Bravo Srilanka for playing POSITIVE CRICKET in I4
Sampath
who play DEFENSE to EVERY BALL.
All top order srilankan batsman scored at a strike rate of more than 50.0
Indian batsmen and Coach can learn a thing or two from the trend setting Sri
Lankans.
crick...@yahoo.com
So why do they start chucking 3 feet outside the legstump when you
hammer them for a couple of fours?
Bunch of cheats and cowards.
Sampath
<crick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154975956.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
I sincerely request you to keep your hatred for srilankans for oppressing
tamils SEPARATE from cricket.
linus
Don't bother replying to trolls like that. I don't think that one can
see anything beyond his nose.
Ravi
There is a difference batting 4th over 2 days and batting 3 sessions or
less to reach 300+
Sampath
"Ravi" <kra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154987578.3...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
But Srilanka played VERY POSITIVELY instead of offering DEAD BAT to EVERY
BALL even though they have 1.75 days to BAT to get to 350+, didnt they ?
Ravi
In 5 sessions, there are only 2 outcomes possible. In 3 sessions, all
three outcomes are possible. So it depends on what outcome the team
wants and the risk/probability view at each stage of the innings.
Sampath
Srilanka had to bat out almost 8 sessions FOLLOWING ON and they still played
POSITIVELY and DREW the test at Lords. They maintained almost 3 runs an over
until the 125th over.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvsl/engine/match/225264.html
crick...@yahoo.com
You gotta give credit to the South Africans for not resorting to a
negative line.
Sampath
<crick...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154999783.2...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
SA cant resort to negative line and WIN or DRAW since there is ONE FULL DAY
left.
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>
>
> Srilanka had to bat out almost 8 sessions FOLLOWING ON and they still
> played POSITIVELY and DREW the test at Lords. They maintained almost
> 3 runs an over until the 125th over.
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvsl/engine/match/225264.html
almost 3 runs per over is positive?
only jayawardane truly batted positively.
vaas, for example, took 188 balls to score a 50.
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Sampath
"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
news:Db3Cg.18507$gU4.6008@trnddc07...
They were chasing a mammoth 360+ DEFICIT in I1.
I did mention until the 125th over and I think 3 runs per over is VERY
POSITIVE considering the match situation.
Spaceman Spiff
when india was chasing a 260 run deficit in i1 in 2002, they scored at
almost 4 runs per over, in spite of losing both openers with 11 on the
board.
what do you think of that?
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002/IND_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/IND_ENG_T2_08-12AUG2002.html
Sampath
Wasnt it a placid batting pitch ?
sdavmor
see what discussion comes up.
This result puts squarely into the frame how brittle Pakistan is once
one gets past Khan, Yousuf and ul-Haq. I haven't seen much of anything
beyond those three stalwarts to suggest well-rounded test-quality
non-sub-continent flat-track batting technique. Sorry to be so harsh,
but outside of those three there isn't a batsman or all-rounder
(including the vaunted keeper) that would have made the test squad of
any other nation IMO, except the also-rans Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
I know Pakistan has lost a lot of players, but so has England. The "A"
team replacement bats clearly have a long way to go, and the opener
situation without the MIA Shoaib Malik is a horrid mess. (Boycott
referred to it by saying "Your openers are rubbish and you haven't got
a proper #6" on the 6-0-6 call-in show on Sunday). Pry open the lineup
with 3-4-5 going reasonably cheaply and there's nothing at all to show
beyond wild slogging and tail-end biffing.
The ODI team may be an entirely different prospect, with Razzaq and
Afridi delivering big-hitting in a controlled overs, good pitch,
situation, and I don't want to address that here. IMO unless Pakistan
can make a better 2nd innings showing at The Oval (batting first might
be a huge help) AND get more punch from the bowlers ("paging Mohammad
Asif") they'll be lucky to not end the test series 0-3-1.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
garageband <http://www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming very soon in 2006
NP: nothing
Spaceman Spiff
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
> news:FA3Cg.17040$Qu4.16083@trnddc04...
>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Db3Cg.18507$gU4.6008@trnddc07...
>>>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Srilanka had to bat out almost 8 sessions FOLLOWING ON and they
>>>>> still played POSITIVELY and DREW the test at Lords. They
>>>>> maintained almost 3 runs an over until the 125th over.
>>>>>
>>> They were chasing a mammoth 360+ DEFICIT in I1.
>>>
>>> I did mention until the 125th over and I think 3 runs per over is
>>> VERY POSITIVE considering the match situation.
>>
>> when india was chasing a 260 run deficit in i1 in 2002, they scored
>> at almost 4 runs per over, in spite of losing both openers with 11
>> on the board.
>> what do you think of that?
>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002/IND_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/IND_ENG_T2_08-12AUG2002.html
>>
>
> Wasnt it a placid batting pitch ?
no more placid than when sri lanka were chasing their 360 run deficit.
Sampath
Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and SUCCESSFULLY
chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test cricket history.
Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing ULTRA
DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
Spaceman Spiff
[snip]
>
>
> Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
> psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
>
but india was already 1-0 down in the series. so it evens out.
> Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
> themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and SUCCESSFULLY
> chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test cricket history.
>
so? india has chased the 2nd highest target for a win in test cricket
history.
also, india has chased 4th innings targets over 200 for wins outside of
india twice in the last 5 years (233 in australia in 2004 and 264 in sri
lanka in 2001).
sri lanka has scored more than 200 to win in the 4th innings outside of sri
lanka only once in their history and that was 7 years ago.
sri lanka has not come within sniffing distance of winning a test in
australia, india or west indies *ever*.
india has won tests australia, sri lanka and west indies in the last 5
years.
> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he bowled only
7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play positively.
b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is not much
less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as positive.
c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would have
resulted in the game ending even sooner. maybe india would have scored a few
more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4 wickets,
you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
sdavmor
[snip]
> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he bowled only
> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play positively.
[snip]
I don't know about any of the other things you commented on, but I
agree 100% on this point. Ntini pulling up lame early on when he had
his tail up and had already removed one of the openers put a huge
extra load on the other bowlers and was absolutely the deciding factor
in the SL win. Not taking anything away from them of course. They got
it done on the back of their world-class captain and some luck.
Sampath
> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>>
>> Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
>> psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
>>
>
> but india was already 1-0 down in the series. so it evens out.
>
>> Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
>> themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and SUCCESSFULLY
>> chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test cricket history.
>>
>
> so? india has chased the 2nd highest target for a win in test cricket
> history.
> also, india has chased 4th innings targets over 200 for wins outside of
> india twice in the last 5 years (233 in australia in 2004 and 264 in sri
> lanka in 2001).
How does the port of spain test win 35 years ago JUSTIFY India NOT playing
POSITIVE cricket in the last two years when the situation demanded it ?
> sri lanka has scored more than 200 to win in the 4th innings outside of
> sri
> lanka only once in their history and that was 7 years ago.
> sri lanka has not come within sniffing distance of winning a test in
> australia, india or west indies *ever*.
> india has won tests australia, sri lanka and west indies in the last 5
> years.
IIRC, Srilanka has been playing test cricket only for the last 25 years
while India has been playing 55+ years.
>> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
>> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>
> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he bowled
> only
> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
> positively.
Srilanka scored 4 runs an over of Ntini in I1 and Ntini also went wickeless
in colombo test.
M Ntini 31 3 97 0
Injuries are part and parcel of cricket life and ntinis I2 should NOT take
away any credit from the gallant fight put up by Srilanka.
> b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is not
> much
> less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as positive.
Srilanka scored almost 3 an over until 125th over and then slowed down
obviously to SAVE the test since 6 wickets have already fallen.
India was 108/2 at 36.3 with Sehwag and Gambhir gone a that point and Dravid
INEXPLICABLY started playing ULTRA DEFENSIVE game with a negative mindset
and LOST the test.
It is the DEFENSIVE APPROACH of the Indian batsmen at that point I have
trouble with.
> c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would have
> resulted in the game ending even sooner.
There is a DIFFERENCE between playing ATTACKING GAME and playing POSITIVELY.
Indian batsmen REPEATED the HARA KIRI they committed in BANGALORE. My beef
is they DIDNT learn a LESSON from bangalore test LOSS.
>maybe india would have scored a few
> more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4
> wickets,
> you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
>
> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff
>
> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>
Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal with their NEGATIVE APPROACH. I
dont think Udal would have got all those wickets if India played POSITIVELY
like Srilankans did yesterday.
Sampath
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:4D5Cg.410040$C62.3...@fe12.news.easynews.com...
> Spaceman Spiff wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he bowled
>> only 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
>> positively.
>
> [snip]
>
> I don't know about any of the other things you commented on, but I
> agree 100% on this point. Ntini pulling up lame early on when he had
> his tail up and had already removed one of the openers put a huge
> extra load on the other bowlers and was absolutely the deciding factor
> in the SL win.
How can you say Ntinis injury was the deciding factor in Srilankan win ?
He went wicketless in Colombo test and was taken for 4 runs an over in I1 of
this test.
Spaceman Spiff
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
> news:qw5Cg.8578$7m5.5033@trnddc05...
>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
>>> psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
>>>
>>
>> but india was already 1-0 down in the series. so it evens out.
>>
>>> Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
>>> themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and
>>> SUCCESSFULLY chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test
>>> cricket history.
>>
>> so? india has chased the 2nd highest target for a win in test cricket
>> history.
>> also, india has chased 4th innings targets over 200 for wins outside
>> of india twice in the last 5 years (233 in australia in 2004 and 264
>> in sri lanka in 2001).
>
>
>
>
>
> How does the port of spain test win 35 years ago JUSTIFY India NOT
> playing POSITIVE cricket in the last two years when the situation
> demanded it ?
>
india has played positive cricket when the situation has demanded it.
you are taking two or three failures in the last 5 years to make a
generalization.
what happened in karachi in 2006? india scored at almost 5 rpo and still
lost by 341 runs.
batting positively is not the be-all and end-all.
>
>
>> sri lanka has scored more than 200 to win in the 4th innings outside
>> of sri
>> lanka only once in their history and that was 7 years ago.
>> sri lanka has not come within sniffing distance of winning a test in
>> australia, india or west indies *ever*.
>> india has won tests australia, sri lanka and west indies in the last
>> 5 years.
>
>
>
> IIRC, Srilanka has been playing test cricket only for the last 25
> years while India has been playing 55+ years.
>
>
what does that have to do with anything? i am talking about performance in
the last 5 years.
>
>
>
>>> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
>>> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>>
>> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he
>> bowled only
>> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
>> positively.
>
>
>
>
> Srilanka scored 4 runs an over of Ntini in I1
so? ntini is an attacking bowler. he will give away runs, but he is there to
get wickets.
and he had the best strike rate in this test match- 34, better even than
murali .
he had reduced sri lanka to 86-5 in the first innings. if he had bowled more
in the second innings, who knows what he might have done?
> and Ntini also went
> wickeless in colombo test.
>
> M Ntini 31 3 97 0
>
the colombo wicket did not suit his style of bowling.
this one did.
>
> Injuries are part and parcel of cricket life and ntinis I2 should NOT
> take away any credit from the gallant fight put up by Srilanka.
>
i am not taking credit away- i am just pointing out how some things worked
in their favor.
>
>
>
>
>> b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is
>> not much
>> less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as
>> positive.
>
>
> Srilanka scored almost 3 an over until 125th over and then slowed down
> obviously to SAVE the test since 6 wickets have already fallen.
>
> India was 108/2 at 36.3 with Sehwag and Gambhir gone a that point and
> Dravid INEXPLICABLY started playing ULTRA DEFENSIVE game with a
> negative mindset and LOST the test.
>
the negative mindset didn't lose the test. the poor batting did.
the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
> It is the DEFENSIVE APPROACH of the Indian batsmen at that point I
> have trouble with.
>
so you have no problems if they lose while hitting out?
>
>
>> c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would
>> have resulted in the game ending even sooner.
>
>
>
> There is a DIFFERENCE between playing ATTACKING GAME and playing
> POSITIVELY. Indian batsmen REPEATED the HARA KIRI they committed in
> BANGALORE. My beef is they DIDNT learn a LESSON from bangalore test
> LOSS.
>
my mutton is that you are taking two instances to create a generalization.
>
>
>> maybe india would have scored a few
>> more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4
>> wickets,
>> you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
>>
>> --
>> stay cool,
>> Spaceman Spiff
>>
>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal with their NEGATIVE
> APPROACH. I dont think Udal would have got all those wickets if India
> played POSITIVELY like Srilankans did yesterday.
how do you know?
Sampath
> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>> news:qw5Cg.8578$7m5.5033@trnddc05...
>>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
>>>> psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
>>>>
>>>
>>> but india was already 1-0 down in the series. so it evens out.
>>>
>>>> Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
>>>> themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and
>>>> SUCCESSFULLY chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test
>>>> cricket history.
>>>
>>> so? india has chased the 2nd highest target for a win in test cricket
>>> history.
>>> also, india has chased 4th innings targets over 200 for wins outside
>>> of india twice in the last 5 years (233 in australia in 2004 and 264
>>> in sri lanka in 2001).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How does the port of spain test win 35 years ago JUSTIFY India NOT
>> playing POSITIVE cricket in the last two years when the situation
>> demanded it ?
>>
>
> india has played positive cricket when the situation has demanded it.
> you are taking two or three failures in the last 5 years to make a
> generalization.
I am talking about the the last two years.
> what happened in karachi in 2006? india scored at almost 5 rpo and still
> lost by 341 runs.
> batting positively is not the be-all and end-all.
India already lost the match at 74/4 in karachi from where Yuvraj attacked
in a lost cause.
>>
>>
>>> sri lanka has scored more than 200 to win in the 4th innings outside
>>> of sri
>>> lanka only once in their history and that was 7 years ago.
>>> sri lanka has not come within sniffing distance of winning a test in
>>> australia, india or west indies *ever*.
>>> india has won tests australia, sri lanka and west indies in the last
>>> 5 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> IIRC, Srilanka has been playing test cricket only for the last 25
>> years while India has been playing 55+ years.
>>
>>
>
> what does that have to do with anything? i am talking about performance in
> the last 5 years.
Well, YOU made an argument that India played positively and won port of
spain test 35 yrs ago and srilanka has NOT won a test in aus, wi etc and I
responded by saying SL has been playing test cricket for ONLY the last 25
years. Which part you didnt understand ?
>>>> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
>>>> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>>>
>>> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he
>>> bowled only
>>> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
>>> positively.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Srilanka scored 4 runs an over of Ntini in I1
>
> so? ntini is an attacking bowler. he will give away runs, but he is there
> to get wickets.
> and he had the best strike rate in this test match- 34, better even than
> murali .
> he had reduced sri lanka to 86-5 in the first innings. if he had bowled
> more in the second innings, who knows what he might have done?
You cant argue based on IFS and BUTS and take away credit from Srilanka. Is
there any gurantee that srilankan batsmen wouldnt have handled Ntini well in
I2 ?
>> and Ntini also went
>> wickeless in colombo test.
>>
>> M Ntini 31 3 97 0
>>
>
> the colombo wicket did not suit his style of bowling.
> this one did.
>> Injuries are part and parcel of cricket life and ntinis I2 should NOT
>> take away any credit from the gallant fight put up by Srilanka.
>>
>
> i am not taking credit away- i am just pointing out how some things worked
> in their favor.
Almost all test matches will have a FACTOR OR TWO working in FAVOR of the
WINNER whether it be toss, rain, umpiring errors, injuries etc.
>>> b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is
>>> not much
>>> less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as
>>> positive.
>>
>>
>> Srilanka scored almost 3 an over until 125th over and then slowed down
>> obviously to SAVE the test since 6 wickets have already fallen.
>>
>> India was 108/2 at 36.3 with Sehwag and Gambhir gone a that point and
>> Dravid INEXPLICABLY started playing ULTRA DEFENSIVE game with a
>> negative mindset and LOST the test.
>>
>
> the negative mindset didn't lose the test. the poor batting did.
Poor batting caused by NEGATIVE mindset of playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL.
> the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
India was NOT chasing 550+ target in bangalore and mumbai.
>> It is the DEFENSIVE APPROACH of the Indian batsmen at that point I
>> have trouble with.
>>
>
> so you have no problems if they lose while hitting out?
Again you are making the SAME MISTAKE. You can play POSITIVE CRICKET
withhout HITTING OUT.
>>
>>> c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would
>>> have resulted in the game ending even sooner.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a DIFFERENCE between playing ATTACKING GAME and playing
>> POSITIVELY. Indian batsmen REPEATED the HARA KIRI they committed in
>> BANGALORE. My beef is they DIDNT learn a LESSON from bangalore test
>> LOSS.
>>
>
> my mutton is that you are taking two instances to create a generalization.
Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the last two
years.
>>> maybe india would have scored a few
>>> more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4
>>> wickets,
>>> you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
>>>
>>> --
>>> stay cool,
>>> Spaceman Spiff
>>>
>>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal with their NEGATIVE
>> APPROACH. I dont think Udal would have got all those wickets if India
>> played POSITIVELY like Srilankans did yesterday.
>
> how do you know?
Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni while
slogging mindlessly.
Mike Holmans
wrote:
>I posted this into another thread, but let's make its own subject and
>see what discussion comes up.
>
>This result puts squarely into the frame how brittle Pakistan is once
>one gets past Khan, Yousuf and ul-Haq. I haven't seen much of anything
>beyond those three stalwarts to suggest well-rounded test-quality
>non-sub-continent flat-track batting technique. Sorry to be so harsh,
>but outside of those three there isn't a batsman or all-rounder
>(including the vaunted keeper) that would have made the test squad of
>any other nation IMO, except the also-rans Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
>
>I know Pakistan has lost a lot of players, but so has England. The "A"
>team replacement bats clearly have a long way to go, and the opener
>situation without the MIA Shoaib Malik is a horrid mess.
And the return of Shoaib Malik, who averaged 22 in the series against
England in Pakistan nine months ago while Butt averaged 60, is likely
to strengthen the batting line-up how? What Malik offers is the extra
ability to chuck some rather more convincing off-spin than any other
Pakistani opening batsman, and he can actually field properly and not
drop catches, but in terms of the batting strength he adds zero.
>(Boycott
>referred to it by saying "Your openers are rubbish and you haven't got
>a proper #6" on the 6-0-6 call-in show on Sunday). Pry open the lineup
>with 3-4-5 going reasonably cheaply and there's nothing at all to show
>beyond wild slogging and tail-end biffing.
Hmm. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with all of that.
India haven't done all that badly with only three batsmen, after all.
It's very common to blame all the failures of a side on the batsmen.
England spent the entire 1990s blaming the batsmen. However, it's
usually the bowlers who are the main problem.
Pakistan have been harder hit than England in terms of the injuries:
they've lost their flagship bowler Shoaib, whereas Harmison is still
playing for England.
That's not necessarily the same as best bowler: Harmison rarely is
England's best bowler these days but he can still put the fear of God
into opposition batsmen, and that has ramifications for how they play
the others. Md Asif may well be a very good bowler, but he doesn't
rattle batsmen so that they can't concentrate properly on his partner,
whereas Shoaib does.
At least in the second innings at Headingley they did manage to bowl
England out - but for 345 rather than 215. It turns out that England
could have defended that if Pakistan played as they did today, but a
target of under 200 might well have produced a less silly display than
we got.
What Pakistan really need is for Afridi to have a brain cell. If only
he had one, he could make a very useful number six and back-up
spinner.
Cheers,
Mike
dodo
sdavmor wrote:
> I posted this into another thread, but let's make its own subject and
> see what discussion comes up.
>
>
Is that a pun or a Freudian slip? (Wither instead of Whither) ---
wishing that Pak will wither away in the ODIs? I predict Pak will still
win the ODI series
Andrew Dunford
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bdvhd216k60igae6h...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:45:03 GMT, sdavmor <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I posted this into another thread, but let's make its own subject and
> >see what discussion comes up.
> >
> >This result puts squarely into the frame how brittle Pakistan is once
> >one gets past Khan, Yousuf and ul-Haq. I haven't seen much of anything
> >beyond those three stalwarts to suggest well-rounded test-quality
> >non-sub-continent flat-track batting technique. Sorry to be so harsh,
> >but outside of those three there isn't a batsman or all-rounder
> >(including the vaunted keeper) that would have made the test squad of
> >any other nation IMO, except the also-rans Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.
> >
> >I know Pakistan has lost a lot of players, but so has England. The "A"
> >team replacement bats clearly have a long way to go, and the opener
> >situation without the MIA Shoaib Malik is a horrid mess.
>
> And the return of Shoaib Malik, who averaged 22 in the series against
> England in Pakistan nine months ago while Butt averaged 60, is likely
> to strengthen the batting line-up how? What Malik offers is the extra
> ability to chuck some rather more convincing off-spin than any other
> Pakistani opening batsman, and he can actually field properly and not
> drop catches, but in terms of the batting strength he adds zero.
Although he may have stiff opposition in the chucking stakes, Mohammad
Hafeez having been called into the squad.
> >(Boycott
> >referred to it by saying "Your openers are rubbish and you haven't got
> >a proper #6" on the 6-0-6 call-in show on Sunday). Pry open the lineup
> >with 3-4-5 going reasonably cheaply and there's nothing at all to show
> >beyond wild slogging and tail-end biffing.
>
> Hmm. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with all of that.
>
> India haven't done all that badly with only three batsmen, after all.
>
> It's very common to blame all the failures of a side on the batsmen.
> England spent the entire 1990s blaming the batsmen. However, it's
> usually the bowlers who are the main problem.
>
> Pakistan have been harder hit than England in terms of the injuries:
> they've lost their flagship bowler Shoaib, whereas Harmison is still
> playing for England.
>
> That's not necessarily the same as best bowler: Harmison rarely is
> England's best bowler these days but he can still put the fear of God
> into opposition batsmen, and that has ramifications for how they play
> the others. Md Asif may well be a very good bowler, but he doesn't
> rattle batsmen so that they can't concentrate properly on his partner,
> whereas Shoaib does.
>
> At least in the second innings at Headingley they did manage to bowl
> England out - but for 345 rather than 215. It turns out that England
> could have defended that if Pakistan played as they did today, but a
> target of under 200 might well have produced a less silly display than
> we got.
Yet although Pakistan's bowling has looked under-powered, they might well
have fared better with better catching (the obvious fourth day example being
Akmal's howler off Trescothick). And I don't think they got the rub of the
green with the umpiring either.
> What Pakistan really need is for Afridi to have a brain cell. If only
> he had one, he could make a very useful number six and back-up
> spinner.
Indeed a notably absent commodity. That said, Razzak was fulfilling the
backup role quite nicely until Harmison frightened him.
Andrew
sdavmor
Brain-dead typo.
Ravi
SL took over 115 overs to win and almost lost. Pak crumbled under the
pressure in 2 sessions. Planning a 4th innings chase on D5 when one has
3 sesssions is not straightforward. Being able to keep your wicket is
paramount to any win hopes.
- Ravi
Sampath
WIN or LOSS is secondary. I am praising the Srilankan APPROACH of playing
POSTIVE CRICKET instead of going into a SHELL and playing ultra defense like
Indians did.
Spaceman Spiff
fine, you are taking two failures in the last two years to make a
generalization.
>
>
>> what happened in karachi in 2006? india scored at almost 5 rpo and
>> still lost by 341 runs.
>> batting positively is not the be-all and end-all.
>
>
>
>
> India already lost the match at 74/4 in karachi from where Yuvraj
> attacked in a lost cause.
>
>
even at 74/4, india was scoring at 4.5 runs per over (i.e., even before yuvi
came to bat).
when laxman got out (63/3), india was scoring at 5 rpo.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> sri lanka has scored more than 200 to win in the 4th innings
>>>> outside of sri
>>>> lanka only once in their history and that was 7 years ago.
>>>> sri lanka has not come within sniffing distance of winning a test
>>>> in australia, india or west indies *ever*.
>>>> india has won tests australia, sri lanka and west indies in the
>>>> last 5 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IIRC, Srilanka has been playing test cricket only for the last 25
>>> years while India has been playing 55+ years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> what does that have to do with anything? i am talking about
>> performance in the last 5 years.
>
>
>
> Well, YOU made an argument that India played positively and won port
> of spain test 35 yrs ago
i didn't say india played positively at port of spain.
you said that sri lanka scored the 6th highest 4th innings total to win.
i responded that india has scored the 2nd highest 4th innings total to win
(and still the highest away total to win in the 4th innings).
> and srilanka has NOT won a test in aus, wi
> etc and I responded by saying SL has been playing test cricket for
> ONLY the last 25 years. Which part you didnt understand ?
>
the last 25 years includes the last 5 years. which part didn't you
understand?
and in 25 years, sri lanka has played 165 tests. it took india 46 years to
get that far.
i would submit that sri lanka has crammed in a lot of experience in its 25
years, and the excuse of 25 years does not wash any more.
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
>>>>> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>>>>
>>>> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he
>>>> bowled only
>>>> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
>>>> positively.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Srilanka scored 4 runs an over of Ntini in I1
>>
>> so? ntini is an attacking bowler. he will give away runs, but he is
>> there to get wickets.
>> and he had the best strike rate in this test match- 34, better even
>> than murali .
>> he had reduced sri lanka to 86-5 in the first innings. if he had
>> bowled more in the second innings, who knows what he might have done?
>
>
>
>
> You cant argue based on IFS and BUTS and take away credit from
> Srilanka. Is there any gurantee that srilankan batsmen wouldnt have
> handled Ntini well in I2 ?
>
they didn't handle him very well for the 7 overs he did bowl.
and the sri lankan top order didn't handle him well in the first innings,
either.
>
>
>
>>> and Ntini also went
>>> wickeless in colombo test.
>>>
>>> M Ntini 31 3 97 0
>>>
>>
>> the colombo wicket did not suit his style of bowling.
>> this one did.
>
>>> Injuries are part and parcel of cricket life and ntinis I2 should
>>> NOT take away any credit from the gallant fight put up by Srilanka.
>>>
>>
>> i am not taking credit away- i am just pointing out how some things
>> worked in their favor.
>
>
>
> Almost all test matches will have a FACTOR OR TWO working in FAVOR of
> the WINNER whether it be toss, rain, umpiring errors, injuries etc.
>
>
sure, but some factors are more critical than others.
>
>
>
>>>> b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is
>>>> not much
>>>> less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as
>>>> positive.
>>>
>>>
>>> Srilanka scored almost 3 an over until 125th over and then slowed
>>> down obviously to SAVE the test since 6 wickets have already fallen.
>>>
>>> India was 108/2 at 36.3 with Sehwag and Gambhir gone a that point
>>> and Dravid INEXPLICABLY started playing ULTRA DEFENSIVE game with a
>>> negative mindset and LOST the test.
>>>
>>
>> the negative mindset didn't lose the test. the poor batting did.
>
>
>
> Poor batting caused by NEGATIVE mindset of playing DEFENSE to EVERY
> BALL.
we saw how attacking every ball played out in karachi, didn't we?
>
>
>> the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
>
>
> India was NOT chasing 550+ target in bangalore and mumbai.
>
>
chasing 330 at mumbai was equivalent to 550 on a flat track.
>
>
>
>>> It is the DEFENSIVE APPROACH of the Indian batsmen at that point I
>>> have trouble with.
>>>
>>
>> so you have no problems if they lose while hitting out?
>
>
>
>
> Again you are making the SAME MISTAKE. You can play POSITIVE CRICKET
> withhout HITTING OUT.
>
so why didn't sri lanka play positive cricket in any of these tests:
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/SL_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/SL_AUS_T1_01-05JUL2004.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T2_10-14DEC2005.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T3_18-22DEC2005.html
and here they played positively and still lost:
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T2_16-20MAR2004.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
what's your point? it clicked once for them, so you make a generalization.
>
>
>>>
>>>> c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would
>>>> have resulted in the game ending even sooner.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There is a DIFFERENCE between playing ATTACKING GAME and playing
>>> POSITIVELY. Indian batsmen REPEATED the HARA KIRI they committed in
>>> BANGALORE. My beef is they DIDNT learn a LESSON from bangalore test
>>> LOSS.
>>>
>>
>> my mutton is that you are taking two instances to create a
>> generalization.
>
>
>
> Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the
> last two years.
>
but they won 11 with a positive approach since 2004 (lost 5).
so the positive still outweighs the negative.
>
>
>>>> maybe india would have scored a few
>>>> more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4
>>>> wickets,
>>>> you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> stay cool,
>>>> Spaceman Spiff
>>>>
>>>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>>>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal with their NEGATIVE
>>> APPROACH. I dont think Udal would have got all those wickets if
>>> India played POSITIVELY like Srilankans did yesterday.
>>
>> how do you know?
>
>
>
>
> Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
>
> Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni while
> slogging mindlessly.
still got 4 wickets.
in his whole career he has taken 8 wickets- 4 in one innings.
Sampath
Fine but I didnt complain about Indias approach in karachi test, did I ?
But in the same period I am sure India played AS MANY TESTS. So that evens
out your argument.
>>
>>>>>> Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing
>>>>>> ULTRA DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>>>>>
>>>>> a) south africa's best bowler (ntini) was injured yesterday - he
>>>>> bowled only
>>>>> 7.2 overs - that definitely made it easier for sri lanka to play
>>>>> positively.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Srilanka scored 4 runs an over of Ntini in I1
>>>
>>> so? ntini is an attacking bowler. he will give away runs, but he is
>>> there to get wickets.
>>> and he had the best strike rate in this test match- 34, better even
>>> than murali .
>>> he had reduced sri lanka to 86-5 in the first innings. if he had
>>> bowled more in the second innings, who knows what he might have done?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You cant argue based on IFS and BUTS and take away credit from
>> Srilanka. Is there any gurantee that srilankan batsmen wouldnt have
>> handled Ntini well in I2 ?
>>
>
> they didn't handle him very well for the 7 overs he did bowl.
> and the sri lankan top order didn't handle him well in the first innings,
> either.
That doesnt mean they couldnt have handled him better later.
>>>> and Ntini also went
>>>> wickeless in colombo test.
>>>>
>>>> M Ntini 31 3 97 0
>>>>
>>>
>>> the colombo wicket did not suit his style of bowling.
>>> this one did.
>>
>>>> Injuries are part and parcel of cricket life and ntinis I2 should
>>>> NOT take away any credit from the gallant fight put up by Srilanka.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i am not taking credit away- i am just pointing out how some things
>>> worked in their favor.
>>
>>
>>
>> Almost all test matches will have a FACTOR OR TWO working in FAVOR of
>> the WINNER whether it be toss, rain, umpiring errors, injuries etc.
>>
>>
>
> sure, but some factors are more critical than others.
Ntini factor is certainly NOT a critical one in Srilankas win.
>>>>> b) at bangalore india still scored at 2.38 runs per over, which is
>>>>> not much
>>>>> less than sri lanka's 2.70 rpo at lords, which you termed as
>>>>> positive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Srilanka scored almost 3 an over until 125th over and then slowed
>>>> down obviously to SAVE the test since 6 wickets have already fallen.
>>>>
>>>> India was 108/2 at 36.3 with Sehwag and Gambhir gone a that point
>>>> and Dravid INEXPLICABLY started playing ULTRA DEFENSIVE game with a
>>>> negative mindset and LOST the test.
>>>>
>>>
>>> the negative mindset didn't lose the test. the poor batting did.
>>
>>
>>
>> Poor batting caused by NEGATIVE mindset of playing DEFENSE to EVERY
>> BALL.
>
> we saw how attacking every ball played out in karachi, didn't we?
So does it mean India had to play ULTRA DEVENSIVE cricket in bangalore and
mumbai ?
>>> the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
>>
>>
>> India was NOT chasing 550+ target in bangalore and mumbai.
>>
>>
>
> chasing 330 at mumbai was equivalent to 550 on a flat track.
Why did they have to go into a SHELL and play with such NEGATIVE APPROACH ?
India should have learned a lesson from bangalore test.
>>>> It is the DEFENSIVE APPROACH of the Indian batsmen at that point I
>>>> have trouble with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so you have no problems if they lose while hitting out?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Again you are making the SAME MISTAKE. You can play POSITIVE CRICKET
>> withhout HITTING OUT.
>>
>
> so why didn't sri lanka play positive cricket in any of these tests:
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/SL_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/SL_AUS_T1_01-05JUL2004.html
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T2_10-14DEC2005.html
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T3_18-22DEC2005.html
It took some time for Moody to build the team into a fighting unit and some
of their batsmen like jaya were out of form in the indian tour.
Besides, if they didnt play positively in the prior series how does that
negate the fact that they are playing positive cricket now ?
May be they LEARNED their LESSONS from the PRIOR series.
> and here they played positively and still lost:
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T2_16-20MAR2004.html
> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
>
> what's your point? it clicked once for them, so you make a generalization.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> c) the mumbai pitch was a dustbowl- playing an attacking game would
>>>>> have resulted in the game ending even sooner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a DIFFERENCE between playing ATTACKING GAME and playing
>>>> POSITIVELY. Indian batsmen REPEATED the HARA KIRI they committed in
>>>> BANGALORE. My beef is they DIDNT learn a LESSON from bangalore test
>>>> LOSS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> my mutton is that you are taking two instances to create a
>>> generalization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the
>> last two years.
>>
>
> but they won 11 with a positive approach since 2004 (lost 5).
> so the positive still outweighs the negative.
And how many of them are against minnows bangles and zim ?
>>>>> maybe india would have scored a few
>>>>> more runs but they would not have lasted longer. if udal can get 4
>>>>> wickets,
>>>>> you can imagine how bad the pitch was.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> stay cool,
>>>>> Spaceman Spiff
>>>>>
>>>>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>>>>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal with their NEGATIVE
>>>> APPROACH. I dont think Udal would have got all those wickets if
>>>> India played POSITIVELY like Srilankans did yesterday.
>>>
>>> how do you know?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
>>
>> Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni while
>> slogging mindlessly.
>
> still got 4 wickets.
> in his whole career he has taken 8 wickets- 4 in one innings.
>
> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff
>
> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal by slogging mindlessly. I am
sure even you could have gotten their wickets at that point.
Spaceman Spiff
>>>
>>
>> even at 74/4, india was scoring at 4.5 runs per over (i.e., even
>> before yuvi came to bat).
>> when laxman got out (63/3), india was scoring at 5 rpo.
>
>
>
>
> Fine but I didnt complain about Indias approach in karachi test, did
> I ?
>
you are complaining about defensive approach.
i have shown that an attacking approach can also fail.
so what's your point, again?
>
>
[snip]
>>>
>>
>> the last 25 years includes the last 5 years. which part didn't you
>> understand?
>> and in 25 years, sri lanka has played 165 tests. it took india 46
>> years to get that far.
>> i would submit that sri lanka has crammed in a lot of experience in
>> its 25 years, and the excuse of 25 years does not wash any more.
>
>
>
> But in the same period I am sure India played AS MANY TESTS. So that
> evens out your argument.
>
>
???
[snip]
>>> You cant argue based on IFS and BUTS and take away credit from
>>> Srilanka. Is there any gurantee that srilankan batsmen wouldnt have
>>> handled Ntini well in I2 ?
>>>
>>
>> they didn't handle him very well for the 7 overs he did bowl.
>> and the sri lankan top order didn't handle him well in the first
>> innings, either.
>
>
>
>
> That doesnt mean they couldnt have handled him better later.
>
the evidence up to that point says otherwise.
[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>> Almost all test matches will have a FACTOR OR TWO working in FAVOR
>>> of the WINNER whether it be toss, rain, umpiring errors, injuries
>>> etc.
>>
>> sure, but some factors are more critical than others.
>
>
>
> Ntini factor is certainly NOT a critical one in Srilankas win.
>
it certainly is.
to twist it around- what if murali had gotten injured after 7 overs in the
south african innings?
then which team would have had the upper hand?
[snip]
>>>
>>> Poor batting caused by NEGATIVE mindset of playing DEFENSE to EVERY
>>> BALL.
>>
>> we saw how attacking every ball played out in karachi, didn't we?
>
>
>
> So does it mean India had to play ULTRA DEVENSIVE cricket in
> bangalore and mumbai ?
>
that's not what it means.
it means that playing attacking or defensive cricket is not necessarily the
reason for a loss.
also, it means that you cannot generalize based upon two instances. it is
statistically irrelevant.
>
>
>
>>>> the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
>>>
>>>
>>> India was NOT chasing 550+ target in bangalore and mumbai.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> chasing 330 at mumbai was equivalent to 550 on a flat track.
>
>
>
> Why did they have to go into a SHELL and play with such NEGATIVE
> APPROACH ? India should have learned a lesson from bangalore test.
>
how do you know it made a difference?
[snip]
>>
>> so why didn't sri lanka play positive cricket in any of these tests:
>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/SL_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/SL_AUS_T1_01-05JUL2004.html
>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T2_10-14DEC2005.html
>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T3_18-22DEC2005.html
>
>
>
> It took some time for Moody to build the team into a fighting unit
nonsense. moody has been on the job with sri lanka longer than chappell with
india.
> and some of their batsmen like jaya were out of form in the indian
> tour.
jaya played very well in the india tour- go see his scores.
> Besides, if they didnt play positively in the prior series how does
> that negate the fact that they are playing positive cricket now ?
>
> May be they LEARNED their LESSONS from the PRIOR series.
>
maybe not.
maybe things just worked out for them.
it helps that they are twice as good at home as away.
in the last 5 years, india has played:
home: 25 tests 11 won 4 lost
away: 22 tests 11 won 11 lost
in the same period sri lanka has played:
home: 30 tests 19 won 5 lost
away: 26 tests 7 won 11 lost
thank you, i think i will stick with india's record.
[snip]
>>>
>>> Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the
>>> last two years.
>>>
>>
>> but they won 11 with a positive approach since 2004 (lost 5).
>> so the positive still outweighs the negative.
>
>
> And how many of them are against minnows bangles and zim ?
>
4. (in the same time, sri lanka has been beating up on bd and zim 6 times).
[snip]
>>>
>>> Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
>>>
>>> Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni while
>>> slogging mindlessly.
>>
>> still got 4 wickets.
>> in his whole career he has taken 8 wickets- 4 in one innings.
>>
[snip]
>
> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal by slogging mindlessly. I
> am sure even you could have gotten their wickets at that point.
would it have helped if they had gifted their wickets to him by slogging
intelligently and thoughtfully?
udal is a crap bowler, even mindless slogging against him on a decent wicket
will rarely result in a dismissal.
Sampath
> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>
>>> even at 74/4, india was scoring at 4.5 runs per over (i.e., even
>>> before yuvi came to bat).
>>> when laxman got out (63/3), india was scoring at 5 rpo.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fine but I didnt complain about Indias approach in karachi test, did
>> I ?
>>
>
> you are complaining about defensive approach.
> i have shown that an attacking approach can also fail.
> so what's your point, again?
Why is it that difficult for you to understand a simple point ?
How many times do I have to point out the difference between a POSTIVE
approach and ATTACKING approach.
India played the right way in Karachi. But Asif was too good that day and
India lost.
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>
>>> the last 25 years includes the last 5 years. which part didn't you
>>> understand?
>>> and in 25 years, sri lanka has played 165 tests. it took india 46
>>> years to get that far.
>>> i would submit that sri lanka has crammed in a lot of experience in
>>> its 25 years, and the excuse of 25 years does not wash any more.
>>
>>
>>
>> But in the same period I am sure India played AS MANY TESTS. So that
>> evens out your argument.
>>
>>
>
> ???
>
> [snip]
>>>> You cant argue based on IFS and BUTS and take away credit from
>>>> Srilanka. Is there any gurantee that srilankan batsmen wouldnt have
>>>> handled Ntini well in I2 ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> they didn't handle him very well for the 7 overs he did bowl.
>>> and the sri lankan top order didn't handle him well in the first
>>> innings, either.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That doesnt mean they couldnt have handled him better later.
>>
>
> the evidence up to that point says otherwise.
There were MANY instances in cricket where bowlers troubled batsmen a lot
and then went wicketless in the inning. Is that evidence enough ?
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Almost all test matches will have a FACTOR OR TWO working in FAVOR
>>>> of the WINNER whether it be toss, rain, umpiring errors, injuries
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> sure, but some factors are more critical than others.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ntini factor is certainly NOT a critical one in Srilankas win.
>>
>
> it certainly is.
> to twist it around- what if murali had gotten injured after 7 overs in the
> south african innings?
> then which team would have had the upper hand?
Murali is MORE VALUABLE to Srilanka than Ntini is to SA.
This is getting ridiculous. Ntini or NOT, SA played POSITIVELY, PERIOD. End
of argument.
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Poor batting caused by NEGATIVE mindset of playing DEFENSE to EVERY
>>>> BALL.
>>>
>>> we saw how attacking every ball played out in karachi, didn't we?
>>
>>
>>
>> So does it mean India had to play ULTRA DEVENSIVE cricket in
>> bangalore and mumbai ?
>>
>
> that's not what it means.
> it means that playing attacking or defensive cricket is not necessarily
> the reason for a loss.
> also, it means that you cannot generalize based upon two instances. it is
> statistically irrelevant.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> the positive mindset at karachi didn't help, did it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> India was NOT chasing 550+ target in bangalore and mumbai.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> chasing 330 at mumbai was equivalent to 550 on a flat track.
>>
>>
>>
>> Why did they have to go into a SHELL and play with such NEGATIVE
>> APPROACH ? India should have learned a lesson from bangalore test.
>>
>
> how do you know it made a difference?
A team has to play the game with right frame of mind and approach without
worrying about the result.
> [snip]
>>>
>>> so why didn't sri lanka play positive cricket in any of these tests:
>>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/AUS_IN_SL/SCORECARDS/AUS_SL_T3_24-28MAR2004.html
>>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004/SL_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/SL_AUS_T1_01-05JUL2004.html
>>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T2_10-14DEC2005.html
>>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/SL_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/SL_IND_T3_18-22DEC2005.html
>>
>>
>>
>> It took some time for Moody to build the team into a fighting unit
>
> nonsense. moody has been on the job with sri lanka longer than chappell
> with india.
SO ?
>> and some of their batsmen like jaya were out of form in the indian
>> tour.
>
> jaya played very well in the india tour- go see his scores.
I am talking about jayasuriya not jayawardene.
>> Besides, if they didnt play positively in the prior series how does
>> that negate the fact that they are playing positive cricket now ?
>>
>> May be they LEARNED their LESSONS from the PRIOR series.
>>
>
> maybe not.
> maybe things just worked out for them.
So ANY WIN by ANY TEAM is just because it WORKED OUT FOR THEM ?
> it helps that they are twice as good at home as away.
> in the last 5 years, india has played:
> home: 25 tests 11 won 4 lost
> away: 22 tests 11 won 11 lost
>
> in the same period sri lanka has played:
> home: 30 tests 19 won 5 lost
> away: 26 tests 7 won 11 lost
>
> thank you, i think i will stick with india's record.
>
How many of Indian wins are against bangles and zim ?
>>>>
>>>> Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the
>>>> last two years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> but they won 11 with a positive approach since 2004 (lost 5).
>>> so the positive still outweighs the negative.
>>
>>
>> And how many of them are against minnows bangles and zim ?
>>
>
> 4. (in the same time, sri lanka has been beating up on bd and zim 6
> times).
Sure then remove zim and bangles and compare the records.
> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni while
>>>> slogging mindlessly.
>>>
>>> still got 4 wickets.
>>> in his whole career he has taken 8 wickets- 4 in one innings.
>>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal by slogging mindlessly. I
>> am sure even you could have gotten their wickets at that point.
>
> would it have helped if they had gifted their wickets to him by slogging
> intelligently and thoughtfully?
What a wierd argument !!
Did I ever argue that indian tailenders should have slogged intelligently ?
The match was ALREADY LOST by the time Dhoni and the rest of hte tailenders
came into bat. HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO..........
> udal is a crap bowler, even mindless slogging against him on a decent
> wicket will rarely result in a dismissal.
>
> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff
>
> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
Indian tailenders gifted their wickets to Udal.
Spaceman Spiff
> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
> news:_LpCg.14093$hj4.5490@trnddc03...
>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>
>
> How many times do I have to point out the difference between a POSTIVE
> approach and ATTACKING approach.
>
> India played the right way in Karachi. But Asif was too good that day
> and India lost.
>
>
so perhaps flintoff & anderson were too good at mumbai on that pitch and
afridi et al were too good at bangalore.
>
>
[snip]
>
> There were MANY instances in cricket where bowlers troubled batsmen a
> lot and then went wicketless in the inning. Is that evidence enough ?
>
but in this case, ntini was actually taking wickets, so your example is not
relevant.
[snip]
>>>
>>> Ntini factor is certainly NOT a critical one in Srilankas win.
>>>
>>
>> it certainly is.
>> to twist it around- what if murali had gotten injured after 7 overs
>> in the south african innings?
>> then which team would have had the upper hand?
>
>
>
> Murali is MORE VALUABLE to Srilanka than Ntini is to SA.
>
not the point.
ntini is the best bowler for rsa. will you dispute that?
similarly, murali is the best bowler for sl. will you dispute that?
> This is getting ridiculous. Ntini or NOT, SA played POSITIVELY,
> PERIOD. End of argument.
>
and still they lost.
[snip]
>>>
>>> Why did they have to go into a SHELL and play with such NEGATIVE
>>> APPROACH ? India should have learned a lesson from bangalore test.
>>>
>>
>> how do you know it made a difference?
>
>
>
> A team has to play the game with right frame of mind and approach
> without worrying about the result.
>
lol. you are losing it. "without worrying about the result"?
which team do you think plays without worrying about the result?
[snip]
>>>
>>> It took some time for Moody to build the team into a fighting unit
>>
>> nonsense. moody has been on the job with sri lanka longer than
>> chappell with india.
>
>
>
> SO ?
>
so? they were a fighting unit during the one day tournaments in sri lanka.
when they came to india, they suddenly forgot how to fight?
here, see this article by charles austin (prior to the sl series in india):
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/222967.html
conventional wisdom before the tour was that moody was doing well and
chappell was screwing up.
>
>
>>> and some of their batsmen like jaya were out of form in the indian
>>> tour.
>>
>> jaya played very well in the india tour- go see his scores.
>
>
> I am talking about jayasuriya not jayawardene.
>
>
jayasuriya's form (at least in test matches) for the last few years has been
patchy at best. for every innings where he scores runs, he usually goes 5 or
6 with poor scores.
so, nothing is really much different now than it was then.
>
>
>>> Besides, if they didnt play positively in the prior series how does
>>> that negate the fact that they are playing positive cricket now ?
>>>
>>> May be they LEARNED their LESSONS from the PRIOR series.
>>>
>>
>> maybe not.
>> maybe things just worked out for them.
>
>
>
> So ANY WIN by ANY TEAM is just because it WORKED OUT FOR THEM ?
>
>
yes.
>
>> it helps that they are twice as good at home as away.
>> in the last 5 years, india has played:
>> home: 25 tests 11 won 4 lost
>> away: 22 tests 11 won 11 lost
>>
>> in the same period sri lanka has played:
>> home: 30 tests 19 won 5 lost
>> away: 26 tests 7 won 11 lost
>>
>> thank you, i think i will stick with india's record.
>>
>
>
>
> How many of Indian wins are against bangles and zim ?
>
4.
>
>
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thats because India LOST TWO TESTS with a NEGATIVE APPROACH in the
>>>>> last two years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but they won 11 with a positive approach since 2004 (lost 5).
>>>> so the positive still outweighs the negative.
>>>
>>>
>>> And how many of them are against minnows bangles and zim ?
>>>
>>
>> 4. (in the same time, sri lanka has been beating up on bd and zim 6
>> times).
>
>
>
> Sure then remove zim and bangles and compare the records.
>
>
sure, india has 7 wins and 11 losses away from home.
sri lanka has 3 wins and 11 losses away from home.
i will still take india's record, thank you.
>
>
>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> Udal is NO warne, murali, kumble.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover Udal got tailenders wickets harby and munaf and Dhoni
>>>>> while slogging mindlessly.
>>>>
>>>> still got 4 wickets.
>>>> in his whole career he has taken 8 wickets- 4 in one innings.
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Indian batsmen GIFTED their wickets to Udal by slogging mindlessly.
>>> I am sure even you could have gotten their wickets at that point.
>>
>> would it have helped if they had gifted their wickets to him by
>> slogging intelligently and thoughtfully?
>
>
>
> What a wierd argument !!
>
> Did I ever argue that indian tailenders should have slogged
> intelligently ?
> The match was ALREADY LOST by the time Dhoni and the rest of hte
> tailenders came into bat. HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO..........
>
so at that point it didn't matter whether the tactics were defensive or
attacking.
you have yet to show me that india lost because they were over-defensive.
what you have shown is:
a) india were extremely defensive - agreed
b) india lost
what you have not proved is that a) caused b).
>
>
>> udal is a crap bowler, even mindless slogging against him on a decent
>> wicket will rarely result in a dismissal.
>>
>> --
>> stay cool,
>> Spaceman Spiff
>>
>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>
>
>
> Indian tailenders gifted their wickets to Udal.
on a normal wicket those slogs would have gone for boundaries.
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bdvhd216k60igae6h...@4ax.com...
>> What Pakistan really need is for Afridi to have a brain cell. If only
>> he had one, he could make a very useful number six and back-up
>> spinner.
>
>Indeed a notably absent commodity. That said, Razzak was fulfilling the
>backup role quite nicely until Harmison frightened him.
I've come to the conclusion that Razzaq is effectively the same as
Mark Ealham, although I make no implication that Ealham is likely to
change the colour of his trousers if he sees Harmison running up to
bowl at him.
Afridi has the ability to be considerably more than that: he's got
something special about him which could be really wonderful if it
could be harnessed and correctly channelled.
Cheers,
Mike
razar...@my-deja.com
Mike Holmans wrote:
<snoop>
>
> Afridi has the ability to be considerably more than that: he's got
> something special about him which could be really wonderful if it
> could be harnessed and correctly channelled.
>
*** I think Afridi has the ability to put the fear of God into bowlers.
And brain cells.
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>
If he's got brain cells, I wish he'd use them. It's no good seeing a
spinner ambling up and deciding to hit his every ball out of the
ground on principle. Some spinners can actually bowl quite good balls.
Including Afridi himself.
I know he does play properly sometimes. But he would be so much more
valuable to Pakistan if he would do it on a reasonably regular basis.
The fear of God bit is why he is potentially so much, much more than
Razzaq - who has as much fear of God as Harmison can give him.
Cheers,
Mike
Sampsychopath
wrote:
>
>"Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>news:7r4Cg.10612$qw5.6764@trnddc06...
>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:FA3Cg.17040$Qu4.16083@trnddc04...
>>>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Spaceman Spiff" <spacema...@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Db3Cg.18507$gU4.6008@trnddc07...
>>>>>> Sampath <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Srilanka had to bat out almost 8 sessions FOLLOWING ON and they
>>>>>>> still played POSITIVELY and DREW the test at Lords. They
>>>>>>> maintained almost 3 runs an over until the 125th over.
>>>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>>> They were chasing a mammoth 360+ DEFICIT in I1.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did mention until the 125th over and I think 3 runs per over is
>>>>> VERY POSITIVE considering the match situation.
>>>>
>>>> when india was chasing a 260 run deficit in i1 in 2002, they scored
>>>> at almost 4 runs per over, in spite of losing both openers with 11
>>>> on the board.
>>>> what do you think of that?
>>>> http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002/IND_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/IND_ENG_T2_08-12AUG2002.html
>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Wasnt it a placid batting pitch ?
>>
>> no more placid than when sri lanka were chasing their 360 run deficit.
>>
>> --
>> stay cool,
>> Spaceman Spiff
>>
>> get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
>> http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Dont you think chasing a 360+ deficit is exponentially difficult
>psychologically than chasing a 260+ deficit /
WHAT is an EXPONENTIALLY DIFFUCULT PSYCHOLOGICALLY?
>
>Moroever Srilanka played POSITIVELY yesterday INSTEAD of shackling
>themselves in chains by playing DEFENSE to EVERY BALL and SUCCESSFULLY
>chased the 5th HIGHEST TARGET for a WIN in test cricket history.
>
>Compare that to how India LOST in bangalore, mumbai etc by playing ULTRA
>DEFENSIVE NEGATIVE cricket.
>
>
Is your CAPS LOCK key playing UP, ACTIVATING completely RANDOMLY?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
AmerGovtCriminalsExposer
"Sampsychopath" <Sampsy...@cesspool.og> wrote in message
news:70lve2p293fell3h8...@4ax.com...
Did you FUCK your UNDERAGE DAUGHTER and take a video to PRESENT it to
PSYCHOPATHIC TRANSVESTITES Robert Mueller III, Mathew Hayden and Keith
Alexander too like the REST of FBI, CIA and NSA PSYCHOPATHS?
After you are done RAPING your UNDERAGE TEENAGE DAUGHTER,
did you PIMP her to FBI, CIA and NSA PSYCHOPATHS for SEXUAL ORGIES with
other UNDERAGE CHILDREN in Washington DC mansions ?
http://www.red-ice.net/specialreports/sexconnection.html
How about you and me with the SAME EXACT WEAPON face to face and we will see
who is a GUY and who is a TRANSVESTITE.
I am ready ANYTIME ANYWHERE.
But you are a FUCKING AMERICAN PUSSY which means you need a THOUSAND FBI
TRANSVESTITES with body armour and machine guns COVERING your PUSSY.
You are NOT EVEN WORTH for me to PISS on your FUCKING AMERICAN PUSSY FACE
that SHITS in its pants when it sees a brown skin.
AMERICA should change its NAME to PUSSERICA.
RUTHLESSLY POUR GAS on ALL FBI and NSA PSYCHOPATHS including CHILD RAPISTS
Robert Mueller III and Keith Alexander and BURN THEM ALIVE in PUBLIC VIEW.
FBI and NSA PSYCHOPATHS "FEAR" me ie AmericanGovtCriminalsExposer.
They will NEVER DARE come infront of me because FBI and NSA PSYCHOPATHS are
FUCKING FAGGOT PUSSIES.
I wish the DUMB 9-11 MUSLIMS used NUKES and KILLED all AMERICAN FBI, CIA and
NSA
BLOOD THIRSTY FAGGOTS and TRANSVESTITES on 9-11.
Give exactly the SAME WEAPON to any FBI, CIA and NSA PSYCHOPATH and a
NON-AMERICAN to FIGHT and these US GOVT IMPOTENT PSYCHOPATHS will DROP their
WEAPONS and RUN like HELL crying Mommy, Mommy, Mommy HELP ME.
The WORST PART is 300 mil AMERICAN PROGRAMMED SLAVES "WORSHIP" these
IMPOTENT FBI, CIA and NSA PUSSIES as BRAVE WARRIORS.
MYTH:
America is a LAND of the FREE and HOME of the BRAVE
FACT:
America is a LAND of GOVT PROGRAMMED SLAVES and HOME of the PUSSIES
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his
government."
Edward Abbey
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Authors/QuotationsToMakeUSThink.html
Signature:
Pax anti-american imperialism and terrorism is a philosophy.
Making sure evil, imperialistic american govt does not turn me into a SLAVE
like majority of the americans, is liberty building.
Think of it as somebody beating the shit out of EVIL AMERICAN GOVT
CRIMINALS, MURDERERS, PSYCHOPATHS and TERRORISTS for being FASCIST, BLOOD
THIRSTY and GENOCIDAL