I get plenty of ribbing here at the AGB, especially about something like football, but I get very little outright abuse from either nasty commenters or via other blogs. And that's the way I like it. Except for this thread, most of which can be discounted because many comments have the same two IP addresses (188.8.131.52 and 184.108.40.206).
Now I suppose it's hardly the road to Big Blog, afterall these two run popular, and more pointedly, provocative blogs and they cop heaps. Maybe they like it that way, I dunno, but both have excellent sites done in their own style and which may thrive on dissent.
Early this year after seeing some of the shit that goes down -- and will continue to go down -- in the blogosphere, I decided on a personal policy that I'm not going to get into any shit-fights. Believe you me, there are plenty of times I've felt like jumping in, but even if I've thought something was utter nonsense or worse, way out of line, I've held back because swapping insults on the internet is a bogus and cowardly waste of time. Occasionally I'll let something slip, but that's just that, a slip, and more often than not, a slip-shod attempt at humour.
My point is though, if someone really takes issue with something I've written and feels the urge to step disagreement up to nastiness, they need to have the balls to be nasty to my face*, otherwise I'll just ignore them.
Which brings me to one of my most consistent dissenters, SM. SM get's it just about right. He might think I'm writing utter rubbish, but his comments often express his contrary point of view without ever being rude or derisive and always make me reflect on a post and ask myself; "Did I get that right?" That's a good thing. I like that.
He was at it again yesterday. As soon as I saw he'd commented on my Indian tour post I knew it wasn't going to be anything along the lines of "Jolly good write-up, old cock." It wasn't. He accused me of being a "sore winner". He's wrong, of course ...
Spoken like a true world-class sore winner with the incredibly rare gift of 2000/2000 hindsight. Now you can start working on why Greg Chappel's team were really far, far superior to Clive Lloyd's boys.
Fine work by the aussie cricketers.
Now, I wasn't about to compare Greg Chappell's teams with the Big Cat's, but on reflection, let's have a quick look at the facts.
Greg Chappell took over the captaincy prior to World Series Cricket and his first test as captain was against Pakistan in Brisbane in 1976. He then skippered on and off through to the lone test against Sri Lanka in 1983.
Were we comparing apples for apples, the only two times Chappell.G captained Australia against Cat.B were 1979-80, won 2-0 by the Windies and 1981-82, which was drawn 1-1.
Considering the turmoil that framed Australian cricket through '76 to '83, I deem that a pretty damn good effort, and certainly nothing to be readily dismissed.
On to the alleged "sore-winning".
As you can imagine, I don't consider the post to be sore winning at all. My whole premise is that Australia have played poorly against India since 2001, and India have been allowed to play well. That this time round, Australia did the necessary planning and were probably better captained, although Gilly was more than likely following through the team plan. That India had some dud players. That the Aussie selectors picked the right personel (and, in Warne & McGrath, had them available). And that Australia reaped a comfortable victory against a side that played poor cricket.
There's nothing 20/20 hindsight about all that. It's just a broad summation of the facts. And even if it is 20/20 hindsight, it's a 20/20 hindsight shared by big-time experts closer to the action than me.
Since I made those comments yesterday, there has been plenty of newsprint expended on the opinions of those experts.
Adam Gilchrist ...
Adam Gilchrist believes the seed was planted for Australia's epic win in India on March 22, 2001. That was the day when India won the third Test in Chennai against Steve Waugh's Australians, snatching a 2-1 series win that had seemed impossible when they were put in for the follow-on when trailing 1-0 in the second match in Calcutta.
After stepping in for the injured Ricky Ponting and becoming the first winning Australian captain here since Bill Lawry in 1969, Gilchrist said the disappointments of three years ago had inspired the players and coach John Buchanan.
"I reckon John Buchanan's mind has been ticking from the moment the game got over in Chennai three years ago," said Gilchrist. "It was very difficult for us to take the foot off the gas then and be patient. Maybe it had something to do with winning 16 games on the trot. But the experience from that certainly helped us here."
The Australians showed a capacity for conservative play when the situation required in this series. All out attack with the bat had to be shelved for more grinding innings on the spin-friendly pitches of the first two Tests, while Australia used run-saving fields and tight bowling to wear down the Indian batsmen.
Mark Waugh ...
Australia has dominated this series, not by some new whiz-bang tactics but by smart, skilful players who have executed simple game plans better than on previous tours.
Brendan McArdle ...
When India left here last summer, there was a feeling Australia had met its match. India's batting seemed impregnable and there was always the spectre of quality spin bowling. Now, with the Australians having triumphed so emphatically, it is interesting to look at the reasons for the shift in power.
As shown by the Michael Clarke success story, this series has been a victory for the Australian system of cricket. Australia's planning, selections and approach to the game have been too much for a talented but disjointed opponent.
No doubt the biggest single influence upon the swing in fortunes has been the return of Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne.
Kishor Pradhan ...
As 65-year-old cricket fan Kishor Pradhan watched Australia grind on towards a seemingly inevitable victory here yesterday, he was as disappointed as most other Indians. The difference was he also had to say: "Don't blame me."
"It's a good, true track," the whiskered curator said. "It's a good track for batting and bowling. India's batsmen haven't been batting well for a while. They're not performing to their reputation."
Ashley Mallett ...
FORMER Test off-spinner Ashley Mallett has claimed Australia's historic series win in India was due to the fact Steve Waugh was no longer captain of the team.
Despite the fact Waugh is the most successful Test captain in history, Mallett claims Adam Gilchrist captained the team better than Waugh did in India.
"The captains they have now (Ricky Ponting and Gilchrist) aren't as negative as Waugh," Mallett said.
"The last time the team was in India they were up against one bowler in Harbhajan Singh and he didn't have any support . . . they should have won that series easily.
"His captaincy revolved around giving the ball to Warne and McGrath and relying on them taking wickets - he just kept bowling them.
INDIAN selectors today dumped four team regulars from the national squad for the fourth and final Test match after losing the first home series against Australia in 35 years.
Openers Aakash Chopra and Yuvraj Singh, pace bowler Ajit Agarkar and wicketkeeper Parthiv Patel were dropped from the squad for November 3-7 dead rubber in the western city of Mumbai.
Peter Roebuck ...
Australia has completed its destruction of a woebegone Indian side. Fuelled by ambition, driven by previous defeats, sustained by skill and playing without compromise, the visitors squashed their foe till the last breath left its body.
Every man played his part in the ruthless execution of an opponent weakened by injuries, poor selection and bad management, and unable to recapture the form of yesteryear. If India did not play well, though, it was partly because Australia did not let it.
Sourav Ganguly's side was put under the microscope and did not survive the examination.
* This does not include commenters with names like Neddy Fuck You (H-Division), Bobby Violent, Redfern or Barry Knife Fight, Texas.