So who is right, Zaheer or Punter?

Parts of this are buried in another thread but thought it's worth discussing on its own.

It was the lead sports story on our news services tonight, the alleged war of words between Punter and Zaheer Khan.

For the record the latter said we were too defensive and he's not used to and Aussie team playing like this.

Punter countered with the notion that we were the only team trying to win.

Zaheer then at his press conference suggested that we don't have a spinner they fear and that the Aussies will find it difficult in the ensuing tests because of this.

Punter countered with the assertion that White exceeded his expectations and that he's happy with him. In a sense that could have been construed as a backhand compliment.

For the record I think it's the usual postering between these teams but I still find it hard to think that Punter can claim he was seriously going for victory regarding the way Katich batted. Some will point out that he had to play the anchorman role to ensure our safety, which of course is true to an extent but the reality is it took a lot of time out of the game and meant that winning was certainly placed lower on the options available to us than safeguarding the draw.

Tac thinks Punter's declaration was bold. It probably is by his standards but not in the context of the match. I doubt that India was ever rated a better than 10-15% chance of winning with plenty of factors militating against them.


Segments of the official comments.

After the match Zaheer said the Australians had employed defensive tactics and their spin bowling was a huge weakness. "I have never seen an Australian team play such defensive cricket, which is a good thing for us," he said.

"On a fifth-day pitch the spinners could not do us any harm. That shows what their spin attack is all about." The debutant Cameron White and part-timer Michael Clarke combined for only three wickets in the game.

But Zaheer wasn't finished. "Even the pacers didn't look like getting wickets at any stage today."

Ponting was bemused by Zaheer's "defensive" charge. "I don't know what he means, to tell the truth," he said. "We were the only ones trying to take the game forward. We played aggressive cricket. He can have a little bit of a chuckle on the inside at what he's had to say. I don't think it means too much to us."

Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Henry wrote:Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Red and....

....Para batsman. Oops, I mean 1 idiot acting like 2 idiots. My mistake....

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Red and....

So I take it you're not interested in discussion.

I think these 'stoushes' make cricket more interesting and fuel passions ahead of the next test.

two team trash talking each other ...whoop de frikkin do

oz were in a winning position ...made sure they werent going to lose ...went for the win

India were in a losing position ....fought like hell to get the draw ...

some positives and negatives in that for both teams ....

does a war of words make any difference?

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Red and....

So I take it you're not interested in discussion.

I think these 'stoushes' make cricket more interesting and fuel passions ahead of the next test.

Red, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone as one eyed as you.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Red and....

So I take it you're not interested in discussion.

I think these 'stoushes' make cricket more interesting and fuel passions ahead of the next test.

Red, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone as one eyed as you.

One-eyed, I'm an Aussie yet am prepared to be disinterested on the matter.

Like you are are on Graeme Smith?

Red, you're not one-eyed about Oz, just one-eyed in the sense that you take the idiot's view of every situation . . .

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:

taipan wrote:

Henry wrote:Two idiots acting like idiots. Nothing to see here.

Red and....

So I take it you're not interested in discussion.

I think these 'stoushes' make cricket more interesting and fuel passions ahead of the next test.

Red, it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone as one eyed as you.

One-eyed, I'm an Aussie yet am prepared to be disinterested on the matter.

Perhaps if you hadnt used the majority of your first 1900 posts bagging Sooky people might take you seriously ...you reap what you sow

tac wrote:Red, you're not one-eyed about Oz, just one-eyed in the sense that you take the idiot's view of every situation . . .

For eg. Punter's declaration.

Just because you're Tac, you're right.

I put up cogent arguments, which incidentally I've seen today argued by others in the cricket world who one might consider quite qualified. But I'm an idiot because Tac thinks it's a bold declaration.

As I said there's a bit of a 'secret' code here, or a closed clique and there's solidarity in the ranks. 'Outsiders' are considered to be fools regardless of what they argue. Their arguments are often not treated with the respect they're afforded elsewhere.

Since when does disagreeing with one or holding a contrary position have to be met with insults such as dumb bint?

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red, you're not one-eyed about Oz, just one-eyed in the sense that you take the idiot's view of every situation . . .

For eg. Punter's declaration.

Just because you're Tac, you're right.

I put up cogent arguments, which incidentally I've seen today argued by others in the cricket world who one might consider quite qualified. But I'm an idiot because Tac thinks it's a bold declaration.

As I said there's a bit of a 'secret' code here, or a closed clique and there's solidarity in the ranks. 'Outsiders' are considered to be fools regardless of what they argue. Their arguments are often not treated with the respect they're afforded elsewhere.

Since when does disagreeing with one or holding a contrary position have to be met with insults such as dumb bint?

No, red, I am sometimes wrong and am happy to admit it . . . that's the big difference between us I guess.

There used to be another forummer who loved to talk about "cliques" . . .

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:Red, you're not one-eyed about Oz, just one-eyed in the sense that you take the idiot's view of every situation . . .

For eg. Punter's declaration.

Just because you're Tac, you're right.

I put up cogent arguments, which incidentally I've seen today argued by others in the cricket world who one might consider quite qualified. But I'm an idiot because Tac thinks it's a bold declaration.

As I said there's a bit of a 'secret' code here, or a closed clique and there's solidarity in the ranks. 'Outsiders' are considered to be fools regardless of what they argue. Their arguments are often not treated with the respect they're afforded elsewhere.

Since when does disagreeing with one or holding a contrary position have to be met with insults such as dumb bint?

No, red, I am sometimes wrong and am happy to admit it . . . that's the big difference between us I guess.

There used to be another forummer who loved to talk about "cliques" . . .

So I suppose that's yet another identity I've assumed. Quite risible really.

It seems to me that a lot of people here have come from a place called C4, the same forum or whatever that you periodically ridicule. Maybe you're all pining for it like the ex-Saffers who run down their erstwhile country from the safety of our shores yet secretly are pissed off they're not still there.

So who is in this clique?

*shakes head in despair*

tac wrote:*shakes head in despair*

Exactly, all part of your little code. Typical denigrating, condescending responses.

Red wrote:

tac wrote:*shakes head in despair*

Exactly, all part of your little code. Typical denigrating, condescending responses.

What do you expect when you can't seem to make a post without bringing south africans into it . . . .


*tells self to stop bothering, she/he is beyond help*

taipan wrote:So who is in this clique?

Not saying?

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:*shakes head in despair*

Exactly, all part of your little code. Typical denigrating, condescending responses.

What do you expect when you can't seem to make a post without bringing south africans into it . . . .


*tells self to stop bothering, she/he is beyond help*

Yet it's okay to ban India in any post?

I think the South African comment is hyperbolic to be honest. Unless you can show me every post and prove to the contrary.

I suppose the Ban India will be laughed off as some sort of clique's joke.

Just out of interest, consider how often Taipan 'fixes' my posts with a Graeme Smith or SA addition.

So how many times do you think you have mentioned Sooky or South Africa in your 1900 posts?

Red wrote:

tac wrote:

Red wrote:

tac wrote:*shakes head in despair*

Exactly, all part of your little code. Typical denigrating, condescending responses.

What do you expect when you can't seem to make a post without bringing south africans into it . . . .


*tells self to stop bothering, she/he is beyond help*

Yet it's okay to ban India in any post?

I think the South African comment is hyperbolic to be honest. Unless you can show me every post and prove to the contrary.

I suppose the Ban India will be laughed off as some sort of clique's joke.

Just out of interest, consider how often Taipan 'fixes' my posts with a Graeme Smith or SA addition.

Ah the non existent clique's joke.

Do you really not know why?

embee wrote:two team trash talking each other ...whoop de frikkin do

oz were in a winning position ...made sure they werent going to lose ...went for the win

India were in a losing position ....fought like hell to get the draw ...

some positives and negatives in that for both teams ....

does a war of words make any difference?

Amen.

Every time I feel like reacting to an Australian or Indian player that stirs the $hit, I remember December 2007 - Jan 2008. The subsequent onset of a mild headache helps.

More $hit stirring from another qunt.

"Harbhajan [Singh] has a great record against Australia and is probably bowling better than Kumble at the moment so that's where the difficulty comes. If they happen to drop Kumble it would probably be a long way back for him so it will be interesting to see what they do."

.... But Ponting said Zaheer, who was the Man of the Match for his six wickets and first-innings half-century, should worry about his own performance.

"He's just happened to have a good game as well, which is pretty unusual for him," Ponting said. "He's had a good game. It's up to him to back it up again. I think a lot of his comments might have been to try and get us to play a different style and different brand of cricket."

Couple of objectionable pricks World cricket should get rid.