***Official*** India in Australia

[Laurrz]

love Fraz.. Dravid had to play every ball of that over

180 overs
493 runs

which is easier for india

 

[Anil]

There is no need to play attacking strokes in the 8 over period. If a bad ball comes your way, maybe hit it for a four but generally, in such periods, your aim is to not lose wickets which Dravid and Jaffer have done. If some one is being critical of Dravid for this 8 over period, he is being too petty. There is no necessity of playing attacking strokes. Dravid has been out of form too. Why should he risk any thing when he has little to gain in an 8 over period. Doesn't make any sense.

let's see whether he stays around to capitalize tomorrow, i sure hope he does...when one "walls" it out like he does, one needs to at least be the anchor for the innings and he has done that exceptionally well throughout his career, but in the past three series(excluding zimbabwe), he has had very limited success to say the least...you don't have to constantly attack and risk your wicket to find your way out of trouble, he has got all the shots in the book and showing some positive intent with his kind of technical excellence wouldn't necessarily lead to losing his wicket...

 

[Anil]

One point Anil:

You said as Dravid is not in form, it makes sense to have him open as he is not as valuable to the team. Surely a player who has had demons opening in the past when he was in form would be in a worse position opening, not better because of lack of form at this point of time and it is the worst time in his career to open with him?

i said that? when?

 

[JBH001]

Been reading some of the comments and man, is Symonds copping some stick.

He is not that bad, imo, certainly not as bad as he is sometimes made out to be.

Moreover, he has done nothing to deserve being dropped and is making enough runs to justify his selection.

Also, India to be all out for under 300 (maybe 350 at the most).

 

[Pratters]

showing some positive intent with his kind of technical excellence wouldn't necessarily lead to losing his wicket...

It was an 8 over period. He cared little about making runs and his priority was going through the 8 overs without losing his wicket. There is no problem with that where I am concerned.

 

[Anil]

It was an 8 over period. He cared little about making runs and his priority was going through the 8 overs without losing his wicket. There is no problem with that where I am concerned.

that was quite clear...and i would have no problems seeing a 250 ball hundred from him if that allows the team to play around him, it just has not been happening for him recently, that's all...

 

[Pratters]

i said that? when?

I thought it was you who said it 2-3 days back. If it wasn't you, my mistake.

 

[Anil]

I thought it was you who said it 2-3 days back. If it wasn't you, my mistake.

nope, wasn't me...

 

[Pratters]

that was quite clear...and i would have no problems seeing a 250 ball hundred from him if that allows the team to play around him, it just has not been happening for him recently, that's all...

But that doesn't mean it is a mistake to play defensively in the 8 over period.

3 off 24? grinding it out is great when you are able to stick around to capitalize later...that's not what is happening with dravid now...

I don't have a problem with 3* off 24 if 8 overs are remaining in the day and it has little relation to how his inning pans out on the 4th day. For the third day, with 8 overs remaining, as long as you are not out, you have done the job for me for today.

 

[sideshowtim]

India can still win if they all dig in here.

I don't think the pitch is that bat, and 499 is definitely gettable.

 

[Pratters]

India can still win if they all dig in here.

I don't think the pitch is that bat, and 499 is definitely gettable.

Yeah, it is almost impossible but not impossible. 99.9% Australia, .1% India. With Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman in the side, plus guys like Ganguly, Yuvraj and Dhoni, it is still possible.

 

[archie mac]

and India need a miracle like at Eden.

Would be great for cricket, but no it won't happen. would be the best chase in Test cricket, and no one has ever made 400 to win at the MCG or even got close since 1928/29

 

[JBH001]

Remember that, statistically and historically speaking, Tendulkar is not all that hot in the 4th inning.

 

[Pratters]

Would be great for cricket, but no it won't happen. would be the best chase in Test cricket, and no one has ever made 400 to win at the MCG or even got close since 1928/29

No one has ever chased 499 in test cricket history. Would be a miracle like at Eden...

 

[archie mac]

No one has ever chased 499 in test cricket history. Would be a miracle like at Eden...

I agree and one day a team will, I don't think it will happen on the MCG, but like you said we could have a miracle, as long as I get to watch it I will be happy

 

[TheLad]

India can still win if they all dig in here.

I don't think the pitch is that bat, and 499 is definitely gettable.

Do you genuinely believe the score is gettable?

because I don’t think they are any chance of the target, a good score and they can take some positives to Sydney. Though the best positive is Cleary a 1-0 nil lead but that will fall Australia's way.

 

[aussie tragic]

Would be great for cricket, but no it won't happen. would be the best chase in Test cricket, and no one has ever made 400 to win at the MCG or even got close since 1928/29

Well England got pretty close in the 1977 Centenary test when they scored 417 (45 short)...and that was with Brearly in the side.....India certainly has the bats to do it with Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Tendulker and 2 days to play..


...they won't of course

 

[Craig]

I think India should try and put the target out of their head and just think about batting how they normally would, treat each ball on the merit and look to score all the time, like in the form of ones, and twos and if a bad ball is bowled, well put it away. If there is a time for Dravid to get some form well tomorrow and Sunday is it and if Jaffar wants to prove himself then he has that opportunity. They just need to think they have 180 overs to just bat.

I know it is easier said then done, but I think they need to think like that.

 

[archie mac]

Well England got pretty close in the 1977 Centenary test when they scored 417 (45 short)...and that was with Brearly in the side.....India certainly has the bats to do it with Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly, Tendulker and 2 days to play..


...they won't of course

Yes great chase, and I thought with DR there they were going to get them, but that pitch looked a lot better than this one

Despite the fiery wickets at the start of the Test

 

[Craig]

I can't believe I'm doing this as I've been the most vocal critic of Andrew Symonds in the past, even when he's done well, but I think you under-rate his bowling a bit. I don't think his batting is good enough to be a test #6, but within the context of the Australian side, not even I think his selection is the most disgraceful thing ever. His bowling is a lot better than I thought it'd be at test level - he bowls a bit quicker than I thought he could and swings the ball with decent control. I've seen Sri Lanka select players as a specialist pacers who were worse bowlers than Symonds, even if his action looks dire and he has no run-up.

He's not really a test cricketer IMO and I probably wouldn't pick him if I got the chance, but with the flat pitches in Australia and the strength of Australia's 1-5 + Gilchrist, I can see why he's picked. If Australia pile up a big score amongst the first five batsmen, he is capable of really "rubbing it in" by hitting a tired attack around on a flat pitch. His bowling is definitely good enough for someone who bats in the top 6 as a fifth option (even if I don't think his batting is) and the role he plays is actually a pretty reasonable one within the current team.

Honestly, I'd still pick Noffke ahead of him. And honestly, I still can't stand watching him play and hope he fails whenever he goes out to bat. I certainly couldn't see any other test team worth their salt picking him, and that's a strange thing to say about a player in the best team in the world in a pivotal role, but I think he fits in with what the Australian team need at #6 at the moment given their relative batting and bowling strengths as well as the state of the pitches in the country. I "get" his selection, even if I don't really agree with it, whereas I was religiously opposed to the principle of it before.

If you can explain why somebody like New Zealand wouldn't take him, you can pick my avatar.