Oh, I have not forgotten about the double vote etc. I was just wondering how did you correlate the so-called green top to BCCI elections. From what I have read of you, you seem to go by facts, not fictions or theories. So where is the factual correlation of Mahendra election and Nagpur green top. I'm sure you will say that you are making this theory because I am making my theory about MSD. The difference in our theories are that in my theory MSD's reason for taking his break are directly related to BCCI policies (base of my theory).
No, I am not making this up as a theory and neither am I responding to your theory. This was widely discussed during the time of the incident.
Also, when the curator was asked to shave the grass, his response was that he is not going to go beyond what he has been instructed by the Cricket Association. The diktat came from above and thats how it played out eventually with India playing on a green wicket.
In your theory SG is injured but he sits out protesting against so-called green top.
for the umpteenth time, learn how to read -- its not my theory. the theory has been propagated by your guru, and many others. And you have bought into its conclusion (SG missed the test by faking an injury) in criticizing SG in the past.
Do you see the disconnect in your theory? IMO, that's the reason why I find my theory somewhat believable (direct connection between cause and effect), and your theory unbelievable (no connection between cause and effect) .
Again its not my theory -- this has done the rounds and has been conveniently been used to suggest that this was a possible reason for Sg faking injury, a conclusion you bought into.
Its ireelevant whether I find this theory believable or yours or whether I find both theories unbelievable --what is relevant is you use one theory to explain MSD's possible protest as laudable and that you have used the conclusions of another theory to blame SG's possible protest as deplorable.
This is what JW had to say about the Nagpur pitch:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20041024/sports.htm#3
On the wicket, he said, “The pitch looks full of runs. However, the outfield was slow during our practice session. We cannot say (how it will behave) unless the first ball of the day is bowled.”
The pitch had runs in it as the Aussies showed. Wickets with bounce and grass on them are wickets on which runs can be scored on if you can negotiate the lateral movement and adjust to the bounce. use a little cricketing logic instead of just reading and spouting.
And this is what Greatbong reported about another sabotage:
http://greatbong.net/2005/11/25/que-vadis/
Whats even more serious is this:
In fact, the setting for the shame at Eden was in place on Thursday when the Indian team came across an unusually greenish pitch that favored the superior South African pace attack. While curator Prabir Mukherjee claimed that it was a “sporting wicket”, it’s learnt that Dravid and coach Greg Chappell had wanted the grass to be cut.
So, even if you are propagating a theory of treason by Pawar to get back at Dalmiya, what do you have to say about CAB? Is Dalmiya now a traitor too? I would love to hear your views about calling an Admin or a person a traitor because a green top pitch was prepared. What's your spin on the difference between Nagpur and Kolkata pitch?
And my stance remains the same. There is no difference between Nagpur and Calcutta --the tit for tat excuse does not cut much ice with me either -- There is no place for politics when you are tinkering with the national team. Treachery does not acquire a different definition when it is done by the Calcutta curator.
Unlike you, my principles are not based on exigencies of convenience.
"You will come to know that in a couple of day's time".... If that's not sarcastic, what is?
It means you will come to know of my decision in a couple of days time. Your fanciful interpretations of voice intonations as sarcasm when you have not been present in person and when you have no other contextual cues in the wriiten text to suggest the conclusion you want to push through are baffling and humorous in equal measure.
It started with Dhoni "said nothing of this sort" and now we are debating your interpretations of fancy about what constitutes sarcasm and what does not.
Clutching at straws is an apt descriptor for the arguments you are presenting.
You know, I really have to give it to you for doing your own research and coming up with all kind of stuff. You are not called Pitamah for nothing, I guess. 
Read this, and weep.......
http://www.mywire.com/pubs/AFP/2004/10/25/619435?&pbl=222
Pitch battle as pace-wary India shave grass for Australia crunch
Oct 25, 2004 | 605 words
NAGPUR, India (AFP) — Hosts India, desperate to stop world champions Australia from running away with the series, pleaded for the grass to be shaved off the wicket on which the crucial third Test is to be played.
The relaid pitch at the Vidarbha Cricket Association (VCA) ground turned from a rare green top to a brownish patch in 48 hours as the groundstaff scrubbed the last remnants of grass on Monday.
Pitch curator Kishore Pradhan conceded he had been persuaded by Indian captain Sourav Ganguly to assist the home team's spinners rather than Australia's battery of fast bowlers.
"Sourav explained to me the respective strengths and weaknesses of the rival teams and also the position of the series," Pradhan said.
"And he requested me to shave off the grass one last time.
"I will not let the firm wicket break but we will mow the grass till the mud beneath does not get caught in the machine."
---
Read this too: http://content-www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/142718.html
------------------
Now tell me this, based on what you are saying that the lawn (pitch) was not mowed? Based on what you are saying that curator did not accede to SG's request? Based on what you are saying that the curator or Pawar or who-the-phuck-ever is a traitor? It's good to have theories. That shows that your brain is alive. But it's bad to spin out of control while making theories.
See, sometimes I wonder whether
a) you are too impatient to read through my posts
b) You have comprehension / reading issues
c) you deliberately misrepresent what I say
here is why --
I never said that the pitch was a lawn. I said there was a thick grass covering which the curator refused to shave.
The lawn reference was in response to your comment that the curator could not change the pitch in 1 day --and I responded, he had more than one day at his hand and if you mowed your lawn, you would know that shaving grass takes about 30 minutes of work.
That said, let me point out where you are wrong again. What you have presented above is not news to me, although you might think this is a big surprise you are springing.
I hate to say this but I cant help but feeling your lack of indepth experience in cricket sometimes shows through in your arguments. Maybe thats true or maybe its just that you dont stop to analyze or consider before jumping to conclusions. So here is an educational primer for you --
Anyone who has played some cricket and has some knowledge about pitch preparation will tell you that unless the curator's intention is to have the pitch break --especially in subcontinental conditions, they will allow a significant growth of live grass to grow on the pitch till the day of the match or the day before. The benefit is that the roots of the live grass help bind the pitch together and prevent it from breaking up.
Now based on whether the pitch is expected to turn or favor pacers, the grass is shorn off before play starts --how soon before start of play and the degree to which the grass is cut is predicated on what kind of wicket is being prepared. A batting track or even a spinning track will have alot more shorn off, even made bare, when compared to a track designed to help pacers. This is the grass part --of course other variables such as soil, its compaction and the layers underneath account for pace, bounce etc.
The issue at nagpur was that the curator kept refusing to shave off the grass when requested. His response to the Indian think tank was that he will not shave the grass to make it a pitch devoid of grass because he is going by what he has been told to do (in fact just a few months ago there was a comment from this curator reaffirming that he did what he did because the head of the nagpur cricket association (VCA) had told him to do so -- I cannot remember where,, but if I find the link I shall post it).
Eventually he did relent and shave off some of the grass (various reports suggested at that time that the grass was cut partially and the Indian think tank was not pleased). In fact if you read the curators comment you will see that he says he will not let the wicket break but will mow
till the machine does not get caught in the mud. I was aware of this development -its not new, but it is irrelevant to the point I made. Even after the mowing, the pitch still had grass on it and was justifiably called a green top.
Whether that was because the curator didnt live up to his word or whether the machine could not get rid of all the grass or whether he cut the grass as promised but only cut it as per his word which means grass was still left (see explanation -->) I dont know. This is why - you can take a mower and mow the grass at its lowest setting but that does not get rid of the grass blades in totality because the machine cant go that low without damaging the pitch. In order to do that, you need to snip the grass blades by hand. if that is not done, the grass blades are enough to cause significant lateral movement, aid in pace as well as in bounce, thereby making it a pace bowler oriented pitch.
Which is why I said that it was a greentop. reducing the height of the grass or mowing it as the curator did helps but does not eliminate the advantage to the superior Aussie bowling attack.
I do not need to show you pictures of that pitch --I saw the match live, I know what the pitch looked like. As you will see --this is from the CI live commentary. Pay attention to what is being said as the game starts about the grass covering.
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T3_26-30OCT2004_BBB-COMMS.html
Hello and welcome to Wisden Cricinfo's live coverage of third Test between Australia and India being held at the Vidarbha Cricket Association Ground, Nagpur.
Australia lead the four Tests series 1-0 after the second Test at Chennai ended in a draw, what would have been an exciting final day torpedoed by the rain Gods.
Australia and India have never played at Nagpur before this, only Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe have lost Test matches to India at this Ground. The stadium is bathed in bright sunshine, A wonderful morning to start off
Pitch looks nice and beautiful, it has got a good covering of grass with bit of moisture, very different from the pitches that we normally see in India,
lot of changes in the Indian eleven, Ganguly is out of this Test due to injury, Dravid will lead the team in his absence. Indian fans will be hoping that the return of Sachin Tendulkar will boost India's chances, the news has certainly boosted ticket sales!
Yuvraj Singh, Irfan Pathan and Harbhajan is out, in comes Aakash Chopra, Ajit Agarkar and Murali Kartik. Australia go in with the same eleven that played the Chennai Test
Adam Gilchrist has won the toss and elected to bat first
Langer and Hayden will open the innings. Agarkar to start the bowling attack
As you can see, the curator shaving some of the grass did not make this a grassless pitch. neither did it hand the advantage to the Indians.
Well, Pitamah, you just got called out yourself because you didn't do your research. You made up a bad theory. Your balloon has been pricked, not mine.
I did my research. I also watched the game live. As you can see from the CI commentary, I was right on the money
You thought taking the grass off the pitch means the pitch is no longer agreen top. Sorry to say this but your lack of knowledge about the game keeps getting exposed by the minute.
You said SG was injured but sat out to protest a green top - Fololish.
I didnt say that. Its not my theory
I dont know what I should term your incomprehension (accidental, wilful or unconscious) of simple English but I will refrain from assigning descriptors to your inability or unwillingness to understand and respond coherently.
You said curator did not shave the grass off - proven wrong.
Was I now ? As I said doing the background research helps as does a little experience and knowledge of the game.
You said Pawar played politics - unproven. Pawar could have stopped curator from shaving off grass but didn't.
I didnt say pawar but the Pawar group. Anyways same implication -- my reference more specifically was to Sashank manohar. I believe he was also on record saying that the grass on the pitch will not be cut.
As you see, like a layman without much knowledge about pitch preparation, you got swayed by his change of mind -- failing to realize that what he did does not necessarily turn the pitch into a non-green top.
Research my friend, try it sometime.
Then try to understand the game --it will help.
What part of your theory holds up to anything?
Not my theory -- but the events still hold up.
Who are you calling my guru? I forgot....
The one who you keep worshipping and defending.
I just showed that your theory of Pawar playing politics and curator not helping SG, is wrong.
No, you just displayed your impatience at actually researching an issue and furthermore your ignorance of most things related to the finer points of cricket.
Theory or whatever, I just showed that Dalmiya as as much of a Mir Jafar as Pawar, that is if you call Pawar a Mir Jafar based on lies that he or curator didn't accede to SG's request of shaving.
I dont know what you showed, nor do I care much about that. My stance unlike the double standards reeking from yours is that both the Nagpur and the Calcutta curators are guilty of treacherous actions and their ringmasters are traitors too.
The question I had rasied about SG, when he sat out in Nagpur was that how come he was hunky-dory the night before the start and injured the next morning. That raised suspicions
And now you are blatantly misrepresenting your stance. Your arguments also indicate a total unfamiliarity with injuries, injury diagnosis and their management. Muscle / ligament injuries are a different pot of tea than bone injuries and their diagnosis and manifesttaion are neither straightforward nor simple --takes time to diagnose and if one is playing in between, one exacerbates the injury without realizing until too late. Also Ganguly was not hunky dory the night before --the injury talk was doing the rounds since the first test itself --again your knowledge on this count needs to be supplemented.
There are several reports including the Cricinfo report which quite clearly indicate the injury he had. I have posted that at least 5 different times on this DG on threads that you have seen, perused and partcipated in. yet you still keep repeating the same allegations.
For the record, here is the relevant report one more time --
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/142939.html"Ganguly, 32, pulled out on the morning of the Nagpur Test, which Australia won by 342 runs, complaining of groin pain. Medical investigations - bone-scan, MRI and diagnostic ultrasound - "revealed intra-articular pathology of the right hip joint noted by increased synovial fluid accumulation," which translates in layman's terms to an injury or inflammation of the hip joint leading to an increase in the lubricating fluid around it. And it can cause pain to radiate down to the thigh and even to the knee." In fact going by your contention of all grass being shaved off (shown to be false above) Ganguly then had no reason to drop out of the test.
Not green wicketitis (no green wicket as per you - all grass shaved off) and
not protest (according to you, no politics was played).
yet these are the two primary pieces of slanderous theories that your guru prem floated around to draw his conclusions, conclusions based on which you have consistently criticized Ganguly.
What this shows is that you dont believe in the 2 theories on which the slanderous conclusion is based on. You dont pay attention to the reports which lay out his medical injury despite numerous discussions on this DG, but you continue to consistently denigrate and criticize him 4+ years on.
I couldnt have exposed your utter double standards or your unmitigated and unsubstantiated slanderous allegations against one player any better myself.
Indians wanted grass taken off and it was taken off in Nagpur. Can you post any pictures of Nagpur pitch that shows it to be the same threatening green top (allegedly with lush green grass blowing in air) that you make it out to be? Read any web site or page and you will find that grass was shaved off. So ultimately it became the wicket you are talking about - pace / bounce / movement with grass shaved off. If our bowlers couldn't make use of it, blame them
Inaccurate - already refuted above
AuthorTopic: Dhoni Ki Dhulaai (Read 7536 times)
April 03, 2006, 05:30:28 PM