So Ponting had it all worked out
DavidW
doing.
Fran
> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly what he was
> doing.
He was only half joking when he implied just this in the post match
interview ...
That said, one suspects that if Pakistan had batted first Australia
would have won by an innings.
We got a better match this way.
Fran
tendulkar.com
Your theory would have been valid if
* Australia had scored more than 381 in I3
* Australia has a fantastic record of chasing smallish 1xx totals
But, they are not. If Australia had bowled first they may very well
have taken Paki's role of bungling a small chase.
It's stupid to bat last in a Test match (Ask Strauss)
Ian Galbraith
> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly what he was
> doing.
Yes, he's been vindicated apparently.................. by cricket
journalists who obviously know nothing about the game.
--
"A man should hear a little music, read a little poetry, and see a fine
picture everyday of his life, in order that worldly cares may not
obliterate the sense of the beautiful which God has implanted in the
human soul." - Goethe
DavidW
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:25:11 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>
>> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly
>> what he was doing.
>
> Yes, he's been vindicated apparently.................. by cricket
> journalists who obviously know nothing about the game.
Are you saying he got it wrong? If you bat first your opponent has to bat last
when the pitch is beginning to deterioriate, and with the pressure of chasing a
target. This proved to be Pakistan's undoing.
Will S
"DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote in message
news:%D71n.1302$rH7...@newsfe19.iad...
If the wicket is green and there is so much moisture in the air then the
chances of the wicket deteriorating to where it is a nightmare to bat on is
very very very low. You had Peter Siddle batting and scoring his top score
on this wicket and the spin of Canary didn't bother him at all. That should
show you how dangerous the wicket was.
Pakistan top 3 averages
34.22 29.95 26.76
Ponting got this decision totally wrong and it was only some dismal
Captaincy and shocking keeping that saved Australia butt.
alvey
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:25:11 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>
>> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly what he was
>> doing.
>
> Yes, he's been vindicated apparently.................. by cricket
> journalists who obviously know nothing about the game.
Poor old Punter.
He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
Meanwhile... Aus 2 - Pak 0.
alvey
Andrew Dunford
"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7ce2a617-ec8f-4edf...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
So score 750 and avoid the problem. It ain't rocket surgery.
Andrew
Ian Galbraith
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:25:11 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>
>>> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly
>>> what he was doing.
>>
>> Yes, he's been vindicated apparently.................. by cricket
>> journalists who obviously know nothing about the game.
>
> Are you saying he got it wrong?
Yes, sarcasm doesn't translate well.
> If you bat first your opponent has to bat last
> when the pitch is beginning to deterioriate, and with the pressure of chasing a
> target. This proved to be Pakistan's undoing.
No it didn't, the pitch wasn't deteriorating and wasn't their undoing,
poor captaincy and wilting under pressure were their undoing.
--
"She made me feel like a human being. That's not the kind of thing you
just forgive." - Angel, Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
What was unorthodox in Melbourne?
> He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
Its orthodox to bat first on a green top?
> Meanwhile... Aus 2 - Pak 0.
The result says nothing about the initial decision.
--
"It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral
law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe
that human life is to be respected. Nature in her indifference, makes no
distinction between good and evil." - Anatole France
alvey
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:20:42 +1000, alvey wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
>
> What was unorthodox in Melbourne?
"He should've batted on 'till 600." (Or 750 if you're a Tossulkar.)
>
>> He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
>
> Its orthodox to bat first on a green top?
The pitch did little to help the bowlers. It was the atmospherics that did
the damage and you don't know that until you play. If it was a greentop
then the ball would've been seamin' all over t'place. Please name the I1 Oz
batsmen who were dismissed by balls that behaved unexpectedly off the deck.
>
>> Meanwhile... Aus 2 - Pak 0.
>
> The result says nothing about the initial decision.
I know that Ian. It's a juvenile payback for the number of times that NSV
drones have chanted it after some NSV scratcher has had a reasonable debut.
alvey
DavidW
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:20:42 +1000, alvey wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
>
> What was unorthodox in Melbourne?
>
>> He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
>
> Its orthodox to bat first on a green top?
Some would say it's unorthodox to ever put the other side in. Clearly, Ponting
is in that camp.
DavidW
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 08:55:06 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>
>> Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:25:11 +1100, DavidW wrote:
>>>
>>>> ...when he won the toss and batted on a greentop. He knew exactly
>>>> what he was doing.
>>>
>>> Yes, he's been vindicated apparently.................. by cricket
>>> journalists who obviously know nothing about the game.
>>
>> Are you saying he got it wrong?
>
> Yes, sarcasm doesn't translate well.
>
>> If you bat first your opponent has to bat last
>> when the pitch is beginning to deterioriate, and with the pressure
>> of chasing a target. This proved to be Pakistan's undoing.
>
> No it didn't, the pitch wasn't deteriorating and wasn't their undoing,
> poor captaincy
By poor captaincy I take it that you are referring to the defensive fields
throughout the Aus innings on the 4th day. There is only one way these tactics
made sense for Pakistan - they wanted to keep the runs to the bare minimum and
hope they took the two wickets anyway. Why were they so intent on keeping the
runs down? Because they were worried they'd be bowled out chasing >100 runs.
Maybe Ponting just knew them better than you think.
Ian Galbraith
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:00:41 +1100, Ian Galbraith wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:20:42 +1000, alvey wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
>>
>> What was unorthodox in Melbourne?
>
> "He should've batted on 'till 600." (Or 750 if you're a Tossulkar.)
I would have called that an intelligent decision not unorthodox. And I
don't recall too many people jumping on him about it anyway certainly not
nearly to the extent that they did in Sydney.
>>> He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
>>
>> Its orthodox to bat first on a green top?
>
> The pitch did little to help the bowlers. It was the atmospherics that did
> the damage and you don't know that until you play.
They knew it was overcast with humidity so yes they did know what the
atmospherics were like.
> If it was a greentop
> then the ball would've been seamin' all over t'place.
The pitch was a lot greener than usual, greentops don't only produce seam
they can produce swing with the greener grass containing more moisture
than usual.
[snip]
--
"Modern morality is an outgrowth of rational consistency: the ability to
abstractly reason a commonality between all entities with indivisible and
sovereign consciousness, and that consistency requires that all such
entities capable of reciprocal recognition be afforded equal status as
moral agents, with the same rights and responsibilities accruing to each
such consciousness." - Micky DuPree
alvey
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:37:27 +1000, alvey wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:00:41 +1100, Ian Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:20:42 +1000, alvey wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> He does the unorthodox in Melb and gets jumped on.
>>>
>>> What was unorthodox in Melbourne?
>>
>> "He should've batted on 'till 600." (Or 750 if you're a Tossulkar.)
>
> I would have called that an intelligent decision not unorthodox. And I
> don't recall too many people jumping on him about it anyway certainly not
> nearly to the extent that they did in Sydney.
>
>>>> He does the orthodox in Sydney and gets jumped on.
>>>
>>> Its orthodox to bat first on a green top?
>>
>> The pitch did little to help the bowlers. It was the atmospherics that did
>> the damage and you don't know that until you play.
>
> They knew it was overcast with humidity so yes they did know what the
> atmospherics were like.
Disagree. I've played on days when you thought the ball would do right
angles and nothing happened and vice versa.
>
>> If it was a greentop
>> then the ball would've been seamin' all over t'place.
>
> The pitch was a lot greener than usual, greentops don't only produce seam
> they can produce swing with the greener grass containing more moisture
> than usual.
Disagree. The grass will keep the shine on the ball longer, ergo keeping it
swinging longer, but a dry greentop, as Sydney was, will *not* "produce
swing".
Oh btw, I take it that you can't name anyone from the snipped question;
"Please name the I1 Oz batsmen who were dismissed by balls that behaved
unexpectedly off the deck."
as