http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/hi/english/static/cricket/icc_champions_t...
After winning the toss Australia should let Lankans to bat and catch
up the score like Lankans did. That's how Lankans are winning most of
the time.
by Karuv » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 01:08:42
After winning the toss Australia should let Lankans to bat and catch
up the score like Lankans did. That's how Lankans are winning most of
the time.
by Moby » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:05:09
But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the ball
badly.
Overconfidence.. And Sri Lanka were never going to fall over easily.
Moby
by BalVgnsw » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:23:36
He faces the first ball from Aravinda and wanted to whack it.
Look at Gilchrist's dismissal. The shot slection was appalling.
Irresponsible, is the better description than overconfidence.
Vicky:
by Kames » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 13:02:55
> >But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
> >Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the
ball
> >badly.
> Hayden must have remembered the reams of paper which printed his ability
to
> play spin well and the way he smashed Indian spinners.
> He faces the first ball from Aravinda and wanted to whack it.
> Look at Gilchrist's dismissal. The shot slection was appalling.
> Irresponsible, is the better description than overconfidence.
We all know what happened.
Kamesh
> Vicky:
by Moby » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:29:07
> >But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
> >Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the
ball
> >badly.
> Hayden must have remembered the reams of paper which printed his ability
to
> play spin well and the way he smashed Indian spinners.
> Look at Gilchrist's dismissal. The shot slection was appalling.
> Irresponsible, is the better description than overconfidence.
In this case, Aravinda was up to the task and had the better of it. If
Hayden had charged Murali, it'd definately be irresponsible. And if they
weren't the first and second wickets to fall, it would have been
irresponsible. I'm not so sure about the two wickets you are talking about,
but.. yes, there probably was some element of non-thought on the part of the
batsmen. It's not as if Sri Lanka have so many good bowlers you need to try
to do -that- much damage to the part-timers. (no one does)
Moby
by BalVgnsw » Sun, 29 Sep 2002 16:46:56
by Mad Hami » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:14:18
>>But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
>>Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the ball
>>badly.
>Hayden must have remembered the reams of paper which printed his ability to
>play spin well and the way he smashed Indian spinners.
>He faces the first ball from Aravinda and wanted to whack it.
>Look at Gilchrist's dismissal. The shot slection was appalling.
>Irresponsible, is the better description than overconfidence.
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
by Mad Hami » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:14:19
>>It's not as if Sri Lanka have so many good bowlers you need to try
>>to do -that- much damage to the part-timers. (no one does)
>After scoring 49 in 6 overs, why in the world one wants to go after a new
>bowler from the first ball itself?
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
by Augustus Fink-Nott » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:50:14
>>>But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
>>>Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the ball
>>>badly.
>>Hayden must have remembered the reams of paper which printed his ability to
>>play spin well and the way he smashed Indian spinners.
>>He faces the first ball from Aravinda and wanted to whack it.
>Fair enough really, they were 0-49 after not too many overs. Taking on
>the new bowler was fair enough. It didn't come off this time but that
>doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable thing to try.
- Gussie
by Mad Hami » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:54:13
>>>>But I think the turning point of the game was Hayden's dismissal.
>>>>Essentially Australia's only hope on turning pitches, he mis-judged the ball
>>>>badly.
>>>Hayden must have remembered the reams of paper which printed his ability to
>>>play spin well and the way he smashed Indian spinners.
>>>He faces the first ball from Aravinda and wanted to whack it.
>>Fair enough really, they were 0-49 after not too many overs. Taking on
>>the new bowler was fair enough. It didn't come off this time but that
>>doesn't mean it wasn't a reasonable thing to try.
>If you read between the lines, you'll realise that balvgnswrn's point was that
>it was irresponsible to try and slog the first ball from a new bowler. 'Taking
>on a new bowler' is very different from a blind slog off the first ball faced.
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
by samarth harish sha » Wed, 02 Oct 2002 16:05:32
<snip>
-Samarth.
> Mad Hamish
> Hamish Laws
1. Ganguly probably made an honest mistake
2. Everybody makes a mistake: Bowden
3. Tell us Fran has Ponting made a mistake in batting?
4. Some crucial mistakes made by the selectors
5. Chappell made a mistake keeping Gambhir
6. The biggest mistake that S.A made is
7. POLL: Biggest Ever Mistake Made By A Captain
8. Lara made a mistake of not enforcing the follow on
9. Making the Same Mistakes ... Again
10. I made 104-run mistake: Harper
11. India made mistake by taking three seamers
12. Indian mistakes made as the Aussie tail wags again
13. Autralian press are far too harsh on Mark Taylor.