Sport Today

by **Call Centr** » Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:21:22

Obviously the bigger the lead the more difficult it will get. Unless
it rains a draw looks highly unlikely. So, the Aussies need to limit
the lead preferably by less than 20 runs and definitely by less than
40 runs. And Warner and Watson need to come to the party in the second
innings. Both need to perform. At least half centuries from both and
preferably a century from one of them.

by **tendulkar.co** » Mon, 25 Mar 2013 13:43:27

Quote:

> Obviously the bigger the lead the more difficult it will get. Unless

> it rains a draw looks highly unlikely. So, the Aussies need to limit

> the lead preferably by less than 20 runs and definitely by less than

> 40 runs. And Warner and Watson need to come to the party in the second

> innings. Both need to perform. At least half centuries from both and

> preferably a century from one of them.

Are you telling me if Team A plays better than Team B, it'll win.

Mind blown!

by **jzfredrick** » Mon, 25 Mar 2013 14:03:25

Quote:

> Are you telling me if Team A plays better than Team B, it'll win.
> Mind blown!

It's up there with "if you score 750 runs you'll win". Sadly, though, only CC's is true.

by **Call Centr** » Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:37:58

Quote:

> > Obviously the bigger the lead the more difficult it will get. Unless

> > it rains a draw looks highly unlikely. So, the Aussies need to limit

> > the lead preferably by less than 20 runs and definitely by less than

> > 40 runs. And Warner and Watson need to come to the party in the second

> > innings. Both need to perform. At least half centuries from both and

> > preferably a century from one of them.

> Are you telling me if Team A plays better than Team B, it'll win.

> Mind blown!

No. Simply what I wrote. Why don't you try reading it. What I wrote
was common sense. The lead should be limited to under 20. That did
happen. But the Aussies ***ed up getting runs once again. Its no
point the bowlers doing their best and the batsmen not performing. But
that's what has happened to the Aussies in this series. And I
specifically pointed to the two batsmen who had done basically nothing
in this entire series. Well they failed once again. While the Aussie
bowlers may not have done that well I believe the Aussie bowlers over
the series still did not flop as badly as the Aussie bastmen. So, the
post was about how the Aussie batsmen (especially those two) who
needed to come to the party.

by **Call Centr** » Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:40:16

Quote:

> > Are you telling me if Team A plays better than Team B, it'll win.
> > Mind blown!

> It's up there with "if you score 750 runs you'll win". Sadly, though, only CC's is true.

First of all tendular.com misrepresented what I wrote. So, to take his
misrepresenation and allude something is simply not fair. All I wrote
(if you bother reading) is that the Aussie batsmen would need to score
some runs. And I specifcially mentioned the two who needed to
contribute. Sadly, they failed once again. The failure of the Aussies
in this series has been both their batsmen and bowlers. But if you
analyse properly you will find that the failure of their batsmen has
been more than that of their bowlers. That was the point. Too bad you
all missed the real point of the post. :)

Sport Today

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.

The Indian lead must be limited to under 20 runs. Otherwise it will become increasingly difficult for Australia.