***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

[LongHopCassidy]

why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.

Yes, and it's clear that Lara can't play pace because McGrath and Bichel obviously have his number.

Every batsman is entitled to a crap patch in their career. That is probably Ponting's last - nay, ONLY - bad series. Martyn, Laxman, Gilchrist have all had similar predicaments and look at them now.

People seem to be overeager to criticise Australian players, simply because we win all the time. Winning all the time through other batsman's poor strokes, exploiting first chances and being clueless against quality spin.

 

[archie mac]

and of course i said it was special turn didnt i?
i said that there was enough turn in the wicket for a quality bowler to pick up wickets, which is in fact what happened.
no i dont. they were 6 wickets down, they were trying to survive instead of chasing the total.

My mistake, as I have been saying all along it was nothing special, in fact it turned less than most SCG pitches I have seen.

I was listening to the ABC team while at the ground, they were constantly updating the Aust. target, and saying this run chase was a waste of time. Do you have the right Test Match? Not going for the runs, ha ha ha you make me laugh
How was Gilly out? stumped going for his shots? how was Waugh out slog, sweeping? going for his shots?
'Trying to survive' You must think before posting such rubbish, I want a debate not a walk over

 

[badgerhair]

Looking at averages again, eh?

The point is when Thorpe scored the runs. Every time he made a substantial score, England were in a hole when he came in. On the occasions when the position was relatively sound, he didn't score many. He doesn't always come off when England are in trouble, but he never does when they're not.

Picking Thorpe amounts to the belief that the Australian attack is likely to reduce England to not very many for three on enough occasions for it to be deemed a serious risk. If, on the other hand, you believe that England will reach 200 before the fall of the third wicket on a significant number of occasions, then picking Thorpe is liable to be a waste of a space which Pietersen could usefully occupy.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[archie mac]

really? and which bad session are you referring to? when they fell from 278/1 to 366? or when they let australia get 558? or when they collapsed to 286 in their 2nd inning?
far as i remember they were poor throughout the test, bar sehwag noone did anything of substance in the first inning and they certainly didnt score enough on a flat track in the 2nd inning either.

I think obviously when they collapsed in the 1st inns. the pitch was a flat as a tack, they should have made 500+ Aust. were all ways going to make a lot of runs, and in the 2nd inns the pitch kept a little low.
If India had batted properly in the 1st inns. it would, should have been a draw.

 

[social]

and your point is? it does not change the fact that hes weak in history. ive never claimed that gilchrist is not great, if thats your point. you keep refusing to accept the fact that gilchrist is weak on turners, simply because his overall average is good.
in pontings case the example is completely different, you could say that instead of 50 in history you could say he got 20, in which case the student failed.



ive already explained this, he had one good series in SL, and as i've mentioned above hes barely ever faced spinners outside of india and SL on turner


how many times has he played quality spinners on turners outside of ind and SL? very very rare indeed.



and i've said that the complaints against the wicket werent justified where exactly?
you seem to have problems reading, because the problem i have with ponting is that when australia produces non-test class wickets he seems to be extremely happy with them and talks them up, when india does the same and his side loses, he complains like a baby. and if it wasnt bad enough that he complained about mumbai and not darwin, he decided to take it as far as the ICC and expected dravid to stand by his side, why should dravid do that i ask you? when everybody claimed that darwin was not test class did he stand by gilchrist and attapattu?



thats absolute garbage. dravid batted 104 balls in the first inning without being dismissed, martyn batted 114, laxman batted 127 and tendulkar batted 83.
in darwin the most number of balls anyone batted was gilchrist who batted 123, jayawardhene batted 114, martyn survived 107 and no one else managed to survive over 100.
instead of making rubbish claims like this why dont you actually watch the 2 games?
the fact that one eyed aussies like you cant accept the fact that india played better, bowled better and australia batted and bowled poorly in the 2nd inning simply makes you more and more intolerable. but of course, how could the world's best team bat and bowl poorly? oh treason, it must be the pitch.



oh yes with bowlers like vaas, malinga and zoysa, their attack is clearly so suited to seam. the pitch didnt help the SL at all, it seamed about all over the place, and given that almost all their batsmen are incapable on seaming wickets its quite ludicrous to say that it suited them.




why? you clearly cant accept the fact that india played them well can you? ponting is rubbish in india because he cant play spin, otherwise he wouldnt be dismissed as many times by harbhajan singh and kumble, simple as that.



oh so murali and warne, who have had success everywhere in the world, including on similar wickets in SL cant bowl in india because of the pitches . brilliant deduction sherlock.



point being? has anyone claimed that harbhajan is great? or has anyone claimed that hes a good player on non turners?



no, i continue to let his poor performances prove to me that he isnt very good on turners. you call me biased, yet you seem absolutely insulted, when somone criticises anyone from australia. it is you who is biased, because you cant accept the fact that not all your players are perfect.

TEC,

it all comes down to one thing.

You cant stand Ponting because he had the temerity to criticise a pitch in India and, as such, you believe that he didnt give India due credit for their victory.

Because of that imagined slight, you use selective statistics and fabricate claims about pitch conditions to discredit him.

And BTW, your claims as to my bias are almost laughable.

I defy you to find one instance where I have claimed that India didnt deserve to win that test. The fact is, I couldnt care less about the result because it was a dead rubber and, as a result, it has been consigned to the deep recesses of people's memory by almost everyone except the players and imbeciles like yourself.

I am also the first person to admit that:

a. Flintoff walks into the Aus team;

b. People other that Aus are the best batsmen in the world;

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;

d. Some of the Aus back-up bowlers are crap;

e. With the exception of 2 hundreds, Clarke has done little to justify the hype surrounding him;

f. etc, etc, etc

You, on the other hand, live in this fantasy world where every post is manipulated to construct a case against those players that you hold some personal grudge against.

And what do those players (Ponting, Hayden, Tendulkar, Lee, Beckham, etc) have in common?

On a minority of occasions, the performance does not match the hype.

In Aus, we have a term for it. It's called the "Tall Poppy Syndrome" and it's one of the most pathetic practices about.

It will be interesting to see your reaction should Dravid ever receive the universal acclaim that his performances warrant. No doubt you'll fabricate some statistic that "proves" he cannot play in cold weather or some such nonsense.

 

[tooextracool]

TEC,

it all comes down to one thing.

You cant stand Ponting because he had the temerity to criticise a pitch in India and, as such, you believe that he didnt give India due credit for their victory..
Because of that imagined slight, you use selective statistics and fabricate claims about pitch conditions to discredit him.

really? because if you had been around before the ind-aus series last year, you would have seen that my opinion about ponting the player hadnt changed at all, i still said that he was good but not great, nor has it changed since. and no matter how much of a fool he makes of himself off the field, it still does not diminish his playing abilities. and i can assure you right now, if ponting manages one good series in india, i'll instantly admit that hes an all time great, and that hes done everything required of him to be one.

And BTW, your claims as to my bias are almost laughable.

I defy you to find one instance where I have claimed that India didnt deserve to win that test. The fact is, I couldnt care less about the result because it was a dead rubber and, as a result, it has been consigned to the deep recesses of people's memory by almost everyone except the players and imbeciles like yourself..

and unfortunately enough for yourself, you certainly havent been able to comprehend from the entire debate we've had so far, i dont care about the result either. i do care about the fact that imbeciles like the australian captain play on some of the most disgraceful wickets at home and talk them up as being the best, then come to india and play on one bad wicket and then go crying to the ICC about it.

I am also the first person to admit that:

a. Flintoff walks into the Aus team;

b. People other that Aus are the best batsmen in the world;

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;

d. Some of the Aus back-up bowlers are crap;

e. With the exception of 2 hundreds, Clarke has done little to justify the hype surrounding him;

f. etc, etc, etc.

yes whatever, and if you've gone on at a limb and read some of my posts you would see that i actually once claimed that ponting is a better captain than waugh, but of course, the criticism is whats remembered, and an englishman has no right to criticise an australian, especially because hes so highly regarded in his own country, no matter how much of a fool he makes of himself outside of it.

You, on the other hand, live in this fantasy world where every post is manipulated to construct a case against those players that you hold some personal grudge against.

And what do those players (Ponting, Hayden, Tendulkar, Lee, Beckham, etc) have in common?

On a minority of occasions, the performance does not match the hype..

on a minority of occasions?
all of them share a pattern, yes surprisingly they are all 'supposed' greats but really the most overrated players have to be the ones who are considered 'greats'. because youd have to be an absolute fool to think that rikki clarke was the most overrated player ever.
danny morrison and muralitharan average more than ponting in india, a player with this record is supposed to be worthy of the all time great honour?
hayden has never scored anything on a seamer friendly wicket, whether he hasnt had enough chances on them is irrelevant, he still hasnt proven himself on seamer friendly wickets. again this player is worthy of the all time great status?
tendulkar, has never won a game for his country on how own, never managed to win them a series outside the sub continent. again this player is worthy of the all time great honor?
lee, average 32 in test cricket, 39 since his injury, this player is supposed to be part of the 2nd best bowling attack in the world?
theres a pattern there clearly, those players all havent justified whatever title they hold.

It will be interesting to see your reaction should Dravid ever receive the universal acclaim that his performances warrant. No doubt you'll fabricate some statistic that "proves" he cannot play in cold weather or some such nonsense.

its really amazing, the fact that the closest claim that anyone has ever managed to use to diminish dravid's abilities as a player was : he averages 35.71 against an attack that includes mcgrath. oh what treason! an average of 35.71 against the best bowling attack in the world, clearly hes useless. not to mention of course that the genius who made that claim didnt realise that it has been warne not mcgrath whos troubled dravid for years.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, and it's clear that Lara can't play pace because McGrath and Bichel obviously have his number

you really do have a problem with being able to accept the obvious. its quite clear that i meant "dismissed as many times by harbhajan and kumble in india while barely managing a run"

Every batsman is entitled to a crap patch in their career. That is probably Ponting's last - nay, ONLY - bad series. Martyn, Laxman, Gilchrist have all had similar predicaments and look at them now.

series? ponting has been failing in india from the start of his career till now. its not a patch its a career.

People seem to be overeager to criticise Australian players, simply because we win all the time. Winning all the time through other batsman's poor strokes, exploiting first chances and being clueless against quality spin.

riiiiiight. so perhaps it might be a surprise for you that i rate martyn, bevan, kaspa and lehmann far more than any other person on this forum does? even more surprisng perhaps is that i actually criticise far more english players than i critise any other players in the world.

 

[tooextracool]

My mistake, as I have been saying all along it was nothing special, in fact it turned less than most SCG pitches I have seen.

which changes the fact that it did turn how? yes it turned less than most other pitches, it was still very good for batting on the last day and it was dead flat for the first 3, but it still turned on the final 2 like it or not.

I was listening to the ABC team while at the ground, they were constantly updating the Aust. target, and saying this run chase was a waste of time. Do you have the right Test Match? Not going for the runs, ha ha ha you make me laugh
How was Gilly out? stumped going for his shots? how was Waugh out slog, sweeping? going for his shots?
'Trying to survive' You must think before posting such rubbish, I want a debate not a walk over

you really are a joker. heres an extract from cricinfo, perhaps you'd like to explain this:
"What a way to go. The leitmotif of Steve Waugh's career has been his appetite for a fight, and it was only at the fag end of the series, with everything at stake, that he stood up and scrapped the way we'll always remember him. Australia went in to tea four wickets down, 238 behind, and with 35 overs left. Anil Kumble was in his element, and an Indian victory seemed the most likely result."
but im sure they were going for the win @6.72 runs an over.
how did gilly get out? really have you watched gilly play in his entire career? thats how he plays no matter what the situation, his stumping hardly proves anything.

 

[tooextracool]

I think obviously when they collapsed in the 1st inns. the pitch was a flat as a tack, they should have made 500+ Aust. were all ways going to make a lot of runs, and in the 2nd inns the pitch kept a little low.
If India had batted properly in the 1st inns. it would, should have been a draw.

and if they had batted properly in the 2nd innings or bowled well there still could have been a different result. india played poorly throughout the test, its just that the bad session in the first inning was what cost them the most.

 

[archie mac]

which changes the fact that it did turn how? yes it turned less than most other pitches, it was still very good for batting on the last day and it was dead flat for the first 3, but it still turned on the final 2 like it or not.
you really are a joker. heres an extract from cricinfo, perhaps you'd like to explain this:
"What a way to go. The leitmotif of Steve Waugh's career has been his appetite for a fight, and it was only at the fag end of the series, with everything at stake, that he stood up and scrapped the way we'll always remember him. Australia went in to tea four wickets down, 238 behind, and with 35 overs left. Anil Kumble was in his element, and an Indian victory seemed the most likely result."
but im sure they were going for the win @6.72 runs an over.
how did gilly get out? really have you watched gilly play in his entire career? thats how he plays no matter what the situation, his stumping hardly proves anything.

I agree it turned, but nothing special, SCG has turned ever since I was a kid, do you understand the difference between turn and a turner?

Tell me TEC what was the scoring rate for that last session as they tried to save the game, players holding on grimly for a draw hardly try and slog sweep a six?

 

[archie mac]

and if they had batted properly in the 2nd innings or bowled well there still could have been a different result. india played poorly throughout the test, its just that the bad session in the first inning was what cost them the most.

O'Reilly, Barnes and Lohmann would have struggled to bowl Aust out for less than 300 on that pitch, I thought the Indians tried hard, to keep Aust under 4 an over is a fair effort.

 

[aussie]

and i've said that the complaints against the wicket werent justified where exactly?
you seem to have problems reading, because the problem i have with ponting is that when australia produces non-test class wickets he seems to be extremely happy with them and talks them up, when india does the same and his side loses, he complains like a baby. and if it wasnt bad enough that he complained about mumbai and not darwin, he decided to take it as far as the ICC and expected dravid to stand by his side, why should dravid do that i ask you? when everybody claimed that darwin was not test class did he stand by gilchrist and attapattu?
QUOTE]

well thats typical aussie attitude, but come on tec Mumbai was far worst than Darwin

 

[aussie]

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;
QUOTE]

explain how you came up with that conclusion mate

 

[aussie]

thats absolute garbage. dravid batted 104 balls in the first inning without being dismissed, martyn batted 114, laxman batted 127 and tendulkar batted 83.
in darwin the most number of balls anyone batted was gilchrist who batted 123, jayawardhene batted 114, martyn survived 107 and no one else managed to survive over 100.
instead of making rubbish claims like this why dont you actually watch the 2 games?
the fact that one eyed aussies like you cant accept the fact that india played better, bowled better and australia batted and bowled poorly in the 2nd inning simply makes you more and more intolerable. but of course, how could the world's best team bat and bowl poorly? oh treason, it must be the pitch.

i wont say India played better than australia thrughout the mumbai test at all tec, until that last innings where australia needed just 104 to win, they were the front runners,

i agree that sometimes the aussies do make rough complaints when they loose but that was justified mumbai was a poor test match surface

 

[social]

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;
QUOTE]

explain how you came up with that conclusion mate[/QUOTE

Langer's test career was all but over during the 2001 Ashes tour.

Then, for reasons largely divorced from cricket, he was reinstated for the final test despite not having scored a run on tour and scored a laborious hundred on one of the flattest wickets ever.

In 6 subsequent tests, he scored 3 or 4 hundreds after being dropped or being mistakenly given not out in the first over of the innings.

In virtually every major innings he plays, he is the beneficiary of dropped catches or poor decissions early on.

Until recently, his major scores have come at the end of a protracted lean spell and have virtually been his last chance.

If the chances had been held or the decisions gone against him (as they should), he would have been dropped years ago.

He also plays and misses far more than most top class batsmen, mainly because of his lack of foot movement.

 

[aussie]

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;
QUOTE]

explain how you came up with that conclusion mate[/QUOTE

Langer's test career was all but over during the 2001 Ashes tour.

Then, for reasons largely divorced from cricket, he was reinstated for the final test despite not having scored a run on tour and scored a laborious hundred on one of the flattest wickets ever.

In 6 subsequent tests, he scored 3 or 4 hundreds after being dropped or being mistakenly given not out in the first over of the innings.

In virtually every major innings he plays, he is the beneficiary of dropped catches or poor decissions early on.

Until recently, his major scores have come at the end of a protracted lean spell and have virtually been his last chance.

If the chances had been held or the decisions gone against him (as they should), he would have been dropped years ago.

He also plays and misses far more than most top class batsmen, mainly because of his lack of foot movement.

fair assesment mate, i'll have to take you on that one since it basically true

 

[Top_Cat]

Then, for reasons largely divorced from cricket, he was reinstated for the final test despite not having scored a run on tour and scored a laborious hundred on one of the flattest wickets ever.

102 off 186 deliveries with 12 4's and a 6 is hardly laborious! Maybe compared to the Waugh twins in that innings but for Langer, that's almost slogging!

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T5_23-27AUG2001.html

In 6 subsequent tests, he scored 3 or 4 hundreds after being dropped or being mistakenly given not out in the first over of the innings.

So you make a generalised premiss ('3 or 4 hundreds') which infers you haven't actually looked them up or watched them but then claim specific knowledge (as if you'd watched every one) that he was dropped or mistakenly given not-out in the first over of each innings? So which is it?

In virtually every major innings he plays, he is the beneficiary of dropped catches or poor decissions early on.

In a couple, yes, but this is a vast and vague generalisation.

Until recently, his major scores have come at the end of a protracted lean spell and have virtually been his last chance.

No dispute here but this doesn't speak to 'luck' and says nothing about whether speculation about his place is justified or not. Whenever Australia has a wobbly innings, his is ALWAYS the place in question. I personally believe he's picked on but yes indeed, Langer always certainly seems to hit a decent score right as he's apparently on teh cusp of being dropped, much like Mark Waugh used to.

If the chances had been held or the decisions gone against him (as they should), he would have been dropped years ago.

This infers missed chances and dodgy decisions are unique to Langer. You're not seriously suggesting this is so are you?

He also plays and misses far more than most top class batsmen, mainly because of his lack of foot movement.

No dispute but again, this doesn't speak to luck. Are you making a comment to luck or his quality as a batsman?

Personally, if I had to rate Langer, I'd say he's the perfect example of a guy who has made the most of what he's got, which is less than a few other test players. He's never been a great shot-player and certainly appears less physically gifted than other Test players but he's worked with what he has and, unlike most players once they hit 30, he's actually improved and widened his shot play. His play straight down the ground has improved out-of-sight even in the last two years and he's even tightened his defensive game. These are qualities to be admired, particularly since Langer 1995 was probably barely Test class and was more than likely just a very good FC opener.

Lucky? Try asking Langer about his luck in the 90's, the fact he was unjustifiably dropped after his first two Tests (when he kept Australia in the game in the second dig of his first test), the fact he couldn't get a game in the early 90's at all, that when he did get a chance he was throw in at number 3 on a green deck and was horribly run-out by Steve Waugh and then had an extremely unlucky dismissal in the second dig then was dropped for the next Test, etc.

So yeah, I don't think he's more lucky than most (personally) but shouldn't a player who then takes advantage of a little bit of luck he gets now to kick on and score hundreds against most opposition in varying conditions at home and away be celebrated for that, especially considering he's less gifted then most?

 

[aussie]

my goodness i dont know who to agree with social or top cat, both u blokes have started a very interesting debate about Langer here

 

[Scallywag]

c. Langer is the luckiest player in the world;
QUOTE]

explain how you came up with that conclusion mate[/QUOTE

Langer's test career was all but over during the 2001 Ashes tour.

Then, for reasons largely divorced from cricket, he was reinstated for the final test despite not having scored a run on tour and scored a laborious hundred on one of the flattest wickets ever.

In 6 subsequent tests, he scored 3 or 4 hundreds after being dropped or being mistakenly given not out in the first over of the innings.

In virtually every major innings he plays, he is the beneficiary of dropped catches or poor decissions early on.

Until recently, his major scores have come at the end of a protracted lean spell and have virtually been his last chance.

If the chances had been held or the decisions gone against him (as they should), he would have been dropped years ago.

He also plays and misses far more than most top class batsmen, mainly because of his lack of foot movement.

What a wishy washy claim that a batsman is lucky.

Langer is one of the worlds premier openers not because he is lucky but because he has turned his luck around with hard work, dedication and discipline. The total garbage about him having more chances and recieving "mistaken not outs" is too stupid to even argue.

It doesent matter who you are you cant score the amount of runs Langer has without being a gifted player.

This would have to be the most pathetic claim I have seen here for a long time but it seems to be the norm.

 

[social]

Scallywag and TC,

Langer was reinstated to the Australian team in 2001 for whatever reason (god knows it wasnt weight of runs).

In short order, he:

1. played on a belter and scored a hundred against a very weak England - good on him, great performance, testimony to his mental toughness, yadayadayada; and

2. scored a pile of runs against NZ and SA AFTER either being dropped or given not out when blatantly out in single figures in almost every innings - if that's not luck, then I give up.

If things had turned out differently, that's his career finished at that point.

On a couple of other occasions, loyalty alone has been the deciding factor when determining his place in the team. To his credit, he has repaid that faith with sizable scores. But guess what? On each occasion, e.g. last Sri Lankan tour, he was given a reprieve early in his innings.

Unlike some, I regard Langer as a very talented player - you simply cannot hope to score 21 test centuries otherwise. He is mentally tough and scores runs when they are needed.

However, at times he displays a dodgy technique and, as such, plays and misses significnatly more than, say, Harden for example.

He has also benefitted from being in the right place at the right time. Better players than he, such as Lehmann, have had limited opportunities in comparison.

All in all, I just think he's a lucky player and that opinion is probably intensified by the fact that he's a boring, whiny little prat.