-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
**Official** Australia in India Thread
- Thread starter Craig
- Start date
Linda
International Vice-Captain
Theres always going to be bias in the media, its called human nature.JustTool said:I think you are talking to the biased Aussia press and Ricky Ponting
As for Ponting, in my opinion he had the right to complain, and I think he wouldve done whichever way the result went.
The Argonaut
State Vice-Captain
It just goes to show that it is a batsman's game. There are less complaints when the pitch is a road and ordinary batsmen get runs. As soon as the wickets fall then the pitch is no good. The bowlers need to be given a go every now and again. The Aussies should have been able to chase 100 odd.
Everyone expects slow dusty turners when they go to India. Some are worse than others.
An earlier post suggested that Australia had squeaked through to a narrow win in the series. Rubbish - they were the dominant side over the whole series. The fact that India won the last test will ensure that some of the hard questions won't get asked. The future of Ganguly one of them.
Everyone expects slow dusty turners when they go to India. Some are worse than others.
An earlier post suggested that Australia had squeaked through to a narrow win in the series. Rubbish - they were the dominant side over the whole series. The fact that India won the last test will ensure that some of the hard questions won't get asked. The future of Ganguly one of them.
Last edited:
This is the best article on how unsporting Australia have been. Khalid Ansari is a very long time sportswriter.
That's being unsporting, Mr Ponting
By: Khalid A-H Ansari
November 9, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since he is no man’s fool, Ricky Ponting must have an exceedingly low opinion of Rahul Dravid’s intelligence as also a vainglorious estimation of his own powers of persuasion.
How else can one explain the Aussie captain’s reported suggestion to the India stand-in captain to join him in a formal protest over the Wankhede Stadium wicket, which the tourists querulously blame for their defeat in last week’s Mumbai Test?
Upon his return to Sydney on Sunday, Ponting, in an outburst of injured self-righteousness, said he would register his dissatisfaction with the wicket in his official captain’s match report to the International Cricket Council (ICC).
And, believe it or not, Ponting actually believes that he can “enlist the support of Dravid to impress on the need to have more genuine Test pitches.”
“Genuine” Test pitches? Please enlighten us, skipper: what is a “genuine” Test pitch as against a counterfeit one?
Mr Ponting: Is a “genuine” wicket one on which the ball rears menacingly at head and torso, terrifyingly whistling past the chins and ears of hapless batsmen, unaccustomed to fiery pace and pronounced lift as at Perth or in New Zealand, making a mockery of the sporting concept of a level playing field?
For a long time now, batsmen from around the world, unaccustomed to playing on such minefields, have been easy meat for Australia’s gleeful lethal fast bowlers, who have terrorized them on home turf to set the stage for victory.
The strange aspect is that Ricky Ponting cannot possibly have forgotten the shellacking received at the hands of the New Zealand pace bowlers on hazardous wickets during the drawn series in that country in 2001-02.
Nor, indeed, have the Indians completely overcome the nightmare of the 2002-03 tour of NZ, and South Africa of the 2003-04 series there.
Sourav Ganguly’s side took the “sub-standard” wickets in their stride without whingeing. And, if memory serves one right, so did the Aussies.
So why the whining now?
Perhaps because they were denied the desperately wanted 3-0 victory? Perhaps because this would have enabled the captain himself to claim credit for a Test win in the series?
If Ponting had his way, he would have all Indian wickets similar to the vexed one at Nagpur, which, resembled the green tops in Australia, thanks to the illogical obduracy of Nagpur officials and grounds man Kishor Pradhan, who had no compunction in cutting their noses to spite their faces.
Ponting has the temerity to pontificate gratuitously that “India’s cricket would be better served with wickets such as the seamer-friendly one at Nagpur”, which, we may add, caused Messrs McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz to rub their eyes in disbelief and salivate in anticipation, upon first setting eyes upon it.
The Aussie pacemen capitalised gleefully upon the manna from heaven offered by India’s feuding officials and sent the Indian batsmen to the cleaners to carve out an emphatic, impressive win that enabled their team to breach what Steve Waugh termed the Final Frontier.
It is very possible that – the grounds man’s gift apart – but for rain and the benevolence of wicket-keeper Parthiv Patel, the series could have been drawn 2-2, enabling India to retain the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. But, then, this is in the realm of “If my aunt had been a man, she would have been my uncle” ifs and buts.
One would have thought that Ponting, with his 80-Test experience would have fathomed by now that any home team in the pantheon of international cricket, from almost the advent of the game of cricket, has had the acknowledged right to prepare wickets to suit its own bowlers.
Thus it has been and so it shall remain, unless the ICC decrees otherwise.
***************
For Ponting to attribute his team’s 13-run defeat solely to a wicket he describes as “sub-standard”, without regard for his team’s remarkable gutless capitulation in the second innings is unsporting, in poor taste and smacks of sour grapes.
After all, it is not as though two separate wickets – one for the Aussies and one for the home side – were prepared for the Test.
The assured manner in which Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman batted on the third (and last morning) of the Test while putting on 91 runs in 119 minutes in positive fashion to lay the foundation for a shock victory, expose Ponting’s diatribe for what it is.
Australia’s batsmen were the victims of their own incompetence against top-class spin bowling brought on by needless, self-induced panic through sheer fear of what the Indian spinners would do on a crumbling wicket, after the unexpected success of part-time spin bowler Michael Clarke (six wickets for nine runs), caused, again, by some inept batting on the part of India’s lower-order batsmen.
Former Test captain, Polly Umrigar, who supervised the preparation of the controversial wicket, has stated that “Ponting dug his own grave” in that the exaggerated turn which the wicket produced in the fourth innings was the result – or folly – of the Aussie skipper who should have known, as even Mumbai maidan captains do, that the use of the half-tonne heavy roller by him twice would break up the hard wicket.
There were simply no ghouls in the wicket. All the kerfuffle is nothing but what we were taught at school about a bad workman blaming his tools or naach na jaane aangan teda (the bad dancer blames the dance floor).
Ponting is reported as saying, “It’s the sort of wicket where you’re always in two minds about what to do”.
He goes on to add, “If you try to stand there and defend, you’re eventually going to get out. If you try to play a shot here and there you’re a good chance of getting out as well. You can’t fault any of the guys. We tried our hardest and we ended up getting close.”
How’s that for tautology?
But then, Mr Ponting, doesn’t unpredictability of wickets make cricket the gloriously uncertain game it is renowned to be? Surely, you don’t expect the rest of the world to tailor-make green-top wickets for your bowlers and batsmen to perpetuate your status as world champions?
Mr Ponting, you are the leader of an awesome team that is, undeniably, in a class of its own. Your demeanour should, therefore, be in keeping with your mighty deeds on the field.
We are tempted to believe that Adam Gilchrist, your deputy who so ably led your team to victory, could never be guilty of the kind of churlishness and indiscretion that you have shown.
This reminds one of the rather simplistic story that was in vogue when we were at school: This mother takes her six-year old son to a psychiatrist and explains that he stealthily puts anything he likes in the supermarket into his pocket.
“What could the problem be, doctor?” she asks with great concern.
“There’s no problem, ma’m. Your son is just a thief.”
Don’t look for scapegoats in the wicket, Mr Ponting. Your batsmen were gauche last Friday. And, with death staring them in the face, the Indian spinners bowled superbly. It’s as simple as that.
That's being unsporting, Mr Ponting
By: Khalid A-H Ansari
November 9, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since he is no man’s fool, Ricky Ponting must have an exceedingly low opinion of Rahul Dravid’s intelligence as also a vainglorious estimation of his own powers of persuasion.
How else can one explain the Aussie captain’s reported suggestion to the India stand-in captain to join him in a formal protest over the Wankhede Stadium wicket, which the tourists querulously blame for their defeat in last week’s Mumbai Test?
Upon his return to Sydney on Sunday, Ponting, in an outburst of injured self-righteousness, said he would register his dissatisfaction with the wicket in his official captain’s match report to the International Cricket Council (ICC).
And, believe it or not, Ponting actually believes that he can “enlist the support of Dravid to impress on the need to have more genuine Test pitches.”
“Genuine” Test pitches? Please enlighten us, skipper: what is a “genuine” Test pitch as against a counterfeit one?
Mr Ponting: Is a “genuine” wicket one on which the ball rears menacingly at head and torso, terrifyingly whistling past the chins and ears of hapless batsmen, unaccustomed to fiery pace and pronounced lift as at Perth or in New Zealand, making a mockery of the sporting concept of a level playing field?
For a long time now, batsmen from around the world, unaccustomed to playing on such minefields, have been easy meat for Australia’s gleeful lethal fast bowlers, who have terrorized them on home turf to set the stage for victory.
The strange aspect is that Ricky Ponting cannot possibly have forgotten the shellacking received at the hands of the New Zealand pace bowlers on hazardous wickets during the drawn series in that country in 2001-02.
Nor, indeed, have the Indians completely overcome the nightmare of the 2002-03 tour of NZ, and South Africa of the 2003-04 series there.
Sourav Ganguly’s side took the “sub-standard” wickets in their stride without whingeing. And, if memory serves one right, so did the Aussies.
So why the whining now?
Perhaps because they were denied the desperately wanted 3-0 victory? Perhaps because this would have enabled the captain himself to claim credit for a Test win in the series?
If Ponting had his way, he would have all Indian wickets similar to the vexed one at Nagpur, which, resembled the green tops in Australia, thanks to the illogical obduracy of Nagpur officials and grounds man Kishor Pradhan, who had no compunction in cutting their noses to spite their faces.
Ponting has the temerity to pontificate gratuitously that “India’s cricket would be better served with wickets such as the seamer-friendly one at Nagpur”, which, we may add, caused Messrs McGrath, Gillespie and Kasprowicz to rub their eyes in disbelief and salivate in anticipation, upon first setting eyes upon it.
The Aussie pacemen capitalised gleefully upon the manna from heaven offered by India’s feuding officials and sent the Indian batsmen to the cleaners to carve out an emphatic, impressive win that enabled their team to breach what Steve Waugh termed the Final Frontier.
It is very possible that – the grounds man’s gift apart – but for rain and the benevolence of wicket-keeper Parthiv Patel, the series could have been drawn 2-2, enabling India to retain the Border-Gavaskar Trophy. But, then, this is in the realm of “If my aunt had been a man, she would have been my uncle” ifs and buts.
One would have thought that Ponting, with his 80-Test experience would have fathomed by now that any home team in the pantheon of international cricket, from almost the advent of the game of cricket, has had the acknowledged right to prepare wickets to suit its own bowlers.
Thus it has been and so it shall remain, unless the ICC decrees otherwise.
***************
For Ponting to attribute his team’s 13-run defeat solely to a wicket he describes as “sub-standard”, without regard for his team’s remarkable gutless capitulation in the second innings is unsporting, in poor taste and smacks of sour grapes.
After all, it is not as though two separate wickets – one for the Aussies and one for the home side – were prepared for the Test.
The assured manner in which Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman batted on the third (and last morning) of the Test while putting on 91 runs in 119 minutes in positive fashion to lay the foundation for a shock victory, expose Ponting’s diatribe for what it is.
Australia’s batsmen were the victims of their own incompetence against top-class spin bowling brought on by needless, self-induced panic through sheer fear of what the Indian spinners would do on a crumbling wicket, after the unexpected success of part-time spin bowler Michael Clarke (six wickets for nine runs), caused, again, by some inept batting on the part of India’s lower-order batsmen.
Former Test captain, Polly Umrigar, who supervised the preparation of the controversial wicket, has stated that “Ponting dug his own grave” in that the exaggerated turn which the wicket produced in the fourth innings was the result – or folly – of the Aussie skipper who should have known, as even Mumbai maidan captains do, that the use of the half-tonne heavy roller by him twice would break up the hard wicket.
There were simply no ghouls in the wicket. All the kerfuffle is nothing but what we were taught at school about a bad workman blaming his tools or naach na jaane aangan teda (the bad dancer blames the dance floor).
Ponting is reported as saying, “It’s the sort of wicket where you’re always in two minds about what to do”.
He goes on to add, “If you try to stand there and defend, you’re eventually going to get out. If you try to play a shot here and there you’re a good chance of getting out as well. You can’t fault any of the guys. We tried our hardest and we ended up getting close.”
How’s that for tautology?
But then, Mr Ponting, doesn’t unpredictability of wickets make cricket the gloriously uncertain game it is renowned to be? Surely, you don’t expect the rest of the world to tailor-make green-top wickets for your bowlers and batsmen to perpetuate your status as world champions?
Mr Ponting, you are the leader of an awesome team that is, undeniably, in a class of its own. Your demeanour should, therefore, be in keeping with your mighty deeds on the field.
We are tempted to believe that Adam Gilchrist, your deputy who so ably led your team to victory, could never be guilty of the kind of churlishness and indiscretion that you have shown.
This reminds one of the rather simplistic story that was in vogue when we were at school: This mother takes her six-year old son to a psychiatrist and explains that he stealthily puts anything he likes in the supermarket into his pocket.
“What could the problem be, doctor?” she asks with great concern.
“There’s no problem, ma’m. Your son is just a thief.”
Don’t look for scapegoats in the wicket, Mr Ponting. Your batsmen were gauche last Friday. And, with death staring them in the face, the Indian spinners bowled superbly. It’s as simple as that.
thirdumpire
School Boy/Girl Captain
its old hat. the Waughs vs Ganguly.
Steve and Ganguly have snapped at each other in the press many times before. Now its turn of Mark... It is best read and forget, this is beyond cricket...
Steve and Ganguly have snapped at each other in the press many times before. Now its turn of Mark... It is best read and forget, this is beyond cricket...
That's nonsense. Ricky is behaving like a schoolboy brat (thet he used to be, not many years ago) just because he can't bat against spin. Everyone in India has lost a lot of respect from him (see recent comments by Bedi).Ponting is just whining because Gilchrist won without him and Australia lost with him. Ouch. I think he hsould be canned as captain and Gilchrist made permanent. Then, like Atherton said, at least Aussies can practice hypocirtical 'walking'Linda said:
SquidAU
First Class Debutant
How many wickets has Harbhajan claimed against Oz, overseas? Of course he is gonna get more wickets at home. Against anyone. It is EXPECTED of him...and Kumble, Kartik and the rest.JustTool said:Harbhajan is finally speaking up. Can you beleive the asinine article written by Mark Waugh. Why doesn't he say that Gilchrist should be captain since he managed to win in India after 19 years of Aussie frustration and Ponting lost the only Test he captained and failed as a batsman (again). Why are the knives out for Ganguly and why do Indians have to be receipients of all the bogus accusations and whining. No class, I say.They barely squeaked out a 2-1 win after 19 years (thanks to the rain in Chennai) and they suspend all modesty, humility and class.
<snipped article quoted>
53
The number of wickets Harbhajan Singh has claimed in his last six home Test matches against Australia
As for barely squeaked out a 2-1 win.....Which test series were you watching? I could say the same for the 2001 series, where if it weren't for some bad captaincy and dodgy umpiring, Australia might have gone away with a 2-1 win!
It would have been 2-2 if it had not rained in Chennai. Are you guys so intoxciated by this 2-1 victory that you can't even recognize reality ? Didn't India lose BADLY in Mumbai in 2001 and then come back to soundly beat Australia 2-1 ? And I won't even say anything about the stupid Bucknor (who like DeSilva should have lost his place in the Elite panel long time ago).The Argonaut said:
Linda
International Vice-Captain
Youre reading way too much into it. The way I see it, he complained because the pitch was a shocker. Nothing to do with his captaining, particulary because Australia lost that Test match in their 2nd Innings and you cant captain that (obvious, I would have thought) or his weakness in India. End of story.JustTool said:That's nonsense. Ricky is behaving like a schoolboy brat (thet he used to be, not many years ago) just because he can't bat against spin. Everyone in India has lost a lot of respect from him (see recent comments by Bedi).Ponting is just whining because Gilchrist won without him and Australia lost with him. Ouch. I think he hsould be canned as captain and Gilchrist made permanent. Then, like Atherton said, at least Aussies can practice hypocirtical 'walking'
Dydl
International Debutant
JustTool said:
How do you know that India would have won? It was even-ish, you don't know that the Australians might have won? You don't know if the Indian's would have won. You can't just presume because they were in a slightly better position, that they would have won. Many teams can and have pulled off victories in the toughest situations.
Sorry that doesn't add up. Laxman and Tendulkar batted. And so did the mighty Gillespie.Linda said:
You know why Australia lost, and why they used to lose to India when Waugh was in charge ? Because their arrogance made them believe they could just show up and 'dominate' by playing their 'natural' aggressive, sledging game and all would be OK. Gilchrist changed that and demanded that they be low-key and apply themseleves to the fullest. None of the batsmen in the 4th innings (other than Gillespie) really applied themselves. Because the old Ponting-Waugh attitude was back. And it was reflected in the stupid article Mark Waugh wrote generously pointing out all the hundreds of things wrong with Ganguly and Indian cricket - now is that's not a presumptous, inane article - right after Australia lost - I don't know what is ?
I suppose the Waughs are still eating all the sour grapes from their Ganguly encounters - in India and in Australia
The same way as the great Ricky knew AFTER he lost that he should try blaming the pitch. Of course, Ricky says, if it wasn't for the pitch we would have won - I mean how could Australia lose ?Dydl said:
If I agree with you then, logically, you must agree that had a few inane umpiring decisions gone India's way in the first 2 Tests then things could have been different - after all: Many teams can and have pulled off victories in the toughest situations.
Get it ? (I doubt it )
Linda
International Vice-Captain
Not the old "arrogant Aussie" argument again, surely?? Suddenly, as Ricky comes back, they completely change their attitude?JustTool said:Sorry that doesn't add up. Laxman and Tendulkar batted. And so did the mighty Gillespie.
You know why Australia lost, and why they used to lose to India when Waugh was in charge ? Because their arrogance made them believe they could just show up and 'dominate' by playing their 'natural' aggressive, sledging game and all would be OK. Gilchrist changed that and demanded that they be low-key and apply themseleves to the fullest. None of the batsmen in the 4th innings (other than Gillespie) really applied themselves. Because the old Ponting-Waugh attitude was back. And it was reflected in the stupid article Mark Waugh wrote generously pointing out all the hundreds of things wrong with Ganguly and Indian cricket - now is that's not a presumptous, inane article - right after Australia lost - I don't know what is ?
I suppose the Waughs are still eating all the sour grapes from their Ganguly encounters - in India and in Australia
I really cant be bothered arguing with you, I have better things to do.
