tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post6837132731059504949..comments2023-11-22T00:35:03.815-08:00Comments on A monkey at the cricket: The Final Frontier: Not as elusive as it seemsYellowMonkeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14344094370490912785noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-54384362208673524722008-12-09T22:45:00.000-08:002008-12-09T22:45:00.000-08:00Seems like Raj misunderstood the point of the post...Seems like Raj misunderstood the point of the post, which was not meant to be apologist for Australia but to say that Australia like to moan too much about IndiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-18675374520759913042008-12-09T02:18:00.000-08:002008-12-09T02:18:00.000-08:00Ponting is rarely out lbw in home series. Sachin w...Ponting is rarely out lbw in home series. Sachin was given buttock-before-wicket in Australia. You may say it was a West Indian who did that. But the point is Oz got many favourable decisions when they were dominating. shane Warne used to bluff umpires and that was hailed as a great quality by oz supporters - yeah, if he does it, it is a skill but if others do it, it is bad behaviour. <BR/>Should the oz cricket team and fans have DOuble Standards as the tag line?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-89223105057461865532008-12-09T02:15:00.000-08:002008-12-09T02:15:00.000-08:00On Mumbai 2004, Sachin still got a splendind 50 an...On Mumbai 2004, Sachin still got a splendind 50 and Laxman made a sublime 70 on the same pitch. That's called skill. Something which the Aussies lacked in that pitch. So they lost. Lets not pretend that the pitch took all wickets. A champion team has to face all situations and come out winning - as you noted, the WI teams of the 80's did that. They whipped India in India in 1983. Now thats a champion team - not a bunch of pretenders like the Aussies in 90's and 2000's, miserably flopping in alien conditions.<BR/><BR/>Whats that about umpiring, eh? How come you didnt m ention it in the context of the 1986 oz series. Some dubious umpiring and Rain helped australia in that seris to draw. But you will only talk about home umpiring being bad in the case of India. Double standards, eh? I dont blame you, though - it is probably the genes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-87611508629962635582008-12-08T05:07:00.000-08:002008-12-08T05:07:00.000-08:00You make a fair enough point donthaveaclue. Pitche...You make a fair enough point donthaveaclue. Pitches like Mumbai 04-05 are stretching it. But I still think non-Asians most of the time unjustifiably blame the pitches on the subcontinent.<BR/><BR/>I guess that the media and other commentators have improved in recent years though. I didn't notice anybody complaining about Mohali or Nagpur. In fact, they were more often than not called extremely flat pitches and yet India managed to capture 20 wickets on both! Winning the toss may have helped, but the Mohali win was so huge that India would have won that one regardless. Nagpur could have been drawn.<BR/><BR/>Also maybe statsguru can prove me wrong, but I believe subcontinental have historically tended to be batting paradises first and a spinner's paradise second. Pace bowlers, with the exception of skilled reverse swing bowlers, come a distant third.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-114406742860445382008-12-04T01:08:00.000-08:002008-12-04T01:08:00.000-08:00What is puzzling is why the BCCI and CA did not sc...What is puzzling is why the BCCI and CA did not schedule more tours by Australia between 1970 and 1996. Hughes did well to only lose 0-2 and Border did well to draw in 1986. Very good article, well written and includes all pertinent points. Why don't you write with this type of fluency and succinctness on WP? PhantoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-16012311803756244462008-12-02T00:08:00.000-08:002008-12-02T00:08:00.000-08:00oh ok, no worries then.btw a very good analysis, n...oh ok, no worries then.<BR/><BR/>btw a very good analysis, never thought of the 'final frontier' in this light.<BR/><BR/>the 35 yr thing certainly has been misleading.Damith S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17751878318520600594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-2080190279636317522008-12-01T21:02:00.000-08:002008-12-01T21:02:00.000-08:00Straight Point and Gizza, your point is taken that...Straight Point and Gizza, your point is taken that a spinning track is not automatically a bad track. An underprepared track that breaks up in the middle of the 1st session is though. The difference between that a quick Perth wicket is that the latter still affords attractive stroke-play letting attacking batsmen with good technique score big, the former turns the game into a lottery with deliveries shooting along at ankle height. The Mumbai track in the 2004 tour where India won the last game to end the series 1-2 is exhibit A.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-22576288937914710792008-12-01T14:07:00.000-08:002008-12-01T14:07:00.000-08:00It was a solid analysis YM and dispelled some pret...It was a solid analysis YM and dispelled some pretty popular cricketing myths. As detailed as it was, you could have put the icing on the cake by comparing India's home Test series results with other teams of the 1970's and 80's.<BR/><BR/>I also second Straigh Point's comment that it is silly to equate spinning pitches with bad surfaces. I would be hard pressed to find anybody who can objectively explain why a bouncy Perth or swinging Headingly is "better" than a turning Calcutta pitch. <BR/><BR/>In fact, former England cricketers and writers always go on about how during the uncovered pitches period, 10 fielders around the bat while Laker was bowling his offies made for some of the most fascinating cricket they have ever seen. <BR/><BR/>By the sake token, I have never heard the Aussies ever say that the SCG or Adelaide Oval have "worse" surfaces than the GABBA or WACA, particularly the New South Welshmen and South Australians.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-69288433438420463972008-12-01T01:38:00.000-08:002008-12-01T01:38:00.000-08:00i laugh at the cricketing wisdom of man who says r...i laugh at the cricketing wisdom of man who says ridiculous surfaces when obviously referring to spin...<BR/><BR/>BTW good post YM some times the stretch of time makes it bit hard to look at obvious facts...straight pointhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08309030423887849171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-4704203343321133692008-11-30T21:25:00.000-08:002008-11-30T21:25:00.000-08:00Yes, in years past, home umpiring has been pretty ...Yes, in years past, home umpiring has been pretty abominable form all reports. It just goes to show how good the 1980s West Indies were to conquer all countries regularly, even with umpires that may be biased towards the local team.YellowMonkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14344094370490912785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7769253844592766659.post-11315212818129674892008-11-30T21:12:00.000-08:002008-11-30T21:12:00.000-08:00One of the best pieces of analysis i've read about...One of the best pieces of analysis i've read about australia's performance in india. It's more fun for the journalists to adopt a sensational stance towards everything, keeping perspective out of the equation. <BR/>Having said that, a lot of india's home victories can be attribted to dubious umpiring and ridiculous surfacesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com