Looking back on the Australia-India Series in Aust
Fran
more away from this series than Australia.
Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
Perth and may well do so here too.
Australia's batting has been flakey, their fielding and catching an
embarrassment, their bowling, with the exception of Lee and the
underbowled Clark, innocuous and their captaincy on the field
lamentable. And led by Ponting, they misbehaved badly in Sydney during
the match and after the result became clear.
Although the away Ashes series in 2005 seemed like a low watermark in
the above areas, it may well be that this series will be seen as worse
yet. Australia's best batsman is in a slump, and despite the team
seeming to be perpetually down a bowler, Ponting can't seem to find
the no2 bowler in the world out there on the field. With Tendulkar
well in and batting on a road, Clark, who has 14 wickets at 22 in this
series including Tendulkar twice was left to watch a bowler with 10 at
36 bowl in front of him without a fly slip or any protection near
third man at all. Unbelievable.
If Punter had bet on India you could understand what was going on, but
at this stage, I've heard nothing of John the bookie.
Lee got the Alan McGilvray award, but perhaps 'Punter' ought to get an
honorary Hanse Cronje award. Maybe he hasn't any money on India
drawing this series, but perhaps someone should put some on for him.
Fran
vigne...@hotmail.com
One soild batting performance by Australia and a second innings flop
will bring back normalcy to the equation.
Vicky:
Fish Womper
wrote:
>Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
>more away from this series than Australia.
>
>Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
>better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
>Perth and may well do so here too.
Probably should have won huh? Better side huh?
After being completely unable to dismiss the opposition on the 5th
morning, allowing their opposition to seize control of the game, and
then themselves being bowled out in 2 sessions. How can such a side be
described as the better side or deserving to win?
Australia were the better side in Sydney, what happened on the first 3
days was completely wiped out, and then some, by the last day, much
the same as happened last summer in Adelaide. India could have
achieved a draw, but were unable to survive the set period, and duly
lost.
For someone who posts in such detail about Test cricket, you certainly
appear to know very little of its basics.
fish
Bobs
Very surprised by the poor performance of the Aussies really. Ponting
got all shitty when he was asked if its a team in decline...well, from
what I've seen it is. Their new bowlers aren't in the same class as
McGrath and Warne, and their batsman are aging and Clarke is overrated.
Fran
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:51:44 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
> >more away from this series than Australia.
>
> >Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
> >better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
> >Perth and may well do so here too.
>
> Probably should have won huh? Better side huh?
>
Yes, they were. Their position was ruined by poor umpiring. They might
not have won, but really, had Symonds been knocked over on 30,
Australia would have struggled to remain competitive. Nothing that
happened subsequently suggests they'd have clawed back to equality in
the ensuing day or so.
> After being completely unable to dismiss the opposition on the 5th
> morning, allowing their opposition to seize control of the game, and
> then themselves being bowled out in 2 sessions. How can such a side be
> described as the better side or deserving to win?
>
Test matches are not simple mathematical exercises. The flow of the
game is dynamic. The whole shape of the game was refashioned by the
umpires in Australia's favour.
> Australia were the better side in Sydney, what happened on the first 3
> days was completely wiped out, and then some, by the last day, much
> the same as happened last summer in Adelaide. India could have
> achieved a draw, but were unable to survive the set period, and duly
> lost.
>
Huh??? I think you're thinking of England. India won the last test
they played in Adelaide after Australia got knocked off for 196 and
India ran down a modest target.
> For someone who posts in such detail about Test cricket, you certainly
> appear to know very little of its basics.
You appear to know little of the record, and still less its contours.
Fran.
CDK
> Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
> more away from this series than Australia.
>
> Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
> better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
> Perth and may well do so here too.
>
> Australia's batting has been flakey,
A bit like your theories Fran.
CDK
<snip>
CoverPoint
"Fran" <Fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d7199fd-f5d1-4d85...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
You mean the bookies paid India to lose the Melbourne test ?
Fran
Hardly
My theories are reasonable summaries of knowable phenomena, whereas
Australia's batting has been an unknown quantity during this series.
I note, that like every putative blocker in cricket, you didn't
attempt to place an idea into open space for fear of being caught out,
playing on or trapped in front.
You are the Chris Tavare of this thread.
Fran
CDK
> On Jan 25, 3:01 pm, CDK <mickymo...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> Fran wrote:
>>> Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
>>> more away from this series than Australia.
>>> Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
>>> better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
>>> Perth and may well do so here too.
>>> Australia's batting has been flakey,
>> A bit like your theories Fran.
>>
>
> Hardly
>
> My theories are reasonable summaries of knowable phenomena, whereas
> Australia's batting has been an unknown quantity during this series.
Your theory on calling is ridiculous
As is your theory on when to enforce the follow on.
> I note, that like every putative blocker in cricket, you didn't
> attempt to place an idea into open space for fear of being caught out,
> playing on or trapped in front.
>
> You are the Chris Tavare of this thread.
And you are the Scott Muller
CDK
Fran
> Fran wrote:
> > On Jan 25, 3:01 pm, CDK <mickymo...@disneyland.com> wrote:
> >> Fran wrote:
> >>> Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
> >>> more away from this series than Australia.
> >>> Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
> >>> better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
> >>> Perth and may well do so here too.
> >>> Australia's batting has been flakey,
> >> A bit like your theories Fran.
>
> > Hardly
>
> > My theories are reasonable summaries of knowable phenomena, whereas
> > Australia's batting has been an unknown quantity during this series.
>
> Your theory on calling is ridiculous
>
So say you, but if implemented consistently, the team would suffer far
fewer run outs. Noted, you advance no argument, because you know full
well that it would look like the tailender's swing and hope shot.
> As is your theory on when to enforce the follow on.
>
Again, history is on my side here. Had SRW done the right thing, he'd
have won that 2001 series, and there wouldn't have been that
embarrassing loss at Leeds either.
These days, enforcing the follow-on is the exception rather than the
rule in Australian cricket. You ought to pay more attention, but if
you did, you'd be too embarrassed to post.
> > I note, that like every putative blocker in cricket, you didn't
> > attempt to place an idea into open space for fear of being caught out,
> > playing on or trapped in front.
>
> > You are the Chris Tavare of this thread.
>
> And you are the Scott Muller
>
Hey, I delivered and you played with the pad. You're the one showing
respect. You're flattering Scott Muller rather than insulting me.
Fran
CoverPoint
Fran
Steve Waugh did the right thing in Kolkata. It was argued ad nauseum
before on rsc and put to rest that SRWs decision to enforce follow on
was correct.
Fran
> "Fran" <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Funny then that the result was that he lost
a) that match and played Dravid and Laxman and Harbhajan into form
b) the next match and the series
AND
c) got rattled in the home series following when India toured
> It was argued ad nauseum
> before on rsc and put to rest that SRWs decision to enforce follow on
> was correct
Such things are never put finally to rest. The Association of Cricket
Conservatives all massaged each other with the well-worn platitudes
and talked themselves into their comfort zones. But they were wrong,
by the standard of subsequent practice.
The follow-on is no longer seen as the default position in Australia.
QED
Fran
CoverPoint
Bad argument. One can make the right decisions and
still lose.
You are very immature not to know such simple thing
in sports.
>>a) that match and played Dravid and Laxman and Harbhajan into form
>>b) the next match and the series
Bad argument again.
>>AND
>>c) got rattled in the home series following when India toured
SRW's follow on decision was responsible for India
rattling Australia in 2003/04 ???
You need serious help mate.
> It was argued ad nauseum
> before on rsc and put to rest that SRWs decision to enforce follow on
> was correct
>>Such things are never put finally to rest.
It was put to rest.
>>The Association of Cricket
??Conservatives all massaged each other with the well-worn platitudes
>>and talked themselves into their comfort zones. But they were wrong,
>>by the standard of subsequent practice.
I dont know who they are and what they said.
But I will tell you one thing, SRW was right in
enforcing the followon given the situation and the
factors "at that time"
>>The follow-on is no longer seen as the default position in Australia.
>>QED
>>Fran
That is a different story if Australia changed their default position later.
Mohan
<snip>
> Such things are never put finally to rest. The Association of Cricket
> Conservatives all massaged each other with the well-worn platitudes
> and talked themselves into their comfort zones.
Good one Fran!
> But they were wrong,
> by the standard of subsequent practice.
Absolutely.
Mohan
Fran
But that's just it -- the standard argument for enforciong the follow-
on is exactly that -- that most of the time, you win when you enforce
-- but of course, most of the time, you should since by definition,
you hold a 200 run first innings advantage -- so the stats are silly.
What it doesn't look at is what happens if the plan misfires and your
bowlers and fielders spend 80 or 90 overs being utterly ineffective
and then have to wander out, perhaps with injuries from fielding they
shouldn't have been doing andf bat last on a crumbling pitch. It
doesn't look at how much less useful your spin bowler will be when
it's the other side who gets to bowl last, or why you should bat last
despite perhaps winning the toss and electing to bat precisely so the
other side will have to bat last. And it ignores how the effect of the
follow on affects the next test match, especially if it's played a few
days later.
It's an argument that takes no account of specifics.
> You are very immature not to know such simple thing
> in sports.
>
I suspect it's you who are naive. Such things are matters of
evaluation --they aren't knowable as 'facts'. Each decision has to be
taken on its merits.
> >>a) that match and played Dravid and Laxman and Harbhajan into form
> >>b) the next match and the series
>
> Bad argument again.
>
So you say, with no substantive support.
> >>AND
> >>c) got rattled in the home series following when India toured
>
> SRW's follow on decision was responsible for India
> rattling Australia in 2003/04 ???
>
Yes ... they were spooked, and of course their loss meant that they
actually had to beat India to win the trophy.
> You need serious help mate.
>
Not from you, clearly.
> > It was argued ad nauseum
> > before on rsc and put to rest that SRWs decision to enforce follow on
> > was correct
> >>Such things are never put finally to rest.
>
> It was put to rest.
>
> >>The Association of Cricket
>
> ??Conservatives all massaged each other with the well-worn platitudes
>
> >>and talked themselves into their comfort zones. But they were wrong,
> >>by the standard of subsequent practice.
>
> I dont know who they are and what they said.
>
The same old tripe.
> But I will tell you one thing, SRW was right in
> enforcing the followon given the situation and the
> factors "at that time"
>
No he wasn't. Standing around for any longer than they had to in that
oven was stupid.
> >>The follow-on is no longer seen as the default position in Australia.
> >>QED
> >>Fran
>
> That is a different story if Australia changed their default position later
They learned from the Kolkhata error.
Fran
CoverPoint
You just dont get it do you ?
I am arguing only about that Kolkata decision and not about every
follow on decision in test cricket.
>>What it doesn't look at is what happens if the plan misfires and your
>>bowlers and fielders spend 80 or 90 overs being utterly ineffective
>>and then have to wander out, perhaps with injuries from fielding they
>>shouldn't have been doing andf bat last on a crumbling pitch. It
>>doesn't look at how much less useful your spin bowler will be when
>>it's the other side who gets to bowl last, or why you should bat last
>>despite perhaps winning the toss and electing to bat precisely so the
>>other side will have to bat last. And it ignores how the effect of the
>>follow on affects the next test match, especially if it's played a few
>>days later.
>>It's an argument that takes no account of specifics.
Australia came to Kolkata on a 16 win streak after
beating India in 3.5 days at Mumbai and then
bowled out India for paltry sum in Kolkata I1.
None of the Indian batsmen were in form except
Laxman and Sachin.
John Wright sending Laxman at #3 turned the tables.
It would have been impossible for SRW to foresee such
fightback from that Indian team whose Captain Ganguly
was on the verge of being fired after that series.
Kolkata 2001 was a once in a lifetime comeback and
a great fightback.
SRW took the right decision, unfortunatley it backfired
in that particular test.
> You are very immature not to know such simple thing
> in sports.
>
>>I suspect it's you who are naive. Such things are matters of
>>evaluation --they aren't knowable as 'facts'. Each decision has to be
>>taken on its merits.
Read my comments above.
> >>a) that match and played Dravid and Laxman and Harbhajan into form
> >>b) the next match and the series
>
> Bad argument again.
>
>>So you say, with no substantive support.
How do you know Laxman, Dravid and Harbhajan wouldnt come
have come back into form if SRW didnt enforce the follow on ?
It is you who is making wild conclusions from the fact you
couldnt stomach a lost test that was won by India fair and
square and created a record in test cricket.
Kolkata test is why sports are so absorbing and addictive.
> >>AND
> >>c) got rattled in the home series following when India toured
>
> SRW's follow on decision was responsible for India
> rattling Australia in 2003/04 ???
>
>>Yes ... they were spooked, and of course their loss meant that they
>>actually had to beat India to win the trophy.
You should join your fellow Aussies dechuka in their mental asylum.
> You need serious help mate.
>
>>Not from you, clearly.
Unfortunately I am not a psychiatrist to help you though I can
help you better with my common sense than any psychiatrist
you can get in this world.
> > It was argued ad nauseum
> > before on rsc and put to rest that SRWs decision to enforce follow on
> > was correct
> >>Such things are never put finally to rest.
>
> It was put to rest.
>
> >>The Association of Cricket
>
> ??Conservatives all massaged each other with the well-worn platitudes
>
> >>and talked themselves into their comfort zones. But they were wrong,
> >>by the standard of subsequent practice.
>
> I dont know who they are and what they said.
>
>>The same old tripe.
What tripe. I said I dont care who they are and what they said.
I gave you the reasons why SRW is correct in enforcing the follow-on.
> But I will tell you one thing, SRW was right in
> enforcing the followon given the situation and the
> factors "at that time"
>
>>No he wasn't. Standing around for any longer than they had to in that
>>oven was stupid.
It wasnt. They bowled out India in 50-60 overs in Kolkata I1.
> >>The follow-on is no longer seen as the default position in Australia.
> >>QED
> >>Fran
>
> That is a different story if Australia changed their default position
> later
>>They learned from the Kolkhata error.
>>Fran
It wasnt an error. Kolkata win reminded people that miracles do happen
once in a while.
Fran
So what was the argument for enforcing at Kolkhata?
Are you saying that Australia's prospects of victory would have been
*inferior* if they had simply batted themselves into a lead of 650+
while the Indians chased leather and wondered what the moteown fans
weregoing to say at stumps and then invited the Indians to try
surviving 135 or so overs against Warne and McGrath batting last to
avoid 2-0?
Tough argument.
Win or draw, which side would have come out physically and
psychologically better equipped for the third test? Australia
Was there any indication that the pitch had contributed to the
dismissals? No
Kolkhata was the worst captaincy decision by an Aussie in 20 years. It
took no account of how tough it was for the Aussies, historically, in
India and the need to conserve thier physical resources or to make the
most of bowling last or to keep the foot on the throat of the
opposition.
> >>What it doesn't look at is what happens if the plan misfires and your
> >>bowlers and fielders spend 80 or 90 overs being utterly ineffective
> >>and then have to wander out, perhaps with injuries from fielding they
> >>shouldn't have been doing andf bat last on a crumbling pitch. It
> >>doesn't look at how much less useful your spin bowler will be when
> >>it's the other side who gets to bowl last, or why you should bat last
> >>despite perhaps winning the toss and electing to bat precisely so the
> >>other side will have to bat last. And it ignores how the effect of the
> >>follow on affects the next test match, especially if it's played a few
> >>days later.
> >>It's an argument that takes no account of specifics.
>
> Australia came to Kolkata on a 16 win streak after
> beating India in 3.5 days at Mumbai and then
> bowled out India for paltry sum in Kolkata I1.
>
So?
> None of the Indian batsmen were in form except
> Laxman and Sachin.
>
So?
> John Wright sending Laxman at #3 turned the tables.
> It would have been impossible for SRW to foresee such
> fightback from that Indian team whose Captain Ganguly
> was on the verge of being fired after that series.
>
There could have been no fightback, but for SRWs decision.
> Kolkata 2001 was a once in a lifetime comeback and
> a great fightback.
>
Made courtesy of the generosity or the conservative, thoughtless,
mechanical decision-making of SRW. I suspect the latter.
> SRW took the right decision, unfortunatley it backfired
> in that particular test.
>
Then his decision turned out to be flawed.
> > You are very immature not to know such simple thing
> > in sports.
>
> >>I suspect it's you who are naive. Such things are matters of
> >>evaluation --they aren't knowable as 'facts'. Each decision has to be
> >>taken on its merits.
>
> Read my comments above.
>
You read mine.
> > >>a) that match and played Dravid and Laxman and Harbhajan into form
> > >>b) the next match and the series
>
> > Bad argument again.
>
> >>So you say, with no substantive support.
>
> How do you know Laxman, Dravid and Harbhajan wouldnt come
> have come back into form if SRW didnt enforce the follow on ?
>
They would not have been given a chance. They'd have shared 135 overs
at maximum.
> It is you who is making wild conclusions from the fact you
> couldnt stomach a lost test that was won by India fair and
> square and created a record in test cricket.
>
Oh India won fair and square. No two ways about that. But the tactics
were stupid. Australia cast aside a winning position and chose to do
it the hard way.
> Kolkata test is why sports are so absorbing and addictive.
>
> > >>AND
> > >>c) got rattled in the home series following when India toured
>
> > SRW's follow on decision was responsible for India
> > rattling Australia in 2003/04 ???
>
> >>Yes ... they were spooked, and of course their loss meant that they
> >>actually had to beat India to win the trophy.
>
> You should join your fellow Aussies dechuka in their mental asylum.
>
> > You need serious help mate.
>
> >>Not from you, clearly.
>
> Unfortunately I am not a psychiatrist to help you though I can
> help you better with my common sense than any psychiatrist
> you can get in this world.
>
That which is sense is regrettably, most uncommon, and that which is
common, is rarely sensible. Your post shows that.
<snip remainder of tripe>
Fran
CoverPoint
Tough argument.
Stupid Idiot,
How do you know that India wouldnt have gotten Aus all out for 150
in I2 if SRW didnt enforce follow on ?
So?
So?
You read mine.
I should be saying that to your posts.
As usual you are projecting things on to me.
>><snip remainder of tripe>
>>Fran
You are way too conservative to be a sportsman or a coach.
I have no time to respond to an idiot who keeps crying like a
baby after the test was lost 7 years ago.
Would you cry that Australia lost Perth test because Ponting
misread the pitch and picked the useless chucker Shaun Tait ?
SRW made the right decision based on the factors available
at that time of his decision.
You and other Aussies can cry, whine and whinge all you
want but he made the right decision and lost.
You are a clueless idiot in arguing India drew the series
in 2003/04 because of SRW's follow on decision in 2001.
Simply put, you are a lunatic.
AmerGovtVampiresExposer
> Simply put, you are a lunatic.
You tell him!
AGVE
ArrogantAmericanSadist
message news:fnci7r$3es$1...@aioe.org...
I don't like your username.
Frank Spodek
Bookies, haha. You think we don't need cash from time to time.
Good form this week, old pal.
Frank Spodek
Fish Womper
wrote:
>On Jan 25, 2:28=A0pm, x...@x.x (Fish Womper) wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:51:44 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Whatever happens now, there can be little doubt that India will take
>> >more away from this series than Australia.
>>
>> >Australia had a controversial victory in Sydney, after India played
>> >better but lost anyway (and probably should have won). India won in
>> >Perth and may well do so here too.
>>
>> Probably should have won huh? Better side huh?
>>
>
>Yes, they were. Their position was ruined by poor umpiring. They might
>not have won, but really, had Symonds been knocked over on 30,
>Australia would have struggled to remain competitive. Nothing that
>happened subsequently suggests they'd have clawed back to equality in
>the ensuing day or so.
>
>> After being completely unable to dismiss the opposition on the 5th
>> morning, allowing their opposition to seize control of the game, and
>> then themselves being bowled out in 2 sessions. How can such a side be
>> described as the better side or deserving to win?
>>
>
>Test matches are not simple mathematical exercises. The flow of the
>game is dynamic. The whole shape of the game was refashioned by the
>umpires in Australia's favour.
It wasn't as huge a deal as you (or India) made out. A draw would have
been a reasonable result. Certainly Australia did not deserve to lose
after declaring for over 400 in its second innings, and until the last
day nor did India. But so comprehensively were India outplayed on the
final day that lose the match they did. As I said, you are bowled out
in two sessions after being completely unable to trouble the
opposition you cannot really blame the umpires.
fish
>
guyan...@yahoo.com
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:51:44 -0800 (PST), Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com>
India did survive the fifth day, but hard to play 13 players on the
filed!
prakmel
And you forgot the help from the 14th player i.e the 3rd U who
performed a yeoman task to help his countrymen.
prakmel
Spot on Fran.
Colin always thinks he is the be-all and end-all of cricket.
But pity he doesn't know the true facts.
Fran
<snip>
> > I am arguing only about that Kolkata decision and not about every
> > follow on decision in test cricket.
>
> So what was the argument for enforcing at Kolkhata?
>
> Are you saying that Australia's prospects of victory would have been
> *inferior* if they had simply batted themselves into a lead of 650+
> while the Indians chased leather and wondered what the moteown fans
> weregoing to say at stumps and then invited the Indians to try
> surviving 135 or so overs against Warne and McGrath batting last to
> avoid 2-0?
>
> Tough argument.
>
> Stupid Idiot,
>
Plainly you are one of those people who believes the pain of personal
inadequacy can be easued by venting schoolyard-style spleen in
cyberspace. To each their own.. I will post substantive remarks on the
assumption that sharper people than you will come to read this at some
point.
> How do you know that India wouldnt have gotten Aus all out for 150
> in I2 if SRW didnt enforce follow on ?
>
We don't, of course. In sport you work with guesses based on the best
data available. Australia had just scored a mountain of runs, India
had got themselves out cheaply and the prospects of them doing that
twice in a row were poor, as were the prospects of Australia being
rolled cheaply.
India could not have mounted the kind of bowling or fielding pressure
so far behind to manage anything like that, and as the match
transpired, after about 70 overs or so, the effectiveness of the
Aussie bowlers started (unsurprisingly) to decline. Most sides aren't
able to delvier effective bowling after about the 130 th over. Once
that point is past, it's a case of run in and hope for an error.
The question of enforcing or not is determined by a number of factors.
How badly do you need to win? If you don't care then you never
enforce.
If you do care but it won't make any difference because a win is not
on, then again, you don't enforce.
If you do care but the chances either way are similar, then you don't
enforce because your chances of being injured while fielding are
higher than being injured while batting, and whereas you can replace
fielders, you can't replace injured batsmen. And if you bat properly
on a good pitch their bowlers may not even deliver a ball to any of
your bowlers. In resource management terms, maintaining the order does
a better job of sharing the burden of winning around the available
personnel, so each person doesn't have to work as hard and their
underperformance (if it happens) doesn't matter as much, Not so many
eggs are in one basket. Maintaining the existing order of innings is
also bad for the other side because they have to bat last with people
who have been out in the field against people who are rested, and of
course, the pitch will probably be at its worst for batting and they
will be a long way behind and trying to save rather than attack..
Sometimes, the circumstances demand enforcement, but this is a
tactical disadvantage which you wear and set against the fact that you
have a huge run buffer.
You would if you wanted to continue in schoolyard invective mode.
> As usual you are projecting things on to me.
>
> >><snip remainder of tripe>
> >>Fran
>
> You are way too conservative to be a sportsman or a coach.
>
Enforcing is conservative and stupid, as often than not..
> I have no time to respond to an idiot who keeps crying like a
> baby after the test was lost 7 years ago.
>
I couldn't care less about the fact that the test was lost. I think
it's an interesting exemplar in how orthodoxies can lead people
astray.
> Would you cry that Australia lost Perth test because Ponting
> misread the pitch and picked the useless chucker Shaun Tait ?
>
No. I thought Tait was the right choice. Ponting handled him badly,
and Clarke too however. Still, the Indians deserved their win.
> SRW made the right decision based on the factors available
> at that time of his decision.
>
Based on mechanical decision-making.
> You and other Aussies can cry, whine and whinge all you
> want but he made the right decision and lost.
>
Self-evident silliness.
> You are a clueless idiot in arguing India drew the series
> in 2003/04 because of SRW's follow on decision in 2001.
>
Had Australia won the 2001 series, India's tactical flexibility would
have been narrowed. They could not have left the declaration in Sydney
as late.
> Simply put, you are a lunatic
Simply put, you are a clueless troll.
Fran
Husband of ALL FBN n NSA Agents
"AmerGovtVampiresExposer" <AmerGovtVam...@Whitehouse.Gov> wrote in
message news:fnci7r$3es$1...@aioe.org...
Very intelligent post.
You needed UNLIMITED POWER given to you by the
310 mil AMERICAN MORONS to come up
with that gem.
YOU SUPPORT TORTURES, SADISM, PERVERSION and
BLOOD LUST "IF YOU ARE RESPONDING" to comments posted by
these FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS
bhandava
Rodney Ulyate
Diggler
MacJoubert
Tilman Tea
Jack
R Shakey
Steve Ulyate
c00ps
TIDZ
supri...@yahoo.com
pdxtra...@gmail.com
gergogreen (GeeGee)
FrankSpodek
DavidSingh Imposter
Jason Gillespie Imposter
Madhav Imposter
SquareCut Imposter
Jaidev Imposter
Education Imposter
FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH imposters in this thread
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/64ebf6317cf2c39b/6b3c89315c4bd2eb#6b3c89315c4bd2eb
Today you might think what the heck its somebody else and not you, but
tomorrow YOU WILL BE TORTURED EVEN if you ACT VERY
NICE to these FBI n NSA SADISTS and PSYCHOPATHS.
I URGE all of you NOT to respond to COMMENTS from these
FBI n NSA BASTARDS. IF YOU DO, then you are
AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORTING their TORTURES of
WHITE, BROWN, BLACK and ASIAN AMERICANS and
NON-AMERICANS in England, Australia and Europe.
I will upgrade this UserID list being used by these SECRET SOCIETY
PSYCHOPATHS on rsc in the future.
It is a STANDARD PRACTICE of FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS, SADISTS,
PERVERTS and BLOOD THIRSTY LEECHES "isolating" their TORTURE
VICTIMS from friends, family, social life as explained in this document
which
clearly explains the technology behind the PSYCHO-ELECTRONIC WEAPONS
being used by the EVIL SOCIETY of UNDERCOVER GOVERNMENT
AGENTS with INFINITE POWER.
I lived in a city called "Marietta just 3 months back in 2004" and NOBODY
in the WORLD knows about it including my family members and friends.
ONLY FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS knew that I lived in Marietta city
since they entered my apartment and SECRTELY INSTALLED
Surveillance Devices and PSYCHO-ELECTRONIC WEAPONS in my
body that they can REMOTELY CONTROL and CREATE PAIN and
even MURDER ME with no proof.
You can see clearly this FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH "bhandava"
posted in his comments that I lived in "Marietta".
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/f306111eb4fc577e
This psychopath bhandava even THREATENED me that
"Due to our methods, we can access your current address
when we please, no matter what useless
precautions you take. Haha sometimes we leave little reminders of this
ability and we know you've noticed"
You MORONS, this PSYCHOPATH bhandava is TELLING THE
TRUTH that they can TRACK ME ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD
with SATELLITES.
In 2004, I did everything I possibly can to EVADE SURVEILLANCE
just like they showed in the movie "Enemy of the State" but still
they were able to LOCATE ME no matter what I did.
I threw away my wallet, bought a completely new one, bought all new
clothes including jeans, t-shirt, underwear, threw away my watch and
bought a new one, bought a completely new shaving set, bought a new
bag (EVERY GODDAMN THING NEW IN A STORE), removed
my old clothes in the parking lot, put on new clothes and went straight
to a CAR RENTAL agency, rented a car and drove for a few hours
on a highway out of state and stayed in a hotel with fake name telling
them I lost my wallet etc and STILL THESE FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS
figured out where I was staying and they LEFT EVIDENCE in my
car to PROVE that they knew where I was that night.This
HAPPENED mutliple no.of times in different days and I COULD NOT
ESCAPE their SURVEILLANCE no matter what I did.
This is what this PSYCHOPATHIC BASTARD bhandava BRAGGED
in his comment in the link above.
Last night I thought of leaving USA for a few weeks and these
FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS "READ MY PRIVATE THOUGHTS"
and THREATENED me today with this comment that they will
TRACK ME ANYWHERE ON EARTH as explained in
the link below. I am nothing but a NUMBERED MACHINE
AS YOU ALL ARE (but you dont know) in the COMPUTERS
of FBI, CIA and NSA.
Just read this PSYCHOPATH bhandava's comment and figure
how they USE their UNLIMITED POWER and TECHNOLOGY
and MAKES FUN OF ME and other TORTURE VICITMS.
None of the TORTURE VICTIMS whether its me or Dr Allen
Barker, Ms Susan Sayler, Mr Derrick Robinson or Dr Robert
Duncan are criminals or terrorists.
PSYCHOPATHS dont care whether they are TORTURING
bad people or good people. So just because you ACT NICE
to them doesnt mean they will leave you alone.
TORTURE VICTIMS
Usually alone in his/her torture
Has no privacy even for his/her private thoughts
Cannot plan secretly, hold trade secrets or intellectual property
Is subject to vicious physical and psychological attacks
Does not know how harassment is happening or by whom
Does not know why harassment is happening
May be accused of mentall illness, called delusional
Cannot get away, no matter where he/she goes
Mind raped thought streams
Bugged conversations
Gossip, Rumours, Social and Job connections broken
Microwave voices, clicks, pops, brain zapping, direct harassment
Death and disease threats via internet messages from undercover FBI and NSA
spies
as shown in this document.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/pro-freedom.co.uk/cov_us.html
I told you a few days back that they already inserted all the
psycho-electronic
weapons in my body they can REMOTELY OPERATE to CREATE
PAIN/MURDER ME.
I thought inside my mind around 3:30pm today about how long those
psycho-electronic wepaons ALREADY inside my body can be used to
TORTURE me and these PSYCHOPATHS "READ MY PRIVATE
THOUGHTS" about hrs ago and posted a comment "until October"
as shown in this comment by bhandava.
That was a SECRET THREAT meant for me and ONLY I can
understand since I know my private thoughts and you dont.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/28255d479b8e981f
Likewise back in 2006 I bought donuts after years and sdavmor suddenly
mentioned "donuts" the same day in one his comments on rsc and I thought
that was a coincidence. A few days back I thought about buying donuts
for breakfast and suddenly remembered that
rsc incident and these FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS
"Rodney Ulyate" READ MY PRIVATE THOUGHTS in my mind
and posted with "donuts and sdavmor" in the same line
in his signature as shown in the following comment.
Rodney CLEARLY says "with sdavmor in mind" in his signature which is what
went through my mind.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/b215534c14421d78
This FBI n NSA PSCHOPATHIC bastard bhandava posted this comment "
clap* *clap* dance, dance, wise dancer. *clap* *clap* "
because that is what THEY CAN MAKE ME DO by CREATING
PAIN in VARIOUS PARTS of my body SIMULTANEOUSLY.
This PSYCHOPATH is LAUGHING and RIDICULING me that
they can MAKE ME DANCE with their INFINITE POWER given
to them by the GOVT DICKSUCKING 310 mil AMERICANS.
Jsut look at the way these SECRET SOCIETY SOCIOPATHS and
PSYCHOPATHS are BRAGGING that they are INFALLIBLE and
how I will not be able to TRACK THEM DOWN from their
comments on rsc. These BASTARDS are THAT CONFIDENT
that NO LEGAL SYSTEM can help me from BEING
TORTURED and MURDERED by these AMERICAN GOVT
PSYCHOPATHS and BLOOD THIRSTY SADISTS.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/c2c71ceed3612ecf
EVERY COMMENT posted by Rodney Ulyate, bhandava, Gergogreen,
Jack, Diggler and the rest contains PRIVATE THOUGHTS in my
mind.
I will post MORE PROOF later.
ONE FINAL REQUEST:
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO COMMENTS posted by these
FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS. It is NOT A CRIME NOT
RESPONDING to their COMMENTS.
You will be OPENLY ADMITTING YOU ARE A SLAVE of
these FBI n NSA SADISTS and MURDERERS if you RESPOND
to their comments.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents
"ArrogantAmericanSadist" <ArrogantAme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fncif4$48s$1...@aioe.org...