Inzamam demonstrates how not to tendulkar
kris...@ureach.com
India have to bat out two complete sessions on the final day to draw
the match and win the series. The score is 75/3, with the most
over-hyped batsman of our generation not out at 34. Predictably, as he
has done throughout his test career, he gets out. India lose the match
and the series.
Pakistan vs England, Lord's, July 17, 2006
Pakistan have to bat out one and a half sessions on the final day to
draw the match. Inzamam arrives at the crease with the scoreboard
reading 116/3. One and a half sessions later, he is still not out at
56. As he has done many times in his career, he has saved a test match
for his country.
____________________________________________________
Tendulkar
Pronounced: Ten-dul-kar
Definition: The act of failing a team when your team needs you most and
padding one's statistics with high scores in meaningless matches.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Teli" in the Inzi vs Sachin comparison discussion :-)
AmerGovtCriminalsExposer
How many matches did Inzy save for Pak on a fifth day pitch assisting
bowlers ?
<kris...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1153171628.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ali
bowlers when they were pitching in the right areas. ex. Panesar, even
Pietersen was able to get turn. So yes this was a turning pitch. And
Inzi saved the match, dude. :)
As far as tendulkar is concerned he can't even save the test on flat
pitches. He'll probably make a double ton and what not, but when his
team needs him to stay, he'll get out under pressure.
Sampath
"Ali" <a1ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153185316....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Faisal Iqbal consumed 144 balls for 48 and Inzy got support from Yousuf and
Razzaq too while tendulkar didnt get much support from the rest of the
Indians in Chennai test against pak. Otherwise India would have won that
test.
Tendulkar waged a lone battle on behalf of India and to some extent Mongia.
The next highest score after tendulkar and mongia was 10 the other 5 batsmen
scored a total of 24 runs.
528 + 445 + 296/8 decl + 214/4 were scored on this pitch and there is no
evidence the fifth day pitch was bowler friendly.
Chennai test in which tendulkar scored a century was over in 4 DAYS.
Inzy is no tendulkar.
ango...@yahoo.com
Sampath wrote:
[snip]
>
> Inzy is no tendulkar.
Thank God.
Sampath
<ango...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153195984.3...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Thank yourself for snipping all my comments and making your response
worthless.
ark...@yahoo.com
You can add Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Laxman.... to the list.
Reverse Swing
news:1153173356....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone recall Shishir would saying "Kahan Raja Ram Kahan Gangu
> Teli" in the Inzi vs Sachin comparison discussion :-)
If you are going to quote someone, quote correctly and try not to make
grammatical mistakes. It was: "Kahan Raja Bhoj, Kahan Gangu Teli."
If you think that the comparison doesn't stand purely based on Gangu Teli's
half-century yesterday, on a minefield against the demon attack of Panesar
and Plunkett, and that too in response to a krisnayak troll, you are welcome
to enjoy your stay in the la-la land.
If Dravid hadn't attempted to win yesterday's game, the whole of rsc would
be demonizing him. No such luck for Inzi. It's fair enough for people to
not expect miracles from Gangu Telis.
SP
Satheesh
>>Inzy is no tendulkar.
>>
>>
>
>You can add Dravid, Ponting, Kallis, Laxman.... to the list.
>
>
>
I dont think the point here is whether Inzy is Tendulkar or no.
But is Tendulkar as great as his hype ?.
Definitely not when it comes to winning matches
be it even a ODI these days ; forget abt winning test matches.
Ali
but the only difference I see is Inzi can still play a leading role and
actually WIN the match for the TEAM. Tendulkar on the other hand has
lost his touch, many Indians simply refuse to accept it. I have nothing
against Tendulkar, he was a great batsman but he is out of touch. You
gotta admit that. Samething with Ganguly.
Mike Holmans
<NOswinging...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
forth:
>If Dravid hadn't attempted to win yesterday's game, the whole of rsc would
>be demonizing him.
You exaggerate. Some Dravid fans would have defended him no matter
what, and there would be others busily pointing out that it wasn't
Dravid's fault that Kaif batted so slowly and that Yuseless was out
for 2.
Cheers,
Mike
Jayen
There's (hopefully) no comparison between Tendulkar and Ganguly.
Tendulkar has not been performing as well in the last two years as he
did before that. Some of us believe (hope) that it's because of his
having been injured for a good portion of this period. We hope that
when he is fully recovered, as he is now, he will be able to contribute
subtantially to the Indian team. Personally, I am perfectly OK with his
not batting in the same manner as he did in 1998, provided he can play
some or any significant role in the Indian team's efforts. If he does
make a comeback, but is still not able to perform in such a manner, I
am OK with saying that he is finished as a great batsman, but is still
a good batsman up for selection. His being selected in the Indian test
team depends on whether you can find 4 MO batsmen who are better. I
haven't seen any Indians who claim that SRT's recent performance is
that of an ATG.
Ganguly, on the other hand, has not been performing well and has been
dropped. That's all. You could call this denial, but I don't think so.
Regards,
Jayen
vijay...@my-deja.com
The reason I am not going with the "Tendulkar is out of form
and his injuries are affecting his performance" argument is
precisely because of the difference between his ODI and his
Test performances.
In the last season, he scored 504 ODI runs in 14 innings,
1 not out. Avg. 38.77, 1 100, 3 50s, and except for the poor
run against RSA, par for the course. Slightly sub-par given
his own standards. At least three of those matches he had
a match winning contribution.
In the same time, he scored 335 Test runs in 13 innings,
1 not out. Avg. 27.92, 1 100, and no 50s. In this duration,
he has breached 20 six times and not progressed beyond
34 on any of those occasions. A recent CI analysis had
revealed that great batsman fall before 20 as often as
mediocre ones. What makes them great is how far they
go once they go beyond 20. Sachin's post-20 conversion
has been abysmal. Even the Delhi ton vs SL (his 35th)
was a rather laborious and fortuitous one.
My feeling is that his recent poor run, esp. in Tests, is
more a factor of his mental state after his injuries than
the injuries themselves. And an element of luck as well.
My hope is of course that he returns to full productivity.
As of today, he is still an automatic pick for the opening
slot in ODIs (witness India's travails in WI without him).
He is still deserving of a place in the Test MO, but with a
prayer in the heart.
Vijay
eusebius
Ganguly is irrelevant until there is any evidence that he will be
considered any time in the future. Tendulkar on the other hand, isn't
chronologically past it, but I remember discussing here the possibility
that major sportsmen only have a certain number of years at the top,
and even though SRT isn't old by today's standards he did start young.
Playing 18 years at the top is going to take its toll, mentally and
physically, even on the toughest and most gifted. Not that I
necessarily think he ever was the former, particularly. I wouldn't say
that it is by any means beyond bounds for SRT to return to his old
ways, or close to it, but this 'loss of form' seems more permanent all
the time.
Still, it is highly premature to talk about getting rid of him.
eusebius
eusebius wrote:
> Ganguly is irrelevant until there is any evidence that he will be
> considered any time in the future. Tendulkar on the other hand, isn't
> chronologically past it,
Not that age is the only factor as to why Gangs is considered past it.
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sampath wrote:
>Faisal Iqbal consumed 144 balls for 48 and Inzy got support from Yousuf and
> Razzaq too while tendulkar didnt get much support from the rest of the
> Indians in Chennai test against pak. Otherwise India would have won that
> test.
So if I am reading right, are you saying that Pakistani batsmen are
collectively a more reliable lineup?
>
> Tendulkar waged a lone battle on behalf of India and to some extent Mongia.
> The next highest score after tendulkar and mongia was 10 the other 5 batsmen
> scored a total of 24 runs.
>
> 528 + 445 + 296/8 decl + 214/4 were scored on this pitch and there is no
> evidence the fifth day pitch was bowler friendly.
Certainly the wicket was not bowler friendly but neither was the
Karachi track, at leats in the second innings, when Pakistani piled on
almost 600
>
> Chennai test in which tendulkar scored a century was over in 4 DAYS.
>
> Inzy is no tendulkar.
Over the last couple of years Tendulkar is no Inzi as far as test
matches go. Check their respective records and also their batting
rankings. This is not to suggest that Sachin won't bounce back with a
vengeance but over the last 2 years there is NO comparison whatsoever
with Inzamam emerging as the clearcut winner
India Fan
If you're looking at the test performance in the last 2 years, I'd
expect most non-minnow
teams to have three or more batsmen who have done better than
Tendulkar. Put it in
other words, Tendulkar sucked during this time and would struggle to
make it into most
teams teams based on his performance in the recent few years.
On the other hand Inzamam has been in tremendous form. So as you said,
there is no
comparison and not much of a topic for discussion. If you wanted to
compare Inzamam
with the best Indian batsman in tests right now, you should compare him
with Dravid and
that would make an interesting discussion.
shariq...@yahoo.com
India Fan wrote:
> If you're looking at the test performance in the last 2 years, I'd
> expect most non-minnow
> teams to have three or more batsmen who have done better than
> Tendulkar. Put it in
> other words, Tendulkar sucked during this time and would struggle to
> make it into most
> teams teams based on his performance in the recent few years.
>
> On the other hand Inzamam has been in tremendous form. So as you said,
> there is no
> comparison and not much of a topic for discussion. If you wanted to
> compare Inzamam
> with the best Indian batsman in tests right now, you should compare him
> with Dravid and
> that would make an interesting discussion.
Fair enough - FWIW I rank Ponting and Dravid higher than Inzi at this
point in their careers - that's in line with ICC rankings
Mike Holmans
keyboard and brought forth:
>Fair enough - FWIW I rank Ponting and Dravid higher than Inzi at this
>point in their careers - that's in line with ICC rankings
However, what I want to know is why I didn't think Inzamam was all
that great until recently.
I've certainly noticed that, like Gooch, he has become a quite awesome
batsman since he took on the captaincy, but his overall career numbers
make it look as though he has been excellent for rather a long time.
Yet he wasn't the regular stuff of conversations about the best
current batsmen in the mid-to-late 90s.
He was something of a comic figure: there were the armchairs in which
he relaxed while others netted, the chasing of people in the crowd who
called him 'potato', and the relative incongruity, at least these
days, of a huge great fat bloke being a top sportsman. Was that why I
didn't take him seriously?
Or was it that Pakistan meant Waqar and Wasim and general destruction
all round, so that Inzamam was never really called upon to display
batting heroism because the bowlers were doing all the important work
anyway?
Or was he too inconsistent - a good innings here and there punctuating
his normal sequence of cameos which were sometimes pretty useful but
quite often were weren't?
Or was he overshadowed by Javed Miandad?
Or was it simply that I hadn't seen him play often enough? I wasn't
paying all that much attention in 1996 because England were complete
crap and I was having a rather severe personal crisis and he was
rubbish in 1992, which was his first series, and there wasn't much
overseas cricket broadcast here to pick up his other performances
with.
I know it's not just me, though. All the rsc discussions were about
Lara and Tendulkar and occasionally Swaugh, and Inzi never featured,
so I wasn't alone. Was everyone else simply ignoring him because they
didn't like Pakistan or thought he was too fat, or because he wasn't
all that good?
Nobody would be foolish enough to deny that he is currently batting as
well as you could hope to see a batsman bat, and has been doing so for
a good two or three years, but why would you have had to be someone
who shouted "Pakistan Zindabad" as soon as you woke up in the morning
to say that Inzamam was a really top batsman five or ten years ago?
Cheers,
Mike
Jayen
Mike Holmans wrote:
> On 18 Jul 2006 10:33:39 -0700, shariq...@yahoo.com tapped the
> keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >Fair enough - FWIW I rank Ponting and Dravid higher than Inzi at this
> >point in their careers - that's in line with ICC rankings
>
> However, what I want to know is why I didn't think Inzamam was all
> that great until recently.
>
> I've certainly noticed that, like Gooch, he has become a quite awesome
> batsman since he took on the captaincy, but his overall career numbers
> make it look as though he has been excellent for rather a long time.
> Yet he wasn't the regular stuff of conversations about the best
> current batsmen in the mid-to-late 90s.
>
> He was something of a comic figure: there were the armchairs in which
> he relaxed while others netted, the chasing of people in the crowd who
> called him 'potato', and the relative incongruity, at least these
> days, of a huge great fat bloke being a top sportsman. Was that why I
> didn't take him seriously?
Unlikely.
>
> Or was it that Pakistan meant Waqar and Wasim and general destruction
> all round, so that Inzamam was never really called upon to display
> batting heroism because the bowlers were doing all the important work
> anyway?
Not really. Even at the height of the powers of Waqar/Wasim, Salim
Malik was noticed as an excellent bat.
>
> Or was he too inconsistent - a good innings here and there punctuating
> his normal sequence of cameos which were sometimes pretty useful but
> quite often were weren't?
Yes, that's it, IMO.
>
> Or was he overshadowed by Javed Miandad?
>
No way. They shared too few years together.
> Or was it simply that I hadn't seen him play often enough? I wasn't
> paying all that much attention in 1996 because England were complete
> crap and I was having a rather severe personal crisis and he was
> rubbish in 1992, which was his first series, and there wasn't much
> overseas cricket broadcast here to pick up his other performances
> with.
Possible, but that doesn't explain why nobody else did.
>
> I know it's not just me, though. All the rsc discussions were about
> Lara and Tendulkar and occasionally Swaugh, and Inzi never featured,
> so I wasn't alone. Was everyone else simply ignoring him because they
> didn't like Pakistan or thought he was too fat, or because he wasn't
> all that good?
>
He was not good enough, often enough.
> Nobody would be foolish enough to deny that he is currently batting as
> well as you could hope to see a batsman bat, and has been doing so for
> a good two or three years,
Post WC 2003, he was dropped from the test team for some time and then
made his way back. Soon after that, Pakistan got Woolmer as coach and
Inzi's and Pakistan's fortunes have seen an upswing.
> but why would you have had to be someone
> who shouted "Pakistan Zindabad" as soon as you woke up in the morning
> to say that Inzamam was a really top batsman five or ten years ago?
He was still a top batsman, just didn't have the number of standout
performances that Lara/SRT/SRW did, and as a result, didn't get
categorised in the same bracket.
Regards,
Jayen
Sampath
"Reverse Swing" <NOswinging...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44bc8...@x-privat.org...
WI is NO England.
Sampath
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153237055....@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sampath wrote:
>>Faisal Iqbal consumed 144 balls for 48 and Inzy got support from Yousuf
>>and
>> Razzaq too while tendulkar didnt get much support from the rest of the
>> Indians in Chennai test against pak. Otherwise India would have won that
>> test.
>
> So if I am reading right, are you saying that Pakistani batsmen are
> collectively a more reliable lineup?
My point is Pak lineup certainly HELPED Inzy to draw the last test while
tendulkar didnt get any support from his team mates in Chennai test.
>> Tendulkar waged a lone battle on behalf of India and to some extent
>> Mongia.
>> The next highest score after tendulkar and mongia was 10 the other 5
>> batsmen
>> scored a total of 24 runs.
>>
>> 528 + 445 + 296/8 decl + 214/4 were scored on this pitch and there is no
>> evidence the fifth day pitch was bowler friendly.
>
> Certainly the wicket was not bowler friendly but neither was the
> Karachi track, at leats in the second innings, when Pakistani piled on
> almost 600
But Pak had only about 80+ overs to survive while India had to survive 160+
overs in 1 3/4 days in karachi. The pressure on Indian batsmen was
exponentially higher in karachi than for Pak in Eng on the 5th day of lords
test.
>> Chennai test in which tendulkar scored a century was over in 4 DAYS.
>>
>> Inzy is no tendulkar.
>
> Over the last couple of years Tendulkar is no Inzi as far as test
> matches go. Check their respective records and also their batting
> rankings. This is not to suggest that Sachin won't bounce back with a
> vengeance but over the last 2 years there is NO comparison whatsoever
> with Inzamam emerging as the clearcut winner
Sure but that DOES NOT make Inzy BETTER than Tendulkar "OVERALL".
kris...@ureach.com
even deserve to be spoken in the same sentence with the likes of
Inzamam, Dravid, Ponting, Hussey, Flintoff, Yousuf, Kallis, etc.
If you look over their entire careers, I'd say Tendulkar is definitely
more talented and gifted than Inzamam. But Inzamam has almost always
come through when his team needed him. Tendulkar, on the other hand,
has a history in test cricket of failing spectacularly when the team is
counting on him to pull them to a victory or a draw.
Put simply, Inzamam is a match winner, while Tendulkar is a record
breaker.
Sampath
playing nation.
Inzy did not win any test singlehandedly with his performance in a 4th
innings of a test.
Inzy was first ball duck out in a total pak score of 72 chasing Aus 564
target in I4.
Inzys I4 scores in a Pak test wins excluding bangles and zim are
8, 20*, 58*, 10, 13, 72*
Inzys I4 scores (avg 15.78) in Pak test losses excluding bangles and zim are
6, 95, 26, 0, 40, 14, 5, 4, 6, 9, 3, 0, 13, 0 for an average of 15.78
Inzys I4 scores in Pak drawn tests are
54* vs SL (with other batsmens scores 47, 155, 54)
12 vs Zim
21* vs Aus (with other batsmens scores 120, 25, 75)
60 vs SA (with other batsmens scores 71, 38, 23)
48 vs SL (with other batsmens scores 148, 34, 60, 20)
56 vs Eng (with other batsmens scores 48, 48, 25)
Inzy NEVER scored when pretty much ALL OTHER PAK BATSMEN failed in a Paks
test win or draw.
So Inzys test saving performances and test winning performances are WAY OVER
HYPED and UNJUSTIFIED
Conclusion: Inzy is NO tendulkar and he never will be.
<kris...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1153252025.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sampath
reposting my comments.
Inzy does NOT have a single century in 4th innings against a major test
playing nation.
Inzy did not win any test singlehandedly with his performance in a 4th
innings of a test.
Inzy was first ball duck out in a total pak score of 72 chasing Aus 564
target in I4.
Inzys I4 scores in a Pak test WIN excluding bangles and zim are
8, 20*, 58*, 10, 13, 72*
58* vs Aus (other batsmens scores are 77, 43, 35, 34)
72* vs NZ (other batsmens scores are 88, 59, 34)
Inzys I4 scores (avg 15.78) in Pak test LOSSES excluding bangles and zim are
6, 95, 26, 0, 40, 14, 5, 4, 6, 9, 3, 0, 13, 0 for an average of 15.78
Inzys I4 scores in Pak DRAWN tests are
54* vs SL (with other batsmens scores 47, 155, 54)
12 vs Zim
21* vs Aus (with other batsmens scores 120, 25, 75)
60 vs SA (with other batsmens scores 71, 38, 23)
48 vs SL (with other batsmens scores 148, 34, 60, 20)
56 vs Eng (with other batsmens scores 48, 48, 25)
Inzy NEVER scored when pretty much ALL OTHER PAK BATSMEN failed in a Paks
test win or draw.
So Inzys test saving performances and test winning performances are WAY OVER
HYPED, OVER RATED and UNJUSTIFIED
Conclusion: Inzy is NO tendulkar and he never will be.
<kris...@ureach.com> wrote in message
news:1153252025.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
sdavmor
> On 18 Jul 2006 10:33:39 -0700, shariq...@yahoo.com tapped the
> keyboard and brought forth:
[snip]
> He was something of a comic figure: there were the armchairs in
> which he relaxed while others netted, the chasing of people in the
> crowd who called him 'potato', and the relative incongruity, at
> least these days, of a huge great fat bloke being a top sportsman.
> Was that why I didn't take him seriously?
Not knowing anything about him before the last winter series vs
England, Inzamam was just a name in the batting order to me, albeit
one that seemed to be able to get runs at a steady rate and do it
when it mattered. Even allowing for him facing a depleted England
attack at Lord's, 9 consecutive knocks against England of 50+
going back to 2001, (including three tons and one damn near miss),
is serious currency.
Babe Ruth would the other obvious example of a major batsman (albeit
in another game) who didn't look or behave like an athlete should,
yet could bring it like nobody's business with bat in hand. (Though
the bambino was more like Shane Warne in his have at it all day and
night approach to life). Ruth would have had no problem with Inzamam's
avoidance of all the "hard work" of training, as long as he got it
done in crunch time.
--
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
Sampath
"sdavmor" <sda...@fakeemailaddy.com> wrote in message
news:1zbvg.266902$SQ6.2...@fe09.news.easynews.com...
Comparing Inzy with Babe Ruth ? LoL.....
Sampath
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:j47qb2169l8s8lori...@4ax.com...
FACTS speak for themselves.
sdavmor
[snip]
> Conclusion: Inzy is NO tendulkar and he never will be.
Conclusion after 4 posts of exactly the same barrage of stats:
Sampath is in desperate need of getting a life.
Reverse Swing
> On 18 Jul 2006 08:42:09 +0200, "Reverse Swing"
> <NOswinging...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
> forth:
>
>
>>If Dravid hadn't attempted to win yesterday's game, the whole of rsc would
>>be demonizing him.
>
> You exaggerate.
Guilty as charged. When I said "whole", I didn't mean to include those who
adorn my killfile and a few others who actually believe that successfully
chasing 390 on the last day of a Test is somewhat more challenging than a
walk in the park.
SP
Sampath
Nobody on rsc ever said chasing 390 on last day is somewhat more challenging
than a walk in the park.
You are grossly exaggerating it to make your point and sarcasm for the
hundredth time which is getting quite boring really.
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>FACTS speak for themselves.
People who put random WORDS in upper CASE are generally morons.
>
>Inzy does NOT have a single century in 4th innings against a major test
>playing nation.
>
>Inzy did not win any test singlehandedly with his performance in a 4th
>innings of a test.
>
>Inzy was first ball duck out in a total pak score of 72 chasing Aus 564
>target in I4.
>
>Inzys I4 scores in a Pak test WIN excluding bangles and zim are
>8, 20*, 58*, 10, 13, 72*
>
>58* vs Aus (other batsmens scores are 77, 43, 35, 34)
>72* vs NZ (other batsmens scores are 88, 59, 34)
>
>
>
>Inzys I4 scores (avg 15.78) in Pak test LOSSES excluding bangles and zim are
>
>6, 95, 26, 0, 40, 14, 5, 4, 6, 9, 3, 0, 13, 0 for an average of 15.78
>
>Inzys I4 scores in Pak DRAWN tests are
>
>54* vs SL (with other batsmens scores 47, 155, 54)
>12 vs Zim
>21* vs Aus (with other batsmens scores 120, 25, 75)
>60 vs SA (with other batsmens scores 71, 38, 23)
>48 vs SL (with other batsmens scores 148, 34, 60, 20)
>56 vs Eng (with other batsmens scores 48, 48, 25)
>
>
>Inzy NEVER scored when pretty much ALL OTHER PAK BATSMEN failed in a Paks
>test win or draw.
>
>So Inzys test saving performances and test winning performances are WAY OVER
>HYPED, OVER RATED and UNJUSTIFIED
People who trot out miles of statistics instead of framing an argument
are morons.
>Conclusion: Inzy is NO tendulkar and he never will be.
Conclusion: Sampath is a moron.
Therefore there is no point in reading any more of his posts.
Cheers,
Mike
ark...@yahoo.com
>>more talented and gifted than Inzamam
This from a self-confessed Tendulkar hater. I rest my case. And that's
where I said you can add Inzi,Rahul,Ricky,Jacques etc etc.
Sampath
sdavmor needs to open his mind and become more mature and receptive to facts
and logic rather than posting the same drivel and illogical comparisons of
Inzy and Babe ruth and entertaining readers.
Reverse Swing
news:44bd4a2a$0$23722$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
<snip>
> You are grossly exaggerating it to make your point and sarcasm for the
> hundredth time which is getting quite boring really.
Put me in your kf and be done with it. I don't change my id as often as you
do, so less work for you compared to some of us.
SP
Andrew Dunford
"Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44bd4a2a$0$23722$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>
> news:44bd4...@x-privat.org...
> > "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:nmbpb257h96ohf5ga...@4ax.com...
> >> On 18 Jul 2006 08:42:09 +0200, "Reverse Swing"
> >> <NOswinging...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought
> >> forth:
> >>
> >>
> >>>If Dravid hadn't attempted to win yesterday's game, the whole of rsc
> >>>would
> >>>be demonizing him.
> >>
> >> You exaggerate.
> >
> > Guilty as charged. When I said "whole", I didn't mean to include those
> > who adorn my killfile and a few others who actually believe that
> > successfully chasing 390 on the last day of a Test is somewhat more
> > challenging than a walk in the park.
> >
> > SP
> >
>
>
>
>
> Nobody on rsc ever said chasing 390 on last day is somewhat more
challenging
> than a walk in the park.
Every time a team is set 300+ to win on the fifth day of a Test match, the
posters opining that such a target is very difficult and rarely achieved are
drowned out by a cacophony who seem to think it's merely a
slightly-longer-than-usual one-day match innings. This despite history
telling us that the team batting fourth scoring 300+ runs on the final day
to win a Test match has been achieved once in the past 20 years, and that
was only 311 (Eng v Aus at Leeds 2001).
<snip>
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153235570.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
By my rough calculations, in the 40 months since the 2003 World Cup
Tendulkar has been unavailable to play cricket owing to injury for 19
months. Five separate injury breaks in three years, each lasting at least
two months. Admittedly three of these breaks covered one injury (tennis
elbow, for which he took too periods of convalescence before eventually
having surgery), but that's a load of serious injuries.
Not that it's a record or anything, once we start looking at e.g. Cairns or
Gillespie.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44bd4a2a$0$23722$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>
No, boring is copying and pasting the same post (complete with SHOUTING) as
multiple separate replies.
The style is somewhat familiar, the only question being whether my killfile
has enough room available to contain yet another of your attempts at
changing your identity. Changing one's identity so often is basically an
admission on the part of the poster that they are a worthless irritant whose
posts nobody else wants to read.
Andrew
Sampath
I am NOT afraid of FACTS like you to put you in my killfile.
So the fact remains that you are grossly exaggerating it to make your point
Sampath
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:4i5239F...@individual.net...
Records will never be broken if every player base their batting, bowling and
fielding on history.
There is nothing wrong in going for an improbable win when the opportunity
is there and throttle back and play for a draw if too many wickets fall.
Asking laxman to go for runs, then sending Dhoni ahead of kaif and yuvraj
and asking him to play for a draw didnt make any sense.
Criticism of Dravid and Chappell in the last WI test was well justified for
their confused strategy.
You havent come up with any arguments that justified Dravids and Chappellis
confused strategy in the last test.
Sampath
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:36:01 -0700, "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>>
>>
>>FACTS speak for themselves.
>
> People who put random WORDS in upper CASE are generally morons.
Cricket ignorant MORONS always find an EXCUSE to misdirect readers from the
actual discussion.
I posted Inzys I4 stats in all three conditions ie Paks WINS, LOSSES and
DRAWS.
If you didnt find my logical argument based on stats which proved Inzy is an
OVER RATED, OVER HYPED player, then you are a complete fucking idiot and a
moron who is AFRAID OF FACTS like a typical human being.
You STARTED ABUSING me because my LOGICAL arguments EXPOSED your cricket
IGNORANCE.
>>Conclusion: Inzy is NO tendulkar and he never will be.
>
> Conclusion: Sampath is a moron.
>
> Therefore there is no point in reading any more of his posts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Translation:
Sampath showed Mike Holmans is a cricket ignorant idiot. So Mike Holmans
wont read Sampaths posts anymore.
I am sure the rsc morons will ATTACK ME for abusing you even though YOU
PRO-ACTIVELY STARTED abusing me.
But then they are all typical immature human beings who HATES FACTS and
LOGIC, arent they ? LoL.......
crk8texan
on your hands at work or you have no other pastime to drag this "Tendy
sucks, Does Not, Does too" tirade on and on ad nauseum...
l8er.
Sampath
GROWN UP MEN never use a kill file.
Sampath
You are right. India should always play defense to EVERY BALL like they did
in these tests.
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2005-06/ENG_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/ENG_IND_T3_18-22MAR2006.html
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/PAK_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/PAK_IND_T3_24-28MAR2005.html
Posters here criticized Dravids and Chappells confused strategy more than
the fact that India settled for a draw.
If Jaya and Kalu followed history, they would have NEVER CREATED HISTORY and
CHANGED the way ODs are played FOREVER.
Sampath
1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about the
last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your self
proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
> The style is somewhat familiar, the only question being whether my
> killfile
> has enough room available to contain yet another of your attempts at
> changing your identity. Changing one's identity so often is basically an
> admission on the part of the poster that they are a worthless irritant
> whose
> posts nobody else wants to read.
>
> Andrew
>
GROWN UP MEN never use a kill file.
Kill files are for IMMATURE human beings who are AFRAID of FACTS and LOGIC.
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>Every time a team is set 300+ to win on the fifth day of a Test match, the
>posters opining that such a target is very difficult and rarely achieved are
>drowned out by a cacophony who seem to think it's merely a
>slightly-longer-than-usual one-day match innings. This despite history
>telling us that the team batting fourth scoring 300+ runs on the final day
>to win a Test match has been achieved once in the past 20 years, and that
>was only 311 (Eng v Aus at Leeds 2001).
Agreed.
But this does not imply, it seems to me, that captains are being silly
when they postpone their declarations until the target is, say, 380 in
80 overs.
Whilst history shows that 340 on the last day at Lord's hasn't been
achieved for 22 years, that doesn't mean that 340 on the last day at
Lord's 2006 with a batting line-up including Yousuf and Inzamam and a
lower order including Afridi, Akmal and Razzaq facing the English
bowling attack could not have been made. It's less than four an over,
and it's reasonably possible to stay in touch with that without taking
too many risks. 380/80 is 4.75/over, though, and that's quite a lot
stiffer and almost certainly not worth risking.
325 on a last day, on the kind of pitch which has led to the side
batting first to have to judge what target to set, which is almost by
definition not going to be a minefield, may in fact be eminently
gettable - so no captain in his right mind sets it but goes on until
the target isn't in his view gettable. The opposition captain takes a
similar sort of view when the openers don't get off to a flyer and so
they don't even bother to get anywhere near 300 because they might
just as well be 150 short with four wickets down as 50 short with
eight down.
I can't see present captains setting a target which they think is
gettable. If they set 275 it's because they don't reckon the other
side will get 200, not because they want a jolly sporting game. And if
they go on way past 300 it's because they think 300 would be little
more challenging than a walk in the park.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
>
> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about the
> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your self
> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile. Neither do
most others.
> GROWN UP MEN never use a kill file.
>
> Kill files are for IMMATURE human beings who are AFRAID of FACTS and
LOGIC.
I don't killfile posters whose views I disagree with, and indeed use the k/f
rarely. It is however a worthwhile tool in mopping up some of the pollution
in order to make the newsgroup readable.
It is surprising that you seem to wonder why people don't treat your
cricket-related posts with respect. Even more surprising to me is that from
time to time other posters seem to think it's worthwhile engaging you in
cricketing debate. If you can't tell the difference between a 'self
proclaimed cricket expert mafia group' and a grouping whose common ground is
that you are a nasty, pointless waste of space who does his best to ruin rsc
for others, I can't help you.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:13:16 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
> <adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >>Every time a team is set 300+ to win on the fifth day of a Test match,
the
> >posters opining that such a target is very difficult and rarely achieved
are
> >drowned out by a cacophony who seem to think it's merely a
> >slightly-longer-than-usual one-day match innings. This despite history
> >telling us that the team batting fourth scoring 300+ runs on the final
day
> >to win a Test match has been achieved once in the past 20 years, and that
> >was only 311 (Eng v Aus at Leeds 2001).
>
> Agreed.
>
> But this does not imply, it seems to me, that captains are being silly
> when they postpone their declarations until the target is, say, 380 in
> 80 overs.
I also agree.
> Whilst history shows that 340 on the last day at Lord's hasn't been
> achieved for 22 years, that doesn't mean that 340 on the last day at
> Lord's 2006 with a batting line-up including Yousuf and Inzamam and a
> lower order including Afridi, Akmal and Razzaq facing the English
> bowling attack could not have been made. It's less than four an over,
> and it's reasonably possible to stay in touch with that without taking
> too many risks. 380/80 is 4.75/over, though, and that's quite a lot
> stiffer and almost certainly not worth risking.
>
> 325 on a last day, on the kind of pitch which has led to the side
> batting first to have to judge what target to set, which is almost by
> definition not going to be a minefield, may in fact be eminently
> gettable - so no captain in his right mind sets it but goes on until
> the target isn't in his view gettable. The opposition captain takes a
> similar sort of view when the openers don't get off to a flyer and so
> they don't even bother to get anywhere near 300 because they might
> just as well be 150 short with four wickets down as 50 short with
> eight down.
>
> I can't see present captains setting a target which they think is
> gettable. If they set 275 it's because they don't reckon the other
> side will get 200, not because they want a jolly sporting game. And if
> they go on way past 300 it's because they think 300 would be little
> more challenging than a walk in the park.
England set a target which gave them more chance of winning than Pakistan,
which seems to me the correct approach. Although hindsight tells us that
they got nowhere near bowling out Pakistan it is by no means impossible for
a team to collapse on the final day, even on a good batting pitch. It is
worth noting that Pakistan was placed under some pressure at a couple of
moments early in its second innings.
I further see nothing wrong with England's approach to the timing of the
declaration. When a side has been ahead on points for the entire match, why
should they hand the initiative back to an opposing team which has made
little effort (or has been unable) to seize the initiative in the previous
four days? Part of the problem here is the commonly-held myth that
Australia, in the guise of Steve Waugh, revitalised Test cricket by adopting
a strategy based primarily on entertaining the public. That team did indeed
breathe fresh life into Test cricket with its attacking approach, but it did
so because discovered this to be the most successful means of crushing the
opposition, and because they were good enough to carry out the plan.
Andrew
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Part of the problem here is the commonly-held myth that
>Australia, in the guise of Steve Waugh, revitalised Test cricket by adopting
>a strategy based primarily on entertaining the public. That team did indeed
>breathe fresh life into Test cricket with its attacking approach, but it did
>so because discovered this to be the most successful means of crushing the
>opposition, and because they were good enough to carry out the plan.
What do you mean, myth? What about that match at the Gabba where NZ
fell 10 runs short of a target of 284 while McGrath explored the
limits of the Law regarding Wides? That was a brilliant example of how
Test cricket should be played. The other targets set by Swaugh
declarations were 396, 376, 462, 375, 464, 407 and 200 (in a wholly
realistic 24 overs), so I really can't see where you get "myth" from.
The man was positively reckless.
Cheers,
Mike
Sampath
>
> "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:44bd605e$0$23724$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
>>
>> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about the
>> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your
>> self
>> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
>
> Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile. Neither
> do
> most others.
1) The point is Reverse Swing does NOT need your HELP to respond to my
comments.
2) But you do POLLUTE this newsgroup with your TOMATO SOUP filth and bile
and plenty of others do pollute this newsgroup with RACIST STINK AUSSIE like
Darkfalz to which you never RESPONDED and ABUSED HIM which proves you are
ANOTHER RACIST PIG.
>> GROWN UP MEN never use a kill file.
>>
>> Kill files are for IMMATURE human beings who are AFRAID of FACTS and
> LOGIC.
PERFECT LOGIC.
Didnt you run away without responding to my post about over rated Inzys
match saving and match winning innings compared to tendulkar ?
> I don't killfile posters whose views I disagree with, and indeed use the
> k/f
> rarely.
Then why didnt you refute my perfectly reasonable and logical arguments
about Inzy being over rated and over hyped about his match saving and match
winning innings ?
>It is however a worthwhile tool in mopping up some of the pollution
> in order to make the newsgroup readable.
As per you and the rest of your shamless indian ass lickers, pollution is
anybody who exposed your and their cricket ignorance. LoL....
> It is surprising that you seem to wonder why people don't treat your
> cricket-related posts with respect.
I dont care if anybody respects me or not. I have NO RESPECT for IMMATURE
HUMAN BEINGS like you and the rest of your infantile indian asslickers who
formed a mafia on this newsgroup.
>Even more surprising to me is that from
> time to time other posters seem to think it's worthwhile engaging you in
> cricketing debate.
Your JEALOUSY is beyond my comprehension and your comment again proves the
rsc mafia who are afraid of people who expose the mafia's pitiable cricket
analytical ability and insights.
> If you can't tell the difference between a 'self
> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group' and a grouping whose common ground
> is
> that you are a nasty, pointless waste of space who does his best to ruin
> rsc
> for others, I can't help you.
>
> Andrew
>
1) You did proclam yourself in the past as an expert on Indian cricket and
ridiculed indian fans who followed indian cricket religiously for more than
25 years.
2) How did the FACTS and LOGIC I posted about Inzy ruin the group other than
showing all you self proclaimed clowns in a pitiable light ?
LoL.........
Sampath
>
> "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:44bd605e$0$23724$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
>>
>> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about the
>> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your
>> self
>> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
>
> Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile. Neither
> do
> most others.
Where is the need for another self proclaimed cricket expert Mike Holmans
PROACTIVELY abusing me in this thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/e2ae1e8fc594a5fe?hl=en&
I merely posted Inzys stats and argued Inzy is not better than tendulkar in
saving and drawing matches.
Are you man enough to respond honestly without your typical cunning and
deception ?
Sampath
>
> "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:44bd605e$0$23724$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>
> <snip>
>
>> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
>>
>> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about the
>> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your
>> self
>> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
>
> Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile. Neither
> do
> most others.
Why is Reverse Swing and you posting the same sarcasm about last WI test a
100 times NOT POLLUTION, FILTH and BILE ?
HYPOCRITE !!!!!
dp
> This despite history
> telling us that the team batting fourth scoring 300+ runs on the final day
> to win a Test match has been achieved once in the past 20 years, and that
> was only 311 (Eng v Aus at Leeds 2001).
Though they fell short of winning by one run, India scored 347 runs off
87 overs on the final day of tied test. It would be interesting to see
how many targets in 300-320 range have been set on the final day since
then.
dp
Andrew Dunford
>
> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
> news:4i58rdF...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:44bd605e$0$23724$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
> >>
> >> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about
the
> >> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your
> >> self
> >> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
> >
> > Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile.
Neither
> > do
> > most others.
>
>
>
> 1) The point is Reverse Swing does NOT need your HELP to respond to my
> comments.
No.
The point is that most people (at least in my experience) experience a basic
standard of human decency from others with whom they correspond in a public
forum. This standard tends to exclude disgusting, vile and perverted
comments such as those in which you frequently indulge.
In making such comments you forfeit the right to expact any respect, or
indeed any response, when making cricket-related comments, whether they be
reasoned or not.
> 2) But you do POLLUTE this newsgroup with your TOMATO SOUP filth and bile
> and plenty of others do pollute this newsgroup with RACIST STINK AUSSIE
like
> Darkfalz to which you never RESPONDED and ABUSED HIM which proves you are
> ANOTHER RACIST PIG.
Another spectacular example of you missing the point.
Darkfalz is, like yourself, a stain on this newsgroup whose comments do not
deserve to be read. However the difference between him and you is that
doesn't change his posting handle every five minutes; thus he has been in my
killfile (and I imagine that of of many other posters) for a long time and
gets from me the respect he deserves i.e. none. The fact that he continues
to post under the same name leads me to the conclusion that he believes what
he writes, however vile I or others find him. You on the other hand,
despite exhorting posters to killfile you if they don't like their comments,
convey the impression of being desperate to be read, and desperate to cause
offence and the greatest amount of annoyance possible.
<snip>
> Didnt you run away without responding to my post about over rated Inzys
> match saving and match winning innings compared to tendulkar ?
Yep, that's about the strength of it. You don't deserve a response. If
only you'd let others run away from you.
<snip>
> 1) You did proclam yourself in the past as an expert on Indian cricket
And that's just an outright lie. Good bye, until next time.
<snip>
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
"dp" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153272028.0...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Indeed it would.
There is one important difference today when compared to 20 years ago.
Which is that today's fielding captain is less likely to be able to rely on
the fall-back position of shamelessly wasting time in the case where the
opposition threatens to reach its target. As happened not infrequently in
the past, for example in the first hour after tea in Gavaskar's 221 match at
The Oval.
Eng v NZ at Lord's in 2004 is worth a quick glance here. On that occasion
England scored 274 runs on the final day to win the match, reaching the
target with eight overs still remaining.
Andrew
Sampath
>
> "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:44bd7a41$0$23722$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>>
>> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>> news:4i58rdF...@individual.net...
>> >
>> > "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:44bd605e$0$23724$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> 1) Reverse Swing doesnt need your help to respond to my comments.
>> >>
>> >> 2) How come Reverse Swing posting sarcastic comments 100 times about
> the
>> >> last WI test is NOT BORING for you ? Ooops I didnt know he is in your
>> >> self
>> >> proclaimed cricket expert mafia group. Sorry.
>> >
>> > Reverse Swing doesn't pollute the newsgroup with filth and bile.
> Neither
>> > do
>> > most others.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) The point is Reverse Swing does NOT need your HELP to respond to my
>> comments.
>
> No.
Well then you shouldnt have butted in to my response intended for Reverse
Swing.
> The point is that most people (at least in my experience) experience a
> basic
> standard of human decency from others with whom they correspond in a
> public
> forum. This standard tends to exclude disgusting, vile and perverted
> comments such as those in which you frequently indulge.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> In making such comments you forfeit the right to expact any respect, or
> indeed any response, when making cricket-related comments, whether they be
> reasoned or not.
Moron, I already told you I dont care about getting respect from IMMATURE
human beings like yourself.
>> 2) But you do POLLUTE this newsgroup with your TOMATO SOUP filth and bile
>> and plenty of others do pollute this newsgroup with RACIST STINK AUSSIE
> like
>> Darkfalz to which you never RESPONDED and ABUSED HIM which proves you are
>> ANOTHER RACIST PIG.
>
> Another spectacular example of you missing the point.
What point did I miss ? that your TOMATO SOUP posts are RELEVANT to a
cricket newsgroup ? LoL.....
> Darkfalz is, like yourself, a stain on this newsgroup whose comments do
> not
> deserve to be read. However the difference between him and you is that
> doesn't change his posting handle every five minutes; thus he has been in
> my
> killfile (and I imagine that of of many other posters) for a long time and
> gets from me the respect he deserves i.e. none.
I never told you I changed my handle. Even if I do, trust me you or anybody
else here are too immature to understand why.
>The fact that he continues
> to post under the same name leads me to the conclusion that he believes
> what
> he writes, however vile I or others find him.
So that makes him better. Fantastic logic. LoL.....
>You on the other hand,
> despite exhorting posters to killfile you if they don't like their
> comments,
> convey the impression of being desperate to be read, and desperate to
> cause
> offence and the greatest amount of annoyance possible.
You are not an expert in psychoanalysis. Stay out of it.
> <snip>
>
>> Didnt you run away without responding to my post about over rated Inzys
>> match saving and match winning innings compared to tendulkar ?
>
> Yep, that's about the strength of it. You don't deserve a response. If
> only you'd let others run away from you.
Thats a GREAT ESCAPE from an argument you lost.
> <snip>
>
>> 1) You did proclam yourself in the past as an expert on Indian cricket
>
> And that's just an outright lie. > <snip>
You are LYING.
> Good bye, until next time.
>
> Andrew
>
Running away from this andrew ? Your cunning and deception are amazing.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/441b45a6551c4b6e?hl=en&
Mike Holmans
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Eng v NZ at Lord's in 2004 is worth a quick glance here. On that occasion
>England scored 274 runs on the final day to win the match, reaching the
>target with eight overs still remaining.
And once Strauss and Hussain had got through until lunch, it wasn't
really much more than a jog in the park. 320 would have very much been
on as a target. 370 would not.
Cheers,
Mike
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> > The point is that most people (at least in my experience) experience a
> > basic
> > standard of human decency from others with whom they correspond in a
> > public
> > forum. This standard tends to exclude disgusting, vile and perverted
> > comments such as those in which you frequently indulge.
>
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
That much is abundantly clear, and why the only sensible option is to put
you back in the killfile.
> > In making such comments you forfeit the right to expact any respect, or
> > indeed any response, when making cricket-related comments, whether they
be
> > reasoned or not.
>
>
>
> Moron, I already told you I dont care about getting respect from IMMATURE
> human beings like yourself.
You've said this many times, but it plainly isn't true otherwise you
wouldn't be so annoyed that other posters refuse to respond to your
cricket-related offerings.
That's it for now, until your next equally-odious incarnation pops up.
<snip>
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
I guess the question is whether more risks would have been taken in
mid-chase had the target been 320. Hindsight says none need to be, given
that 320 was achievable batting in exactly the manner they did.
From memory that pitch deteriorated even less than the one used for the
Pakistan Test match.
Andrew
Sampath
>
> "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:44bd91ed$0$23767$a826...@reader.corenews.com...
>>
>> "Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
>> news:4i5guqF...@individual.net...
>
> <snip>
>
>> > The point is that most people (at least in my experience) experience a
>> > basic
>> > standard of human decency from others with whom they correspond in a
>> > public
>> > forum. This standard tends to exclude disgusting, vile and perverted
>> > comments such as those in which you frequently indulge.
>>
>>
>> I have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> That much is abundantly clear, and why the only sensible option is to put
> you back in the killfile.
Thats the BEST WAY for you to feel better after your cricket ignorance has
been EXPOSED over and over.
>> > In making such comments you forfeit the right to expact any respect, or
>> > indeed any response, when making cricket-related comments, whether they
> be
>> > reasoned or not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Moron, I already told you I dont care about getting respect from IMMATURE
>> human beings like yourself.
>
> You've said this many times, but it plainly isn't true otherwise you
> wouldn't be so annoyed that other posters refuse to respond to your
> cricket-related offerings.
When did I say I am annoyed ?
You must be another typical western christian psychoanalyst. LoL.....
> That's it for now, until your next equally-odious incarnation pops up.
>
> <snip>
>
> Andrew
Was it caused by your dung, dunford ?
Why did you SNIP this comment without responding ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/441b45a6551c4b6e?hl=en&
Reverse Swing
>
> "Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:a1mqb21pf65fvondq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:13:16 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
>> <adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>> >>Every time a team is set 300+ to win on the fifth day of a Test match,
> the
>> >posters opining that such a target is very difficult and rarely achieved
> are
>> >drowned out by a cacophony who seem to think it's merely a
>> >slightly-longer-than-usual one-day match innings. This despite history
>> >telling us that the team batting fourth scoring 300+ runs on the final
> day
>> >to win a Test match has been achieved once in the past 20 years, and
>> >that
>> >was only 311 (Eng v Aus at Leeds 2001).
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> But this does not imply, it seems to me, that captains are being silly
>> when they postpone their declarations until the target is, say, 380 in
>> 80 overs.
>
> I also agree.
Tritto. One important reason why they like to give themselves additional
100-150 runs than what is realistically chaseable being this allows them to
set attacking field all day. In a match where the pitch hasn't turned into
a minefield, this may mean difference between a win and a draw.
SP
<snip>
Jayen
Did you have to tag this on as a response to a post which was not about
Tendulkar at all?
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
the keyboard and brought forth:
>
When a mighty intellect like crk8texan says it's about Tendulkar, it's
about Tendulkar no matter what you or I may think.
Cheers,
Tendulkar
eusebius
It is ludicrous to expect captains to gift a whip-hand position to the
opposing captain on a platter. There is however a middle ground between
doing this and batting the opposition completely out of the game. I
think on the whole the most likely approach in obtaining the right
result is somewhere in the middle of those 2 extremes, perhaps closer
to the latter than the former since it allows skippers to invoke the
oft-intoned mantra of setting attacking fields blah blah blah, (which
although I find it somewhat nauseating, at least stated ad nauseam, may
have some merit). And as Andrew points out, scoring 300 on the lst day
to win is still a rare phenomenon, although all the evidence I can see
is that it is nowhere near as difficult as it once seemed. Richie
Benaud and others seemed to be of the view that 300 on the last day was
well-nigh impossible. But approaches, and pitches have changed. And bat
sizes. Cricket is played at a much faster pace than it was played even
10 years ago. Still, the fact remains that 300 on the last day is a
challenge especially on a deteriorated pitch. But on some of the roads
that we see on 5th day wickets, I wouldn't be surprised if a team like
the 2001 vintage Australians scoring 400.
eusebius
England had enough time to bowl out Pakistan if they were good enough
to do so. More time may have encouraged a more attacking approach from
Pak and resulted in more mistakes on their part, or Pakistan could now
be 1-0 up. At least now England have the psychological edge, they have
no reason to fear Pakistan, and they can continue to play sensible
cricket and wait for the right opportunities.
eusebius
Jayen wrote:
snip
> He was still a top batsman, just didn't have the number of standout
> performances that Lara/SRT/SRW did, and as a result, didn't get
> categorised in the same bracket.
>
> Regards,
> Jayen
I think that just about sums it up. I always viewed Inzamam as a class
bat, something like Kallis before he became a crawler, but probably
classier even then. He has been Pakistan's best bat for more than 10
years, except for a few brief periods of hiatus when Saeed Anwar was
fulfilling his potential and some periods of semi-retirement. His
fitness also has been a major problem for him. Not only does it cost
him and his partners runs, but also costs the team wickets. In ability
he is little short of the very best, but I don't rate his overall team
value as highly. Perhaps captaincy has enhanced that value somewhat.
eusebius
Get a life dude! Stop bashing Tendulkar
Tendulkar's Mother (AKA DonII)
shariq...@yahoo.com
Andrew Dunford wrote:
> England set a target which gave them more chance of winning than Pakistan,
> which seems to me the correct approach. Although hindsight tells us that
> they got nowhere near bowling out Pakistan it is by no means impossible for
> a team to collapse on the final day, even on a good batting pitch. It is
> worth noting that Pakistan was placed under some pressure at a couple of
> moments early in its second innings.
That's ridiculous Andrew. In the last 25 years only 2 sides have
successfully scored 300+ runs on the last day. One was the marauding
West Indies in 1984 and other was England against Australia at in 2001
IIRC. So history works in favour of those teams that set a 300+ chase
on the last day and give opponents a full day of play. One can only
imagine the possiblities with 17 extra overs
The 341 target would have given Pakistan a sniff and their approach
would have been somewhat different. My feeling is that the bludgeoing
capablities of Afridi and Razzaq scared England, who were operating
with only 4 bowlers, into batting into the fifth day. Perhaps if
Flintoff was around they would have made a late 4th inning declaration
but it's all speculation now
>
> I further see nothing wrong with England's approach to the timing of the
> declaration. When a side has been ahead on points for the entire match, why
> should they hand the initiative back to an opposing team which has made
> little effort (or has been unable) to seize the initiative in the previous
> four days? Part of the problem here is the commonly-held myth that
> Australia, in the guise of Steve Waugh, revitalised Test cricket by adopting
> a strategy based primarily on entertaining the public. That team did indeed
> breathe fresh life into Test cricket with its attacking approach, but it did
> so because discovered this to be the most successful means of crushing the
> opposition, and because they were good enough to carry out the plan.
>
I agree with your analysis about Seteve Waugh's Australian side
although Mark Taylor was certainly more daring. . I also think England
could have made good use of the liberal wide/bouncer laws in Test
cricket to short circuit Pakistan's run chase if it got into any kind
of serious momentum. Oh well it's water under the bridge
shariq...@yahoo.com
Sampath can you kindly refrain from namecalling at least on this
newsgroup. I mean we are discussing a gentleman's game and you call
people all sorts of names and hurl all sorts of abuses. I think you
have more than enough brains to argue your points without resorting to
vulgarities
Thank You
Shariq
Sampath
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153324132.6...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Shariq,
You should always tell the AGGRESSOR to stop abusing others. I am MERELY
REACTING to name calling by these self proclaimed cricket experts dunford
and holmans.
Tell me where is the ned for these geniuses to call me names when all I did
was post Inzys COMPLETE STATS relevant to the discussion to prove Inzy is
over rated in terms of winning and drawing matches for Pakistan.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/441b45a6551c4b6e?hl=en&And why aren't posters here telling these geniuses dunford and holmans toshut up, to stop pro-actively abusing me and to discuss cricket.
Gafoor
> His fitness also has been a major problem for him. Not only does it cost
> him and his partners runs, but also costs the team wickets.
What do you mean? If he gets run out more often than others,
it means that he is running very very very very hard singles.
He is running 4 runs where normal mortals would be running 1 &
getting run out while running the 4th run.
Inzi - run out 6 times in 182 test innings. (3.3%)
Dravid - run out of 9 times in 176 test innings (5.1%)
Inzi - run out 39 times in 337 ODI innings (11.6%)
Dravid - run out 33 times in 271 ODI innings (12.2%)
Youhana - run out 32 times in 207 ODI innings (15.5%)
Andrew Dunford
<shariq...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153323715....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> > England set a target which gave them more chance of winning than
Pakistan,
> > which seems to me the correct approach. Although hindsight tells us
that
> > they got nowhere near bowling out Pakistan it is by no means impossible
for
> > a team to collapse on the final day, even on a good batting pitch. It
is
> > worth noting that Pakistan was placed under some pressure at a couple of
> > moments early in its second innings.
>
> That's ridiculous Andrew. In the last 25 years only 2 sides have
> successfully scored 300+ runs on the last day. One was the marauding
> West Indies in 1984 and other was England against Australia at in 2001
> IIRC. So history works in favour of those teams that set a 300+ chase
> on the last day and give opponents a full day of play. One can only
> imagine the possiblities with 17 extra overs
Whilst I am a fully paid-up member of the
300-on-the-last-day-to-win-is-difficult club, bear in mind that one of the
reasons this feat is achieved so seldom is that captains don't very often
set targets such as 341 in 90 overs. The team batting fourth scoring 300
runs on the final day has become more common in recent times, having been
achieved three times in the past three years by teams who were set targets
over 400. Given that Australia scored 347 runs on D5 at Old Trafford only
last year and England hit 274 with eight overs to spare at Lord's in 2004,
341 in 90 overs was too risky for my tastes.
> The 341 target would have given Pakistan a sniff and their approach
> would have been somewhat different. My feeling is that the bludgeoing
> capablities of Afridi and Razzaq scared England, who were operating
> with only 4 bowlers, into batting into the fifth day. Perhaps if
> Flintoff was around they would have made a late 4th inning declaration
> but it's all speculation now
I agree with all of that, but I guess we differ over whether the 'giving
Pakistan a sniff' approach would have been a good thing. I am conservative
in this regard and don't think declarations should give the other team a
chance of victory they haven't earned themselves.
I also think we should look at England's (admittedly conservative) approach
within the wider context of the series. England had a stop-gap captain who
to some extent was holding the fort until Flintoff got back. I don't think
risky declarations are a wise option this early in the series.
<snip>
Andrew
eusebius
Gafoor wrote:
> eusebius wrote:
> > His fitness also has been a major problem for him. Not only does it cost
> > him and his partners runs, but also costs the team wickets.
>
> What do you mean? If he gets run out more often than others,
> it means that he is running very very very very hard singles.
> He is running 4 runs where normal mortals would be running 1 &
> getting run out while running the 4th run.
>
> Inzi - run out 6 times in 182 test innings. (3.3%)
> Dravid - run out of 9 times in 176 test innings (5.1%)
>
> Inzi - run out 39 times in 337 ODI innings (11.6%)
> Dravid - run out 33 times in 271 ODI innings (12.2%)
> Youhana - run out 32 times in 207 ODI innings (15.5%)
My perception has always been that Inzi is a bad runner between
wickets, although he is canny enough not to run himself out too often.
I wouldn't place Inzi on the Graeme Wood level of running out partners,
but maybe the Michael Slater level. And without checking the figures, I
doubt if Slater was run out himself all that often. Perhaps somewhat
above average. In any case, a more apposite stat would be how often
those running with Inzamam are out in this way.
SultanOfSwing
>
> "eusebius" <euseb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153235570.2...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jayen wrote:
> > > Ali wrote:
> > > > There is no doubt these two (inzi and tendulkar) have special
> > > > talent but the only difference I see is Inzi can still play a
> > > > leading role
> and
> > > > actually WIN the match for the TEAM. Tendulkar on the other
> > > > hand has lost his touch, many Indians simply refuse to accept
> > > > it. I have
> nothing
> > > > against Tendulkar, he was a great batsman but he is out of
> > > > touch. You gotta admit that. Samething with Ganguly.
> > >
> > > There's (hopefully) no comparison between Tendulkar and Ganguly.
> > >
> > > Tendulkar has not been performing as well in the last two years
> > > as he did before that. Some of us believe (hope) that it's
> > > because of his having been injured for a good portion of this
> > > period. We hope that when he is fully recovered, as he is now, he
> > > will be able to contribute subtantially to the Indian team.
> > > Personally, I am perfectly OK with his not batting in the same
> > > manner as he did in 1998, provided he can play some or any
> > > significant role in the Indian team's efforts. If he does make a
> > > comeback, but is still not able to perform in such a manner, I am
> > > OK with saying that he is finished as a great batsman, but is
> > > still a good batsman up for selection. His being selected in the
> > > Indian test team depends on whether you can find 4 MO batsmen who
> > > are better. I haven't seen any Indians who claim that SRT's
> > > recent performance is that of an ATG.
> > >
> > > Ganguly, on the other hand, has not been performing well and has
> > > been dropped. That's all. You could call this denial, but I don't
> > > think so.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jayen
> >
> > Ganguly is irrelevant until there is any evidence that he will be
> > considered any time in the future. Tendulkar on the other hand,
> > isn't chronologically past it, but I remember discussing here the
> > possibility that major sportsmen only have a certain number of
> > years at the top, and even though SRT isn't old by today's
> > standards he did start young. Playing 18 years at the top is going
> > to take its toll, mentally and physically, even on the toughest and
> > most gifted. Not that I necessarily think he ever was the former,
> > particularly. I wouldn't say that it is by any means beyond bounds
> > for SRT to return to his old ways, or close to it, but this 'loss
> > of form' seems more permanent all the time.
> > Still, it is highly premature to talk about getting rid of him.
>
> By my rough calculations, in the 40 months since the 2003 World Cup
> Tendulkar has been unavailable to play cricket owing to injury for 19
> months. Five separate injury breaks in three years, each lasting at
> least two months. Admittedly three of these breaks covered one
> injury (tennis elbow, for which he took too periods of convalescence
> before eventually having surgery), but that's a load of serious
> injuries.
>
> Not that it's a record or anything, once we start looking at e.g.
> Cairns or Gillespie.
>
> Andrew
You've forgotten about Dion Nash and Shane Bond.
--