More proof of why Ricky Ponting is easily the greatest batsman of the modern era.

[mattfb]

I understand what Clarke did was pretty rare. I have a problem with Ponting and his train of Australian fanboys claiming it was a brilliant victory when there was so many other poor events plaguing that match. It was a brilliant individual spell of bowling, a brilliant 10-minute span but it was NOT a brilliant victory.

Yeah that brilliant 10 minute span makes it a brilliant victory. Your not going to go to your mates: "Oh that was a brilliant 10 minute bowling span by Michael Clarke in which he picked up 3 wickets"..... Your gonna say "That was a brilliant victory great bowling Clarkey"

 

[aussie_ben91]

Ponting's average excluding minnow teams is probably 58 now, which is a fair bit ahead of the guy trailing him (Virender Sehwag) and his played over twice as many Tests as Sehwag.
He averages almost 5 more runs then what Lara did against non-minnow teams and when we are talking about career spanning over 120 tests then that is allot.

When his that far ahead and there is a large group of players averaging 50-51 (against non-minnow sides) then it's hard to argue that anyone else from the modern era is better then him.
Statistics don't tell the whole story but when on large comparison and when someone's so far ahead of the ones trailing him then you can't say that Ponting isn't the best.

 

[shubhrayu]

Yeah that brilliant 10 minute span makes it a brilliant victory. Your not going to go to your mates: "Oh that was a brilliant 10 minute bowling span by Michael Clarke in which he picked up 3 wickets"..... Your gonna say "That was a brilliant victory great bowling Clarkey"

Now I think no one can say that even Clarke cheated

 

[smssia0112]

I understand what Clarke did was pretty rare. I have a problem with Ponting and his train of Australian fanboys claiming it was a brilliant victory when there was so many other poor events plaguing that match. It was a brilliant individual spell of bowling, a brilliant 10-minute span but it was NOT a brilliant victory.

10 years from now, I guarantee that the Sydney test will not be remembered for Clarke's performance as much as it will be for the pathetic umpiring and the controversy that ensued. That in itself will be testament to the fact that the victory for Australia was not as well-deserved as Ponting makes it out to seem.

Anyhow, we have trailed quite far off topic now.

I think you're definitely overreacting here, you're usually a very sound arguer but here you seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic.

Whenever you win a close test match, captains will say that it was a great victory, regardless of what happened during the match. The emotional high, put together with the fact that snatching victory from the jaws of a draw meant that we had equalled the world record.

If you've just been playing cricket for 5 days, the high of winning, especially in such close circumstances, are going to override your need to look back at the controversies and consider whether the umpiring was up to standard, and to need to watch the replays over and over because of Clarke's catch. I'm sure you haven't played a 5 day test, but think about it the same way in any sport. Do you ever win a game of any sport and then go up to the opposition and say "We didn't really deserve it." You just celebrate.

 

[sohum]

I think you're definitely overreacting here, you're usually a very sound arguer but here you seem to be acting on emotion rather than logic.

A lot of my argument is driven on emotion. It makes me extremely annoyed when a match with all those events is simplified to a lucky spell of bowling by a part-timer.

I'm sure you haven't played a 5 day test, but think about it the same way in any sport. Do you ever win a game of any sport and then go up to the opposition and say "We didn't really deserve it." You just celebrate.

Certainly not to the opposition, but in the cases where I haven't deserved a victory due to extraneous events, I definitely don't go parading around my achievements in public. Especially if I talk about such games with my friends--I will most definitely say that I did not really deserve it.

 

[mattfb]

A lot of my argument is driven on emotion. It makes me extremely annoyed when a match with all those events is simplified to a lucky spell of bowling by a part-timer.

Yes, because thats the first time Michael Clarke has destroyed India with his bowling...

 

[smssia0112]

A lot of my argument is driven on emotion. It makes me extremely annoyed when a match with all those events is simplified to a lucky spell of bowling by a part-timer.


Certainly not to the opposition, but in the cases where I haven't deserved a victory due to extraneous events, I definitely don't go parading around my achievements in public. Especially if I talk about such games with my friends--I will most definitely say that I did not really deserve it.

I don't think he simplified it, it's just that a close victory is always quite satisfying after five days of hard cricket. It's certainly not his fault that Clarke claimed a controversial catch, or that the umpires made a few dodgy calls. All he did was play cricket, the team played well, and won a thrilling game.

If something like that had happened to India, especially to equal a world record, I have no doubt that you'd be quite satisfied too, and I don't know what his exact wording would be, but I'm sure that Kumble would have claimed it as a great win too.

 

[sohum]

I don't think he simplified it, it's just that a close victory is always quite satisfying after five days of hard cricket. It's certainly not his fault that Clarke claimed a controversial catch, or that the umpires made a few dodgy calls. All he did was play cricket, the team played well, and won a thrilling game.

I'm not saying it's his fault. But to claim credit to his team's ability for that victory when all the extraneous events occurred which non-trivially affected the games progress, is pretty pathetic, and is what riled up the Indians even more.

If something like that had happened to India, especially to equal a world record, I have no doubt that you'd be quite satisfied too, and I don't know what his exact wording would be, but I'm sure that Kumble would have claimed it as a great win too.

I would most definitely not be satisfied. I don't know about you, but winning isn't everything for me (growing up as an Indian fan, I suppose that is an obvious outlook...). The nature of winning matters a lot to me. Which is why, at the same time, I can take a loss where we fought well happily. But a loss such as the Sydney test, where we were clearly dealt a heavy blow by "luck" is something I'm not prepared to take as a shining example of Australian brilliance.

As for Kumble, he's a pretty modest man for the most part, so your hypothetical assumption that he would rub a win in the opposition's face afterwards is, well, hypothetical.

 

[smssia0112]

I'm not saying it's his fault. But to claim credit to his team's ability for that victory when all the extraneous events occurred which non-trivially affected the games progress, is pretty pathetic, and is what riled up the Indians even more.


I would most definitely not be satisfied. I don't know about you, but winning isn't everything for me (growing up as an Indian fan, I suppose that is an obvious outlook...). The nature of winning matters a lot to me. Which is why, at the same time, I can take a loss where we fought well happily. But a loss such as the Sydney test, where we were clearly dealt a heavy blow by "luck" is something I'm not prepared to take as a shining example of Australian brilliance.

As for Kumble, he's a pretty modest man for the most part, so your hypothetical assumption that he would rub a win in the opposition's face afterwards is, well, hypothetical.

I highly disagree that Ponting was trying to rub it in the Indians' faces, he was just expressing his excitement and relief. And I still maintain that if you were in that situation, you would still be happy about it.

If he had said that it's a fantastic win and that Australia were just too good, and that their desire to win had won in the end, and that it was the best win he's ever been a part of, fair enough, but just because he called it

And just because some things went against India doesn't mean that Australia didn't play well, or that they didn't deserve to win. It takes something away, but it doesn't change the fact that Australia were the better team.

Do you hate the English who claim their 2005 Ashes series as a great series victory when they never should have won the second test because of Kasprowicz getting given out when he wasn't? Or the constant dodgy decisions going against Martyn and Katich? I don't, even though I know we were unlucky, I've moved on.

And if you don't, it's because it didn't happen to you. You're just pissed off because you lost, which is understandable, but you're overreacting to minor comments really.

 

[sohum]

I highly disagree that Ponting was trying to rub it in the Indians' faces, he was just expressing his excitement and relief. And I still maintain that if you were in that situation, you would still be happy about it.

I think I know myself far better than you know me. As for Ponting trying to rub it in India's face, sure, he may have been caught up in the heat of the moment. But if that was the case, he would have made at least some sort of public comment that showed that he understood and accepted that it was not Australia's greatness that pulled them through in that game.

If he had said that it's a fantastic win and that Australia were just too good, and that their desire to win had won in the end, and that it was the best win he's ever been a part of, fair enough, but just because he called it

Ponting said[/quote]: "My overall emotion and feeling at the end of the game was as good a feeling as I've ever had on a cricket field." Sounds like he is rating it amongst the best wins he's had on the cricket field, which is a pretty poor thing to go out and say when your side has been helped so much by luck.

And just because some things went against India doesn't mean that Australia didn't play well, or that they didn't deserve to win. It takes something away, but it doesn't change the fact that Australia were the better team.

Australia were not unarguably the better team. You fail to grasp the most important part of my argument, which is that the aid they got from luck was entirely non-trivial and affected the course of the match completely. And it persisted over several days, as well. The thing I'm taking issue with is a complete lack of respect for the fact that luck was as much a cause for the victory as your team's performance was.

Do you hate the English who claim their 2005 Ashes series as a great series victory when they never should have won the second test because of Kasprowicz getting given out when he wasn't? Or the constant dodgy decisions going against Martyn and Katich? I don't, even though I know we were unlucky, I've moved on.

And if you don't, it's because it didn't happen to you. You're just pissed off because you lost, which is understandable, but you're overreacting to minor comments really.

Please don't even begin to attempt to compare what happened in that game with other games. "Constant dodgy decisions" is not equivalent to missing thick outside edges. The luck Australia were got was way more than any expected amount in most any game of cricket I have watched, and I've been watching for almost two decades.

 

[jordox]

SNIPAGE!!!!

Wait...wait...

You actually expect the captain of a national cricket team would admit that their results after 5 days of hard work were purely determined by luck?

Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. Every national captain on Earth would've said similar things.

 

[.::Stevo::.]

sohummisra, you talk so much crap its painful to read. Build a bridge buddy, build a bridge...

Maybe us Aussies should start complaining about some of the dodgy decisions in the 2005 Ashes. Oh wait, we accepted defeat, my bad.

 

[mattfb]

Yes, because thats the first time Michael Clarke has destroyed India with his bowling...

You dont have a reply to this? Well maybe next time you will think twice before calling players "lucky part timers". Michael Clarke has gotten "lucky" twice against India and most notably at important stages of matches. Coincidence, I think not.

 

[SciD]

You dont have a reply to this? Well maybe next time you will think twice before calling players "lucky part timers". Michael Clarke has gotten "lucky" twice against India and most notably at important stages of matches. Coincidence, I think not.

First time he got lucky Australia could not even chase 120 runs for win.

But I am really tired of Sydney test discussions.

 

[mattfb]

First time he got lucky Australia could not even chase 120 runs for win.

But I am really tired of Sydney test discussions.

He's a match winner. FACT.