like Australia, England etc have a tough time touring the subcontinent, because of the unfamiliar conditions, environment, food, crowd and so on. Bangladesh have never been considered part of this, it's just been India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, I think one of the things we'll see in the wash-up of this series is that the "Bangladesh tour" will be considered a difficult venture in the near future. It will be a long time before Bangaldesh are going to go to England and win a test series, but like Sri Lanka in the early 90s I think they'll be fairly unthreatening on the road, but a real danger side at home. You can see from this match how well Bangladesh have adapted their play style to suit the home conditions, and how much it has benifited them.

 

[Dasa]

I don't know, I think he TRIES to be politically as correct as possible. It is not just in this issue. They recently interviewed him afte he took that 1000th international wicket on ESPN, and while it was obvious that he rated Brian Lara as the best batsman he has bowled to, he kept saying names like Sachin, Inzamam, Ponting, Steve and Mark Waugh, Martyn, Andy Flower etc. He said all of them were very difficult to bowl to but if he had to pick one guy, it would "probably" be Lara. It is something that I guess happens with Indians and Sri Lankans mainly. Even though we have our Gangulys and Ranatungas, generally a lot more emphasis is paid on being politically correct here than it is in Australia, at least from what I have seen.

It's a cultural thing. In my experience, people from the subcontinent tend to be much more concerned about being polite and not offending people...and when there are those who break the mould, they're seen as much worse compared to their counterparts around the world because they're so different from the norm. Look at Ganguly for instance...hardly anything worse than a Ponting or even a Steve Waugh, yet he's so often seen as a much bigger villain because he's so different from the normal subcontinental person (e.g. Tendulkar or Kumble) in his approach to others.