Good series win to AUS
Adrian
With quite a few players missing up against a full strength (or close
to) Indian team, I think Aus played quite well. A few new players came
in and did alright. Alot of the bowlers did better M. Johnson.
Also alot of people did not know the series was being played as there
were no real bad headliners from any of the matches.
Dave -Turner
Adrian
> it was Australia A, not Australia (who were missing about 10 players)
>
>
If there were anymore injured players they would have to re-call Andrew
Symonds. That would of made the series interesting.
Don speaks the truth
> it was Australia A, not Australia (who were missing about 10 players)
First match: Flat track: Aus batted first won match
2nd match: Flat track: Ind batted first and won match
3rd match: low, slow track: Aus batted first and lost the match
4th match: Flat track: Aus batted first and won match
5th match: Flat track: Aus batted first and won match
6th match: low, slow track: Ind batted first and lost match
Isn't the pattern clearly visible?
Don
SoWot
<don2...@rediffmail.com> said:
ITS THE PATTERNS FAULT.
there a surpising lack of waxing lyrical going on here....
viper
"Don speaks the truth" <don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:54b0a61b-ff13-4b3c...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Don
Yes, first the Champions Trophy and then putting the Indians
back into their box at home. That pattern appears to be 'clearly
visible' demented one
Viper
Don speaks the truth
> "Don speaks the truth" <don200...@rediffmail.com> wrote in messagenews:54b0a61b-ff13-4b3c...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Losing home ODI series to RSA and India is perhaps not so visible,
blinded one.
Don
Nirvanam
Good win by the Aussies. Although people point out that it was an A
side, if you really look at it most of the injured players were
bowlers...ya Clarke wasn't around but his being in the team wouldn't
have made much of a difference to the batting any way coz the batting
was pretty solid. Given the nature of the pitches (4 out of 6 flat
ones) Australia didn't need their frontline bowlers. Even if they had
their frontline bowlers it wouldn't have made a huge difference
because there was nothing on the surface for them to exploit. But
since the batting department wasn't affected, Aus were able to play
like they were playing their full strength side.
Of course the above does not take away any credit from the Aussies at
all. Its just an observation. The series was well fought out except
for today's game.
Andrew Dunford
"Don speaks the truth" <don2...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:54b0a61b-ff13-4b3c...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
If your simplistic analysis had any substance, the teams would recognise it,
know what to do and thus the team winning the toss would win every match.
However only two of the six matches went in favour of the toss winner. Why
is that? Are they incapable of understanding the sophistication of your
method?
Andrew
alvey
Sure is.
I can clearly see an idiot.
alvey
Will S
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:rmyziscflhvi$.gjdl08bouvvn.dlg@40tude.net...
well we now know that Al definitely owns a mirror
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4586 (20091108) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
alvey
>
> Good win by the Aussies. Although people point out that it was an A
> side, if you really look at it most of the injured players were
> bowlers...ya Clarke wasn't around but his being in the team wouldn't
> have made much of a difference to the batting any way coz the batting
> was pretty solid. Given the nature of the pitches (4 out of 6 flat
> ones) Australia didn't need their frontline bowlers.
Pardon??
You've got that completely arse-about. It's when the track is dodgy that
you don't need your top-liners. When it's flat is precisely when you need
the best as they're probably the best because they don't bowl as many bad
balls *plus* can get more out of the deck.
alvey
Don speaks the truth
Yeah you do that every morning when you brush your teeth in front
of the mirror.
Don
>
>
>
>
> alvey
alvey
Crackingly original!
I suspect that you're just jealous Donny. Well nevermind, in a few short
years you'll be tall enough to see yourself in the bathroom mirror. Unless
of course you're a physical midget as well...
alvey
Don speaks the truth
It cracks me no end that you have resorted to personal abuses as a
weapon
of response. What a fall, scottish Al!!!!
Don
Nirvanam
Alvey, none of the Aussie frontlines are anywhere near a Wasim,
Murali, Waqar, Warne, McGrath, Ambrose or Kumble to do great things on
flat decks. So even if Australia had Lee, Hilfy, Siddle, Johnson all
fit the bowlers can't do much. One days are won by batsmen. Bowlers do
influence games and win quite a few but over an entire 7 match series
with 4-5 flat decks there's not much they can do.
jzfredricks
> Alvey, none of the Aussie frontlines are anywhere near a Wasim,
> Murali, Waqar, Warne, McGrath, Ambrose or Kumble to do great things on
> flat decks. So even if Australia had Lee, Hilfy, Siddle, Johnson all
> fit the bowlers can't do much. One days are won by batsmen. Bowlers do
> influence games and win quite a few but over an entire 7 match series
> with 4-5 flat decks there's not much they can do.
Why do they still pick bowlers then? Surely 11 batsmen would be best.
alvey
> alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 00:04:51 -0800 (PST), Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>
>>> alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 03:40:37 -0800 (PST), Don speaks the truth wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 8, 3:45�pm, "Dave -Turner" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>>>>>> it was Australia A, not Australia (who were missing about 10 players)
>>>>>
>>>>> First match: Flat track: Aus batted first won match
>>>>> 2nd match: Flat track: Ind batted first and won match
>>>>> 3rd match: low, slow track: Aus batted first and lost the match
>>>>> 4th match: Flat track: Aus batted first and won match
>>>>> 5th match: Flat track: Aus batted first and won match
>>>>> 6th match: low, slow track: Ind batted first and lost match
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the pattern clearly visible?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure is.
>>>> I can clearly see an idiot.
>>>
>>> Yeah you do that every morning when you brush your teeth in front
>>> of the mirror.
>>
>> Crackingly original!
>> I suspect that you're just jealous Donny. Well nevermind, in a few short
>> years you'll be tall enough to see yourself in the bathroom mirror. Unless
>> of course you're a physical midget as well...
>>
>>
>> alvey
>
>
> It cracks me no end...
Admitting that you're cracked is the first step. Well done.
alvey
alvey
> On Nov 9, 12:36�pm, alvey <al...@play.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:52:57 -0800 (PST), Nirvanam wrote:
>>
>>> Good win by the Aussies. Although people point out that it was an A
>>> side, if you really look at it most of the injured players were
>>> bowlers...ya Clarke wasn't around but his being in the team wouldn't
>>> have made much of a difference to the batting any way coz the batting
>>> was pretty solid. Given the nature of the pitches (4 out of 6 flat
>>> ones) Australia didn't need their frontline bowlers.
>>
>> Pardon??
>> You've got that completely arse-about. It's when the track is dodgy that
>> you don't need your top-liners. When it's flat is precisely when you need
>> the best as they're probably the best because they don't bowl as many bad
>> balls *plus* can get more out of the deck.
>>
>> alvey
>
> Alvey, none of the Aussie frontlines are anywhere near a Wasim,
> Murali, Waqar, Warne, McGrath, Ambrose or Kumble to do great things on
> flat decks.
Kumble did great things on flat decks??? What was it? Hamlet or Othello?
> So even if Australia had Lee, Hilfy, Siddle, Johnson all
> fit the bowlers can't do much. One days are won by batsmen. Bowlers do
> influence games and win quite a few but over an entire 7 match series
> with 4-5 flat decks there's not much they can do.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Even if it is silly.
alvey
Don speaks the truth
Yes i am cracked by people like you. Thanks for keeping me cracking.
Don
>
>
>
> alvey