Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[justforkix]

Look beyond the numbers at that series. We should have won the first match. We should have won the one we made 293 but D/L reduced the target by almost a 100 runs. So read correctly, could have been 3-3.

LOL - Can we also then say that we should have lost in India 0-7, a couple of months back, if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai, and rain in Bangalore. There are a few turning points in ODIs - so one can turn any win/loss to a loss/win by citing a few turning poiints in that match.

[caught and bowled]

looks like some abysmal cricket from India. we should make 175-180 and lose comfortably.
how are the conditions though? maybe sree and ishant can set the cat amongst the pigeons?

We will be able to extract swing here - overcast conditions, under lights, pitch is grassy. I think 200 will be very competetive here. Need 38 more in 22 balls.

makt that 15 balss 30 runs...doent look good to me

[justforkix]

looks like some abysmal cricket from India. we should make 175-180 and lose comfortably.
how are the conditions though? maybe sree and ishant can set the cat amongst the pigeons?

We will be able to extract swing here - overcast conditions, under lights, pitch is grassy. I think 200 will be very competetive here. Need 38 more in 22 balls.

makt that 15 balss 30 runs...doent look good to me

26 in 12 - I think it is possible..... btw - D/L will increase the target by a few runs.

[Vick]

When you mix the conditions and bowlers together you get Aussie bowlers at gabba. Do you see the difference now? And juniors are playing on their first tour here. Oldies played on their last tour seond time around. And they played 4 tests before ODIs. Still how many did we won? 1 out of 6, right?

Look beyond the numbers at that series. We should have won the first match. We should have won the one we made 293 but D/L reduced the target by almost a 100 runs. So read correctly, could have been 3-3.

And its precisely because of the conditions that the oldies and the youngsters should have played together.

I feel you are missing the point here --I am not blaming the youngsters, I am blaming the selection. There is a difference.

And if you dont care about T20 then why people are whinning after just 35% concluded game? May be we will still give them fight? Fight is all we are looking at, as thats what out seniors do.

Precisely. And I dont see a fight there but I am willing to wait till the end of the series.

There is however another point that you are not considering -- and that is called the mental part. Winning as well as losing are both habits and mental attitudes. A walloping often saps confidence and damages pysche. And by the same token, consistent losing can have the same effect too. That is where the transition needed to be smart rather than this wholescale change. That is also one of my objections to this selection.

And thats what i am trying to say our oldies made it a habit to lose against Aussies. We needed something different and thats what we are trying to do here. I mean we lost to aussies pretty badly several times. I am sure you will remember them. And i didnt see you saying we should have a different set of players. Also i dont care how well we faught if still lost, i dont believe in hounarable loss and all such things. And 4 win in 24 continous games says that either Aussies were just too good or we needed a different plan.

I am also talking about about the selection. I have said it earlier it was right call to make. RD and SG as ODI player are past their sell by date and since we dont have any big tournament coming up it is right time to groom some youngesters. Also we need to keep be ready with replacements in the test team. And aussie land is a good place to measure what some of these guys can offer us.

[kban1]

LOL - Can we also then say that we should have lost in India 0-7, a couple of months back, if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai, and rain in Bangalore

Isnt this a BS argument ?

Bangalore was rained out -- now you are trying to be a soothsayer for all 50 overs rather than based on 1 or 2 tangible things in a completed match.

if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai

A poor shot is part of the game. As is a decision. To extend your line of thought further, should I run the tapes from 2003 to find out every decision that went against us and every stupid shot our batsman played ?

Recall i said could have been 3-3 based on a suicidal runout when we were about to win and  a match where the pressure of a 300 run chase was reduced by almost 100.

Stick to the context at hand please -- the thrust of the argument was that we competed well and we were quite close to the Aussies except the finals where we were walloped.

[justforkix]

WOOHOO - 2 4s by Bhajji !!!! 15 required in 8.

[dlee1]

vick as i pointed out in my posts..performance in odi should not be used for someoen to stake a claim  in tests these r absolutely 2 diff games and require absolutely diff skills.

[caught and bowled]

WOOHOO - 2 4s by Bhajji !!!! 15 required in 8.

Now 11 in 6...if we get there and with the D/L revision we should have some gas in the tank

[Vick]

LOL - Can we also then say that we should have lost in India 0-7, a couple of months back, if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai, and rain in Bangalore

Isnt this a BS argument ?

Bangalore was rained out -- now you are trying to be a soothsayer for all 50 overs rather than based on 1 or 2 tangible things in a completed match.

if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai

A poor shot is part of the game. As is a decision. To extend your line of thought further, should I run the tapes from 2003 to find out every decision that went against us and every stupid shot our batsman played ?



Stick to the context at hand please -- the thrust of the argument was that we competed well and we were quite close to the Aussies except the finals where we were walloped.

Didnt you say earlier we would have won one of the game if it wasnt for bad capaincy. So i guess captaincy isnt part of the game?

[justforkix]

LOL - Can we also then say that we should have lost in India 0-7, a couple of months back, if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai, and rain in Bangalore

Isnt this a BS argument ?

Bangalore was rained out -- now you are trying to be a soothsayer for all 50 overs rather than based on 1 or 2 tangible things in a completed match.

if not for Symo playing a poor shot in Mohali, Murali Kartik not being given out in Mumbai

A poor shot is part of the game. As is a decision. To extend your line of thought further, should I run the tapes from 2003 to find out every decision that went against us and every stupid shot our batsman played ?

As is a poor run-out because of which we lost the ODI in discussion and as in D/L.

So, I think yours is a BS argument that the result could have been 3-3 and not 1-5 based on certain conditions in ODIs and I pointed that out with more recent examples.

Stick to the context at hand please -- the thrust of the argument was that we competed well and we were quite close to the Aussies except the finals where we were walloped.

Yes. I never argued that we were not competetive last time. And we may be competetive this time around too and possibly win only 1 ODI out of 4-6 against Australia

[dhruvdeepak]

damn you dhoni, why cant you smack a few in the end!!!

[WicketView]

It is also worth considering if the seniors we are talking about played all the matches we lost.

[dlee1]

9 down..isnt that sheer stupidity..they know d/l will come into play so they should have tried to last the full 45 overs for d/l to come into play ..

[justforkix]

WOOHOO - 2 4s by Bhajji !!!! 15 required in 8.

Now 11 in 6...if we get there and with the D/L revision we should have some gas in the tank

dhoni and bhajji gone - Lee gets a 5-fer !!!! 

195 + D/L is the target....

[WicketView]

They are all out

[justforkix]

9 down..isnt that sheer stupidity..they know d/l will come into play so they should have tried to last the full 45 overs for d/l to come into play ..

they have. And it is raining again. But there is a 45-minute dinner break now....

[dhruvdeepak]

phew, i added lee in my fantasy team.

[WicketView]

target =195

[kban1]

Didnt you say earlier we would have won one of the game if it wasnt for bad capaincy. So i guess captaincy isnt part of the game?

yes i did -- what of it ? Both you and jfk are missing the point by concentrating on the scoreline as if I asked them to be reverersed.

the point of referencing that is not to predict a scoreline. Scoreline is what it is -- 1 out of 6 last time in Aus, and 2-4 at home. Point is to show that we were very close on both occasions and the scoreline does not always reflect the close fights we put up.

Its a different issue that you dont believe in honorable fights, I do. It matters to me wrt self belief, long term pysche, and how we as a team put acquit ourselves.

[Vick]

Either our management is filled with idiots or our players dont listen. I mean why cant they be told to now lose any more wickets? WOuldnt it have helped in DL?

[dlee1]

yes it would have..and u r right y the hell dont they understand this basic point

[dlee1]

losing 3 wickets in the last over cost india a few runs.per d/l method.per comentators on channel nine

[WicketView]

Well, it seems the commentators praised the attempt to go for the extra non-existent run too. Either this does not affect anything ( I am not sure about how this works), or even Akram does not have an idea of how this works.

[Vick]

Didnt you say earlier we would have won one of the game if it wasnt for bad capaincy. So i guess captaincy isnt part of the game?

yes i did -- what of it ? Both you and jfk are missing the point by concentrating on the scoreline as if I asked them to be reverersed.

the point of referencing that is not to predict a scoreline. Scoreline is what it is -- 1 out of 6 last time in Aus, and 2-4 at home. Point is to show that we were very close on both occasions and the scoreline does not always reflect the close fights we put up.

Its a different issue that you dont believe in honorable fights, I do. It matters to me wrt self belief, long term pysche, and how we as a team put acquit ourselves.

So you are ready to consider one game which we could have won if captaincy was good, but on ther other hand you are ready to ignore the facts that we could have easily lost it by 5-2 if rain didnt come. Keep in mind our record chaging 300+ against aussie. I didnt see us giving fight in that series Aussie won it quite easily and It was played in conditions more suitable to us than them.
But you are ready to blame selectors, MSD and players in directly just after 35% completion of first game.  

[poondu]

196 to win

[Vick]

Well, it seems the commentators praised the attempt to go for the extra non-existent run too. Either this does not affect anything ( I am not sure about how this works), or even Akram does not have an idea of how this works.

Akram is another of desi idiot. Our players are just not thinking one. Channel 9 team said they would have got more runs if more wickets were in hand.

[dlee1]

per commentators if india had lost just 7 wickets then aus target would have been around 4 runs more..

[poondu]

SA vs WI, Pollock playing his last international...

[dhruvdeepak]

damnit!! why dont they have any sense when d/l is in play.
anyway, average target and we can only make a match of it with early wickuts

[Vick]

damnit!! why dont they have any sense when d/l is in play.
anyway, average target and we can only make a match of it with early wickuts

definately needed 30 more runs which we lost because of wrong batting order. In hindsight MSD and Pathan should have played at 5 and 6. Specially pathan after his good showing in t20 should have been moved up.

[kban1]

Vick:

So you are ready to consider one game which we could have won if captaincy was good, but on ther other hand you are ready to ignore the facts that we could have easily lost it by 5-2 if rain didnt come. Keep in mind our record chaging 300+ against aussie. I didnt see us giving fight in that series Aussie won it quite easily and It was played in conditions more suitable to us than them.

Again, you are concentrating on scorelines where I have made it clear I was bringing the scoreline from the Aus 2003 tour into focus only because you were making it sound as if we were whitewashed. I have no intention of changing the scoreline based on what might have happened -- my point was to show they were competitive.

Jfk and you are taking an argument out of context and concentrating on just the numbers.

If for a second, I jump down the same argument you and jfk are making, what would our scoreline have been in the recent home series ? forget the match with the bad captaincy, let us forfeit that one too in our hypothetical situation. We would have lost 0-6, is that it ? (I refuse to count a match where almost half of the match was washed out).  if I agree to that, would it have made any difference to the point I made ? Would we still not have run the Aussies mighty close in 3 of those 6 games ?

But you are ready to blame selectors, MSD and players in directly just after 35% completion of first game.  

Vick, stop building a strawman out of me. I dont agree with MSD's logic. or with the selectors although as I understand they allowed MSD a free rein. I didnt criticize the team selection today or after 35% of the match was over. I criticiized the team selection the day the team was announced. I criticized the concept of this kind of  ateam (being discussed in our DG for long before the actual selection) almost 6-8 months ago.

Am I not entitled to my opinion ? If based on that opinion, I criticize MSD's logic, why should that be construed as a blame game ? And why indeed should a viewpoint I have held for 6+ months be categorized as a knee jerk reaction based on 35% of the game ?

[kban1]

As is a poor run-out because of which we lost the ODI in discussion and as in D/L.

Absolutely. But again this is the problem when you jump into a discussion when you have not followed the train of thought. Or if you have followed, then you have failed to grasp it.

So, I think yours is a BS argument that the result could have been 3-3 and not 1-5 based on certain conditions in ODIs and I pointed that out with more recent examples.

I was right in saying it could have been 3-3 --the emphasis on could be to illustrate the fact that we competed, not necessarily a revision of the scoreline.

Your problem here is you miss the context, jump into the argument with your interpretation of my argument (which was not about revision of a scoreline but about showing our competitiveness) focussing solely on the literal words and numbers, missing the forest for the trees. So when you make a counterpoint which has no bearing to the context, I have every right to say call out your counterpoint, because it has no relevance to the issue being discussed, contextually.

As an example, what if I look at it numerically like you are concentrating. We would have been 3-3 against Aus last time.

And we would have been 0-6 this time (I am assuming that my point about captaincy in the Nagpur match is irrelevant). But even in that 0-6 scoreline (as per your literal interpretation of my argument) can you escape from the basic point I made -- that we were competitive in 3 of the 6 matches ? If not, which I believe will be your response, then aernt you way off base in literally picking on my argument without getting the basic contextual thrust of it ?

Yes. I never argued that we were not competetive last time.

So if you've never argued that, perhaps you should read the train of thought being exchanged back and forth between Vick and me rather than focussing on the numbers without getting the context in question. the context was to remind Vick that we had been competitive because he kept making it out like we had been whitewashed.

And we may be competetive this time around too and possibly win only 1 ODI out of 4-6 against Australia

Lets wait and see - i sincerely hope so, but I wouldnt bet on it.

[justforkix]

Either our management is filled with idiots or our players dont listen. I mean why cant they be told to now lose any more wickets? WOuldnt it have helped in DL?

yes, if we had not lost 3 wickets in the last over, the target would have been 8 runs more, i.e., 200 in 43 

[justforkix]

the point of referencing that is not to predict a scoreline. Scoreline is what it is -- 1 out of 6 last time in Aus, and 2-4 at home. Point is to show that we were very close on both occasions and the scoreline does not always reflect the close fights we put up.

At home, 3 thrashings, 2 close wins, 1 close loss, 1 rained our game: If you consider our recent home series against Australia as close, I have nothing more to say - we are completely on different pages here w.r.t. definitions of closeness and fight.

[kban1]

3 thrashings, 2 close wins, 1 close loss, 1 rained our game: If you consider our recent home series against Australia as close, I have nothing more to say - we are completely on different pages here w.r.t. definitions of closeness and fight.

Wasnt my argument we were close in 3 of the 6 games ?

Did I make the argument we were close in all 6 of the games ?

Please go back and read my assertions. You and I are not on different pages as to what constitutes closeness at all.

[justforkix]

3 thrashings, 2 close wins, 1 close loss, 1 rained our game: If you consider our recent home series against Australia as close, I have nothing more to say - we are completely on different pages here w.r.t. definitions of closeness and fight.

Wasnt my argument we were close in 3 of the 6 games ?

Did I make the argument we were close in all 6 of the games ?

Please go back and read my assertions. You and I are not on different pages as to what constitutes closeness at all.

Fair enough then. So, if we are close enough against Australia here in 2 of the 4 games, then I guess, you would agree that the eungsters have been as completetive as a team with RD/SG in it.

[justforkix]

Hope on Dope - 4 4s of Pathan - pretty ordinary bowling. We are losing the plot here 

[kban1]

3 thrashings, 2 close wins, 1 close loss, 1 rained our game: If you consider our recent home series against Australia as close, I have nothing more to say - we are completely on different pages here w.r.t. definitions of closeness and fight.

Wasnt my argument we were close in 3 of the 6 games ?

Did I make the argument we were close in all 6 of the games ?

Please go back and read my assertions. You and I are not on different pages as to what constitutes closeness at all.

Fair enough then. So, if we are close enough against Australia here in 2 of the 4 games, then I guess, you would agree that the eungsters have been as completetive as a team with RD/SG in it.

of course, if we are close enough (at least 1 win would be preferable). I am still hoping for that.

[kban1]

Pathan bowling tripe --rank long hops when the ball is swinging

[kban1]

Gilly walks, ball gloved into Dhoni's hands off attempted pull. Dont think umpire would have given it out, lol

And as I type, rain interrupts play.