let those ausis face ind. दूध का दूध और पानी का पानी हो जायेगा. dont b over jubilant after defeating sa. if they cant beat ind, they cant b called no.1.
Re: let them play ind.
by mycontactsm on Mar 11, 2009 12:37 PM
You are absolutely right. India is the best team in the whole world. We were the only country to win the world cup in 1983....25 years on and still waiting!!!!
let those ausis face ind. doodh ka doodh paani ka paani ho jayega. dont b jubilant in defeating sa. ausis cant beat ind. so thats the end of it all. they r not world no.1. if they cant beat us.
Re: match fixing.
by Mojo Jojo on Mar 12, 2009 06:33 AM
And so according to your theory there must be some cooking behind the doors happening for Indian wins also eh? Be sportsman like and atleast learn to appreciate others.
Most of you Aussie fans are carried away by the emotion of the win even though Ricky Ponting was quite philosophical about the win as he is philosophical about a loss...that is his way...but most of you Indian Aussie fans are eager to stoop to a very low level of slavery to please any Aussie who stumbles on this blog....much the same way that guys in IT companies talk in broken English in front of their Indian project managers but the moment the Gora comes down to the Bangalore office, they start faking American accents.....it is the same mentality, kya kare....300 years of British rule cannot be shrugged off easily..
Okie, now back to the cricket.... SA lost for primarily 3 reasons : A) Australia batted first on both ocassions which was a huge advantage in both tests. B) Wrong team selection by SA...Ashwell Prince should have been in place of McKenzie, Nel should have been in place of Ntini and Morkel is too substandard.... C) Absence of a left arm seamer : Aus have 5 lefties in top 8...Hughes, Katich, Hussey, North and Johnson..most of these lefties made huge scores cos of absence of Zak/RP/Pathan kind of bowler with that angle to lefties.....
If SA rectity B) and C), they are as good as Aus..luck with toss will come....Go SA go!!
Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Mihir Samel on Mar 10, 2009 11:02 PM
if your so anti-servility & anti-british-imposed-culture , why the hell are you patronizing the British imposed game ?? The sole purpose of the Brits behind introducing cricket to India was to create a class among Indians that would be imbibed in "British Values ". So you are anyways playing into their game. On Appreciating the Aussies ,well cant help it . They HAVE proved themselves more than once. They had a deplted side fraught with retirements & INjuries , yet they thrashed the Southies in their own turf, a virtual payback of their own loss back home. SO Mr. Swabhimani Deshbhakt , start patronizing Kabaddi , Kho-Kho if you really want to be a "True Indian"
Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:12 PM
The sole purpose of the British in introducing cricket in India was to engage their officers and administrators in a sporting pursuit they adored...not to create any special cricketing culture in India....they couldn't have cared less!! Cricket, in those days, was indeed the preserve of the elite and was an amateur sport, which meant that Maharajhs took to it almost naturally.... Your logic is questionable at best....the Brits left behind a legacy which we have inherited with aplomb; upstaging them at their own game by winning the World cup on the hallowed turf of Lords.... I no longer see it as a British gift to us...rather a game played with passion and intensity by us and to be enjoyed by us.....if you still think that is is Brit given gift which we should be aware of by paying daily homage to them, then you come across as a relic of the Victorian era.....
And Aussies have to prove themselves over a period of time before we really start heralding their rennaiscance......So Mr "Servility"...stop having a guilt complex about British traditions passed on to us....
Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by S Shrikanth on Mar 10, 2009 11:20 PM
Cricket is No. 4 sport in UK. Football No 1, followed by Rugby, Track & field and Ice games. So, whats fun upstaging them in Cricket which they have thelselves done, not others. Like we did to hockey after winning 8 Olypic golds and becoming World Champion in 1974 and even Asia cup last year, not upstaged by any other team.
If you really want to upstage them then do it to them in Football?
Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Mihir Samel on Mar 10, 2009 11:25 PM
Oh so you admit you too are an product of the "300 year British rule??? " great ... Oh & btw have you ever heard the name Mccaulay ??? do some reading & you will know his intention behind introducing british education , law system & their culture. Like it or not, Cricket was a part of that culture too!!! They staretd with Maharajas & later on were only glad to let the commoners join . That is the way any power will use its "Soft power " to spread its influence abroad. Well you broken accents, call centre sulture is a part of that. So dont be in a denial mode. it wont possibly help you maintian your "pride". I dont know about the Guilt Complex, but im certainly am not in any pretensions about my loyalty to my country As far as Aussies proving themselves over a long period of time ... thats more applicable to our team which has yet to start winning testes abroad...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:39 PM
Good riposte but unfortunately for you, way off the mark and factually incorrect...
First of all, Indian are not products of 300 years of British rule...300 years of British rule is part of our history which affects us in varying degrees and in more ways than one, in many walks of life....That is simply cause of the indelible stamp of authority left behind them...Victorian architectures cannnot be wished away, Victorian infrastructure landmarks cannot be wished away, Victorian traditions cannot be wished away...
Secondly, you have made certain factually incorrect statements which i would like to correct... Have you heard of the name Lord Hawke? Well, if you haven't, better do some reading and bring your knowledge to scratch.... Cricket in India was an extension of the East India compnay hold, first class cricket was plyed between provinces or states among Indians for a good 28 years before the Brits even sent a team to India....a 28 year cricketing culture existed before Lord Hawke brought a team to India in 1891 to play against Madras presidency....
So, your assertion about the Brits leading the way, is itself off the mark!!So, first learn to respect facts, it might help you get out of your "servility" mode.. And India have been winning tests abraod for 7 years now...and have laready won series in England in 2007...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 11, 2009 12:20 AM
Appreciation of Australian sporting success was not equated with servility...some people equating an Australian success with an Indian defeat and using the opportunity to vilify India without rhyme or reason, was equated with servility...there are a few bloggers out here who indulge in India bashing even when Aus have defeated SA, India is not even in the picture...
As far Indians taking on to the game with a vengeance was concerned; there was very little contribution by the British East India company in the development of the sport here...you gave the example of Lord Macaulay; the fact is that there was very little active encouragement of the sport in India by the administrators...i think you really need a dose of factual knowledge about the history of cricket.. The Oxford and Cambridge educated shoguns developed a fascination(In Britain) and developed the game in India....in the vanguard were the Parsees; the Bombay pentangular saw competitive cricket for 28 years....the Brits in India holding administrative postions, then saw an opprtunity to partake of the sport that was their creation, and cricket picked up pace.... Your assertion that the Brtish culture in India expedited the development of the game is flawed...Indians took the initiative after taking inspiration from Oxford & Cambridge level cricket; the Brits followed....28 years of competitive cricket followed and then the Brits finally sent an English team led by Lord Hawke to play against a provincial team...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Mihir Samel on Mar 10, 2009 11:58 PM
im not saying India is an extension of british ,, It was you who started equating appreciation of Australia's success in sport to servility which is a result of the British rule. You cant use an argument only as it fits your convenience. You cant stress that the British game was merely "adopted with aplomb " by indians & the rest were merely imposed . Do some more reading & you will know that indians loved the game when they saw some British playing it amongst themselves. They were only too happy in letting the Indian elites to play it & let the Indian people follow them. That is why India was let into the ICC in 1929 & not after 1947.Anyone who knows how any imperial power will impose its soft power will know what it means. Oh & India won in England... ??? against a very strong England team ???? tch tch tch ... You own argument may be applied on you
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 11, 2009 12:26 AM
India were let into the ICC before independence, not necessarily, cos of their policy of condescension towards India, but more for the fact that India, for the first time, had a competitive playing 11, which could take on the might of the Brits....even though the results were lopsided, it was in the best interests of the Brits to expand the reaches of the game to include its colonies.... That is why you will see most commonwealth nations playing the game of cricket...Antigua, NZ, Aus, Bahamas...
Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:00 PM
Typical loser mentality.....searching for reasons.. Dude...learn to acknowledge good performances, which is the sign of a real Indian.
Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:03 PM
You are a loser, If you don't analyze the reasons for the defeat, you can't rectify your shortcomings and cannot come up trumps in the future against the same team.....Toss is not in your hands, but having a left arm seamer surely is....in all those provincial teams in SA, there must be atleast one high quality left armer.....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:17 PM
I'am not worried about the SA team...i'am just saying that Aussies will be tested in Ashes in England and in Aus by India in 2010......
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:26 PM
Are you sure that, Zaheer, RP, Irfan, etc would be there in the team in 2010??
Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by S Shrikanth on Mar 10, 2009 11:21 PM
Seems you are terribly upset with SA being defeated 2-0 on their home ground by Australia.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:25 PM
What in my header makes you draw the conclusion that i'am "terribly' upset by Aus' win>?
I have analyzed the possible reasons for the defeat and i have also mentioned that toss is crucial but not in the hands of the captains..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Billu Plumber on Mar 11, 2009 12:21 AM
Spitting Cobra, could you draw similar reason about India winning agains aussies 2-0? India Batted first India always play for a draw. Dhoni's negative tactics in last test match were a shame. Aussies lost the last match chasing a total. India in a similar position in the first match preferred to block everything to scrap a draw. If Ricky get philosophical (or modest, if you can appreciate it) its his greatness that he does not let emotions run him over. We as audience were treated to a great surprise by Aussie youngsters. Nobody wants a perfect team. Its just thatthey play such an exciting brand of cricket.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by msgblogger on Mar 10, 2009 11:41 PM
Do you come up with the toss issue when india wins too? It did happen a few times when Aus played here too right?When you are playing Test cricket ..you should be equipped to play on 5 th day too.Its a known fact that wicket will deteriorate.And if you want to avoid that you need to score well in the first innings which SA failed to do or rather Aus didnt allow them to score.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Mar 11, 2009 01:06 AM
Too much arguement belittles the real issue. I remember, one series in Australia with India the hosts managed to draw the series thanks to spineless umpiring decisions. In this series as well as the previous one against Waugh's Australia, a few youngsters did make dream debuts. Just as it is not right to rate the current Indian team as the most balanced one, it is not right to notify the Aussies as back to their best. In fact, cricket is going to be a bt more interesting in the wake of a keen tussle between the top 3 teams for the coming few seasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Krishnakumar Narayanan on Mar 10, 2009 11:44 PM
Heady SA deserves to lose thought the cobra's analysis is note-worthy. But, decisions that aussies are on a successful transformation phase and will dominate once again are quite premature. India has unearthed equal if not more number of talents in last few seasons.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reasons why Australia won.........
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:53 PM
Mr. Krishnakumar, No Indian test team in the recent past has won a test match with three debutants,leave alone a series. Australia did it not once, but twice against an opposition which defeated them in their own backyard. This takes some character and effort.
Australia has successfully begun the transformation phase by unearthing some good talents in the form of Hughes, North, Siddle and Hilfenhaus. Time for India to rope in replacements for Sachin, Rahul, Laxman and Sehwag. Otherwise, when they bow out, Aussie dominance will once again begin. I say replacement for Sehwag, because once Sachin, Rahul and Laxman are gone, Sehwag won't be able to play his attacking game. He will become more defensive, no matter how much one would want to differ. The freedom which Sehwag enjoys is bestowed upon him by the presence of Rahul at 3 and Sachin at 4.
Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:26 PM
Laxman and Dravid have been already replaced in ODI squad. Sachin is not regular anymore in the limited overs game. But Sehwag is still playing his strokes, right?
Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:28 PM
Also India performing pretty well in test matches without too much contribution from Dravid.
Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:35 PM
Oh...come on...!!! I'm talking about the Test team. Where are Rahul and Laxman in ODIs??
Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:38 PM
In tests Dravid is not performing of late but India is still winning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:40 PM
How many tests team India have won barring the two against Australia??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:41 PM
One against England, I agree they played poorly against Sri Lanka but that was one bad series.
Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:37 PM
By the way, what about taking the present Indian ODI team for Tests against Australia /South Africa ??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by S Shrikanth on Mar 10, 2009 11:24 PM
And Sachin tried to use his energy on a short ground and lollypop bowling and fell flat for the rest of the series. By the next world cup he will be complete flat on the wicket.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:45 PM
Just one against England, and that too t home on a turning track. That's bad...really bad..!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:42 PM
How would you know their quality when you haven't seen them playing at the highest level??
Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 10:55 PM
Hughes, Hussey, North won't last one spell of Zak/RP Singh or Irfan Pathan on seaming wickets....we saw what RP did to Hussey and Phil Jacques in Perth, forgot that?? RP and Pathan made them look like clube level bowlers...and don't get so carried away by this win...it is a false dawn...learn to dispassionately analyze...your white masters from Ozzieland are no longer the force that they were......in no time, Phil Jacques will come back...Hughes and North were huge successes cos SA bowlers just can't bowl to lefties...hey even a tailender like Mitchell Johnson made 96 against them......
Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:06 PM
You are a big joke....!!! Hussey and Jaques did nothing in the current series, and India is not playing either. Then why are you up in arms??
Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:15 PM
Jacques never played in this series...the example was given to substantiate that left armers cause more problems to lefty batsmen like Hussey..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:21 PM
You are wrong. Right arm fast bowlers cause who can bring the ball back in to the left handed batsmen causes problems. McGrath to Lara is a classic example. Left arm bowlers are more straight-forward for left handed batsmen.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:23 PM
If left arm bowlers can take the ball away to slips, they can be extremely dangerous to batsmen like Hughes, north and Hussey.....ZAk has the number o most lefty batsmen..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 11:39 PM
Zaheer did nothing to left handed batsmen. Hayden was twice given out wrongly to Zaheer. Otherwise he did nothing to the lefties.
Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:14 PM
LOL, Jacques never played in this series....i gave an example of Jacques and Hussey to substantiate the point that left arm seamers over the wicket cause more problems to lefties than right arm seamers bowling over the wicket......that is obvious...Zak has the best record against Lefties.....Lefties dread facing Mitchell Johnson....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Brand new Australia has arrived.
by Ritwik Bhuyan on Mar 11, 2009 11:03 AM
Seeing all discussions here, Spitters have just shtted out here is that what i mean.
Reasons for their victories: 1.SA got the worst of the conditions. Aussies batted when the pitch eased out and bowled when it swung. The conditions favored them enormously 2. SA were rather off colour throughout..they were overconfident and made things easy for aussies 3.Bodyline bowling by Jonson, which gave no chance to batsmen. Zaheer,ishant and sreesanth are way better than siddle and hilfenhaus, and they have no spinner. Plus the fact that phil hughes,north etc will be sitting ducks on Indian turners. This was an extremely lucky victory. They couldnt beat NZ last series, and India hammered 392 off them!!!
Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:32 PM
You are a big joker... Do you know what body line bowling is?? Loser ..go get a life..!!!
Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:10 PM
I am a hardcore India supporter but I disagree with you, they played better cricket and won. Full credit to them.
Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Manu Zach on Mar 10, 2009 10:28 PM
You said it, Sandeep...!!! Now we would need a dust bowl and 3 spinners (just like what we did to South Africa) to beat Australia.
Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by S Shrikanth on Mar 10, 2009 10:19 PM
Wise people learn from winners, do not criticize them. This is an example of fastest and best recovery in Cricket.Australia saw a lean phase for a year due to retirement of McGrath, Warne, McGill, Damien Fleming, Stuart Law, Gilchrist, Hayden and McGill. Lee Perished. Suddenly their team became fragile. They faced India in India , and SA in their own country with so many inexperienced players and lost series of matches. But in a very short time they recovered and the newcomers like Phil Hughes, Hilfenhaus, McDonald, Siddle, Johnson(not too young) have started performing on a foreign soil and took the revenge with full might.
Australians are the winners, and others should learn from them rather than criticizing.
Indian team started performing well only since BCCI became rich and wealthy due to consumer companies in a 100 crore market. But Australians have been consistently performing. Thats how champions behave. And champions are models for study for the successfull people.
Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:23 PM
Australians are no doubt a strong and formidable side, tough (but not impossible) to beat.
But Indians are performing as good as them of late, and people like you tend to involve match fixing to tarnish their image.
Please remember, if BCCI fixes the matches, then the foreign players (including Aussies) are accepting bribes to underperform. Are you willing to accept that?
Re: Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by msgblogger on Mar 10, 2009 11:30 PM
Its not about underperforming ..BCCI is definitly having the say in the pitches in other countries ..Just see the things from nuetral perspective you will understand that.A lot has been said about PErth for eg.Its not the traditional lightning perth wicket anymore where sachin scored his best 100 way back in 92.See the wickets in New Zealand ..where has the swing and bounce disappeared?
Re: Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by S Shrikanth on Mar 10, 2009 10:43 PM
Exactly. Kevin Peterson, Flintoff and their team came only for money showered on them. They lost the series 5-0 very easily, without any resistance. All foreign players playing against India have only one thing in mind - Money of BCCI. And for BCCI - Money from sponsors. And for Sponsor- a winning Indian team at any cost. A losing Indian team is against their business interests.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Chaturchuramoni Chatterjee on Mar 10, 2009 10:47 PM
Brilliant, then write to ECB, so that they suspend Pietersen and Flintoff for match fixing.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by Spitting Cobra on Mar 10, 2009 11:01 PM
Shrikanth, Haha,You are talking about winners but your comments prove that you are such a low life insignificant loser....what are you trying to say?? That foreign teams are deliberately underperforming to lose to India??
Then i can use the same logic...instead of bringing down winners(which Indian team is), learn to appreciate them and try and learn from them...as to why Indian team is winning....there are many postive reasons why India is so consistent...you are contradicting yourself!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dont get carried away, all u Aussie fans!
by msgblogger on Mar 10, 2009 11:34 PM
Dude ..its all about money now and BCCi has loads of that ..thanks to Jaggu Dalmia.Hope soon they will replace bowlers with bowling machine. Do we really need pace bowlers on these belters?
