**Official** Australia in India Thread

[marc71178]

When u watch Bucknor umpiring matches with aussies its hard to see no bribes being placed

I assume you will post evidence that there's been bribery, because if not, you're treading a thin line.

or if just a mistake how many mistakes can a team copp

How many great decisions get overlooked?

 

[marc71178]

Good to see Scallywag's got over the Champions Trophy...

Remind us what happened when Ricky played England Neil, I've forgotten...

 

[marc71178]

I have never mentioned the Champions trophy Neil, I assume you are talking about the one where the West Indies pasted England. Just to show how pathetic you are.

I think he was referring to the way the "useless captain" Vaughan completely outthought Australia and lead England to a very convincing win just hours after you'd called him useless.

 

[marc71178]

If they drop Lehmann and play Clarke I hope Clarke gets a pair - and I mean that!

They won't drop Lehmann.

 

[marc71178]

He was plumb, first ball. That Parthiv is really lucky. Not only does the management give him an extended run as a keeper and number 7, but he also gets to score runs with the top 6 getting a lot, and get an average of 32 with 3 50's. He even gets to open the batting!

So that's all luck is it?

He can't possibly have any ability?

 

[marc71178]

Why can't Irfan Pathan get as many chances as a late-order batsman? He is a big hitter, his basics as a batsman are good, and so is his temperament. He started off decently for a number 9, but batting at number 9 for so long has done his extra skill no good. If the captain had as much faith in Pathan as he has in Parthiv, the Indians would have an effective number 7. If Pathan gets runs, and more than the 10 or 15 he usually gets, it would help the team a lot more than it would if Parthiv got those runs, since Pathan is a quick scorer. Had the captain been Marvan, Vaughan or Fleming or especially Martin Crowe, Pathan would have got more chances- and runs.

Give it a rest.

He averages under 20 in FC Cricket.

Patel over 30.

He is not, and never will be an International All Rounder.

 

[marc71178]

The Indian bowlers put their team into this mess

So all 6 batsmen being out for 150 or so is irrelevant?

 

[marc71178]

Take more time to read and gauge the tone of the comment, Richard.

Reverse the roles, Lehmann 151, Clarke dismissed playing irrationally.

I imagine you'd have written it off as it's only his debut Ged.

 

[maxpower]

the game isn't over yet, will aus enforce follow on if IND cannot score the 125 required ? if they do then there is a possibility of AUS having to bat on day 5 which is never a good thing on IND tracks. If they dont enforce the follow on, I dont think IND will try to win but rather just try to play for draw.

 

[Richard]

Come on, Richard. Just for the fact that you dont back a player, and feel he's overrated doesnt mean theres any need for that crap.

I dont know about anyone else, but I despise it when people want cricketers to fail for some warped reason of their own. (Ive probabaly been guilty of it myself at some point, however...)

Every player ever to play Australia, surely?

 

[Richard]

they are getting whipped

I think RC might have meant wwwphhppew! wwwphhppew! sort of whipping - ie punished for such a shocking performance.

 

[Richard]

some players rise to the occasion, he got his highest first class score ever in his debut test innings, with Australia in a bit of bother...shows a lot about his temprement.

The Aussie selectors obviously look beyond first class averages when evaluating whether a player is of test standard. For what I have seen of the guy batting, he impresses me,and he has to get credit for what would appear to be a really great hundred in tricky conditions.

Or a great 92, rather.

We have gone over this before though..first class averages dont always give a true indication of how a player will do in tests. As I say,some players thrive in the environment with added pressure and responsibilty (see Botham,Willis,Gower and plenty of others). Your comments Richard about how you which he gets 'torn to pieces' smacks of somebody who is disapointed that their own theory about someone hasnt panned out the way they thought it would,a rather childish reaction infact.

Except, of course, regardless of perceptions, Botham and Willis actually performed better at the domestic level than at the international.
I am disappointed people who have provided so much hype, for such poor reasons, have got the chance to say "see, we were right" when, in fact, they picked lucky.

If he plays badly in the next few games,he will get torn to pieces,however if he plays well,surely he deserves the credit he no doubt will get from those of us who appear to understand the background things of the game more than you appear to do (ie. pretty much all of us on this forum)

We'll see.
Let me assure you there aren't that many on the forum whose understanding of the game matches mine.

 

[Richard]

Some good news for indian fans atlast

Heavy rain predicted to hit bangalore for the next three days

 

[Swervy]

Or a great 92, rather..

look in the scorebook....

either way, it is an innings that may well be the platform from which at least win this test and maybe the series

Except, of course, regardless of perceptions, Botham and Willis actually performed better at the domestic level than at the international.
I am disappointed people who have provided so much hype, for such poor reasons, have got the chance to say "see, we were right" when, in fact, they picked lucky.

I think we have had this discussion before.

Botham rarely performed to as high a standard of play domestically as his did in the international scene (although in 85,his county batting was astonishing)...you will argue that his domestic averages are slightly better than his test averages....means nothing of course,the difference between them is negligible,and when you consider the huge gap in standards of play between test and county cricket,it would suggest he raised his game for the tests.He was a big game player.

We have discussed Willis before...he was widely criticised at Warwickshire for not putting the effort in for them..again,he was another big game player who thrived on the pressure of international cricket (again his domestic and test averages are nigh on the same)

You conveniently forgot Gower..whose test record is quite a bit better than his domestic record..a player who averaged in the low 20's by the time he got to play test cricket.He got to play test cricket because his talent was obvious,regardless of his county scores...he promptly hit his first test ball for 4 and rarely looked back.He was a player who needed the responsibilty of playing at the top level....you would have written him off already if he had emerged in the present day.(incidentally Gower didnt average over 35 in the county champ season until 3 years after his test debut)

We'll see.
Let me assure you there aren't that many on the forum whose understanding of the game matches mine.

You do have an understanding of the game..but to be honest,the way you post on this forum,your understanding is rather superficial...and I think there are anumber of people on here that show that they have abetter understanding of the deeper parts of the game..indeed those part that make the game so rich and entertaining

 

[marc71178]

Let me assure you there aren't that many on the forum whose understanding of the game matches mine.

Remind me again, what is the definition of arrogant?

 

[Scallywag]

Remind me again, what is the definition of arrogant?

"An opinion that differs with Marc71178's opinion."


You asked

 

[Richard]

Remind me again, what is the definition of arrogant?

Something along the lines of believing, incorrectly, yourself to be superior to someone else.

 

[cricketfan]

Richard I wish you were not English as you taint the rest of us

 

[Richard]

look in the scorebook....

Which is a liar.

either way, it is an innings that may well be the platform from which at least win this test and maybe the series

Oh, almost certainly this Test, the series is still anyone's guess - Bowden's poor decision doesn't attach any credit to Clarke, however.

I think we have had this discussion before.

We have indeed.

Botham rarely performed to as high a standard of play domestically as his did in the international scene (although in 85,his county batting was astonishing)...you will argue that his domestic averages are slightly better than his test averages....means nothing of course,the difference between them is negligible,and when you consider the huge gap in standards of play between test and county cricket,it would suggest he raised his game for the tests.He was a big game player.

The gap is not "huge", plenty of players have a small difference in averages. Botham is one. Nonetheless, whatever perceptions be, he did better at the domestic level than the international - there is no escaping that. You want your anomaly-cases, you've gotta get them properly, not use cases that back my case not yours.

We have discussed Willis before...he was widely criticised at Warwickshire for not putting the effort in for them..again,he was another big game player who thrived on the pressure of international cricket (again his domestic and test averages are nigh on the same)

Yes, and whether he was criticised at Warwickshire is irrelevant, he did better at the domestic level than the international, that is all that matters.

You conveniently forgot Gower..whose test record is quite a bit better than his domestic record..a player who averaged in the low 20's by the time he got to play test cricket.He got to play test cricket because his talent was obvious,regardless of his county scores...he promptly hit his first test ball for 4 and rarely looked back.He was a player who needed the responsibilty of playing at the top level....you would have written him off already if he had emerged in the present day.(incidentally Gower didnt average over 35 in the county champ season until 3 years after his test debut)

Yes, Gower is an anomaly - most players are different to him.

You do have an understanding of the game..but to be honest,the way you post on this forum,your understanding is rather superficial...and I think there are anumber of people on here that show that they have abetter understanding of the deeper parts of the game..indeed those part that make the game so rich and entertaining

What makes the game entertaining is quality batting and quality bowling - not batsmen averaging higher at the international level than the domestic.

 

[telsor]

Which is a liar.

Oh, almost certainly this Test, the series is still anyone's guess - Bowden's poor decision doesn't attach any credit to Clarke, however.

Firstly, the umpire made his call..I haven't seen it, but that doesn't matter because right or wrong, the umpires decision is final...move on!

As for no credit...well, lets assume you're right, and he should have been out for 92...Are you suggesting that 92 on debut is a failure??? You set very high standards!

Further, if he had '2 innings', then he scored 92 and 59...neither are failures.

I didn't think he should be in the team, and agree that some are getting carried away with one innings, but it WAS an impressive knock and the kid deserves full credit for it.