**Official** Australia in Bangladesh

[silentstriker]

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?

I never said otherwise.......
I think they are better than most people give them credit for.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

Did he play badly because his shoulder nagged him or did his shoulder nag him because he was playing badly? I'd say the same thing about any player. Injury is not an excuse. Tendulkar was injured when he came back, but thats not an excuse. It might be an explanation, but you have to judge them based on results.


Well, whatever. I'll shut up too. Lets talk about the game.

 

[honestbharani]

for one thing even when bangladesh games are counted towards the stats, it doesnt mean that performances against them while they were rubbish should also be included in the stats

How do you say they were rubbish? If they go on to lose this test and they get walloped in the next, are they still rubbish? Or do you say they have improved because of this one test when they were ahead? If that is the criteria and you do say they have improved, then why isn't the fact that they almost beat Pak in Pak not counted when judging Pathan and Murali's stats against them? And if you will call Bangladesh as the same rubbish if the series goes the way I mentioned at the top, what does that say about Warne and Gillespie and Clark? And about the other Clarke? Surely, these guys cannot be tired seeing as they didn't play as much cricket as the others in the side did.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

HIs shoulder must have been perfectly ok for him to have started this match. And I watched his second spell and he never looked in any real discomfort. I didn't watch his third spell, so if anything, he might have picked up that injury during that spell. And he was still spanked all over the park in his first two spells when he was fit. And this was just a shoulder strain, I have seen a number of bowlers, including Warney himself, bowl with it and do well. It doesn't seem to affect their bowling as much as a few other injuries would. And he has batted and bowled in the second innings as well, so it is really not a serious injury (because otherwise it makes ZERO sense to bowl him. Not EVEN Ponting is that stupid, ). He has not bowled well and Bangladesh have played him well. There ends the matter. The injury just happened during the course of the day's play. It is not like he had them tied up in knots when he picked up the injury.

 

[Ikki]

Well, it was serious enough not to bowl the next day wasn't it? Which is the same day that Macgill got an 8-fer. So....where all these little remarks come from is not really from a good old place called the 'heart'. It's more for the comments he made to Murali, which I contested PAGES back...that it was irrelevant where he said it or not...it's still true. The reason I disliked these kind of remarks is because of...here we go back into debate: Murali has made comments too. Neither should get favour.

It's like me saying: "Murali not coming to Australia? Why? Cuz he gets smashed everytime is probably why..."

 

[chaminda_00]

It's like me saying: "Murali not coming to Australia? Why? Cuz he gets smashed everytime is probably why..."

Maybe he doesn't like Australian food, not enough curried baken beans...

 

[Ikki]

Maybe he doesn't like Australian food, not enough curried baken beans...

Maybe...whatever the reason, legimate or not...it seems this will be abused by some people...the same as this little sore has done for Warne. Except that this is just one innings of a test match in where he failed...not matche(s).

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I will still like to wait and watch them over the whole series before judging them.

 

[Dasa]

Well, it was serious enough not to bowl the next day wasn't it? Which is the same day that Macgill got an 8-fer. So....where all these little remarks come from is not really from a good old place called the 'heart'. It's more for the comments he made to Murali, which I contested PAGES back...that it was irrelevant where he said it or not...it's still true. The reason I disliked these kind of remarks is because of...here we go back into debate: Murali has made comments too. Neither should get favour.

It's like me saying: "Murali not coming to Australia? Why? Cuz he gets smashed everytime is probably why..."

Even you should realise there is a bit of a difference there...one person is criticised because he hasn't done well somewhere, another is called a 'cheat' and is criticised for not wanting to come to a country where he has been racially abused and his integrity as a cricketer is questioned (even by the leader of that country!).

 

[honestbharani]

Well, it was serious enough not to bowl the next day wasn't it? Which is the same day that Macgill got an 8-fer. So....where all these little remarks come from is not really from a good old place called the 'heart'. It's more for the comments he made to Murali, which I contested PAGES back...that it was irrelevant where he said it or not...it's still true. The reason I disliked these kind of remarks is because of...here we go back into debate: Murali has made comments too. Neither should get favour.

It's like me saying: "Murali not coming to Australia? Why? Cuz he gets smashed everytime is probably why..."

No, I have seen Warney himself pick up wickets against other teams under similar conditions. He didn't bowl well on day 1 and Bangladesh played him better than a few other teams have done recently. End of story. He even got in a few rippers on day 1. One to Bashar had him squared up, pitching outside leg and bouncing and turning beyond off stump. Had it not spun that much, some guys would have been calling it the "Ball of the 21st century". He bowled as well as he could, it was obvious. But he had an off day with a few bad balls and was confronted by a team that played him better than some of the other teams that he has played against recently. The second day argument is worthless, because I never doubted the injury. I have made a couple of jokes at it, but that is all they were. Jokes. Warney is way too competitive to miss out on cricket citing a non-existent injury. I am just saying that you cannot wash away the fact that he bowled bad and the Tigers played him well under the carpet of the injury.

 

[Ikki]

Even you should realise there is a bit of a difference there...one person is criticised because he hasn't done well somewhere, another is called a 'cheat' and is criticised for not wanting to come to a country where he has been racially abused and his integrity as a cricketer is questioned (even by the leader of that country!).

It's not about difference, it's about allegiance.

If I'm more inclined as a Warne fan, then whatever Murali says or does is of more impact. The same visa-versa. So, for me, when someone is questioning HOW INJURED a player is because he said a few comments against their favourite players...it's the same thing the other way round. No one is willing to give leeway or give a united stance. Give some common ground. It is Me V You. If I really wanted to I could contest EVEN that statement. It depends where you're situated on the matter.

And unintentionally, I've gotten into a debate I was trying to duck. I implied simply: Don't make Warne the devil for his comments. No side here is on holier ground, let's just watch cricket. But no...these kind of comments are bound to come about...

 

[honestbharani]

It's not about difference, it's about allegiance.

If I'm more inclined as a Warne fan, then whatever Murali says or does is of more impact. The same visa-versa. So, for me, when someone is questioning HOW INJURED a player is because he said a few comments against their favourite players...it's the same thing the other way round. No one is willing to give leeway or give a united stance. Give some common ground. It is Me V You. If I really wanted to I could contest EVEN that statement. It depends where you're situated on the matter.

And unintentionally, I've gotten into a debate I was trying to duck. I implied simply: Don't make Warne the devil for his comments. No side here is on holier ground, let's just watch cricket. But no...these kind of comments are bound to come about...

lol, I never doubted the injury, if it is directed at me. I had a joke or two with it, but it was never serious. That is why I even put the smileys there, to show that it was a light hearted comment, not to be taken seriously.

And sorry, from what I have seen, I do think Murali has been a little better than Warne in terms of what they have been doing in public. I have talked to both guys, which I don't think many here would have done, and I still think Murali came across as a more humble guy. May be he was just acting, but as a public persona, I would rather see a person ACT humble than to be natural and stay stupid stuff.

 

[Ikki]

No, I have seen Warney himself pick up wickets against other teams under similar conditions. He didn't bowl well on day 1 and Bangladesh played him better than a few other teams have done recently. End of story. He even got in a few rippers on day 1. One to Bashar had him squared up, pitching outside leg and bouncing and turning beyond off stump. Had it not spun that much, some guys would have been calling it the "Ball of the 21st century". He bowled as well as he could, it was obvious. But he had an off day with a few bad balls and was confronted by a team that played him better than some of the other teams that he has played against recently. The second day argument is worthless, because I never doubted the injury. I have made a couple of jokes at it, but that is all they were. Jokes. Warney is way too competitive to miss out on cricket citing a non-existent injury. I am just saying that you cannot wash away the fact that he bowled bad and the Tigers played him well under the carpet of the injury.

So is the question: Did he bowl bad because he CAN'T get out Bangladeshi batsmen(which is what you're all seemingly implying)? Or because he wasn't switched on that day because of form or injury. Those kind of remarks insinuate the building argument for Murali...that Bangladeshi wickets are worth their weight in gold and Warne said a 'no-no'.

 

[Ikki]

lol, I never doubted the injury, if it is directed at me. I had a joke or two with it, but it was never serious. That is why I even put the smileys there, to show that it was a light hearted comment, not to be taken seriously.

And sorry, from what I have seen, I do think Murali has been a little better than Warne in terms of what they have been doing in public. I have talked to both guys, which I don't think many here would have done, and I still think Murali came across as a more humble guy. May be he was just acting, but as a public persona, I would rather see a person ACT humble than to be natural and stay stupid stuff.

I'm from the region. I know the hospitiable culture and the humble impression we like to give. So, as you see this as Murali being more humble, I see it differently from his remarks. I just see through the mannerisms, whereas with Warne, there are none. I think that also plays a big part in how a lot of people from the sub-continent judge him(Warne) and how much that opinion differs down here.

 

[honestbharani]

So is the question: Did he bowl bad because he CAN'T get out Bangladeshi batsmen(which is what you're all seemingly implying)? Or because he wasn't switched on that day because of form or injury. Those kind of remarks insinuate the building argument for Murali...that Bangladeshi wickets are worth their weight in gold and Warne said a 'no-no'.

Nope, when a bowler of the quality of Warne bowls badly (not anything horrid, mind you, he may bowl worse and get tons of wickets), it is still possible that he will get wickets, esp. against minnows. Murali didn't bowl a great spell on one occasion against Zim in Zim and yet he got 6 wickets. These things happen. It is the function of the fact that Bangladesh played him very very well (maybe the fact that they didn't carry any baggage like England or RSA do might have helped them) and scored those runs off him. He bowled half volleys outside off stump a lot of times to STrauss and Tresco in the Ashes with the sweeper out. How many times was he taken for 14 an over? That is my point. Having seen him through the recent season, I think I can safely say that he didn't bowl any more worse than he did a couple of times in the Ashes, when I felt the Englishmen gave their wickets away to him. And no, all this has nothing to do with Murali, except the fact that too many people have been bagging him here about his wickets against the minnows. To an extent, we can understand, but it is not like he just turned up and got their wickets. Esp. Bangladesh, who are not the worst players of spin in the world. Kumble wasn't all that successful against them either, to prove my point.


In any case, leaving Murali out of the equation, it was still a combo of bad bowling and good batting that Warney wasn't more successful here. The injury happened later. I think he would have been good enough to get 1 or 2 wickets at least in those 13 overs had he bowled near his absolute best OR had Bangladesh batted poorly.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm from the region. I know the hospitiable culture and the humble impression we like to give. So, as you see this as Murali being more humble, I see it differently from his remarks. I just see through the mannerisms, whereas with Warne, there are none. I think that also plays a big part in how a lot of people from the sub-continent judge him(Warne) and how much that opinion differs down here.

so it is just a matter of opinion and culture then. It is obvious in that case that neither of us are gonna be completely right.

 

[Ikki]

so it is just a matter of opinion and culture then. It is obvious in that case that neither of us are gonna be completely right.

Which is just why I love to agree to disagree on this matter .

Back to the game...PLEASE! Hahaha...funny all this.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

HIs shoulder must have been perfectly ok for him to have started this match. And I watched his second spell and he never looked in any real discomfort. I didn't watch his third spell, so if anything, he might have picked up that injury during that spell. And he was still spanked all over the park in his first two spells when he was fit. And this was just a shoulder strain, I have seen a number of bowlers, including Warney himself, bowl with it and do well. It doesn't seem to affect their bowling as much as a few other injuries would. And he has batted and bowled in the second innings as well, so it is really not a serious injury (because otherwise it makes ZERO sense to bowl him. Not EVEN Ponting is that stupid, ). He has not bowled well and Bangladesh have played him well. There ends the matter. The injury just happened during the course of the day's play. It is not like he had them tied up in knots when he picked up the injury.

Keep in mind, nobody is saying "Bangladesh only scored runs against Warne because Warne was carrying a sore shoulder". At the very most, it only contributed to Warne bowling below his best, and quite possibly it made no difference at all.

What I am talking about is not whether or not Warne was beaten by Bangladesh because he was injured, but why it is that when a guy who has a well-deserved reputation for being a great competitor goes off the field with a sore shoulder after he's been smashed around, people suggest he's faking it to get out of bowling on a flat pitch. Not only does it not make sense (if he wanted to protect his figures, he wouldn't have bowled at all, and certainly not 20 overs, and he would have stayed on to improve them with wickets), but it's also a completely unsubstantiated attack on Warne's character in an area where he's never put a foot wrong.

If people did the same thing to Murali, half the forum would jump on them, and rightly so, so I don't see why Warne should cop the same from a handful of different people in this thread.

 

[chaminda_00]

So back to the cricket, Saleh to score a hundred, Haque Jnr to get a 5-fer and Lee to continue to get smacked for six an over and Bangladesh to win.

 

[fishyguy]

Well BD have done it a gian a disastrous 2 nd innings collapse.

Australia pretty much on top. Wont have to chase more than 300 odd

Should win the game unless BD can pull off something miraculous.

That run out of Bashar and Aftab getting out just before play was just terrible.