Tuesday, October 21, 2008

On a hat-trick

We're 8/144.

Ground, open up and swallow them.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
2. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
3. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
4. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
5. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
6. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
7. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
8. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
9. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
10. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
and finally,

because umpires were impartial and decisions were unbiased.

Anonymous said...

11 Reasons why Australia Lost:

1. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
2. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
3. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
4. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
5. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
6. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
7. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
8. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
9. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
10. Umpires were impartial. Decisions were unbiased.
and finally,

because umpires were impartial and decisions were unbiased.

Miss Field said...

Oh riiiight. So every time we win it's because we pay the umpires off? I never realised! Tell me, how is the weather in India?

Rob said...

Was there a suggestion the umpires were not impartial (not seen all the wickets yet)?

©hinaman said...

@ MF,
You had Greg Chappell as assistant coach.
Big mistake - believe me, we learnt it the hard way.

@ anonymous
I disagree.

Test matches will always have decisions that goes for / against. Will have umpiring errors - picked by technology. Yes it can swing the outcome, usually in close matches; but that is cricket.

If at all, had Ganguly been given out at 34, the whole scenario might have been different.

Your repeated statement does not do justice to the Indian players, the Indian victory, it was because of good all round performance.

Miss Field said...

I agree Chinaman, it totally undermines the Indian performance, and they won because the played superior cricket to us. Faaaaaar superior.

12th Man said...

Missy, nice to see you back. India won because of Dhoni's charm. Come kumble and India will be back to defensive ways. We head next to Delhi. The weather should be plesant there as this is end-autumn. However, india have won 8 of their last 8 test matches in Delhi. So there is little hope for the aussies. A loss is fine, but a 320 run drubbing is an embarassment, something that Aussies effect on other opposition.Hoping to see the Aussies fight back in the series!

12th Man said...

Rob, the umpires were impartial. They equally sucked.
Ganguly was lucky, Dhoni wasn't. Watson got away with one from Sharma. Ponting's first innings LBW was high, but he got trapped in front in the same over that was not given. So let us justify this poor performance. Let us admit that Aussies played shit cricket.

Oomby Dave said...

@anonymous: You douche, go back to your silly American Football or whatever slime covered rock you crawled out of. If you got something to say then say it don't spam this blog. Dick

Samir Chopra said...

Sod off anonymous. You're raining on the Indian parade here.

Indian-in-California said...

The only thing worse than India losing is India winning. One win over a formidable side after all these years and Indian morons think they have taken a walk on the moon. So Tendulkar has crossed 12,000, eh? Anybody can if you play a million test matches.

Rob said...

> Ponting's first innings LBW was high, but he got trapped in front in the same over that was not given

Hawk-eye showed it would have been out on both occasions...

SO..... what happened to the referral system?

gerimox said...

@indian in california: alan border played more innings than sachin and he didn't cross 12000!The truth is that playing a 'million' matches isn't as easy as you think . . .Neither is scoring 12,000 runs

12th Man said...

The Indian-in-california thinks he is the most educated cricket viewer ever. He belongs to the growing list of Indian expats who think the cricket crazy Indians are over-reacting morons. Allow him to play a zillion matches and let us see if he can contribute the same runs! It is easier said than done.

Miss Field said...

Well I certainly couldn't make 12,000 runs. So good on him.

12th Man - thank you, and yes, hopefully they've now been shamed into a better effort.

I'm surprised at the number of Indian supporters who are critical of the win. And it was a drubbing, not just a win. I'd be stoked if it was my team.

YellowMonkey said...

I think one of the problems is that Australia worry too much about past history of not winning for 35 years! But they only played in 16 Tests in India in that time. And nine of these came in 1979-80 (Hughes's WSC-depleted team) and Border in 1986, both unrepresentative of Australia's strength

http://yellowmonkeysbananabucket.blogspot.com/2008/11/final-frontier-not-as-elusive-as-it.html