PDA

View Full Version : India Becoming the Graveyard of Cricket


Eshen
November 25, 2009, 07:03 PM
Lifeless pitches are bringing slow death to Test cricket in India

Mike Atherton

There are some gluttons for punishment out there. In a recent poll, 7 per cent of India supporters said that Test cricket was their game of choice. Watching the tedious fare on offer between India and Sri Lanka this month, the surprise is not that there are so few, but that there are any at all. Frankly, root canal treatment would be more fun.

They are at it again in Kanpur this week: hundreds on the first day for Virender Sehwag and Gautam Gambhir as India plundered a mountain (233) for the first wicket and a molehill (137) for the second, Rahul Dravid using the conditions to keep Father Time at bay. Why even consider retiring with such heaven-sent batting conditions to gorge on?

All this came on the back of a monstrously dull affair in Ahmedabad, where bowlers lay down to be slaughtered at the altar of batsmanship. Almost 1,600 runs were scored there for only 21 wickets taken and seven individual hundreds were notched while two of the top-ranked bowlers in the world, Harbhajan Singh and Muttiah Muralitharan, were rendered impotent by batsmen unwilling to spurn such an opportunity to feather their own statistics — and, more importantly, by an awful pitch.

After the match the focus was on statistics — Sachin Tendulkar’s 43rd Test hundred, for example, during which he passed the small matter of 30,000 runs in international cricket. The usual press releases from the ICC had such a slant, too: with his sixth career double century, Mahela Jayawardena, it said, had overtaken his compatriot, Kumar Sangakkara, to take the No 1 spot in the world rankings.

<!--#include file="m63-article-related-attachements.html"--> <!-- BEGIN: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements --> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/js/picture-gallery.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> function slideshowPopUp(url) { pictureGalleryPopupPic(url); return false; } </script> <!-- BEGIN: Comment Teaser Module --> <!-- END: Module - M63 - Article Related Attachements --> When the game offers no result — no chance of a result, more importantly — no fluctuating fortunes, no interest and no drama, what else but dry statistics is there to talk about?

What the ICC’s press release should have said, of course, was that the umpires and the match referee had marked the Ahmedabad pitch down as unacceptably poor and that the groundsman’s penalty would be a period without international cricket.

The ICC has recognised that the definition of a poor pitch has had to change. For decades, particularly during eras when the balance between bat and ball was more finely tuned, a poor pitch would be regarded as one that gave an undue advantage to the bowler. Something, perhaps, that started too green, too damp or too dry so that it crumbled too quickly.

Indeed, it was the ECB that was forced to introduce guidelines to make pitches more batsmen-friendly after a few years in the late 1980s when counties took home advantage to extremes.

But things have swung too far the other way. The balance between bat and ball — the principal thing that keeps cricket entertaining — has become horribly skewed, so that there is an urgent need to make bland pitches a thing of the past.

The ICC recognised this recently — something that the MCC world cricket committee endorsed keenly — when it said that pitches that offered negligible bounce, carry, seam movement or turn should be marked poor. It was as if the Ahmedabad pitch was prepared as a deliberate test case.

Enervating Test cricket is nothing new in India. In 1981-82 they played England in one of the dullest series of all time. India sat on their 1-0 lead, piled up huge scores on featherbed pitches and reduced over-rates to about ten an hour. England retaliated with occasionally fewer, and so with neither side attempting to win, the next five games petered out into blood-sapping draws. Phil Edmonds reckoned that the subsequent desertion of some players to South Africa was not so much because of the money but because they were “bored to the soul with Test cricket after that tour”.

Amazingly, 394,000 people — a record at the time — watched the six-match series, although, presciently, Wisden Cricketers’ Almanack warned the Indian board of the need to “put some ginger in their pitches before crowds start losing interest”.

Crowds flocked to those bore draws because there were few alternatives, in life or sport. That is not the case now. India’s emergence as an economic superpower has transformed daily options in parts of the sub-continent and Test cricket has its own challenges from within. So there were great swaths of empty seats in Ahmedabad and Kanpur, as there are for Test cricket the world over, except in England, Australia and only occasionally elsewhere.

Of course, you wouldn’t have to be such a cynic to wonder whether it is in Indian cricket’s interests to strangle whatever remaining relevance there is in the Test game. They now have more lucrative fish to fry. But it doesn’t matter whether it is Test or Twenty20 cricket, if bowlers continue to be treated as second-class citizens, interest will wane.

The fall of a wicket is the most dramatic moment in cricket, something the game is all too quickly forgetting.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/mike_atherton/article6932232.ece

Eshen
November 25, 2009, 07:14 PM
Are placid pitches to blame as India run Sri Lanka ragged?

Dileep Premachandran

What can you say about a series in which 2,133 runs have been scored in 19 sessions for the loss of just 25 wickets? What can you say of the 10 centuries scored already, of a bowler as accomplished as Muttiah Muralitharan being carted all around Green Park? And is Test cricket in India really on an intravenous drip if more than 25,000 take up vantage points in the dilapidated concrete stands in Kanpur?

Over the past 24 hours, I've fielded calls from two radio stations, one in the UK and the other in Australia, both wanting to know why pitches in India are so placid, and whether they are responsible for the decline in popularity of the five-day game. Sunil Gavaskar quipped during the Ahmedabad Test that the surface was like a road and, apart from the opening hour of the series when four wickets fell, the contest between bat and ball has been as unedifying as Muhammad Ali reducing Ernie Terrell's face to pulp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DefCmUsCPs) while hissing: "What's my name, Uncle Tom?"

The facts are irrefutable. Over the past five years, nearly 50% of the matches in India [11 of 24] have ended in draws. And unlike a Cardiff 2009 or The Oval 1979 (http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63240.html), most of the stalemates have been mind-numbingly boring. In the same period, 11 of 35 Tests in England have been drawn. Leading the way in pitch preparation, as on the field, are Australia [two draws in 27] and South Africa [three in 29]. And just to prove that south Asia does not only do touch-of-grey Tests, Sri Lanka have had 18 results from 22 games.

Are Indian curators incapable of producing result-oriented pitches, or have they been led astray by idiotic guidelines put in place by the game's administrators? The last time a Test was played in Kanpur, India beat South Africa by eight wickets (http://www.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/engine/match/332913.html) just before the end of the third day's play. There was all sorts of tripe about "dust bowls" and "sub-standard pitches", strange when you consider that the first-innings scores were 265 and 325.

A month later, the ICC sent the Indian board an official warning (http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/10/stories/2008051061062300.htm), one that went meekly unchallenged. While they may not be especially good at running the game, few organisations can match the ICC when it comes to two endearing qualities – hypocrisy and double standards. Just consider this. Match one lasts 256.1 overs, of which 115.3 are sent down by pace bowlers. They take 14 of the 32 wickets to fall. Match two spans just 199.3 overs and finishes a long sneeze after lunch on the third day.

The only spinner to bowl in the game goes wicketless in 16 overs. The pitch, the seam bowler's idea of a night at the Playboy Mansion, attracts little negative press, and there's certainly no slap on the wrist from the ICC. Match one was the South African game at Kanpur, match two the recent Ashes Test at Headingley. This much is clear then. A seam-friendly pitch is a good pitch. One that aids slow bowlers isn't. Extravagant seam movement is fine, but God forbid that you turn the ball on the opening day.

Ricky Ponting did not have a bad word to say about Headingley, but was worse than any whingeing Pom could ever be after defeat in Mumbai in 2004 (http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64102.html). Again, the facts are instructive. That game lasted longer than Headingley [202.1 overs] and 11 wickets fell to pace bowlers, while three superb half-centuries from Damien Martyn, VVS Laxman and Sachin Tendulkar offered far greater insight into the batting arts than a century on a featherbed ever could.

Yet, because Australia could not chase down 107 for victory, the Mumbai pitch became "nowhere near a Test wicket (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200411/s1236094.htm)". By that yardstick, Perth, which hosted Tests against the West Indies in 1993 (http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63594.html) and 1997 (http://www.cricket.com.hk/db/ARCHIVE/1996-97/WI_IN_AUS/WI_AUS_T5_01-03FEB1997.html), should have been struck off the itinerary years ago. But wait, the Waca is pace-friendly. That's all right then.

Instead of taking on this outrageously biased view, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has instructed curators to prepare surfaces that last the full five days. The pitches for the Australia series in 2001 were all spin-friendly, and they delivered three of the most memorable games Indian cricket has seen. But instead of maintaining that tradition and telling the ICC to take a hike, the organisation that is powerful enough to change an umpire mid-series chooses to do nothing.

If a few dozen in the stands drift into a coma while watching another run-fest, then so be it. This approach is also welcomed by the broadcasters, whose deal with Indian cricket is on a per-day basis, and who mistakenly think that they get more bang for their buck if a match goes 15 sessions. This is not 1980, though, and most people have better things to do than watch a Test that proceeds at a pace slower than the terribly over-rated Climates (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498097/).

Cheering a Tendulkar or Rahul Dravid century (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/25/india-sri-lanka-second-test) is one thing, but the average punter who skips a day or two of work to take in the play is primarily there to watch India win. Those who have braved the winter chill in Kanpur may just have that wish granted. Virender Sehwag's first century in nearly 18 months and Gautam Gambhir's seventh in his last nine Tests gave India an imposing platform to build on (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/nov/24/india-sri-lanka-second-test), and with Dravid stroking another marvellously fluent hundred, Sri Lanka were staring into the abyss by lunch on the second day. The odd ball has turned, jumped or kept low, and with an avalanche of runs behind them, India's bowlers could be a real handful.

Hopefully, the pitch will deteriorate and aid sharp turn over the coming days. The healthy crowds here have shown that people still care about the five-day game, but the administrators need to play along. And for that to happen, the soundtrack needs to be Nirvana (Here we are now, entertain us) and not Del Amitri (Nothing Ever Happens).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2009/nov/25/placid-pitches-india-run-sri-lanka

zman
November 26, 2009, 12:11 AM
"In a recent poll, 7 per cent of India supporters said that Test cricket was their game of choice."

Not surprised. I'm curious to learn wht the other 93% had to say. Anybody knows the overall poll results?

_Rafi_
November 26, 2009, 01:00 AM
Kanpur pitch giving something to bowlers. But I think this pitch also bad for test cricket. It wl create result but only to the team bat first.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

MysoreHuli
November 26, 2009, 06:03 AM
After watching this Srilankan collpase, Mike Atherton might comeup with an article "Under prepared wicket" :lol::lol:

magic boy
November 26, 2009, 10:05 AM
and the WC 2011 final is gonna be held in wankhede stadium :|

bharat
November 26, 2009, 11:10 AM
Kanpur pitch giving something to bowlers. But I think this pitch also bad for test cricket. It wl create result but only to the team bat first.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

Dont think so ! SL batted on the second day and lost 15 wickets.Dont think they deserver to win leave alone draw this game . The fact of the matter is SL is a very average Test team that does well only in SL ( similar to India in the 90's)

Actually the Lankans should be happy that the BCCI prepared such a flat pitch (Sanga did say that as well)

Also , I am kind of miffed that people are making such a hue and cry abt the pitch in Ahmadabad.Yes it was a bad pitch but India produces more results that Pak,SL and WI .

One slip from BCCI and the world is out to get them .

Whats funny is that the whole world is concerned abt the Indian fan .Time for other countries (starting with England) to improove their fan's experience so that it does not die out in their countries instead of depending on the Indian fan's pocket .
:timeout:

smashyboy
November 26, 2009, 11:19 AM
Kanpur pitch giving something to bowlers. But I think this pitch also bad for test cricket. It wl create result but only to the team bat first.
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

Correction Bat Well They batted like Bangladesh. Couldn't negotiate pace and bounce of Sreesanth.

smithgary
November 26, 2009, 11:52 AM
Hey Bharat,
I completely agree to you.Srilanka was really off the beat today. There dosent seem to be any problem with the pitch as such because the Indian players have played quite well specially Dravid and Gambhir who batter throughout the mid day, and other of the Indian batsmen who batted on the other day. This tells the story that there is nothing wrong with the pitch its just Srilanka's players who are not up to the mark.

al Furqaan
November 26, 2009, 07:22 PM
SL has won quite a few away tests over hte last couple of years...they certainly bucked thier "lions only at home" trend since 2007 or so.

i think this test was just one bad day for them.

al Furqaan
November 26, 2009, 07:23 PM
Correction Bat Well They batted like Bangladesh. Couldn't negotiate pace and bounce of Sreesanth.

one good day of test cricket and its all it takes for ur ilk to trash your hosts...shame, shame, shame. L-)

BD-Shardul
November 26, 2009, 11:16 PM
As I said many times, luck (winning the toss and batting first) has helped India to win this test match. BCCI made a gamble with the pitch. It didn't pay off in Ahmedabad as Lankans showed their lion heart to bat them out. But the gamble paid here. And yes I am not taking anything away from the Indian batsmen. It is very easy for good teams to consistently score 500+ when you bat first in a batting pitch. But it is never easy to do so consistently when you bat second as you have the pressure of 500+ total on your shoulder and thus susceptibility to collapse remains very high. Had SL batted first, I can safely say that India would have lost this test match inside three days.

bharat
November 27, 2009, 12:39 AM
As I said many times, luck (winning the toss and batting first) has helped India to win this test match. BCCI made a gamble with the pitch. It didn't pay off in Ahmedabad as Lankans showed their lion heart to bat them out. But the gamble paid here. And yes I am not taking anything away from the Indian batsmen. It is very easy for good teams to consistently score 500+ when you bat first in a batting pitch. But it is never easy to do so consistently when you bat second as you have the pressure of 500+ total on your shoulder and thus susceptibility to collapse remains very high. Had SL batted first, I can safely say that India would have lost this test match inside three days.

Its funny that you talk about batting second ..one its a one and half day old pitch when SL batted , two 6 out of the 10 wickets were taken by seamers and not spinners in the Srilankan innings !

Also I dont see how the BCCI would gamble against the Lankans .. SL are good but they are no Australia or for that matter England when it comes to playing in India.

For some reason the fans in here cant take SL being beaten badly !! I have a couple of theories ...but I will leave it at that .

I have seen SL being beaten badly in India right though the years and its nothing new to me.Yes India in SL is a different thing where they stack up quiet evenly .But in SL in India !!! No other team has such a poor record in India bar Zim !

Ofcourse this SL team is good but its not better than the previous SL teams that visited India...

Rifat
November 27, 2009, 12:44 AM
Sri Lanka's Innings reminds me of back in the day when Bangladesh used to bat in 2nd innings with tailenders hiting all over the park :D at the run rate of 4.00 per over and barely making past 200 and still losing by and innings and some margin of runs.... :sigh:

MysoreHuli
November 27, 2009, 12:46 AM
Our friend BD-Shardul might come up with a comment "The current SL players are actually Indians in guise":timeout::timeout:

Rifat
November 27, 2009, 01:05 AM
206 is an ok total on an ODI match...;)

_Rafi_
November 27, 2009, 02:55 AM
As I said many times, luck (winning the toss and batting first) has helped India to win this test match. BCCI made a gamble with the pitch. It didn't pay off in Ahmedabad as Lankans showed their lion heart to bat them out. But the gamble paid here. And yes I am not taking anything away from the Indian batsmen. It is very easy for good teams to consistently score 500+ when you bat first in a batting pitch. But it is never easy to do so consistently when you bat second as you have the pressure of 500+ total on your shoulder and thus susceptibility to collapse remains very high. Had SL batted first, I can safely say that India would have lost this test match inside three days.

exactly.
Btw I am waiting to see Mumbai pitch
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 03:34 AM
Had SL batted first, I can safely say that India would have lost this test match inside three days.

You are talking about Bangladesh. Only difference is BD would have lost whether they bat first or second . SL sucks in India. Don't use the stat of how SL whopped Bangladesh to judge how they would play against India.

zman
November 27, 2009, 04:22 AM
A quick research on statsguru reveals India hasn't won a series in Srilanka in more than fifteen years either. Srilanka won both home series they played against India since 2000. During that time India has also been winning their home series against Srilanka. Strangest thing, Srilanka hasn't won the all important toss in India even once since 1997, make of it what you will. In my view SL became a legit cricket powerhouse in 1995 when they won the world cup and soon thereafter they drew a series in India. Speaking of bad luck, notwithstanding all the great batsmen India has produced meanwhile and not taking away anything from their greatness, the Srilankan greats may consider themselves pretty darn unlucky not to hve won the crucial toss at least once eversince.

Surfer
November 27, 2009, 04:40 AM
It has become a fashion to demonize BCCI and blame them for everything. Typical losers attitude. BCCI is the best thing to have happened to world cricket ever.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 09:14 AM
It has become a fashion to demonize BCCI and blame them for everything. Typical losers attitude. BCCI is the best thing to have happened to world cricket ever.

Inferior teams always have excuses. Umpires, toss, pitch.. Good teams just do their job and move on.

Nafi
November 27, 2009, 09:32 AM
BCCI is the best thing to have happened to world cricket ever.

Financially maybe...otherwise no

zman
November 27, 2009, 09:57 AM
Inferior teams always have excuses. Umpires, toss, pitch.. Good teams just do their job and move on.
Fair enough...inferior teams for instance get bounced early on at the grandest stage in world cricket while the better ones move on to the next round. :-D

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 10:08 AM
Fair enough...inferior teams for instance get bounced early on at the grandest stage in world cricket while the better ones move on to the next round. :-D


Yea.. India won T20 also reached world cup final twice won once, reached championstrophy final twice. bhaa.

Surfer
November 27, 2009, 11:14 AM
India? No1 test team, no2 ODI team. The no1 team's home is the team's graveyard, Mikey?

BD-Shardul
November 27, 2009, 11:32 AM
bcci is the best thing to have happened to world cricket ever.
[বাংলা]
নিজের রান্না করা অখাদ্যের নিজেই তারিফ করা।[/বাংলা]

:-D :lol:

BD-Shardul
November 27, 2009, 11:38 AM
Inferior teams always have excuses. Umpires, toss, pitch.. Good teams just do their job and move on.

Yeah, SL is inferior team because


Mahela Jayawardene is no 1 test batsman
KC Sangakkara is no 2 test batsmen
M Muralidharan is no 2 test bowler
And SL is no 2 test team.


"If we had won the toss and batted first on the wicket and got a decent amount of runs on the board our spinners would have been quite a threat on this track," he (Sangakkara) said.

Surfer
November 27, 2009, 11:59 AM
[বাংলা]
নিজের রান্না করা অখাদ্যের নিজেই তারিফ করা।[/বাংলা]

:-D :lol:

My brother, please speak in English. I can understand Bengali a bit, but I can not read it even a bit.:(

Surfer
November 27, 2009, 12:00 PM
Yeah, SL is inferior team because


Mahela Jayawardene is no 1 test batsman
KC Sangakkara is no 2 test batsmen
M Muralidharan is no 2 test bowler
And SL is no 2 test team.


"If we had won the toss and batted first on the wicket and got a decent amount of runs on the board our spinners would have been quite a threat on this track," he (Sangakkara) said.

We are talking about teams. India is no1, Srilanka is no2. We are better.:wave:

zman
November 27, 2009, 12:23 PM
Now let's see who's willing to put money where the mouth is! I'm willing to bet if SL wins the toss, there's no way India wins the next test match because that's how important it is to win the toss in India. Any takers? ;)

Neel Here
November 27, 2009, 12:34 PM
dada has an article on the first test http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/436017.html

Neel Here
November 27, 2009, 01:03 PM
Now let's see who's willing to put money where the mouth is! I'm willing to bet if SL wins the toss, there's no way India wins the next test match because that's how important it is to win the toss in India. Any takers? ;)

have some time on hands, hence this worthless stats. :)
importance of toss for tests in indian soil :

http://stats.cricinfo.com/india/engine/records/team/match_results_season.html?class=1;id=6;type=host
all cases for tosses won. I know it doesn't make sense for drawn matches but WTH ! :-D
2009/2010
won : 1 lost : 0 drawn :1

2008/09
won: 2 lost : 1 drawn : 3

2007/2008
won:0 lost:3 drawn: 3

in all, ignoring drawn matches, in last 3 years a team has lost 4 times after winning the toss and won 3 times.

with this limited data one could argue that losing the toss actually improves your chances of winning on indian soil. looks like india won against heavy odds this test match ! :-p

Surfer
November 27, 2009, 01:06 PM
have some time on hands, hence this worthless stats. :)
importance of toss for tests in indian soil :

http://stats.cricinfo.com/india/engine/records/team/match_results_season.html?class=1;id=6;type=host
all cases for tosses won. I know it doesn't make sense for drawn matches but WTH ! :-D
2009/2010
won : 1 lost : 0 drawn :1

2008/09
won: 2 lost : 1 drawn : 3

2007/2008
won:0 lost:3 drawn: 3

in all, ignoring drawn matches, in last 3 years a team has lost 4 times after winning the toss and won 3 times.

with this limited data one could argue that losing the toss actually improves your chances of winning on indian soil. looks like india won against heavy odds this test match ! :-p

Thanks for pulling the stats out. Another baseless argument put to rest.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 02:34 PM
Win the toss win the match is the case in Srilanka.
Win or lose the toss win the match is the case in Bangladesh.

Neel Here
November 27, 2009, 02:37 PM
Thanks for pulling the stats out. Another baseless argument put to rest.
actually its limited to 3 years , you can't draw any conclusion out of it. the sample size is too small.

as I said, it's worthless.

zman
November 27, 2009, 02:40 PM
Neel_here's stats are by no means enough to refute my argument, rather they were somewhat irrelevant to my point. If I were arguing about Zimbabwe or even England/Pakistan for that matter, I agree Neel's stats would've debunked my claim. My argument is specifically regarding SRILANKA. They have a pretty balanced team just like India, including some great batsmen such as--Dilshan, Sanga, Jayawardene, Samaraweera. These guyz are obviously great players of spin and good enough to compete against the best on any given day. But unfortunately Indian tracks are such that when two evenly balanced teams compete, more often than not the side batting first will have the advantage and Srilanka have been unlucky not to hve won a toss in a while. I'm still willing to bet India won't beat Srilanka if they play on a similar pitch AND SRILANKA WINS THE TOSS. Offer still holds. If you have such conviction in ur team why don't you take the offer, Surfer? ;)

Neel Here
November 27, 2009, 02:42 PM
let me make this clear, I didn't post the stats in order to support or refute any argument but just out of fun.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 03:15 PM
India won't beat Srilanka if they play on a similar pitch AND SRILANKA WINS THE TOSS.


What a load of crap. India would have won by an innings and 200 runs. Pitch was very fresh on day one for fast bowlers. They had no half decent pacers to exploit. When India bowled pitch was absolutely dead for fast bowlers. Absolutely nothing there.

zman
November 27, 2009, 03:22 PM
What a load of crap. India would have won by an innings and 200 runs. Pitch was very fresh on day one for fast bowlers. They had no half decent pacers to exploit. When India bowled pitch was absolutely dead for fast bowlers. Absolutely nothing there.
Very good. This post will be marked. If SL wins the toss on Dec 2, we'll pick off from where we left b4 the test ends on Dec 6.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 03:45 PM
Very good. This post will be marked. If SL wins the toss on Dec 2, we'll pick off from where we left b4 the test ends on Dec 6.

Kanpur pitch vs Mumbai pitch apples and oranges. You are talking total bakwas. Anyway you said SL will win if they win the toss? You are talking utter nonsense. Ya.. SL will win even if they lose the toss.. how.. when the opposition team is a team called Bangladesh. They can beat the crap out of you even with eyes closed. But not other teams.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 03:55 PM
This pseudo srilankan supporters are frankly laughable bunch as their own team sucks big time they need to borrow fortunes of other teams.

zman
November 27, 2009, 04:55 PM
Kanpur pitch vs Mumbai pitch apples and oranges. You are talking total bakwas. Anyway you said SL will win if they win the toss? You are talking utter nonsense. Ya.. SL will win even if they lose the toss.. how.. when the opposition team is a team called Bangladesh. They can beat the crap out of you even with eyes closed. But not other teams.
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Go back and re read all my posts and tell me where I said, "SL will win if they win the toss?". First learn how to read, comprehend and analyze b4 you post something. Otherwise don't even bother. I'd rather discuss with someone who understands logic and is willing to argue in a civilized manner.

smashyboy
November 27, 2009, 07:10 PM
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Go back and re read all my posts and tell me where I said, "SL will win if they win the toss?". First learn how to read, comprehend and analyze b4 you post something. Otherwise don't even bother. I'd rather discuss with someone who understands logic and is willing to argue in a civilized manner.

That is not logic. Just nonsense. One team getting their sh** canned by an innings 144 runs. You simplify it by saying if SL had batted first they would have won by an innings and 144 runs omitting the difference in strengths of teams. You could apply this stupid logic to any match and say we would have won if we had won the toss.

bharat
November 27, 2009, 10:16 PM
I think some arguments in here are simply baseless and outright silly .Guys I know some of you hate BCCI /India but demeaning an outright slaughter by technicality is rather silly !!

As for zman ! Toss or no toss I cant see SL beating India in India .I would have said the same in the last series in Lanka as well if not for the "shock and awe" of Mendis .

The answer to me is simple ..plain simple. SL has a single strategy of winning ...prepare Good batting pitches ..make runs in the loads and unleash Murali.It works great with every country except India as the Indian's do the same except they do it better.

SL cant beat India unless Murali fires against the Indian batsmen which I dont see it happening.

Mahela and Sanga are good but they are only above average when they are faced with non-batting tracks..same with Dilshan.

I am sorry but India ,Aus and SA are in a different league ...SL ,Pak and NZ can push the top three on their day but I cant see it happening day in and day out.

P.S -Smashboy ..keep BD out of the discussion .Have an argument not a fight.

al Furqaan
November 28, 2009, 12:33 AM
Inferior teams always have excuses. Umpires, toss, pitch.. Good teams just do their job and move on.

well that would make either Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the best team in world cricket, and would make india the worst. indian fans complain about everything in between the earth and the sun. umpires, toss, pitch, you name it indians (team or fans) have complained about it. in fact a task of utmost difficulty would be to find something Indians have NOT complained about. money: check, Indians bitch about that. scheduling: check, Indians bitch about that. too many minnows in the world cup: Indians (and Pakis) bitch about that. and my personal favorite: too many meaningless games in the world cup: check, Indians bitch about that.

and we now have a World cup, where the the champion basically has to win just 3 "meaningful" games. well done, BCCI (and PCB): take a bow!

umpires: bucknor and that sydney test in 2008 (do you know how many BD matches bucknor and his fellow Blind Umpires Association collegues Ashoka and Peter Parker have officiated?)
toss: world cup match vs BD
pitch: ahmedabad test vs RSA

there were even some fans and perhaps even MS Dhoni himself complaining about the review system, when every major sport that has a review system agrees its better with it.

smashyboy
November 28, 2009, 01:45 AM
well that would make either Bangladesh or Sri Lanka the best team in world cricket, .

Srilanka >>>>>> Bangladesh.

Neel Here
November 28, 2009, 01:48 AM
Srilanka >>>>>> Bangladesh.

stop trolling will you ?

al Furqaan
November 28, 2009, 01:54 AM
Srilanka >>>>>> Bangladesh.

thats all the response you could muster? ain't that a first...

smashyboy
November 28, 2009, 01:59 AM
thats all the response you could muster? ain't that a first...

That was a pointless drivel unrelated to the subject in question here. What else you expect. Here is a guy who says SL would have done the same if they had won the toss. You managed to overlook that gigantically stupid claim and pick on this.

zman
November 28, 2009, 03:13 AM
Kanpur pitch vs Mumbai pitch apples and oranges. You are talking total bakwas. Anyway you said SL will win if they win the toss? You are talking utter nonsense. Ya.. SL will win even if they lose the toss.. how.. when the opposition team is a team called Bangladesh. They can beat the crap out of you even with eyes closed. But not other teams.
That is not logic. Just nonsense. One team getting their sh** canned by an innings 144 runs. You simplify it by saying if SL had batted first they would have won by an innings and 144 runs omitting the difference in strengths of teams. You could apply this stupid logic to any match and say we would have won if we had won the toss.
That was a pointless drivel unrelated to the subject in question here. What else you expect. Here is a guy who says SL would have done the same if they had won the toss. You managed to overlook that gigantically stupid claim and pick on this.
My response:
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Go back and re read all my posts and tell me where I said, "SL will win if they win the toss?". First learn how to read, comprehend and analyze b4 you post something. Otherwise don't even bother. I'd rather discuss with someone who understands logic and is willing to argue in a civilized manner.
Let me slow down and break it down for you. Go to statsguru, do a search on test matches where India hosted Srilanka. Upon inspection you'll notice, in 1997 the year after SL won the world cup they visited India and played three (3) test matches and what was the result? the series was drawn. Has it even occured to you that I may have been referring to that result (which is draw)?

I chose my words carefully so that the PREMISE of my argument WOULD NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY the CONCLUSION: "Srilanka winning the toss would result in Srilanka winning the match".

I REITERATE, I challenge you to "QUOTE ME" where I said what you claim I said. If you can't I won't even respond to any of your posts in this thread going forward, it's just not worth wasting my time.

Surfer
November 28, 2009, 03:30 AM
Stop the 'if's and 'but's game guys. You can say whatever if you want with an if.

al Furqaan
November 28, 2009, 03:58 AM
That was a pointless drivel unrelated to the subject in question here. What else you expect. Here is a guy who says SL would have done the same if they had won the toss. You managed to overlook that gigantically stupid claim and pick on this.

there is no single "subject" in question on this thread. i merely targeted the most obnoxious poster in the thread, and won't stop till he/she realizes i can be ten times as obnoxious whilst retaining factual veracity and coherence.

no matter how ridiculous zman's statement might be - and he claims you've misrepresented him, an action i wouldn't put beyond you, for the record - i'm more interested at your bravado, hubris, and mudslinging.

smashyboy
November 28, 2009, 08:53 AM
Now let's see who's willing to put money where the mouth is! I'm willing to bet if SL wins the toss, there's no way India wins the next test match because that's how important it is to win the toss in India. Any takers? ;)

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/332913.html

http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/361050.html

BD-Shardul
November 28, 2009, 10:09 AM
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/332913.html

That was the worst possible pitch India prepared. The ball turned like it does on a fifth day pitch from the first day. Have some shame that India drew the series by preparing such an unsporting wicket.

Neel Here
November 28, 2009, 11:12 AM
That was the worst possible pitch India prepared. The ball turned like it does on a fifth day pitch from the first day. Have some shame that India drew the series by preparing such an unsporting wicket.

this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.

Akib
November 28, 2009, 11:59 AM
this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.

I wouldnt say the pitch helps India win..... they just extend game to a boring 5 day draw...

Surfer
November 28, 2009, 12:53 PM
That was the worst possible pitch India prepared. The ball turned like it does on a fifth day pitch from the first day. Have some shame that India drew the series by preparing such an unsporting wicket.

this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.

Exactly. When Australia makes Perth so unplayable that no one ever wins there, it's called a challenge. But a turner in India is always unsporting.

Neel Here
November 28, 2009, 01:24 PM
not only india, it is the same for sri lanka. when BD starts winning on spinning tracks same noises would be raised against BCB too.

smashyboy
November 28, 2009, 05:10 PM
That was the worst possible pitch India prepared. The ball turned like it does on a fifth day pitch from the first day. Have some shame that India drew the series by preparing such an unsporting wicket.

Your argument is "win the toss win the match". SA won the toss. SA didn't win the match. What is your explanation. Both teams played on the same pitch.

Abid_Khan
November 28, 2009, 07:39 PM
Dude, stop arguing and get a life, jeezus christ.

Zeeshan
November 28, 2009, 08:47 PM
this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.

Good point.

Zeeshan
November 28, 2009, 08:48 PM
Dude, stop arguing and get a life, jeezus christ.

Abid bhai, is that you in the avatar?

Baundule
November 28, 2009, 11:18 PM
BCCI is the god of cricket, Lalit Modi is its Prophet, Indian pitches are the Mecca or Mathuradham of test cricket and Indian batsmen are the Ram-Laxman brothers or the Sahabis.

MysoreHuli
November 30, 2009, 01:00 AM
That was the worst possible pitch India prepared. The ball turned like it does on a fifth day pitch from the first day. Have some shame that India drew the series by preparing such an unsporting wicket.

It would be right if u say, what a shame that the team doesnt have a single batsmen who can play spin or a bowler who can spin the opponents, a real handicap team.

MysoreHuli
November 30, 2009, 01:02 AM
this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.


Exactly.

BANFAN
November 30, 2009, 03:58 AM
this is something I don't understand. when the first world countries create greentops that suit their bowling it is called 'sporting wicket'. when sub-continent teams create wickets that suit their bowling, namely spin, it is derisively called unsporting and dust bowl.
nothing but bias.

Excellent point.

bharat
November 30, 2009, 12:22 PM
BCCI is the god of cricket, Lalit Modi is its Prophet, Indian pitches are the Mecca or Mathuradham of test cricket and Indian batsmen are the Ram-Laxman brothers or the Sahabis.

Good call !! Finally someone here sees light !!

bharat
December 1, 2009, 10:49 PM
Now let's see who's willing to put money where the mouth is! I'm willing to bet if SL wins the toss, there's no way India wins the next test match because that's how important it is to win the toss in India. Any takers? ;)


Here you go ! SL wins the toss and decides to bat !

bharat
December 3, 2009, 11:14 AM
zman I am waiting for your response and your theories on this match now .It looks like India is the only team that can win this came despite loosing the "proverbial ,all encompassing, <add some more superlatives> toss".

zman
December 3, 2009, 11:43 AM
India violated the unwritten rules of engagement by secretly adding aliens to their squad. Bet doesn't hold if you include non human beings in your team. You don't believe Sehwag is human, do u? Nor is Gambhir, Tendulkar or Yuvraj. These "beings" are from planet Eris and they've unfairly and decisively tilted the balance of power in favor of India

Beamer
December 3, 2009, 12:03 PM
Atherton talking about graveyard! what irony in that comment. His batting alone was enough to send the alive spectator to the graveyard! In all fairness, if you believe in home-field advantage, it is incumbent upon you to take advantage of your strong suits. India, traditionally had solid test batsmen and great spinners. So, naturally, they will make turf to suit their strong points. How is it any different than WI of the Eighties building scorchers to suit their battery of fiery pacemen? or, England making seam friendly pitches to take advantage of their climate and plethora of seamers? If you are a great player, you will score runs anywhere, against all opposition, pitches, climate etc.

Nocturnal
December 3, 2009, 12:24 PM
Atherton talking about graveyard! what irony in that comment. His batting alone was enough to send the alive spectator to the graveyard! In all fairness, if you believe in home-field advantage, it is incumbent upon you to take advantage of your strong suits. India, traditionally had solid test batsmen and great spinners. So, naturally, they will make turf to suit their strong points. How is it any different than WI of the Eighties building scorchers to suit their battery of fiery pacemen? or, England making seam friendly pitches to take advantage of their climate and plethora of seamers? If you are a great player, you will score runs anywhere, against all opposition, pitches, climate etc.

nicely put Beamer bhai :clap:

bharat
December 3, 2009, 01:23 PM
India violated the unwritten rules of engagement by secretly adding aliens to their squad. Bet doesn't hold if you include non human beings in your team. You don't believe Sehwag is human, do u? Nor is Gambhir, Tendulkar or Yuvraj. These "beings" are from planet Eris and they've unfairly and decisively tilted the balance of power in favor of India

:floor:

Nice one.

By the way I am calling in sick for work to get a chance to see the alien surpass Lara's 400.If there's anyone who deserves to break Lara's record its got to be Shewag.His frantic pace gives the team a chance to win despite going for the record without sabotaging the team's chances for a win.

Jesus87
December 4, 2009, 02:06 AM
:floor:

Nice one.

By the way I am calling in sick for work to get a chance to see the alien surpass Lara's 400.If there's anyone who deserves to break Lara's record its got to be Shewag.His frantic pace gives the team a chance to win despite going for the record without sabotaging the team's chances for a win.

Unfortunately he didn't even last a minute this morning lol:-D
A few of my Indian friends skipped college in India, heartbreaking for them lol, anyway Sehwag is a legend, he will get his second change when he comes to BD, he'll probably score a 400 in Dhaka for sure. :smug:

WI4EVER
December 4, 2009, 05:58 PM
I disagree, India is playing 100% for a win, you could pull the argument if the tests were being drawn.

You can usually say 700+ means negative cricket, but Dhoni has left 175 overs or so to bowl SL out.

Having said that, the pitch is quite dead, but if you bowl well like India did in the first innings, you can get a team out for a modest score.

smashyboy
December 6, 2009, 12:31 AM
Very good. This post will be marked. If SL wins the toss on Dec 2, we'll pick off from where we left b4 the test ends on Dec 6.

:D Ahemmm!

Surfer
December 6, 2009, 01:20 AM
As I said many times, luck (winning the toss and batting first) has helped India to win this test match. BCCI made a gamble with the pitch. It didn't pay off in Ahmedabad as Lankans showed their lion heart to bat them out. But the gamble paid here. And yes I am not taking anything away from the Indian batsmen. It is very easy for good teams to consistently score 500+ when you bat first in a batting pitch. But it is never easy to do so consistently when you bat second as you have the pressure of 500+ total on your shoulder and thus susceptibility to collapse remains very high. Had SL batted first, I can safely say that India would have lost this test match inside three days.

exactly.
Btw I am waiting to see Mumbai pitch
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

A quick research on statsguru reveals India hasn't won a series in Srilanka in more than fifteen years either. Srilanka won both home series they played against India since 2000. During that time India has also been winning their home series against Srilanka. Strangest thing, Srilanka hasn't won the all important toss in India even once since 1997, make of it what you will. In my view SL became a legit cricket powerhouse in 1995 when they won the world cup and soon thereafter they drew a series in India. Speaking of bad luck, notwithstanding all the great batsmen India has produced meanwhile and not taking away anything from their greatness, the Srilankan greats may consider themselves pretty darn unlucky not to hve won the crucial toss at least once eversince.

Yeah, SL is inferior team because


Mahela Jayawardene is no 1 test batsman
KC Sangakkara is no 2 test batsmen
M Muralidharan is no 2 test bowler
And SL is no 2 test team.


"If we had won the toss and batted first on the wicket and got a decent amount of runs on the board our spinners would have been quite a threat on this track," he (Sangakkara) said.

Now let's see who's willing to put money where the mouth is! I'm willing to bet if SL wins the toss, there's no way India wins the next test match because that's how important it is to win the toss in India. Any takers? ;)

Neel_here's stats are by no means enough to refute my argument, rather they were somewhat irrelevant to my point. If I were arguing about Zimbabwe or even England/Pakistan for that matter, I agree Neel's stats would've debunked my claim. My argument is specifically regarding SRILANKA. They have a pretty balanced team just like India, including some great batsmen such as--Dilshan, Sanga, Jayawardene, Samaraweera. These guyz are obviously great players of spin and good enough to compete against the best on any given day. But unfortunately Indian tracks are such that when two evenly balanced teams compete, more often than not the side batting first will have the advantage and Srilanka have been unlucky not to hve won a toss in a while. I'm still willing to bet India won't beat Srilanka if they play on a similar pitch AND SRILANKA WINS THE TOSS. Offer still holds. If you have such conviction in ur team why don't you take the offer, Surfer? ;)


What a load of crap. India would have won by an innings and 200 runs. Pitch was very fresh on day one for fast bowlers. They had no half decent pacers to exploit. When India bowled pitch was absolutely dead for fast bowlers. Absolutely nothing there.

Very good. This post will be marked. If SL wins the toss on Dec 2, we'll pick off from where we left b4 the test ends on Dec 6.

Kanpur pitch vs Mumbai pitch apples and oranges. You are talking total bakwas. Anyway you said SL will win if they win the toss? You are talking utter nonsense. Ya.. SL will win even if they lose the toss.. how.. when the opposition team is a team called Bangladesh. They can beat the crap out of you even with eyes closed. But not other teams.

Are you trying to put words in my mouth? Go back and re read all my posts and tell me where I said, "SL will win if they win the toss?". First learn how to read, comprehend and analyze b4 you post something. Otherwise don't even bother. I'd rather discuss with someone who understands logic and is willing to argue in a civilized manner.

Your argument is "win the toss win the match". SA won the toss. SA didn't win the match. What is your explanation. Both teams played on the same pitch.

Here you go ! SL wins the toss and decides to bat !

Hello boys, what a nice day, is it not? New day, new lesson. Never ever try to belittle a team using a stupid "If".

smashyboy
December 6, 2009, 01:53 AM
Hello boys, what a nice day, is it not? New day, new lesson. Never ever try to belittle a team using a stupid "If".

Doubly sweet considering it is also an innings win.