Sport Today

> Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
> batsmen.

>> Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
>> batsmen.

> Plus wasn't he the guy that took a ripper of a coach to get Oram?

>>> Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
>>> batsmen.

>> Plus wasn't he the guy that took a ripper of a coach to get Oram?

> But Hodge didn't get a ton, so clearly wasn't as important as Punter.
> Had he got a ton they'd have had to give it to him.
> --
> Cheers,
> SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
> Systems Theory internet music project links:
> official site <www.systemstheory.net>
> soundclick <www.soundclick.com/systemstheory>
> garageband <www.garageband.com/artist/systemstheory>
> "Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
> "Codetalkers" CD coming Nov 2006
> NP: nothing

> Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
> batsmen.

> 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
> scoring going while Stodge played himself in.
> 2. If you're adding in Stodge's catch then you have to subtract the one
> that he dropped.
> 3. Ponting wasn't involved in any suspect run outs.
> 4. Doesn't the captain get any credits for a win?

> Fair call I thought.

>Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
>batsmen.

> 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
> scoring going while Stodge played himself in.

>>Hodge scored only 5 runs less at a much better strike rate, and Tait
>>took 1/26 in a high scoring game (plus he cleaned out Vincent)

>>Odd decision. Seems to me these MOTM decision are always bias to
>>batsmen.

> Had Ponting not been at the other end while Hodge played himself
> in, I doubt he would have come anywhere near to 99.
>Ponting's
> innings allowed Hodge to scratch around for the 1st 30 balls of
> his innings while Ponting was *** throughout.

> Cheers,
> Rod.

> 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
> scoring going while Stodge played himself in.
> 2. If you're adding in Stodge's catch then you have to subtract the one
> that he dropped.
> 3. Ponting wasn't involved in any suspect run outs.
> 4. Doesn't the captain get any credits for a win?

> Fair call I thought.

> > 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
> > scoring going while Stodge played himself in.
> > 2. If you're adding in Stodge's catch then you have to subtract the one
> > that he dropped.
> > 3. Ponting wasn't involved in any suspect run outs.
> > 4. Doesn't the captain get any credits for a win?

> > Fair call I thought.

> I feel a bit sick... I agree with everything Alvey just said.

> Early on, Hodge looked horribly out of his depth and chewed up the
> strike. Ponting at the other end was agressive, kept the run rate
> ticking and had a high strike rate his entire innings.

> After Hodge got his 50 (edging a few fours to get there) he started to
> look comfortable and started scoring with ease.

> It was Ponting who set up the win with Hodge in support, in my
> opinion.

>> Early on, Hodge looked horribly out of his depth and chewed up the
>> strike. Ponting at the other end was agressive, kept the run rate
>> ticking and had a high strike rate his entire innings.

> Who cares? He got 99* at a better strike rate and took a great catch.
> I don't care if he edged every ball for four, it's the runs that
> matter not the style he got them. Okay so he also dropped a VERY HARD
> chance of a catch (but as Taylor was out the next ball who cares) and
> he took a great catch to get Oram out.

> Add to the fact that he was NOT OUT whereas Ponting got out (and at a
> bad time for Aus I might add)....seems a odd decision. Ponting does
> seem to get a load of extra credit to me. He's a great batsman, but to
> me Hodge's 99* off 80-odd balls (compared to Ponting who was less than
> a run a ball) was the better performance.

> 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
> scoring going while Stodge played himself in.
> 2. If you're adding in Stodge's catch then you have to subtract the one
> that he dropped.

> Fair call I thought.

>> 1. Ponting was the *** batsman in their partnership, keeping the
>> scoring going while Stodge played himself in.

> Well, that's two related but separate points, one of which is accurate and
> one which is not.

> Yes, Ponting kept the scoring going while Hodge played himself in.  The
> turning point came at over 36, when Bond returned and Hodge finally got
> going.  Up to that point Hodge had scored 27 (44) and Ponting 27 (33) in the
> partnership.  It seems rather normal to me that the established batsman
> scores more quickly while the other is getting established.

> From over 36 Hodge took the majority of the strike and scored the majority
> of the runs.  It seems rather odd that Ponting should be described as the
> *** batsman in the partnership when he scored significantly fewer runs
> than his partner at a significantly lower strike rate.

> <snip>

> Andrew