Were Katich's tactics the biggest factor in the draw?

"As for Ponting he should have sent a runner to Katich to get on with it."

The runner would have been a bit of a waste of time in the first innings, seeing as how Ponts was only 20 metres away at the far end of the pitch for every ball Kat faced. Same for a fair slab of the second dig.....

It's telling me two things:

1. You can't have a discussion about cricket with you guys if you happen to disagree.

2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

I don't think that Punter's declaration was especially bold, I gave my reasons and everyone else disagreed. I think my arguments were cogent.

I compared it with Smith's which I thought was particularly bold, even carelessly bold and I outlined my reasons.

If that's being boring, so be it. I did rather think that these types of discussions took place on a cricket forum though.

Apparently it's just easier, like Tac, to say that Red knows nothing about cricket

I agree with Red. Smith's declaration had a touch of stupidity about it. As for Ponting he should have sent a runner to Katich to get on with it. He also overbowled his spinners yesterday making it easier for India.

Oh dear. Red's been forced to use her alternate identity to agree with herself.

Fred Nerk wrote:"As for Ponting he should have sent a runner to Katich to get on with it."

The runner would have been a bit of a waste of time in the first innings, seeing as how Ponts was only 20 metres away at the far end of the pitch for every ball Kat faced. Same for a fair slab of the second dig.....

They were 2/49 when Ponting was dismissed and 3/99 when Katich was dismissed.That was an important 50 in such a low scoring innings.This 50 took 22 overs.

Ponting obviously said nothing to Katich before he walked off.It seems he still wanted Katich to hold up an end however slow.

BTW I don't blame Katich he is a limited player in tough conditions.

Henry wrote:

It's telling me two things:

1. You can't have a discussion about cricket with you guys if you happen to disagree.

2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

I don't think that Punter's declaration was especially bold, I gave my reasons and everyone else disagreed. I think my arguments were cogent.

I compared it with Smith's which I thought was particularly bold, even carelessly bold and I outlined my reasons.

If that's being boring, so be it. I did rather think that these types of discussions took place on a cricket forum though.

Apparently it's just easier, like Tac, to say that Red knows nothing about cricket

I agree with Red. Smith's declaration had a touch of stupidity about it. As for Ponting he should have sent a runner to Katich to get on with it. He also overbowled his spinners yesterday making it easier for India.

Oh dear. Red's been forced to use her alternate identity to agree with herself.

Why do you post nothing but rubbish most of the time?

LOL.

"You're sooooooooooooo black" said Para Batsman to the kettle.

So I'm attributed with yet another identity. News for you Henry, others may have multiple personalities, but I've only ever posted as one person.

Tac is entitled to his view that Punter's declaration is a gutsy one. I disagreed and I cited my reasons. I also thought that Smith's bordered on stupidity and I cited my reasons. I don't see why because I disagreed that I have to be told that I know nothing about cricket. That's an easier way out than challenging the points. And I thought my overall reasoning was quite valid.

Red wrote:So I'm attributed with yet another identity. News for you Henry, others may have multiple personalities, but I've only ever posted as one person.

Tac is entitled to his view that Punter's declaration is a gutsy one. I disagreed and I cited my reasons. I also thought that Smith's bordered on stupidity and I cited my reasons. I don't see why because I disagreed that I have to be told that I know nothing about cricket. That's an easier way out than challenging the points. And I thought my overall reasoning was quite valid.

And you ignored the reasoning that it was better to try and draw the series, at whatever cost, than lose 1-0.

Red wrote:2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

And who exactly might be in this clique, pray tell.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:2. There is a bit of a closed clique here and if you're not part of it you're open to ridicule. Doesn't worry me though.

And who exactly might be in this clique, pray tell.

Just me ...and none of you other bastards are welcome

And I thought it was Horrie.

The biggest factor in the draw was the Indian tail wagging.

The second biggest factor was poor over rates and time lost due to the whether.

The third biggest factor was the defensive nature of Australia's batting on Day Four.

I wouldn't blame Katich - he seemed to be carrying out the team plan. Ponting should have told his team to flick the switch much earlier. Ian Chappell would have in the hope of being able to declare that night.

Ponting was much happier to ensure Australia secured the draw - his declaration was reasonable but was never a realistic target for India.

I blame the pitch. Looked sh!t but just turned out a bit of a blancmange on the last day. If Bhajji and Jumbo couldn't extract anything then our "spinners" were never gonna bowl us to victory.

Maybe I should blame the Australian system for selfishly not turning up another Shane Warne by now. Damn the system, damn it all to hell.

skully wrote:I blame the pitch. Looked sh!t but just turned out a bit of a blancmange on the last day. If Bhajji and Jumbo couldn't extract anything then our "spinners" were never gonna bowl us to victory.

Maybe I should blame the Australian system for selfishly not turning up another Shane Warne by now. Damn the system, damn it all to hell.

Agree the pitch did nothing and Punter was relying on it to win it for him. India only had to defend for less than a day.

Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

doremi wrote:Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

And so say all of us. With the exception of red that is.

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

And so say all of us. With the exception of red that is.

That's my subjective view and I'm sticking to it.

It's noble and advisable to try and draw a series if you have the resources to but it was always going to end in tears for SA that day.

An attack essentially of Pollock, Rudolph and Botha. A fairly formidable Aussie batting line-up and a docile pitch. After dominating the test match, I would have thought SA would have been galled to lose it.

And then they had to put up with Punter reflecting upon the summer that we had completedly dominated SA and were unlucky not to get the cleansweep because of the draw.

I still think most teams would have been proud to leave our shores in those days, when we were clearly better than we are now, only losing one of three tests.

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

And so say all of us. With the exception of red that is.

That's my subjective view and I'm sticking to it.

And there lies the crux of your problem.

The rest of us try to be objective.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

And so say all of us. With the exception of red that is.

That's my subjective view and I'm sticking to it.

And there lies the crux of your problem.

The rest of us try to be objective.

I thought personal opinions by their very nature had to have an element of subjectivity about them, even when objectively assessing the overall facts/content.

Is there some cum-swigging going on? Am I too late to join in? I've brought my own straw........

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

doremi wrote:Losing a series 1-0 or 2-0 doesn't matter. He had to go for the win.

And so say all of us. With the exception of red that is.

That's my subjective view and I'm sticking to it.

And there lies the crux of your problem.

The rest of us try to be objective.

I thought personal opinions by their very nature had to have an element of subjectivity about them, even when objectively assessing the overall facts/content.

Unfortunately one eyed quntishness does not lend itself to objectivity.

Brass Monkey wrote:Is there some cum-swigging going on? Am I too late to join in? I've brought my own straw........

Never stopped you before Daniel

taipan wrote:
Never stopped you before Daniel

Well, I disagree. I've never had my own straw handy.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
Never stopped you before Daniel

Well, I disagree. I've never had my own straw handy.

You normally gulp it straight from the er glass

taipan wrote:
You normally gulp it straight from the er glass

Glasses? How very hoity toity.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:
You normally gulp it straight from the er glass

Glasses? How very hoity toity.

No red necks over here.