Print

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

[ganavk]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.
Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

[ramshorns]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

[LosingNow]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

I think despite 21-15, Aus' overall W/L ratio has been worse than India and SA.

[ramshorns]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

I think despite 21-15, Aus' overall W/L ratio has been worse than India and SA.

ok by how much let us get a record for each team in the last 40 games or so or post WC record.

[LosingNow]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

I think despite 21-15, Aus' overall W/L ratio has been worse than India and SA.

ok by how much let us get a record for each team in the last 40 games or so or post WC record.

Actually i had a thread on that a few weeks ago. will dig it up and add to it recent performance

[inoc]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

[ramshorns]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

[LosingNow]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

The decline is against competitors.. see the other thread.

[ramshorns]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

The decline is against competitors.. see the other thread.

But still like I said nothing suggests one is an undisputable No1 over the other although as of now Australia in ODI's does not seem to be the No1 team.

[inoc]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

there seems to be a penchant for the past tense......inapproriate as it may be.

at present we are talking abount the PRESENT TENSE.

in that present scenario the aussies are losing it.

what else wlll it take for ppl to understan that.......

[keep-it-cool]

The Aussie win loss ratio is primarily due to a much better record before the CB series. Since then, I wouldn't be surprised if it has fallen below 1. They have hardly won against anyone. One must admit that most of their matches have been against India and SA - the two other in form teams. But I'm sure even in a head to head between these three teams, they will appear at No3 - esp if you take the CB series as the starting point.

[ramshorns]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

there seems to be a penchant for the past tense......inapproriate as it may be.

at present we are talking abount the PRESENT TENSE.

in that present scenario the aussies are losing it.

what else wlll it take for ppl to understan that.......

Read again what I said.  I already said Aussies are on the decline.  But how far behind are they from the challengers is the question mark.

[LosingNow]

The Aussie win loss ratio is primarily due to a much better record before the CB series. Since then, I wouldn't be surprised if it has fallen below 1. They have hardly won against anyone. One must admit that most of their matches have been against India and SA - the two other in form teams. But I'm sure even in a head to head between these three teams, they will appear at No3 - esp if you take the CB series as the starting point.

See other thread.. Feb 1, 2008 is the starting point of CB ..

[inoc]

21 -15 post WC

36 -17 in 2 years prior to the world cup

is there a doubt about their declining ability

Yes we all know and agree that Aussies are not the same.  But the question here is what are the records of their competitors after the WC to this point for one to say one team is way better than the other much like the RP team's of the 2007 and prior were when they were the undisputable No 1's.

there seems to be a penchant for the past tense......inapproriate as it may be.

at present we are talking abount the PRESENT TENSE.

in that present scenario the aussies are losing it.

what else wlll it take for ppl to understan that.......

Read again what I said.  I already said Aussies are on the decline.  But how far behind are they from the challengers is the question mark.

indeed the same question mark is what raised

[justforkix]

Again all this personifies the type of skipper you play for.  I have many a time players give up on games.  A player can be new or may not have talent.  Get the best out of them and making them desperate is what I am talking about.  This way if we can keep discounting everything no one ever can be credited.

No, it DOES NOT. Given the fact it is so tough to get into the Aussie squad and stay in it, every new player will give mroe than his 100% always, irrespective of who the skipper is. And I can flip it around and say that at this rate, we will end up crediting every little thing done by players on the field to the skipper. And if you want to do it that way, let us also credit every poor cricketing play by all players on the field to RIcky Ponting too.

Coming to the wicket as much a full toss it might have appear to be it was a very ball and a player who thought his wicket out rather than bowling fast and giving width.

yeah right !! and what was the thought process in bowling a straight full toss to get a batsman bowled - hoping he'll throw his bat at it and miss it . 9 out of 10 times, any batsman would have hit that for 4 or 6 !!

[ramshorns]

Again all this personifies the type of skipper you play for.  I have many a time players give up on games.  A player can be new or may not have talent.  Get the best out of them and making them desperate is what I am talking about.  This way if we can keep discounting everything no one ever can be credited.

No, it DOES NOT. Given the fact it is so tough to get into the Aussie squad and stay in it, every new player will give mroe than his 100% always, irrespective of who the skipper is. And I can flip it around and say that at this rate, we will end up crediting every little thing done by players on the field to the skipper. And if you want to do it that way, let us also credit every poor cricketing play by all players on the field to RIcky Ponting too.

You guys are missing the point.  Border was not considered great because of Win-Loss percentage but because he got the best out of his players and set the foundation for the next generation players to take over.  When Aus won the Test series in SA I see a similar pattern with Ponting and the way he leads.   I am projecting him as a great skipper looking at the overall picture since he took over the reigns.

Coming to the wicket as much a full toss it might have appear to be it was a very ball and a player who thought his wicket out rather than bowling fast and giving width.

yeah right !! and what was the thought process in bowling a straight full toss to get a batsman bowled - hoping he'll throw his bat at it and miss it . 9 out of 10 times, any batsman would have hit that for 4 or 6 !!

To the naked eye it may appear such.  When the dip and movement of the ball in the air is taken into account that is bowled at the stumps with varying pace it becomes an effective ball.  Devillers is a decent bat so I give credit here to the bowler.

[justforkix]

You guys are missing the point.  Border was not considered great because of Win-Loss percentage but because he got the best out of his players and set the foundation for the next generation players to take over.  When Aus won the Test series in SA I see a similar pattern with Ponting and the way he leads.   I am projecting him as a great skipper looking at the overall picture since he took over the reigns.

Not in this instance. It was natural athleticism of the fielder. He will do similar stuff in Dubai vs. Pak under Pup's captaincy.

To the naked eye it may appear such.  When the dip and movement of the ball in the air is taken into account that is bowled at the stumps with varying pace it becomes an effective ball.  Devillers is a decent bat so I give credit here to the bowler.

Dip ? Movement ? Varying pace ? I guess you were watching some other game. I give credit to luck. He picked the wicket because he bowled it straight and the batsman missed.

[ramshorns]

You guys are missing the point.  Border was not considered great because of Win-Loss percentage but because he got the best out of his players and set the foundation for the next generation players to take over.  When Aus won the Test series in SA I see a similar pattern with Ponting and the way he leads.   I am projecting him as a great skipper looking at the overall picture since he took over the reigns.

Not in this instance. It was natural athleticism of the fielder. He will do similar stuff in Dubai vs. Pak under Pup's captaincy.

To the naked eye it may appear such.  When the dip and movement of the ball in the air is taken into account that is bowled at the stumps with varying pace it becomes an effective ball.  Devillers is a decent bat so I give credit here to the bowler.

Dip ? Movement ? Varying pace ? I guess you were watching some other game. I give credit to luck. He picked the wicket because he bowled it straight and the batsman missed.

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

[justforkix]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

[ramshorns]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

[ganavk]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

Selective amnesia! Look at it again. First of all we are talking one day matches here and not tests. It is so typical of you to mix it up and try to find any way to defend. That's what is called  clutching at straws

Even in tests whole of 2008 they lost more matches than they have won. They lost the home series against SA , RP becoming the first captain to lose a series against SA in Aus! Aus, coming back and winning the test series 2-1 does not prove that they are indisputably #1 team in tests also. They are on par with SA and IND.

[ganavk]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

[ramshorns]

A fascinating back-to-back series comes to an end.

Tests: 3-3
T20: 2-2

ODIs : 7-3 in favor of SA

Conclusion: SA = Aus in tests and T20s. SA clearly ahead of Aus in ODIs.

Aussie domination in ODIs has pretty much ended. Their record is 21-15 since WC2007, which %-wise is as good as India or SA.

I still would place the Aussie ahead and may be SA on par and India a little behind till someone other than them wins the WC in 2011(unless ofcourse Aussies lose series after series).  At this point despite all the newbies in the team they are still very much there which is a testement to Ponting the captain and the system they have.

In one day matches they have already done that. They lost two consecutive series at home ,one against India and one against SA. Rain saved them from embarrassing series defeat against NZ at home and then losing this series against SA.

Then how is their record 21-15 since the WC which is pretty good.  Read what I have said again.   Unless someone is undisputable there is no way for one to call them better than the Aussies.  Everyone is part of the pack.  Also I already said SA has the edge over them at this point but I have a pretty good feeling come WC2011 that they will be ready.

Obviously RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be without McGrath and Warne and that is hurting them badly.

Yeah RP and his system is not as good as it made out to be excepting that they won a Test series in SA recently without Warne and McGrath.  Selective amnesia is what it is that is stopping you from seeing the obvious.

Selective amnesia! Look at it again. First of all we are talking one day matches here and not tests. It is so typical of you to mix it up and try to find any way to defend. That's what is called  clutching at straws

Again not surpising a response like that coming from you.  When the greatness of a skipper is evaluated his overall deeds are taken into consideration.  So why should I not bring in Tests when RP's greatness is evaluated. And know I do not except you to understand we have two sets of discussions going on here.

1) The best ODI side.
2) RP's greatness as a skipper (For which both ODI's and Tests will be taken into account)

Even in tests whole of 2008 they lost more matches than they have won. They lost the home series against SA , RP becoming the first captain to lose a series against SA in Aus! Aus, coming back and winning the test series 2-1 does not prove that they are indisputably #1 team in tests also. They are on par with SA and IND.

The part highlighted shows your capability to read the game and evaluate.  A young side after a string of retirements is bound to lose.  That is all part of a rebuilding process.  What tranpires is something extraordinary in the aftermath.  A series win abroad beating the same team.  Goes to show what type of a leadership they have and the system.

[ramshorns]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

He perhaps could the way he was a captain of 16 straight Test wins and 2 WC's and a series win in SA taking a young team there I would not put past him.  But then who am I trying to make sense here with whose hero led India to its lowest ever point in WC 2007 and whose career average drops by a full 2 1/2 points when Zim. and Ban. are taken out.    The response is very much on the expected lines.

[ganavk]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

He perhaps could the way he was a captain of 16 straight Test wins and 2 WC's and a series win in SA taking a young team there I would not put past him.  But then who am I trying to make sense here with whose hero led India to its lowest ever point in WC 2007 and whose career average drops by a full 2 1/2 points when Zim. and Ban. are taken out.    The response is very much on the expected lines.

obviously you don't get the difference between 'past tense' and 'present tense'. No one disputing the record of Aussies but it is an indisputable fact that in the last one year since McGrath and Warne left they are as good as any other team. Your standard response seems to be talking about statistics when it suits you and if not it is the quality or the way shots make people gasp or bring some other topic into the thread. Suit yourself

[ramshorns]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

He perhaps could the way he was a captain of 16 straight Test wins and 2 WC's and a series win in SA taking a young team there I would not put past him.  But then who am I trying to make sense here with whose hero led India to its lowest ever point in WC 2007 and whose career average drops by a full 2 1/2 points when Zim. and Ban. are taken out.    The response is very much on the expected lines.

obviously you don't get the difference between 'past tense' and 'present tense'. No one disputing the record of Aussies but it is an indisputable fact that in the last one year since McGrath and Warne left they are as good as any other team.

Nice try again.  When Aussies win it was because of Warne and McGrath but when Aussies lose it is because of Ponting's captaincy.  No it does now work that way.  You take the good with the bad and evaluate a skipper.  Ponting did have a very good team and he rallied them to get all the ego's to work together for him to transform them into results.  How may times have we seen big names on paper flattering to decieve.  So no Ponting does get a awaful lot of credit for all the results pre-retirments.  Post-Retirements too he showed the type of leader he is when he led a team to SA and got the Test series win there despite some of  the losses which is expected in a rebuilding process .  So that goes to show he can lead no matter what and inspire his players a mark of a great captain.

Your standard response seems to be talking about statistics when it suits you and if not it is the quality or the way shots make people gasp or bring some other topic into the thread. Suit yourself

Yes when you hide behind stats for every little thing I need to resort to it to out things in perspective and lay it out.  Too bad you do not like it.

[justforkix]

A young side after a string of retirements is bound to lose.  That is all part of a rebuilding process.  What tranpires is something extraordinary in the aftermath.  A series win abroad beating the same team.  Goes to show what type of a leadership they have and the system.

A young side  Most of last 2 years was with only a couple of inexperienced players, primarily replacements for Warnie and McGrath.

[justforkix]

Nice try again.  When Aussies win it was because of Warne and McGrath but when Aussies lose it is because of Ponting's captaincy.  No it does now work that way.  You take the good with the bad and evaluate a skipper.

Nope. But nothing great about Ponting's captain. He was winning all tests because of McGrath and Warne. After they are gone, he is winning some, losing some, just like any other skipper of a reasonably good side. Nothing to classify him as a great captain - neither tactics, nor results. The 16-test win card cannot be used to classify him as a great captain because Aussies were involved in 2 16-test win streak under 2 different captains, but both those streaks had one common factor - McG+Warne combo.

Ponting did have a very good team and he rallied them to get all the ego's to work together for him to transform them into results.  How may times have we seen big names on paper flattering to decieve.  So no Ponting does get a awaful lot of credit for all the results pre-retirments.  Post-Retirements too he showed the type of leader he is when he led a team to SA and got the Test series win there despite some of  the losses which is expected in a rebuilding process .  So that goes to show he can lead no matter what and inspire his players a mark of a great captain.

Aussies were winning quite a lot under Taylor and Waugh before Ponting, thanks to McG+Warnie. Only credit to Ponting is that he did not screw up the great team he inherited. Or maybe any screwups were hidden by the brilliance of McG+Warnie.

[ganavk]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

He perhaps could the way he was a captain of 16 straight Test wins and 2 WC's and a series win in SA taking a young team there I would not put past him.  But then who am I trying to make sense here with whose hero led India to its lowest ever point in WC 2007 and whose career average drops by a full 2 1/2 points when Zim. and Ban. are taken out.    The response is very much on the expected lines.

obviously you don't get the difference between 'past tense' and 'present tense'. No one disputing the record of Aussies but it is an indisputable fact that in the last one year since McGrath and Warne left they are as good as any other team.

Nice try again.  When Aussies win it was because of Warne and McGrath but when Aussies lose it is because of Ponting's captaincy.  No it does now work that way.  You take the good with the bad and evaluate a skipper.  Ponting did have a very good team and he rallied them to get all the ego's to work together for him to transform them into results.  How may times have we seen big names on paper flattering to decieve.  So no Ponting does get a awaful lot of credit for all the results pre-retirments.  Post-Retirements too he showed the type of leader he is when he led a team to SA and got the Test series win there despite some of  the losses which is expected in a rebuilding process .  So that goes to show he can lead no matter what and inspire his players a mark of a great captain.

Your standard response seems to be talking about statistics when it suits you and if not it is the quality or the way shots make people gasp or bring some other topic into the thread. Suit yourself

Yes when you hide behind stats for every little thing I need to resort to it to out things in perspective and lay it out.  Too bad you do not like it.

now it is clear you are not getting it. when everyone else is mentioning RP is no good shake without Warnie and McGrath and you are claiming as if he can walk on water. Show me the post where I did not acknowledge their earlier wins. Everyone is saying he is not as good as he made out to be without those two and you still seem to not gt it.

Anyway..you talk about young players. other than Phil Hughes who is younger in this team ? All others are well developed who had some years in domestic tournaments.

Pity that to defend VVS, RP and this Aussie team you have to bring down others too and it is quite clear that it is not allowing you to enjoy the game as it is and appreciate the game but just keep on harping about some players being a fanatic fan.
have fun

[ramshorns]

Nice try again.  When Aussies win it was because of Warne and McGrath but when Aussies lose it is because of Ponting's captaincy.  No it does now work that way.  You take the good with the bad and evaluate a skipper.

Nope. But nothing great about Ponting's captain. He was winning all tests because of McGrath and Warne. After they are gone, he is winning some, losing some, just like any other skipper of a reasonably good side. Nothing to classify him as a great captain - neither tactics, nor results. The 16-test win card cannot be used to classify him as a great captain because Aussies were involved in 2 16-test win streak under 2 different captains, but both those streaks had one common factor - McG+Warne combo.

As I explained below on top of winning with all these great streaks he did win without Warne and McGrath too beating SA in SA which to me really elevated him to a great skipper and added to his legacy.  We can keep twisting this but a series win in SA is really big.

If we keep on just saying there is nothing great with it and keep finding reasons we can pretty much discount and make everyone look average.  Brearley would not have been a great skipper but for Botham's exploits and Aussies choking,  Lioyd would not have been great without the pace quartet and the strong batting line up and Kapil would not have won the WC but for the WI'ans overconfidence.

At some level we have to recognise someone's contributions and give credit where due.  And I think RP has accomplished a whole lot as a skipper.

Ponting did have a very good team and he rallied them to get all the ego's to work together for him to transform them into results.  How may times have we seen big names on paper flattering to decieve.  So no Ponting does get a awaful lot of credit for all the results pre-retirments.  Post-Retirements too he showed the type of leader he is when he led a team to SA and got the Test series win there despite some of  the losses which is expected in a rebuilding process .  So that goes to show he can lead no matter what and inspire his players a mark of a great captain.

Aussies were winning quite a lot under Taylor and Waugh before Ponting, thanks to McG+Warnie. Only credit to Ponting is that he did not screw up the great team he inherited. Or maybe any screwups were hidden by the brilliance of McG+Warnie.

Just because Aussies were winning big under others does not gaurantee a thing.  And what you call not screwing it up is what this game is all about and what good captains get out of their group.  While Taylor and Waugh are good in their own right so is Ponting.  We have seen what Dravid did for example in WC 2007 when he had SRT/SG/VS/MSD/Himself/AK/HS all decent players.  But on paper strength does not gaurantee wins.  So while you need good players to win you need good leaders to get the best out of them and mould them into a winning unit which RP did.  So I do credit him a lot and with this latest series win in SA am willing to elevate him to a great skipper.

[ramshorns]

A full toss bowled at the stumps in the death has proven to be a wicket taking ball in the short version than any other ball.  With the fields spread out any mis-hit will be caught and if you miss it altogether you are bowled.  Thus playing the precentages when a batsman is forced to get boundaries it will fetch you results more times than not.  So that is why I credit the bowler for holding the ball back a little(look even a 5-10km off the orignal speed is enough for batsman to mis-time or miss it) and at the stumps remember there was no width whatsoever for DeVillers to tranfer his weight and clobber it.  And that is what happended.  He missed it totally and since it was on the stumps with no width he got bowled.

but PP3 was just taken and so field was not spread out. A knee high full toss is a poor ball during PP with field in and will most often go for a 4 or 6.

Ideally yes any full toss should be dispatched for four or a six.  I am not sure if there is a way to determine this.  A very good ball usually when there is no slip in place is slashed knowing an edge will fly for four but a well directed full toss on the stumps needs to be perfectly connected for it to go for a four or a six unless someone decides to place it perfectly for four and that is tough in ODI's given in non-PP scenarios there are 5-6 on the ropes.  So that is why I have seen lots of coaches and captains advising bowlers to go for full toss taking a little off the pace and take a chance. 

However in this case you have a valid point in a PP situation the pressure perhaps got to Devillars a very good batsman in my estimates that he missed it altogether with wickets falling around him and a climbing asking rate.

If I were to bet I would say RP did advise Laughlin to bowl in those lines and I can see why.

So logic of 'spread out' field is ruled out and now RP advised Laughlin to bowl a full toss at PP3!   I am sure RP could have walked on water if he wanted

He perhaps could the way he was a captain of 16 straight Test wins and 2 WC's and a series win in SA taking a young team there I would not put past him.  But then who am I trying to make sense here with whose hero led India to its lowest ever point in WC 2007 and whose career average drops by a full 2 1/2 points when Zim. and Ban. are taken out.    The response is very much on the expected lines.

obviously you don't get the difference between 'past tense' and 'present tense'. No one disputing the record of Aussies but it is an indisputable fact that in the last one year since McGrath and Warne left they are as good as any other team.

Nice try again.  When Aussies win it was because of Warne and McGrath but when Aussies lose it is because of Ponting's captaincy.  No it does now work that way.  You take the good with the bad and evaluate a skipper.  Ponting did have a very good team and he rallied them to get all the ego's to work together for him to transform them into results.  How may times have we seen big names on paper flattering to decieve.  So no Ponting does get a awaful lot of credit for all the results pre-retirments.  Post-Retirements too he showed the type of leader he is when he led a team to SA and got the Test series win there despite some of  the losses which is expected in a rebuilding process .  So that goes to show he can lead no matter what and inspire his players a mark of a great captain.

Your standard response seems to be talking about statistics when it suits you and if not it is the quality or the way shots make people gasp or bring some other topic into the thread. Suit yourself

Yes when you hide behind stats for every little thing I need to resort to it to out things in perspective and lay it out.  Too bad you do not like it.

now it is clear you are not getting it. when everyone else is mentioning RP is no good shake without Warnie and McGrath and you are claiming as if he can walk on water. Show me the post where I did not acknowledge their earlier wins. Everyone is saying he is not as good as he made out to be without those two and you still seem to not gt it.

Anyway..you talk about young players. other than Phil Hughes who is younger in this team ? All others are well developed who had some years in domestic tournaments.

Again you do not understand things do you.  Young and inexperienced != Age for god's sake.  When you lose Gilly/Hayden/Symo/Langer/Warne/McGrath/Lee from a line up and you still win in SA and that too a test series to a team that just beat you back home that is freaking incredible.  Is'nt it?

Pity that to defend VVS, RP and this Aussie team you have to bring down others too and it is quite clear that it is not allowing you to enjoy the game as it is and appreciate the game but just keep on harping about some players being a fanatic fan.
have fun

Bringing down other players is best left to you and I am trying to match up with you and show how that tastes.  Leaving aside who enjoys the game more first stop making statements like "Dravid and Tendulkar are only players that can play in hostile conditions" and then may be you will see what this game is about and how to enjoy it.

[justforkix]

As I explained below on top of winning with all these great streaks he did win without Warne and McGrath too beating SA in SA which to me really elevated him to a great skipper and added to his legacy.  We can keep twisting this but a series win in SA is really big.

At some level we have to recognise someone's contributions and give credit where due.  And I think RP has accomplished a whole lot as a skipper.

Nope - his record without Warne+McG is as good as any other sontemporary good side (SA/Ind). So, in no way it makes him a great skipper. The legends McG and Warne just make Ponting look great. While you keep harping that he won in SA, he also lost the Border Gavaskar Trophy, lost series at home to SA, lost to SA at home, 1st series loss at home in 15+ years. Let us not kid ourselves that this was a young side suddenly after McG and Warne retired in 2007. For most of the last 2 years, the only 1-2 inexperienced players were replacements for Warne. Which basically means, he can keep winning if he has legends in his side. After McG+Warne departed, his record is 11-6-4, and 6 of those 11 wins are against NZ, WI, and SL. He is clearly nowehere close to a great skipper in my books, unless he elevates himself and starts winning more than SA and India.

[justforkix]

Again you do not understand things do you.  Young and inexperienced != Age for god's sake.  When you lose Gilly/Hayden/Symo/Langer/Warne/McGrath/Lee from a line up and you still win in SA and that too a test series to a team that just beat you back home that is freaking incredible.  Is'nt it?

yes, its just one series - doesen't elevate him to greatness because of that. And he just lost a series to SA at home at one ot India in India. Struggled against WI in WI, NZ at home, India at home. And in most of these series, Hayden/Symo/Lee were very much there. Unless he wins more than he loses from now on and separates himself from the current good sides like SA/Ind, he can no way be termed nowhere close to a great skipper.

[ramshorns]

As I explained below on top of winning with all these great streaks he did win without Warne and McGrath too beating SA in SA which to me really elevated him to a great skipper and added to his legacy.  We can keep twisting this but a series win in SA is really big.

At some level we have to recognise someone's contributions and give credit where due.  And I think RP has accomplished a whole lot as a skipper.

Nope - his record without Warne+McG is as good as any other sontemporary good side (SA/Ind). So, in no way it makes him a great skipper. The legends McG and Warne just make Ponting look great. While you keep harping that he won in SA, he also lost the Border Gavaskar Trophy, lost series at home to SA, lost to SA at home, 1st series loss at home in 15+ years. Let us not kid ourselves that this was a young side suddenly after McG and Warne retired in 2007. For most of the last 2 years, the only 1-2 inexperienced players were replacements for Warne. Which basically means, he can keep winning if he has legends in his side. After McG+Warne departed, his record is 11-6-4, and 6 of those 11 wins are against NZ, WI, and SL. He is clearly nowehere close to a great skipper in my books, unless he elevates himself and starts winning more than SA and India.

I do not think Warne and McGrath are any more legend's than a team that had SRT/RD/AK and what does RD do.  He loses the WC to BD.  So as much as Warne and McGrath are real good without proper leadership and direction it takes a team no where and Ponting did provide that.  And it is not as if he did not win anything without these two.  He did win the WC in 2007 without Warne and below his best McGrath.  So if we put everything in prespective he is a great skipper which he just elevated himself to after the series win in SA tests.  And more wins from this point on only adds to his legend.  That is how I see it.

[ramshorns]

Again you do not understand things do you.  Young and inexperienced != Age for god's sake.  When you lose Gilly/Hayden/Symo/Langer/Warne/McGrath/Lee from a line up and you still win in SA and that too a test series to a team that just beat you back home that is freaking incredible.  Is'nt it?

yes, its just one series - doesen't elevate him to greatness because of that. And he just lost a series to SA at home at one ot India in India. Struggled against WI in WI, NZ at home, India at home. And in most of these series, Hayden/Symo/Lee were very much there. Unless he wins more than he loses from now on and separates himself from the current good sides like SA/Ind, he can no way be termed nowhere close to a great skipper.

Ofcourse I already said that the more he wins from this point the more it adds to his legend and puts him even on a higher pedestal.