Subject: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:26:12 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
> NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
> innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
> NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
> may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
> days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
> chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
> could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
250 is probably a 50/50 proposition. 300 would have put NZ in as firm faves but they wont get there with just 1 wicket to go.
India has chased down 300 plus scores only twice. Granted, some of those stats can be misleading given that there were likely other occasions where they might have gone on to chase 300 plus scores except for the fact that the target was lower. For example, a couple of years ago (it might even have been at B'lore), Pujara and Tendulkar took India past a target set by OZ which was around the 200 mark. They only lost 3 wickets. Perhaps, a 300 target was gettable on that occasion.
That said, 250 is still a stiff target. While Patel may not be the most dangerous spinner around, it's not as if the pitch is offering no help to pacers.
As for India, the openers have not had a large partnership in eons and the middle order lacks experience. Then there is Tendulkar. He is playing brutal cricket. His 4th innings knocks over the past several years have been solid however so here's hoping that he comes out of his wretched form on Day 4.
Shastri's comments are just fine IMO (and I would maintain that even if India were to go on to win easily by 6 or 7 wickets).
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:13:34 AM UTC-7, skp wrote:
> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:26:12 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
> > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
> > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
> > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
> > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
> > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
> > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
> > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
> 250 is probably a 50/50 proposition. 300 would have put NZ in as firm faves but they wont get there with just 1 wicket to go.
> India has chased down 300 plus scores only twice. Granted, some of those stats can be misleading given that there were likely other occasions where they might have gone on to chase 300 plus scores except for the fact that the target was lower. For example, a couple of years ago (it might even have been at B'lore), Pujara and Tendulkar took India past a target set by OZ which was around the 200 mark. They only lost 3 wickets. Perhaps, a 300 target was gettable on that occasion.
> That said, 250 is still a stiff target. While Patel may not be the most dangerous spinner around, it's not as if the pitch is offering no help to pacers.
> As for India, the openers have not had a large partnership in eons and the middle order lacks experience. Then there is Tendulkar. He is playing brutal cricket. His 4th innings knocks over the past several years have been solid however so here's hoping that he comes out of his wretched form on Day 4.
> Shastri's comments are just fine IMO (and I would maintain that even if India were to go on to win easily by 6 or 7 wickets).
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
> innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
> NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
> may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
> days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
> chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
> could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups in
the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised England
the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a really
good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one could
have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more. Its
not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of an
over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more such
deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
effort. :)
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
On Monday, September 3, 2012 11:54:42 AM UTC-4, skp wrote:
> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being Khan, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
I agree, it was a lot closer than it looked. Boult bowled one to Dhoni has just about shaved his forward push. The next 6 balls Dhoni faced swung the game to India. A brace to point (he wanted 3, but Kohli refused thankfully), dot, then a thwacked 4 to point, and a frustrated Boult speared 4 byes down the legside. The next over, Kohli worked a single, and Dhoni deposited Patel over the square leg boundary. The target was now 65, and the game was now India's. More importantly, Patel was removed as well (though I don't think he would have troubled Dhoni, so maybe that was OK for NZ).
Kohli was fabulous, but in both innings I thought Dhoni played the more crucial knock...
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
> On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
> > > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
> > > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
> > > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
> > > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> > > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
> > > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
> > > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
> > As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups in
> > the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
> > Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised England
> > the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a really
> > good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one could
> > have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
> > With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
> > able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
> > than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
> > unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more. Its
> > not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
> > variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of an
> > over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more such
> > deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
> > still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
> > would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
> > expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
> > effort. :)
> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being Khan, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
> skp- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three wickets
you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The victory was
comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff (never more than
that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken another 2 or 3
wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just 2 or 3 wickets
left) you could have said that it wasn't a comfortable victory. And I
had predicted exactly that the day before. A great spinner could have
made this chase very difficult for India. A good spinner could have
made it at least a little more difficult. But an average spinner like
patel simply wasn't good enough. It was like I said earlier, forget
taking more wickets he can't even control the runs. (the term average
here is relative and in comparision to the other very good or
excellent test quality spinners out there). :)
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
Here chessplayer claims he knows callcenter but they are not the same.
They just post from the same internet cafe, so they accidentally use
each others accounts.
> On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, skp <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
>> > On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the
>> > > second
>> > > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems
>> > > that
>> > > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even
>> > > 300
>> > > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield
>> > > on
>> > > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
>> > > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India
>> > > to
>> > > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing.
>> > > He
>> > > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
>> > As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups
>> > in
>> > the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
>> > Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised
>> > England
>> > the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a
>> > really
>> > good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one
>> > could
>> > have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
>> > With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
>> > able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
>> > than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
>> > unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more.
>> > Its
>> > not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
>> > variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of
>> > an
>> > over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more
>> > such
>> > deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
>> > still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
>> > would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
>> > expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
>> > effort. :)
>> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being K
> han, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
>> skp- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three wickets
> you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The victory was
> comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff (never more than
> that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken another 2 or 3
> wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just 2 or 3 wickets
> left) you could have said that it wasn't a comfortable victory. And I
> had predicted exactly that the day before. A great spinner could have
> made this chase very difficult for India. A good spinner could have
> made it at least a little more difficult. But an average spinner like
> patel simply wasn't good enough. It was like I said earlier, forget
> taking more wickets he can't even control the runs. (the term average
> here is relative and in comparision to the other very good or
> excellent test quality spinners out there). :)
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
> Here chessplayer claims he knows callcenter but they are not the same.
> They just post from the same internet cafe, so they accidentally use
> each others accounts.
> > On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, skp <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
> >> > On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the
> >> > > second
> >> > > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems
> >> > > that
> >> > > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even
> >> > > 300
> >> > > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield
> >> > > on
> >> > > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> >> > > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India
> >> > > to
> >> > > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing.
> >> > > He
> >> > > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
> >> > As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups
> >> > in
> >> > the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
> >> > Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised
> >> > England
> >> > the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a
> >> > really
> >> > good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one
> >> > could
> >> > have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
> >> > With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
> >> > able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
> >> > than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
> >> > unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more.
> >> > Its
> >> > not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
> >> > variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of
> >> > an
> >> > over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more
> >> > such
> >> > deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
> >> > still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
> >> > would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
> >> > expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
> >> > effort. :)
> >> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being K
> > han, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
> >> skp- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three wickets
> > you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The victory was
> > comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff (never more than
> > that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken another 2 or 3
> > wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just 2 or 3 wickets
> > left) you could have said that it wasn't a comfortable victory. And I
> > had predicted exactly that the day before. A great spinner could have
> > made this chase very difficult for India. A good spinner could have
> > made it at least a little more difficult. But an average spinner like
> > patel simply wasn't good enough. It was like I said earlier, forget
> > taking more wickets he can't even control the runs. (the term average
> > here is relative and in comparision to the other very good or
> > excellent test quality spinners out there). :)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Hey asshole of multiple personalities. Both chessplayer and I use the
same computer at the place we are staying. So, if he logs on and
forgets to log off I may write something based on his logging on. This
happened many months back when a person who came to stay logged on and
put his name. Check it out (Peush Tandon). I wrote a blog and it came
on his name. Do I know Peush Tandon. Of course I do. Do I know
chessplayer, of course I do. But chessplayer forgot to sign off and
when I got on the computer I merely signed on to post.
As to chess, I'll leave it to chessplayer to whoop your ass. And
speaking of multiple blogs on multiple personalities. Look who's
talking. The king of multiple personalities who's posting.
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
> Here chessplayer claims he knows callcenter but they are not the same.
> They just post from the same internet cafe, so they accidentally use
> each others accounts.
> Please play chess with monkeys. Stop troubling cricket fans.
I know more about cricket than you would learn even in a thousand
lifetimes bozo. My predictions almost always come out true. Just like
the one I made a day before the test got over. Your predictions on the
other hand are almost always wrong. So, discuss cricket asshole and
stop attacking people personally. But then the idiot that you are
that's all you can do. So, all I can say to a fool like you is
Controversies equalise fools and wise men, and the fools (like you)
know it. :)
> > On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, skp <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
> >> > On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the
> >> > > second
> >> > > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems
> >> > > that
> >> > > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even
> >> > > 300
> >> > > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield
> >> > > on
> >> > > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
> >> > > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India
> >> > > to
> >> > > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing.
> >> > > He
> >> > > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
> >> > As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups
> >> > in
> >> > the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
> >> > Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised
> >> > England
> >> > the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a
> >> > really
> >> > good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one
> >> > could
> >> > have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
> >> > With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
> >> > able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
> >> > than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
> >> > unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more.
> >> > Its
> >> > not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
> >> > variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of
> >> > an
> >> > over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more
> >> > such
> >> > deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
> >> > still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
> >> > would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
> >> > expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
> >> > effort. :)
> >> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being K
> > han, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
> >> skp- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three wickets
> > you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The victory was
> > comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff (never more than
> > that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken another 2 or 3
> > wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just 2 or 3 wickets
> > left) you could have said that it wasn't a comfortable victory. And I
> > had predicted exactly that the day before. A great spinner could have
> > made this chase very difficult for India. A good spinner could have
> > made it at least a little more difficult. But an average spinner like
> > patel simply wasn't good enough. It was like I said earlier, forget
> > taking more wickets he can't even control the runs. (the term average
> > here is relative and in comparision to the other very good or
> > excellent test quality spinners out there). :)- Hide quoted text -
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
> On Sep 3, 8:54 pm, skp <vikani...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:38:40 AM UTC-7, Call Centre wrote:
>> > On Sep 2, 2:26 pm, Call Centre <outsourcingbusin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > NZ have a poor spinner in Patel. Now he may bounce back in the second
>> > > innings but from how he has bowled so far in this match it seems that
>> > > NZ could only be safe with at least 350 for India to chase. Even 300
>> > > may not be enough. Of course the pitch could become a minefield on
>> > > days 4 and 5 but so far it seems to be holding okay. Its a pity
>> > > Vettori is not playing. He could have made it difficult for India to
>> > > chase a total under 300. But Patel has so far been unconvincing. He
>> > > could prove me wrong and for NZ's sake one hopes he does.
>> > As I stated yesterday. India won comfortably despite a few hiccups in
>> > the middle. If however, a great finger spinner was bowling like
>> > Saqlain Mustaq or the one Pakistan have today who mesmerised England
>> > the match would have truly been touch and go. On this pitch a really
>> > good finger spinner should have gotten a five for. (A great one could
>> > have gotten six or even seven in an innings in the fourth innings).
>> > With patel its not just not getting the wickets but not even being
>> > able to contain the runs. If he had at least contained the batsmen
>> > than the 3 wicekts he took could still have helped NZ to manage an
>> > unlikely victory. For the faster bowlers could have attacked more. Its
>> > not patels fault. He's just not good enough. He doesn't have the
>> > variety although there was one ball he bowled which was the last of an
>> > over which went straight and kind of foxed Kohli. If he had more such
>> > deliveries he could have gotten a couple of wickets more with India
>> > still needing about 50 or 60 runs and being 190 or 200 down for 7
>> > would have made this match much more exciting. So, things went as
>> > expected but NZ can still hold their heads high for giving a good
>> > effort. :)
>> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being Khan, >> Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
>> skp- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three wickets
> you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The victory was
> comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff (never more than
> that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken another 2 or 3
> wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just 2 or 3 wickets
> left) you could have said that it wasn't a comfortable victory. And I
> had predicted exactly that the day before. A great spinner could have
> made this chase very difficult for India. A good spinner could have
> made it at least a little more difficult. But an average spinner like
> patel simply wasn't good enough. It was like I said earlier, forget
> taking more wickets he can't even control the runs. (the term average
> here is relative and in comparision to the other very good or
> excellent test quality spinners out there). :)
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
>>>
>>> Hm...let's see...100 runs adrift. 5 wickets left. 3 of them being
>>> Khan, Ojha, and Yadav. Comfortable win?
>>>
>>> skp- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> It was a comfortable win. Had they won by just two or three
>> wickets you might have said it wasn't a comfortable victory. The
>> victory was comfortable because even when NZ had a small whiff
>> (never more than that) they never capitalised on it. Had they taken
>> another 2 or 3 wickets with India needing 50 runs (and having just
>> 2 or 3 wickets left) you could have said that it wasn't a
>> comfortable victory. And I had predicted exactly that the day
>> before. A great spinner could have made this chase very difficult
>> for India. A good spinner could have made it at least a little more
>> difficult. But an average spinner like patel simply wasn't good
>> enough. It was like I said earlier, forget taking more wickets he
>> can't even control the runs. (the term average here is relative and
>> in comparision to the other very good or excellent test quality
>> spinners out there). :)
>
> No.
>
> Andrew
A few more runs in the I1 would have helped NZ and a few more in I3
would have helped even more. But not letting the Indian tail get out of
jail in I2 would have done a whole lot more towards setting up a 300+
4th innings chase. That and not coming out for the 2nd Indian innings
like Ritalin-overdosed 9 year olds. I think this issue (control of a
hyper-active over-caffeinated team) is where Vettori stepping down as
captain is most glaringly missed. IMO Taylor does not yet have control
of his guys. Even so, when Dhoni walked out to bat at 166 for 5, this
match was still very much NZ's for the taking. A shame they couldn't
cowboy-up and get it done as they did in Hobart. It would have been
quite a riot (not to mention a scream in the Simi Sloggers CC where I
could have enjoyed a good Black-Adder gloat for a couple of weeks) had
NZ pulled it off. With 95 runs in the balance, just one more quick
wicket and this would have been NZ's game to lose rather than India's to
win. A tied series on the sub-continent when you're projected to be the
home team's bitch is not a bad effort at all, even if it is only a 2
test series. Oh...wait...sadly NZ did finish as India's bitch, despite
not going quietly into that dark night. *sigh* "Never mind!". Better
luck Kiwis next time, etc., after you bring back Jessie "yes I'm a
drunken wastrel but by fuck I can really bat" Ryder to provide some
proper hundred-scoring firepower in the middle order.
-- SDM
a 21st century schizoid man in SoCal
Systems Theory website www.systemstheory.net "overfulnoisecascade" CD coming soon
Subject: Re: As usual ravi shastri misleads the viewers with his comments. 250 will not be enough. Minimum 300 is required and even that may not be enough for NZ.
> > Hey asshole of multiple personalities. Both chessplayer and I use the
> > same computer at the place we are staying.
> Is he your lover?
> > As to chess, I'll leave it to chessplayer to whoop your ass.
> Do you like it when he whoops your ass?
Hey chutiya. You obviously have no understanding and will remain the
moronic freak that you are. As to chessplayer I will leave it to him
to reply to you. You have no understanding of cricket or chess. And
all you can do is belittle others who are far far more knowledgeable
than you. Shows your inferiority complex coming out. If I wanted to
post on a different alias why would I even tell you that the post done
on Peush Tandon's name was mine. You never even said that I posted
under his name. Its because Mr. Tandon visited us and signed out and
signed himself on my computer. Than he forgot to log off. When I came
back I simply went to rec.sport.cricket and posted something. Only
later I saw that it had come in his name. But I didn't bother because
it was my post. I am even admitting to it asshole. Similarly the post
above of chessplayer who is also using my computer. Unlike you I have
plenty of girlfriends. And I have no problem having sex with them. I
am not some whiny jerk sitting on the computer like you trying to put
down others. It shows what a serious problem you have. You have such
a deep inferiority complex that you need to see a psychiatrist about
that.
Discuss cricket jerkoff or stop wasting my time. Peush Tandon is
someone who used my computer and so is chessplayer. Its as simple as
that. I am not denying it. But we are different people. If you choose
not to believe it that's your problem you piece of shit. But next time
either discuss cricket or keep your asinine comments to yourself. I
realise that you have an inferiority complex and need to put down
others but for that you need to see a psychiatrist.
Controvesies equalise fools and wise men and the fools like you know
it. :)
