mickey arthur and the Kanpur track.

[umpire]

here it is Lurker (self loathing indian) Total (all out; 79.5 overs; 374 mins) 249 (3.11 runs per over) (all out; 25.1 overs; 131 mins) 84 (all out; 64.4 overs; 308 mins) 236 (all out; 86.5 overs; 415 mins) 278 if you total it ( I am sure your math is good), it comes out less than 270 overs.

[umpire]

now this is instance in Australia, very recent. Boxing Day test match in 2006. Lurker please run http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/249225.html

[umpire]

Lurker, more for you, New Year Test in that same Ashes series, again 3 day ...hahahahha, please count the number of overs http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/249226.html

[f.b.m]

Calling the ability to win on the sham of a wicket is not "strength". Instead it is spoon-feeding to the prima donnas that Indian team consist of.

prima donnas like Ganguly I suppose? Why cant South Africa win a test on the same sham of a wicket despite getting the better deal in the toss? I dont know whether to take you seriously because you could be either sarcastic or drunk. If Sehwag happens to be 5 times more talented as a spinner than Paul Harris, its their problem and such a team can never be truly great. We win on all kinds of wickets, we lose on all kinds of wickets. Its different with SA or Sri Lanka for that matter. Fact is, South Africa didnt have a spinner who deserves to play test matches. And that was ruthlessly exposed, as it deserves to be.

when a Veeru Sehwag takes 3 wickets and Harbhajan Singh opens the bowling. Sorry that is NOT spin track, thats bowling spin on an un-International track. Period.

Sehwag has taken 3 wickets a few times. And please, Harbhajan got a bowl because Dhoni, as he said didnt want any free runs to be given before they eliminated the lead, as would have been the case if he had given the ball to Ishant.

[f.b.m]

I think the last 2 wickets have been the best wickets (for cricket's sake) in India for a long time despite it being for completely different reasons.

[umpire]

>I dont know whether to take you seriously because you could be either sarcastic or drunk. he is just not happy. He is wondering how can India win. Typical self loathing.

[Predator_05]

Yeah, except he was asking you to provide an example of a 3-day match involving SOUTH AFRIKA, not Australia or England.

[umpire]

>except he was asking you to provide an example of a 3-day match involving SOUTH AFRIKA I did, that Jo'berg Test

[Ram]

Cant believe someone can actually downplay our victory coz we won in three days or just because spinners played such a massive role and got lots of assistance from the track. I have always found it ironical that, in the mid-90 and early 2000s, when we used to lose so badly abroad coz our batting wasnt great against quality fast bowling, the blame would automatically fall on our batsman for being not capable of adapting to the new environs. No one really blamed the pitch when we were shot out for 100 and 66 in Durban in 96 and lost in two days. Then, all the blame was on our batsman as usual. And later, when the roles are reversed, when foreign teams come to Ind and expose themselves of being incapable of playing in spin-friendly conditions, then that somehow reflects poorly on us. Simply dont understand the logic, to be honest. Any pitch, any condition, is after all, a unique challenge by itself. There's no given thing called a 'good cricket wicket'. The only classification should be ones between those that provide for exciting cricket and those that result in boring cricket. As long as the pitch doesnt behave venomously, leading to a verifiable and an evident judgment that it is dangerous for the batsman to face bowlers, then it is perfectly fine to have tracks that kick, spin and bounce. Besides, who said test matches that end in 3 days provide sub-standard cricket ? No way ! In its most basic level, cricket is a direct one-on-one between two sets of eleven men. Whatever conditions we can exploit, they can exploit too. In this match's case, we just proved ourselves to be better than them in using the conditions and thats exactly what test cricket is all about. And I also simply refuse to accept the Kanpur pitch was unplayable. To say the Saffie batsman were simply not capable of surviving in those conditions against our bowlers is more closer to the truth. After all, wasnt it, on this very same pitch, that the Saffies were 152/1 less 150 overs ago ? Wasnt it on this very same pitch that we scored 325 runs in our first innings less than 24 hours ago ? The pitch was decent enough, they simply werent good enough to win, as simple as that. If Mickey Arthur or Graeme Smith or any of the visiting team guys whine that our pitches spin too much, then lets ask them to take a hike. What they are saying is actually an indirect admission of their incapability to play quality spin bowling on helpful tracks.

[f.b.m]

Any pitch, any condition, is after all, a unique challenge by itself. There's no given thing called a 'good cricket wicket'. The only classification should be ones between those that provide for exciting cricket and those that result in boring cricket.

Nail on the head. A "sporting" wicket is one that has a result in it and has a decent balance between bat and ball.

[Ram]

If those guys are really interested in winning in India, they should try to bring in some quality spin bowlers and wrong-foot us in our own plan. Who's stopping anyone from bringing in a world class spinner to India, who is capable of making the ball talk all sorts of new languages against our batsman ? The blunt truth is, bar India, the rest of the world's spinning talents are pitifully pathetic. We probably have more higher quality spinners than the rest of the world put together. Not to forget, our batsman play spinners as though they feel its a personal insult on them to face play those bowlers. I suppose Stuart McGill summed it up very nicely, when he was asked after the Adelaide test of 2003/04, about the Indian batsman' ability to lay spin : "It's not as if they know what I am bowling, it's almost as if they don't really seem to care what I am bowling." :haha: We are the daddies of spin bowling. Almost EVERY worthwhile spinner has played against and in India, only to see his career numbers worsen. We are just too good at it, its something to be proud of, not something we need to be apologetic about

[Predator_05]

Saqlain gave India a fair share of headaches though. What a great bowler he was, one of the few paki cricketers i liked

[bigdhoni7]

And I also simply refuse to accept the Kanpur pitch was unplayable. To say the Saffie batsman were simply not capable of surviving in those conditions against our bowlers is more closer to the truth. After all, wasnt it, on this very same pitch, that the Saffies were 152/1 less 150 overs ago ? Wasnt it on this very same pitch that we scored 325 runs in our first innings less than 24 hours ago ? The pitch was decent enough, they simply werent good enough to win, as simple as that.

And good enough pitch for batting that sree and ishant batted for a 46 run partnership which was higher than any of sa's batsmen in the 2nd innings... that alone makes it laughable that they got bowled out for 121. :hysterical:

[Guest Hiten.]

Lurker, why are you blaming the pitch and not the SA batting line up ? Isn't it quite obvious that SA batsman cannot play spin (with some considerable bounce) ? SA batsmen got a 'at home' condition in A'bad and they managed to pile runs on. Why not then were they tagged as 'curator dependent' ? We took the home advantage of preparing the track that will suit our bowlers. Heck, our only recognized spinner was Bhajji, as Piyush is still young and has to learn a lot. SA had the ego problem of going in with one spinner when they knew that the pitch is a turner. Mickey Mouse came out with a statement saying "our pace bowlers will exploit this pitch conditions" Too effing bad his bowlers couldn't do jack sh*t. Veeru turning the ball indicates that the pitch is bad ? Hello! The recently concluded Perth test proves that this man is a vital part timer. He picked the wicket of Adam, when it mattered the most. Perth test was in no way similar to Kanpur strip. YET, veeru managed to pick 2 wickets, didn't he ? Moreover, most of the matches in NZ last 3 to 4 days (at the max). Why are they not cursed for preparing such not-so-sporty pitches ? Because they prepare pitches that help Pace bowlers roll the stumps over which is a beautiful sight, isn't it ? But when spinning tracks are prepared, Asian teams are 'afraid' of a loss against the tourists. India won the match fair-and-square. Our batsmen get a bit stick for not playing the pace bowlers on green strip, SA batsmen should be blamed for not being able to negotiate the spin on spinning track.

[f.b.m]

Saqlain gave India a fair share of headaches though. What a great bowler he was' date=' one of the few paki cricketers i liked[/quote'] It was his freaky new variations that got us. btw, He's an english player now. Hihi (;

[Ram]

Moreover, most of the matches in NZ last 3 to 4 days (at the max). Why are they not cursed for preparing such not-so-sporty pitches ? Because they prepare pitches that help Pace bowlers roll the stumps over which is a beautiful sight, isn't it ? But when spinning tracks are prepared, Asian teams are 'afraid' of a loss against the tourists.

Excellent point !:thumbs_up:

[THX_1138]

"He has done well in England, and he was done well in Australia"... two statements that a batsman would love to see on his tombstone for they admonish his achievements on tracks and venues synonymous with pace and movement. Thus suggesting a superior ability to negotiate the quicks. Similarly, he has dont well in the sub continent is synonmous with an ability to negotiate spin. Now for some bourgeise reason, some people think that in an rabid and inexplicable imitation of the english and aussie conditions, pitches in india must also be groomed to test the ability of a batsmen against pace. Of course, dont let anyone for a minute suggest that the Motera pitch was a veritable Sabrina Park of the Malcom and Holding era, it was about as benign as Hashim-Amla-scores-a-century-on-this-pitch, i.e. either indian bowlers were as intriguing as Saudi porn... i.e. women who bare it all... i.e. both their eyes and earlobes; or indian batting was as solid as a grape vine. Nonetheless, by designing a pitch that tests a batsman's ability to play spin is nothing but following tradition. Preparing a feather bed, or a pacy wicket is either crumbling to a desire of imitating the english or the aussies, and about as sensible as plaid shorts at the arctic. When we were in South Africa, the first pitch that greated us was as condusive for pace as a pitch could ever be, and had India capitulated there, South Africa wont be hinding ashamed, but instead criticism would ring out from every corner of the planet against the indian batting. So in summary: by playing a pitch that bites, spits and is as venomous as a vicious cobra, India is following tradition and not one person can point a finger to that for they are guilty of the same. Heck, its not a crime. It is the game. If you are a batsman, be prepared to play featherbed with pancakes tossed at you, and about as readily, be prepared to intercept missiles on hard as concrete pitches, and in the same breath, learn to dance on a dusty track to the tunes of a spinner turning and twisting the ball like a snake charmer.

[The Outsider]

There was nothing wrong with the pitch. South African batsmen just couldn't play on it. In fact, it was the most sporting pitch of the series - had everything in it for fast bowlers and spinners and scoring runs on it was actually a challenge. I don't think a better pitch can be prepared - one where fast bowlers and spinners get assistance throughout the match.

[Desi Cartman]

Both sides batted well in their first innings, in the 2nd innings Africans just choked ! If India was to bat 3rd then they would have at least played 60 overs and would have pushed it into day 4 easily... I cant understand this theory : At ahemdabad , Indians couldnt handle pace and lost under 3 days but at Kanpur Africans lost because of the turning pitch ! :isalute::isalute::isalute::isalute:

[Lurker]

here it is Lurker (self loathing indian)

WOW! A top class idiot you are, arent you? Thus far you have discussed 2 posts with me and you already have your mind made. A quick reminder - judge my post not me, and yes if you cant understand it Go Eff yourself all over again. Now to your issue.

Total (all out; 79.5 overs; 374 mins) 249 (3.11 runs per over) (all out; 25.1 overs; 131 mins) 84 (all out; 64.4 overs; 308 mins) 236 (all out; 86.5 overs; 415 mins) 278 if you total it ( I am sure your math is good), it comes out less than 270 overs.

Yes my math is very good but your common sense is NOT. The example you quote is that where India actually won!! Do you understand what you are arguing here? If the pitch was a square turner and South Africa actually beat India inside 3 days you would be one of the first loony to ask for a dead track blah blah.

Lurker, more for you, New Year Test in that same Ashes series, again 3 day ...hahahahha, please count the number of overs

What more for you? Do you remotely understand your cricket? Let me school you since you are a total * substitute your choice of adjective* Even the foolest of fool wont compare Sydney cricket ground with Kanpur, but hey surely there are some even worse than that lot. Australia did NOT change SCG. Heck they were leading 4-0 going inside the 5th, and last Test, at Sydney. One can argue Aussies wanted a whitewash but even that wont compare with the fact that India were 0-1 down at home and resorted to under International track to save their ar$e. Capisce? Now make better points next time(about points and not me). xxx