You lost the entire plot there. How did Australia get away? I dont think you can ask too many questions where so many decisions were wrong. The bowlers did what they could but taking 30 wickets takes time and then defending anything on a fifth day pitch with five wickets is a difficult job.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Again, I'm not even going to entertain the idea that these umpires were bought off, which seems to be the clear suggestion you are making. You know there are ways to dismiss batsman where the umpire has no say whatsoever. In fact, MOST dismissals do not involve the umpire at all, how, praytell, do you explain the four LBW's in the first innings? If they were so against you, I do not remember every dismissal but they could not all have been plumb. The umpiring standard may have been low, fine, but India have NO ONE but themselves to blame for this...6/134 to 463...if you need the 50/50 calls to go your way to stop that happening you shouldn't be playing Test cricket. The issue is not if India had some rough decisions, the issue is why they did and what effect that truly had on the match.

I think you are hopelessly misguided on both of those questions.

Taking thirty wickets and defending five, this is ridiculous, your capacity for hyperbole is truly impressive.

No, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting foul play/intentional partiality. But the umpiring standards displayed are certainly not acceptable. The decision had a bearing on the result of game as possibly on the result of the series....it has effectively rules out any possibility of India winning the series.

They perhaps were not 'against' us, but the decisions did go in favor of Australia, didnt they? And they were not 50-50 calls by any standard. If the umpires cant make out that Symonds nicked that one when Australia was on 193/6, he does not deserve to stand there any more. And then you ask how India allowed Australia to score so much? If the umpires go blind, refuse to go to the third umpire for close calls and prefer to consult the Australian captain than the third umpire, the opponent team is in some serious trouble and the administrators of the game have a serious issue.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

-I agree the umpiring standard was not acceptable - although it has been blown MASSIVELY out of proportion in this thread and the media, it's not that uncommon and it isn't egregious. I have no problem with changing the umpires for the remainder of the series and agree that it is time for Bucknor to retire.

-THIS WAS NOT THE REASON YOU LOST THE TEST MATCH. India is not the only team to have a rough time on decisions, at the end of the day, India lost this Test match because they could not convert 6/134 in the afternoon session of day one. I don't doubt umpiring decisions did not help, but bowling is about creating chances, your team did not create nearly enough and that is the fault of the Indian team. Umpires have a relatively limited effect on a Test match, relative to players - they really do - if you think the umpires decided this game you are clueless, sorry, you just don't realise the consistant, 30 hour intensity, that cricket demands. It is not decided by four or five decisions.

So you claim that India didnt do enough and Australia did enough? I think you just want to find out ways of justifying it. This is not WWE....this is cricket. One decision can change the course of the game. 10 are too many to handle.

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.

Cant agree here clw. Test matches can and often DO swing on pivotal decisions. This is one of the instances where it seems pretty clear India would have saved the game were it not for the farcical umpiring standards on show. You cant blame the oz team for this but we will see how they react if and when in the future things go against them. I should also point out that the last time oz lost a series their behaviour regarding situations where they thought things went against them was not exactly exemplary. I can't recall the indian skipper hurling obscenities at the oz balcony from the members area for instance.

Well, there are, what, 2800 deliveries bowled in a Test match...I'm not saying there are not moments that decide a Test match, but if you create chances, which is what bowling is about, then you will put yourself in a position to win a Test. And it is only the chances while Australia were batting that I consider truly poor, the Dravid and Ganguly dismissals, for instance, were definately 50/50 calls. While I think (and I think it can be established on replay) both were not out, they were not "bad" calls that were clearly mistaken on fast motion.

Again, this has been blown hilariously out of proportion. How can you account for the century stand Brett Lee was involved in for instance? It was a sickening lack of completing an innings from India that brought about their downfall, not one or two rough decisions that are intimately tied to playing the game, particulary on the road.

I am definately no apologist for the Australian cricket team, I just find this level of mora outrage completely disproportionate, and the claim of "the umpires cost us the game" is a real pet peeve, especially when, as mentioned, you have a team 6/134 and later, take a 70 odd run lead into the second innings.

You are basically saying "hey dude, we are Australia. So you have to create 50 chances instead of 20. Never mind if the umpires are sleeping. Ypu must create 20 chances more than what the umpires deny during their sleep. If you cant, we win and you must shut up and accept it."

__________________
My computer can beat me at chess.....but its no match for me at kick boxing.