The Australian obsession with centuries is sickening

[EnterTheVoid]

What, he needed to pass 3 figures to show he can bat? 80s and 90s aren't good scores?

Apparently not good enough, not my view but that was the criticism leveled against him. For all his starts, there was no century. It only made sense he used this opportunity to get his century and silence his critics. I fail to understand how that is selfish if he is helping his team in the long run.

[Sachinism]

Why so bitter Shwetabh ? Like how Karthik was ripped to shreds for failing to let Tendulkar score his century ? Sorry to dampen the mood but Australia has got this one in the big. The result is a foregone conclusion and no one is gate crashing this party. Donkeys are going to outwit themselves and lose 11 in a row to Australia.

By who? A moron bunch of ex-players? and arm chair fans? So? If you saw the match, you would have realised Sachin was not too bothered about the ton

[yoda]

:sniffle: That half hour odd Watson spent in the 90's, are you saying is responsible if Australia draw or lose the test ?

Are you kidding me? Half an hour can make a big difference in a test.

[Guest Evil Mod Consortium]

You come across someone who is extremely bitter' date=' with your constant anti - ICC, anti - Australia rants, making a mountain of a molehill over trial issues, working overtime to sensationalize and over blow issues out of proportion whatever Australia do, whether they win, lose or draw. [/quote'] The Outsider has a reputation here of being anti-many things. Don't forget that in addition to being anti-Australia and anti-ICC, he's also anti-incredibly-thoughtless-and-ignorant-comments and anti-Punjabi. :headshake: For its new year's resolution, EMC will try and teach Professor Outsider to be anti fewer things.

[The Outsider]

I have no clue what you are trying to argue, sree. I have stated my opinion on Aussies being fixated by personal milestones like no other cricketing nation backed up with facts like the way they play their game when approaching personal landmarks, the way their commentators and media have been in hysteria over centuries for one month running, the statements their players have given in the press, and their actions on the field upon missing out on them. If you think any of my facts are wrong point them out, if you have a different opinion good for you.

[EnterTheVoid]

By who? A moron bunch of ex-players? and arm chair fans? So? If you saw the match, you would have realised Sachin was not too bothered about the ton

Its a matter of principle, whats good for the goose is good for the gander. The problem lies in the selective morality. I am not too fussed with Karthik's innings btw;

[DomainK]

It's right. They are making too big a deal of centuries and personal milestones.

[EnterTheVoid]

Watson's hundred was simply nauseating yesterday.

Give me one good reason why

Every commentator fixated with a bloody century.

So ? The Australian wants to see an Australian score a century and after so many missed opportunities, the excitement of an unexpected century by Watson, that too his maiden one, was palpable.

Spent 70 minutes in the 90s when the team needed quick runs and stomp out Pakistan.

For goodness sake, this is Pakistan. They will have their customary collapse. At that stage, Australia were already 380 odd runs ahead; Keep them in the field longer and tire them out.

Just for the daylight murder of cricket as a team sport by the Aussies, I won't mind seeing them lose here.

Pretty bold statement, care to elaborate ?

[The Outsider]

^ It's called making a hyperbolic statement, but does not detract from the main point, which is Australian players', media, and commentators' obsession with personal milestones when they have in the past accused India of the same.

[flamy]

In b4 Sree_oz ...oh wait. :wall:

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[achilles]

@ The Outsider- You know you are too honest for the internet. And people don't really like honesty, I believe.

[vvvslaxman]

I remember Punter commenting about Lara's 400 as a selfish knock. Though it was true he played for record, Punter will now come across a hypocrite.

[graphic23]

Sree, if you dont think 30 minutes in a test match (and he spent more than 30 mins in the 90s btw) is not influential enough on a result, I suggest you rewatch the game vs. England at Chennai at the end of the fourth day last year. Then tell me how the 68 ball 83 did not affect the final result. It didn't take more than 30 minutes for the English bowlers to be demoralized and consistently start bowling short and wide to Sehwag. And uh, the claim is that the same Australians who claimed that Indians value their personal milestones more than the team's victory are doing the same, and people who've followed the game for a longer time have found that to be hypocritical.

[Shehezaada]

See, this is the difference: Those allegations of selfishness directed at Tendulkar et al, I presume are the ones you are referring to, hold very little merit since Tendulkar has proved his worth time and again; Even those leveling the allegations know their accusations are frivolous and baseless. No need to dwelve into the matter further Today, it made sense for Watson to take his time to reach his maiden century. Unless you want to argue that the half hour odd Watson spent poking, prodding and pushing the ball whilst languishing in the 90's robbed Australia of the momentum to set the MCG on fire and land out the knockout punch, to which I eagerly await a response.

how did it make sense for him to poke and prod in the nineties? He spent 45 minutes there, stalling his team's cause, scoring at a strike rate of less then 25 in the 90s.....weren't Australia pushing for a declaration? You leave nothing to chance in test match cricket when your fully on top. What if Pakistan end up batting the 90 overs to draw, or even win the test match?? Will you still come back to say Watson was right in slowing down in the 90s? Graphic's pointed out an excellent instance of half an hour changing a game. Here's a couple more: 1) Shoaib Akhtar against Australia in Colombo....3 wickets in 4 balls, 6 wickets in 20 minutes to induce an Aussie collapse 2) Harbhajan Singh Hattrick in Kolkatta to stop a mammoth Aussie score 3) Malinga's 4 in 4 to win SRL a WC game

[Cricketics]

Sree' date=' if you dont think 30 minutes in a test match (and he spent more than 30 mins in the 90s btw) .[/quote'] Dude, 30?? total 1 hour 9 minutes is what he spent from 91 to 99. and then he got his much awaited Single

[Clarke]

The Outsider has a reputation here of being anti-many things. Don't forget that in addition to being anti-Australia and anti-ICC, he's also anti-incredibly-thoughtless-and-ignorant-comments and anti-Punjabi. :headshake: For its new year's resolution, EMC will try and teach Professor Outsider to be anti fewer things.

:hysterical: That makes a lot of sense now

[punjabi_khota]

Yup the commentators said 64 minutes of game time plus 40 minutes lunch break. A total of 104 minutes that his parents had to wait..:phehehe:

[Dravid]

3) Malinga's 4 in 4 to win SRL a WC game

dwag, sa still won it.. peterson edged a 4..

[Anakin]

See, this is the difference: Those allegations of selfishness directed at Tendulkar et al, I presume are the ones you are referring to, hold very little merit since Tendulkar has proved his worth time and again; Even those leveling the allegations know their accusations are frivolous and baseless. No need to dwelve into the matter further Today, it made sense for Watson to take his time to reach his maiden century. Unless you want to argue that the half hour odd Watson spent poking, prodding and pushing the ball whilst languishing in the 90's robbed Australia of the momentum to set the MCG on fire and land out the knockout punch, to which I eagerly await a response.

So, on to a more serious matter, which part of OZland is she from?

[EnterTheVoid]

Sree' date=' if you dont think 30 minutes in a test match (and he spent more than 30 mins in the 90s btw) is not influential enough on a result, I suggest you rewatch the game vs. England at Chennai at the end of the fourth day last year. Then tell me how the 68 ball 83 did not affect the final result. It didn't take more than 30 minutes for the English bowlers to be demoralized and consistently start bowling short and wide to Sehwag. [/quote'] Agreed his innings in the '90s was slow and dreary but that didn't significantly negate the teams momentum, did it ? The finished the day ahead, albeit slightly, and now look in a comfortable position to take a 1 - 0 load.

how did it make sense for him to poke and prod in the nineties? He spent 45 minutes there' date=' stalling his team's cause, scoring at a strike rate of less then 25 in the 90s.....weren't Australia pushing for a declaration? [/quote'] Push, prod and poke he did, not by choice, but by circumstance. Charsif was bowling wide of the stumps over after over and there was no way he was going to chase a wide one in the 90's, not after missing twice in the series. He is no good against spin either, hence spent waiting for the bad ball. Look, don't get me wrong, I don't think he should have slowed down to the extent he did, and you and others are right in saying his actions were selfish but I feel with the led Australia had at that stage, the time left in the match to force a result and the fragility of Pakistan's batting, there was enough leeway for him to take his time and score his maiden century.